Hi Gordon!

To be honest, I do not understand the point. If I can read the language in a
way I understand the written text, I can also translate it. Maybe in my own
words, but I can express what was written down.
How can it be a waste of time if one knows how to produce a form of a word?
If I know this, I can even more easily recognize it, no?

On the other hand, if I can read a text and get an idea of what the author
wanted to say, I will somehow learn how to produce a text, because with
enough reading I will get a feeling for correct grammar... So what is this
all about?

In frith,
Meldric

> 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 that 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.