All interlinears should be cancelled and withdrawn.
Would not a better solution be to pray this part of the Lord's Prayer before doing original language work, "And lead us not into temptation and deliver us from interlinears."
As good as that might sound, one must remember that "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."
George,
I asked a question concerning the inductive method of learning Greek. I unfortunately received no responses. I am self teaching what do you recommend. See this thread.
Now, now George. There are a large number of Logos features that are dependent upon the interlinears. They are what make it worth the expense. What makes sense is simply to disable the 3 interlinear views. [:P] [;)]
Why are you so against this or mad?[:^)]
In learning a language there are several items which must be learned first: Alphabet, general morphology (I'm not interested in being able to recite the conjugation; simply be able to recognize the general pattern and identify it when you see it), SOME vocabulary must first be learned else how are you going to be able to learn inductively (reading Greek or Hebrew isn't decoding a cypher). After that the best advice is to read, READ, READ.
I know the alphabet and have a good core vocabulary but it is sentence construction and grammar that I do not understand what is your prescription here I am a reader and thus understand implicitly the importance of reading. Help!
All interlinears should be cancelled and withdrawn. Why are you so against this or mad?
Why are you so against this or mad?
I quietly share George's opinion. The reason I don't like them is that they give people a false sense of confidence that they know a language when they do not. In graduate school our rule of thumb was that you did not know a language until (a) you dreamed in it or (b) used it for bathroom reading.
I am also concerned that they put the focus on a fifth grade level of understanding (late 2nd year college language courses). Can you imagine a Beowulf scholar who spent all his time on grammar a syntax? He wouldn't be a Beowulf scholar; he would be an AngloSaxon language scholar. In the same sense, somewhere around the 5th grade is where reading and grammar classes start to become literature classes where the emphasis is on the meaning of the text. We need to make the same shift in reading the Greek (or Hebrew) Bible or else admit we do not know the languages.
Well, I may be mad, but I'm not angry. [;)]
Be honest with yourself and think about what you do when presented with a text which has a translation immediately beneath it. I'll bet you first go to the translation and then look at a particular word in the original that interests you. Are you REALLY learning the language or are you simply pretending to do so? I've heard too many say "X" in Greek means "Y" in English when all they are doing is parroting an interlinear. They really know nothing.
Can you identify the subject, the verb and prepositions?
I quietly share George's opinion. The reason I don't like them is that they give people a false sense of confidence that they know a language when they do not. In graduate school our rule of thumb was that you did not know a language until (a) you dreamed in it or (b) used it for bathroom reading. I am also concerned that they put the focus on a fifth grade level of understanding (late 2nd year college language courses). Can you imagine a Beowulf scholar who spent all his time on grammar a syntax? He wouldn't be a Beowulf scholar; he would be an AngloSaxon language scholar. In the same sense, somewhere around the 5th grade is where reading and grammar classes start to become literature classes where the emphasis is on the meaning of the text. We need to make the same shift in reading the Greek (or Hebrew) Bible or else admit we do not know the languages.
In order to do this we need beginner language instruction that has as its primary purpose "teaching the student to read" as opposed to the predominant "teach the student to parse the grammar". In other language instruction, reading proficiency is the first textual objective (along with or immediately following oral/aural fluency), but with the theological languages there seems to be a presumption that leaping immediately to conscious parsing of grammatical intricacies is right and proper. This leaves theological languages as cryptological puzzles rather than media of communication.
Then I would suggest a good grammar. Don't use Wallace. His typical "help" in determining a particular structure is to tell you that if you would translate it as "abc def ghi" then it's a certain type of structure. By the time you have decided to translate it a particular way you have already decided what kind of structure you think it is. I remember pouring through Smyth night after night until 3:00 am while reading Plato or Homer. Smyth isn't really geared to NT studies, but it is nevertheless helpful. Robertson's massive grammar is helpful too. Devour a good grammar while you read. The more you read the less you will need to search your grammar.
I am also concerned that they put the focus on a fifth grade level of understanding (late 2nd year college language courses). Can you imagine a Beowulf scholar who spent all his time on grammar a syntax? He wouldn't be a Beowulf scholar; he would be an AngloSaxon language scholar. In the same sense, somewhere around the 5th grade is where reading and grammar classes start to become literature classes where the emphasis is on the meaning of the text.
As children we are immersed in the language and hear full sentences repeatedly. When we don't understand communication is simplified so that we can grasp the concept. Self teachers of a second language son't have this facility or opportunity. How do you overcome this obstacle to leaning besides a focus on grammar and syntax? George says, Read, Read, READ. But, you can read all you want but if you cannot decode the meaning it is just a bunch of words thrown together.
Edit: I wrote this before seeing George's response to my second post. Thank you George. Is there a Grammar I can read cover to cover in one sitting that will give me the bones on which to hang the flesh of what I read that you can recommend?
But, you can read all you want but if you cannot decode the meaning it is just a bunch of words thrown together.
That's precisely the problem. A gospel or a Pauline epistle is not a cryptogram to be decoded. You need to be able to see a sentence and observe the structure (subject, verb, object, prepositional phrase, gerundive) and be able to discern in your mind what it means. You may need to look up a word or two, but the more you read the less frequently this will happen. I remember when I was taking French. I hated it since nothing seemed to be pronounced the way it was written. In time I got the hang of how it worked, but I was lost until then. In order to prepare for the GSFLT (Graduate Student Foreign Language Test) I got an anthology and read, read, read. I didn't stop to look up every word — only those which seemed absolutely necessary — and let my understanding of the sentence fill in the blanks. I passed it on the first try, but I know of some who had to retake it several times. DON'T TREAT IT AS A CODE.
I agree. When I'm feeling like being flip I say the purpose of language study for most seminary students is to give them something to make them feel like they are studying the scriptures without the challenge of actually doing so -- grammar-grammar-grammar instead of content-content-content.
Yes to subject and verb. No to preposition. But, I get your point and this is a helpful nudge towards a novel approach for me.
No. If you try to read a complete grammar in one sitting, your head will be spinning. There is a Greek grammar I rather like though it's not a Logos offering. It was my first year grammar which was oriented to classical: Crosby and Schaeffer, An Introduction to Greek. I hated it at the time since the type was blury (old, worn-out type?), but I think it has been reset. It takes you through everything you need to know regarding morphology, suggests vocabulary to learn, has exercises (both directions), and has short readings. It isn't terribly long, but you still won't want to read it in a sitting. On retrospect I have gained respect for it.
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Greek-Dover-Language-Guides/dp/0486470563/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468357675&sr=1-1&keywords=greek%2C+crosby
... When I'm feeling like being flip I say the purpose of language study for most seminary students is to give them something to make them feel like they are studying the scriptures without the challenge of actually doing so -- grammar-grammar-grammar instead of content-content-content.
I wonder if that's because of the way most North American Christians tend to use the original languages. When we're reading Scripture to understand the content, we use standard English translations. We only drop into Greek or Hebrew when there's some nuance or ambiguity of grammar where the translations are unclear or seem to disagree. We don't really read the text in the original languages, because we don't feel compelled to. The only time most of us feel compelled to use them is when we want to decode something.
Or, to be flip, when a) our theological daggers are out, or b) we think dropping a Greek or Hebrew word into our lesson will make us seem smart.
We only drop into Greek or Hebrew when there's some nuance or ambiguity of grammar where the translations are unclear or seem to disagree. We don't really read the text in the original languages,
How true. One of the most valuable experiences I've had was when we had a group for a few years to read the entire NT in Greek during Lent. That was a real challenge, but it required moving on rather than decoding.
In order to do this we need beginner language instruction that has as its primary purpose "teaching the student to read" as opposed to the predominant "teach the student to parse the grammar". In other language instruction, reading proficiency is the first textual objective (along with or immediately following oral/aural fluency), but with the theological languages there seems to be a presumption that leaping immediately to conscious parsing of grammatical intricacies is right and proper. This leaves theological languages as cryptological puzzles rather than media of communication. I agree. When I'm feeling like being flip I say the purpose of language study for most seminary students is to give them something to make them feel like they are studying the scriptures without the challenge of actually doing so -- grammar-grammar-grammar instead of content-content-content.
One thing that has struck me as I sit halfway through an MDiv curriculum is how much debate there is over koine grammar in NT studies. I see that grammatical hair-splitting as having a chicken-or-egg relationship with the grammar-first approach.
I see that grammatical hair-splitting as having a chicken-or-egg relationship with the grammar-first approach.
Especially when "they" forget that the grammar is descriptive not prescriptive.
See this thread.
Thread Inductive Greek Help includes:
I also have a hard copy of Robert Funk's A Beginning Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek.
Available on-line => http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/funk-grammar/pre-alpha/ that would be useful in Logos and Verbum.
Thankful for interlinear tagging, which can be used for visual filter highlighting. Logos wiki => Examples of visual filters
All interlinears should be cancelled and withdrawn. Now, now George. There are a large number of Logos features that are dependent upon the interlinears. They are what make it worth the expense. What makes sense is simply to disable the 3 interlinear views.
Now, now George. There are a large number of Logos features that are dependent upon the interlinears. They are what make it worth the expense. What makes sense is simply to disable the 3 interlinear views.
Possible notification warning when using an interlinear view: "Using interlinear may be hazardous to exegetical health" [:P]
Keep Smiling [:)]
I came from my log cabin to the city, and may still have some hillbilly attitude. But I have one question: is the discussion here about interlinears or about reverse interlinears? Often these two terms are mixed?
But I have one question: is the discussion here about interlinears or about reverse interlinears? Often these two terms are mixed?
Both
I must confess that I use the true interlinears (not reverse), but I don't use much the Greek-English anymore. Actually for me the interlinears were the reason to buy Logos originally.
When children learn a language it starts with a concrete audiovisual experience ant they repeat what tey've heard. (particularly the emotional ones, like "oh no") Gradually they decipher the grammatical structure and the abstract ideas, and they use the language all the time to test the results. It would be interesting to develop an interactive video course for the Koine Greek using the same principles, and with some skill it would be as interesting as a detective story [H]
When children learn a language it starts with a concrete audiovisual experience ant they repeat what tey've heard. (particularly the emotional ones, like "oh no") Gradually they decipher the grammatical structure and the abstract ideas, and they use the language all the time to test the results. It would be interesting to develop an interactive video course for the Koine Greek using the same principles, and with some skill it would be as interesting as a detective story
https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/
Looks interesting, just wonder could those be integrated to Logos and downloadable, currently seem to be CDs.
Randy was my colleague in Africa decades ago, nice to see his name in this context.
