--- In norse_course@..., "James R. Johnson" <modean52@...> wrote:
in reply to a message by Gordon Ross:

> >and
> >cultural notes as appropriate; but NO translation from English into
> >the foreign language, NO exercises in grammatical analysis, and NO
> >exercises in production.
>
> But that's what I want in learning one of these "Old" languages.
That's
> what gets me angry about learning Old English - all the word lists
are Old
> to Modern English, and no reverse. And all the grammars are written
in such
> a way as to make it incredibly difficult to LEARN the language...to
speak
> and to write. That's why I want to learn Old Norse - to speak it
and to
> write it. (and maybe to go to Reykjavik some day and impress my
girlfriend
> with my knowledge of Icelandic)
>
> James

Hei, James! I don't understand why anyone would want to devote the
hundreds, even thousands, of extra hours that would be needed in
order to master the skills of producing, i.e., speaking and writing,
a language that is no longer spoken or written, be it Old English or
Old Norse. If you want to converse with Icelanders, then it is
modern Icelandic, not Old Icelandic, that you need to learn.

Yes, I agree with you that most, if not all, grammars of the so-
called archaic languages have been designed much less efficiently
than they could have been, especially if the goal of the student is
to READ the literature of one of those languages. In fact, that was
the whole point of my earlier message. The act of translating
requires a set of skills that differ from those of reading. So does
the act of parsing, of analysing grammar. So do the acts of writing,
of speaking, and of understanding speech. So why bother to learn all
these added skills if the primary goal is to read fluently? Doing so
is an inefficient use of one's time.

A student's time would be much better spent on exercises that have
been designed to help the student learn to read. Initially, of
course, the grammar must be explained and some kind of translation
from the target language into one's native tongue (or into a language
that one already understands well) must occur. Nevertheless, the
focus must remain on recognition, on techniques that help the student
learn to read faster and with increased comprehension and that help
wean him or her away from translating (silently while reading) into
his or her native tongue. After all, reading is the goal, is it not?

If, after learning to read the language well, one wishes to change
the goal to that of, say, translating, then one can begin to learn
this skill and art. Well, I don't really know that the "art" of
translating can be taught, That's a very difficult question to
answer. But at least, the skill can be taught.

Unfortunately, however, as I have said before, the authors of the
grammars of archaic languages devote far too much space to
grammatical analysis, translation, and production than to
recognition. Of course, as I said in a previous message, that is the
result of their training; it is also their primary interest. I mean,
what scholar of an archaic language has taken courses in how to write
(or "author," if multimedia techniques are used) a textbook or course
that focuses on developing the students' reading skills? None that I
know of. So it is only natural that they continue in the ancient
tradition of translating and parsing.

All the best --

Gordon