I’m really glad that the Language Log blog did a recent post on the who cares of other language’s vocabularies and especially as this one has to do with the World Cup. The World in Words podcast which I otherwise adore annoys me on this point by showcasing each week “hard to translate words” which they then promptly translate. Maybe they’ll feature “vuvuzela.”

Who cares what Zulu has a word for?

Did you know Zulu has a word for “annoying three-foot-long one-note plastic trumpet”? Isn’t that fascinating? No. Of course it isn’t fascinating. It’s a wonderful example of why I tend to think the issue of what things different languages have words for (especially, have nouns for) is stupid and trivial.

Turn on your TV right now to whichever sports channel is showing the England’s soccer game against the USA in the World Cup in South Africa. Turn the sound up. Why does it sound as if several dozen propeller-drived airplanes have started up their engines in the stadium? Has someone dropped one of the commentator’s mikes into a huge beehive? No It’s just that South Africans love to bring annoying three-foot-long one-note plastic trumpets to every game and blow them continuously. (They all seem to be tuned roughly to A below middle C.)

Because they use these things, Zulu has a word for them (and other languages like Setswana do too, but the Zulu one happened to catch on). And because the World Cup is being played in South Africa and the move to have these things banned failed, English has borrowed the word: vuvuzela…

It’s not a fascinating fact that English has this [word] now, it’s trivial and obvious, like every other factoid about things people have nouns for…

I want to announce a new podcast that will automatically deliver an audio recording of a chapter from the Hebrew Bible everyday directly to whatever device or software you use to podcast. It’s called Memra and you can subscribe by adding the feed: http://podcast.katadrew.com/feed/podcast.

The podcast features recordings from mechon-mamre.org and an enclosed text translation from the English Standard Version. The readings alternate from the Tanak: Torah, Prophets, and Writings. Yesterday’s edition wasGenesis 1. Today’s isJoshua 1 and tomorrow’s will be1 Chronicles 1.

I have it set up to deliver straight to my Droid where I collect numerous podcasts and listen through them daily. I’m already listening through a daily English reading plan, so original language daily reading makes a lot of sense.

Let me know if you subscribe or have any thoughts or suggestions.

An unwritten language (a language without a writing system) is obviously more primitive than a language that has a writing system, right? Wrong. It’s a common misconception to think that a language is somehow more primitive than another simply because it does not have a system in place to write its language down. Cultural complexity is a different story,¹ but when it comes to linguistic development no language can really be considered “primitive.” Claiming that one language is more primitive than another is tantamount to saying one people group is more biologically evolved than another. But we’re all human and come out with equally complex native linguistic abilities.

So what is it about a certain language, apart from lacking a writing system, that would make us feel like it is more primitive? How about its sounds. Do you, for example, consider the so-called African clicks on par with the sounds that you make when you speak English or Spanish or French? No, these clicks sound rather “inarticulate” to native English speakers because we don’t and many of us can’t make them. But “[s]uch a view is based on the ethnocentric attitude that the characteristics of one’s own language are obviously superior.”² A child, however, can easily learn to make and utilize these sounds from a very young age, clicking away like it’s nothing difficult. Just because we are unable to do so or it strikes our ears as strange does not make such a sound primitive or inferior.

Language is a gift from God for humanity to use to accomplish all sorts of tasks and especially to live lives that are pleasing to him. We are blessed to be able to articulate our thoughts, desires and pains. Each human speaks a language whether it be written or unwritten, voiced or signed, shared by many or shared by few; it’s still a language that accomplishes just what its speakers want it to. None are primitive.

photo credit: Grums

If you’re interested in hearing about the state of Bible translation and specifically what’s going down with Wycliffe Bible Translators, one of my favorite podcasts, The World in Words, features a segment on Wycliffe Bible Translators in the latest edition. Host Patrick Cox stops by the Wycliffe headquarters in Orlando and interviews Wycliffe President Bob Creson. This is a great overview of how Wycliffe operates and what they hope to accomplish in the near future.

The Wycliffe segment is sandwiched between pieces on Middle East street names and the Locavore language. It runs from minutes 8:30 to 23:30. Read about this edition of The World in Words and download the MP3. Also, subscribe to the podcast while you’re at it.

photo credit: mr lynch

proskyneo. Go on, say it. Say it out loud. Pros-koon-eh-o.

Or, did you say pros-koon-glottal stop-o?

You know the glottal stop. It’s what you do when you say the word “button” in normal speech, if you’re American anyways. Also, the glottal stop is infamously employed by Cockney speakers (cf. Ricky Gervais). There’s nothing wrong with the glottal stop. I’m not saying there is, but I don’t think it belongs in an anglophone’s pronunciation of Greek verbs, or any ‘phones pronunciation for that matter.

So please stop glottal stopping. And perhaps go with the open-mid front unrounded vowel instead.

Note, I’m not being a prescriptivist; a prescriptivist would say, “Don’t say…” I’m only kindly requesting you don’t. =)

Under the sage direction of Dr. Cole, I’m taking Syriac this semester at SEBTS. One thing I never head into language-learning without is a good set of flashcards. These can take tons of time to make and while making your own is a good exercise, let’s face it, it’s also taxing. After seeing how popular the Seow Hebrew flashcards I posted are, I’ve decided to share my Syriac flashcards as well. They are based on John Healey’s Leshono Suryoyo published by Gorgias Press.

My Syriac flashcards come in the form of an Excel spreadsheet. You may not have known that Excel can be used for flashcards, but let me assure you it’s pretty sweet. You’ll need to enable the macro once you open the Excel file. Here’s a screenshot of what that looks like in Excel 2007.

I’ll be updating the file as the semester progresses. Right now the flashcards are incomplete and are only up to date with what we’ve covered in class so far. I’ll be updating the file and this post as I update the flashcards every week.

Download Leshono Suryoyo Syriac Flashcards

Download: SyriacFlashcards-HealeyLeshonoSuryoyo-KataDrew

Status: Complete (Chapters 1-14 including interrogatives, demonstratives and independent personal pronouns)
Last updated: April 24, 2010

Report Errors

Please report errata that you stumble upon by emailing or commenting on this post. Thanks!

Required Font: Serto Jerusalem

Like Healey’s text these flashcards use the Syriac Serto script. The flashcards utilize and therefore require the Beth Mardutho Meltho Syriac Fonts, specifically the one in the package called Serto Jerusalem. The font pack containing Serto Jerusalem is freely available through the Beth Mardutho web site on the Meltho Font download page. Click the download link, fill out the form (if you wish), agree to the license, and then you’ll be able to directly download the fonts. The following operating systems are supported: Microsoft Windows, Linux/BSD, Unix, and Mac OS X.

I also use this font to do my homework in Word. To do this you need to add a Syriac keyboard through the Windows Control Panel by going to Change keyboards or other input methods.  From the Keyboards and Languages tab click Change keyboards… . Click Add and then scroll down to Syriac in the list of languages. I recommend the Syriac Phonetic keyboard. Then switch to this “keyboard” when you want to type in Syriac with the Serto Jerusalem font. Vowels are added by first entering the consonant on which they appear and then using Shift plus another key. For example, for a ptoho (the one in Serto that sorta looks like a Greek alpha), you hit the consonant on which you want it to appear and then the Q key while holding down Shift. The other vowels are found on the W, E, R, T, and Y keys if I remember rightly.

Update: This is the same font used in Leshono Suryoyo.

Help

If you need help with any of this, simply leave a comment and I’ll be glad to help.

There are very few books that I look forward to reading. I mean really look forward to, like the way a tweenie looks forward to the next Twilight. Though not so much interested in adolescent vampire fiction there was one book published at the end of last year that I couldn’t wait to sink my teeth into: Vern Poythress’ In the Beginning Was the Word: A God-Centered Approach to Language. (You can grab a free PDF of the entire book through Poythress’ site.)

Having come through the undergraduate linguistics program of a state school I can tell you that the last thing you’re going to hear in any linguistics classroom is a God-centered approach to language. The only mention of God you’re likely to hear is a confused reference toGenesis 11 and the tower of Babel. Linguistics is very much a natural science.

This is why I greatly anticipated Poythress’ work. If well-done, this book could be a valuable contribution to the field of linguistics and give voice to an alternative viewpoint that’s all too often not even considered. A God-centered approach to language makes sense given that the universe itself is God-centered, something most Christians will willingly concede over against a strictly naturalistic cosmology. Also, there’s a certain apologetic force to a God-centered approach to language that could really put a pebble in the shoe of the relatively unchallenged notion that language is the happy result of evolutionary processes. Yes, there is something inexplicably preternatural about language that points to the triune God.

Poythress in In the Beginning Was the Word, however, fails to harness the full force of the sleeping beast on which he rides. All in all I was greatly disappointed by In the Beginning Was the Word and would be surprised to find it having a lasting impression on the field of linguistics outside of Christian circles and even within. We need a book like this, but we need it to do more, and to do it more convincingly.

In the Beginning Was the Word

First

First, I was disappointed that in the book Poythress fails to interact with contemporary linguists and linguistic theory, not merely because this is the kind of thing that good scholars do, but more so because I believe there’s much in contemporary linguistics that could be used to bolster support for Poythress’ argument that a divine origin of language has more explanatory power than the strictly naturalistic explanations that prevail today. It should go without saying that a book published today on language should interact with Chomskyian linguistics, especially a work that bears much in common with and could find much support from his nativist approach to language. Chomsky has been called a “closet creationist” for instance. Steven Pinker in his The Language Instinct has to go to some surprising lengths to try to convince his readers that universal grammar is still compatible with the theory of evolution and that people needn’t run hastily to God for answers. This seems like an appropriate place for someone like Poythress to step into the discussion and proffer God. Instead, In the Beginning Was the Word strips itself of much of its potential power by not taking a broader look at what a God-centered approach language entails. Poythress commendably reasons from the Scriptures but in only doing so he fails to employ all available arguments for a God-centered approach to language. So much more could be said that the book’s almost a frustrating read.

Second

Secondly, prior to reading I had in mind to offer the book as a giveaway at a linguistics meeting on campus I was planning and even possibly to send a copy to one of my old college linguistics professors. After reading, I felt uneasy doing so and thereby endorsing the book for the simple reason that the argumentation within is incredibly weak. For example, consider the analogies Poythress attempts to draw between language and the triune God in order to establish the thesis that a biblically-faithful approach to language will start with communication between the persons of the trinity:

Let us now focus on the character of the rules of language. They reveal God in some striking ways.

First, the rules of English hold wherever English is spoken…Spoken English, and human knowledge of English, are not omnipresent. But the rules are.¹

In the above language is thought to reveal God on the following logic: God is omnipresent. Rules of language can be thought of as omnipresent. Rules of language therefore reveal God. I don’t find this as striking as the author does. It could be argued on this thinking that whatever is omnipresent “reveals God.” Seems like a stretch to me.

The author continues this way showing rules of language to be omnipresent, eternal, immutable, invisible (“We do not literally see the rule that ‘moved’ is the past tense of ‘move.’ We see and hear only the effects of the rule on our use of language. The rule is essentially immaterial and invisible . . . Likewise, God is essentially immaterial and invisible, but is known through his acts in the world.”²), truthful (“Real rules, as opposed to linguists’ approximations of them, are also absolutely, infallibly true. Truthfulness is also an attribute of God.”³), powerful, immanent and transcendent, rational, good, and beautiful.

Then watch his conclusion to this chapter:

“Rules for language are a form of the word of God. So they reflect the Trinitarian statement ofJohn 1:1, which identifies the second person of the Trinity as the eternal Word. . . .

Man is made in the image of God, and so his language is in the image of God. And so his language reflects the Trinitarian pattern.”⁴

I find this argument very unsatisfying for two reasons: (1) again it seems like a stretch and (2) so what? What’s the importance? It seems to me to belabor the thesis to multiple evidences by stretching analogies. The thesis is straightforward enough that in my mind little is gained by the above evidences.

Third

Third, I have a very hard time swallowing many basic statements in the book that attribute to God everything from etymology to grammar to the correspondence between the signified (a dog) and the signifier (“dog”). Are we only able to trust language if we endow words with a logical, God-established connection to the thing for which they stand? I think not. Again, I see little gained when Poythress asserts that God has designed the contemporary English word “dog” to represent perfectly the idea of a dog. I see no need to be this specific in a God-centered approach to language, especially on a matter on which we cannot be certain (regardless of the view of divine providence one subscribes to). I see no damage done to a God-centered approach to language by granting the abstract relationship between words and concepts.

Additionally, denying the abstract relationship between what we call a dog and the English word “dog” flies in the face of every and any linguistics book you’re likely to come across. Fair enough they are not working from a God-centered approach to language, but I’ve yet to come across any linguist finding rational links between signifier and signified (the small number of onomatopoeia excepted of course), something one would expect if indeed God has linked them together on rational grounds. Therein would lie great apologetic force if such a link could be observed. We must, however, look elsewhere for hints of God in language.

Fourth

Seventy-five percent of the book is only tangentially related to language or linguistics. Of the six parts, the book could conceivably be condensed down to the first section (pp. 1-78), the sixth section (pp. 289-297) and the appendices. The rest is largely unnecessary, especially part two.

Conclusion

I hope I have not been too harsh in offering my thoughts on In the Beginning Was the Word. If I am wrong or misinformed or misguided on any of the above, I will gladly and humbly lend my ear to the many whose understanding on the subject surpasses my own. As I have not come across any reviews of the work I hoped to present my thoughts in order to offer some follow up to the hype the book enjoyed in the weeks leading up to its publication. Finally, if I come across as harsh, it’s only because I had high expectations for this work.

Call for Review

In the interest of fairness I want to do something a bit different. If you are a linguist and have not read In the Beginning Was the Word and would like to read it and review it, I will send you my copy for free. You must only agree to read it, review it, and have your review published on my blog. Easy enough, right? But, if you’re a linguist and you’ve already read it, I’m still interested in your thoughts and/or review, although nothing free for you.

Consider:

You know his name wasn’t really Jesus Christ, right?

Jesus is just the Greek translation of Yeshua, which translates from Hebrew to Joshua.

But his name wasn’t Josh Christ, either, since his parents weren’t Joseph and Mary Christ.

So it’s really not blasphemy to say “Jesus Christ”, because it’s not taking the right name in vain.

Isn’t religion fun?

To be honest I felt giddy when I read the above. It’s perfect to blog. It involves linguistics and Jesus and it’s moronic; the first two I love, the last just makes good blog fodder. Why’s the above moronic?

The Third Commandment

“Do not take up the name of the Lord in vain” (Exodus 20:7). The argument above borrows whatever potency the author believed it to have from this, the third commandment found atExodus 20:7. Blasphemy seems to be the issue, but what exactly is blasphemy?

How about misuse or use for no purpose. Or, use as if it were nothing, thus “in vain.” Check out the use of the same word in Jeremiah:Jeremiah 2:30,Jeremiah 4:30,Jeremiah 6:29,Jeremiah 18:15,Jeremiah 46:11. You’ll gain a sense of what’s going on real quick.

It would be a mistake, however, to narrowly limit “taking the Lord’s name in vain,” as the above does, to a particular word (e.g., “Jesus” or “Jesus Christ” in whatever language). “The ‘name’ of God stands for so much more than the mere pronouncing of his title of address. It includes (1) his nature, being, and very person . . . (2) his teaching or doctrine . . . and (3) his moral and ethical teaching.”¹

Thus, speaking irreverently about almost anything pertaining to God is easily considered blasphemy.  I shouldn’t need to provide examples, but the point is that blasphemy isn’t only blasphemy if and only if you utter the right word in the right language. Blasphemy encompasses the content of and the heart behind language.²

The Name of the Lord

The author concludes “So it’s really not blasphemy to say ‘Jesus Christ’, because it’s not taking the right name in vain.” The question then arises, Which name should one take in vain if one wanted to take “the right name in vain”?

Exodus 20:7 has shem yhwh or “the name of YHWH,” often translated into English as “the name of the Lord” instead of “the name of Yahweh” with YHWH as a proper name. Taking YHWH in vain can be a bit problematic though as the Hebrew text doesn’t preserve the original vowels for the divine name. According to the above argument then it should be impossible to take the Lord’s name in vain and thus blaspheme. But is that true?

Blasphemy in the Bible

One can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, who is God (Matthew 12:31).

Jesus was accused of blasphemy for affirming that he is the Christ, the Son of God because some believed he was lying (Matthew 26:63;John 10:31-39).

In the first case one needn’t know God’s name in the right language to blaspheme against him. In the second, Jesus didn’t even use God’s name, but was called a blasphemer.

Isn’t religion fun?

Shooting Down the Upshot

It’s true that Jesus’ name wasn’t the Anglo-Germanic word “Jesus” nor was “Christ” his parents’ surname. It’s anachronistic to even assume so.

Do we then conclude that it’s not really blasphemy to say “Jesus Christ” when we accidentally stub a toe? Absolutely not.

The name “Jesus Christ” is the English result of that long etymological history given above that represents the man profiled in the Bible. “Jesus Christ” is how we can talk about that God-man. Therefore to use it in vain is blasphemous.

Two Examples

If the above argument holds true, Muslims shouldn’t have been offended at the now famous Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed because, well, that’s not really the prophet Muhammad because in order for the cartoon to be idolatrous it would have to be correctly labeled in Arabic rather than in Danish.

Or, if blasphemy or defamation of character can only be done correctly if used in the right language, there’s no such thing as international libel. Americans shouldn’t be offended by what any nation says about them, if not said in English.

photo credit: Lawrence OP

Sing for Joy

Every Sunday morning the pretentiously titled local classical station–The Classical Station–airs several syndicated programs featuring sacred music. One of those is Sing for Joy, a production of Minnesota’s St. Olaf College. Every week the College Pastor presents choral music selected to coincide with the readings from the revised common lectionary. The result is a beautiful production that is well worth your listen, especially if you come from a non-liturgical tradition such as I. I’ve found that keeping up with the common lectionary vocally enhanced by world-class choirs is a delightful way to connect with the Church universal. Sing for Joy presents that certain bountiful depth of sacred music that is too often forgotten. My only disappointment is that the broadcasts, as far as I can tell, are not available via podcast. There is, however, a vast streaming archive available on their site of current and past episodes. You can listen wherever you are no matter the day of the week. Check it out.

Lectionary at Lunch

I discovered this second gem on iTunesU. Concordia Seminary St. Louis hosts an enviable Lectionary at Lunch group every Wednesday that is led by a professor who reads through the OT and NT lessons in Hebrew and Greek, translates them and discusses particular points of interest. The podcast of the group is available free of charge and is well worth your listen, especially if you’re interested in exegesis, translation and original language study. I can’t tell you how beneficial this is to listen to. Check it out.

photo credit: bemky

Several weeks back I attended a birthday party in honor of an elderly woman who has been coming regularly to a Bible study that I lead at the senior apartment complex where she lives. While this woman has verbalized on many occasions her trust in the Lord, I’m not exactly sure where her son’s family is at after meeting them for the first time at the party. It’s always interesting to hear the first remarks people make once they learn that one is a seminary student.

They asked what denominational affiliation the seminary has. I told them it is Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a Southern Baptist school. They then replied that they attend a local Catholic church but are open to “all things spiritual.” I was happy to agree that I, too, am open to “all things spiritual” as far as the plain meaning of the statement goes. I have nothing against spirituality. In fact, a non-Christian ex-worker once remarked to me that he finds it shallow that many Christians while religions aren’t spiritual. I agree.

Their second question was what I wanted to do after I graduate. “So are you going to be a minister or something?” I said that I could be but that I’m pursuing work in Bible translation. “Oh, that’s interesting. There’s a lot that’s lost in translation.” This is one of those statements that people often repeat after hearing because they think it sounds clever, but they’re not actually sure if it’s true; it only seems to be true on the face of it. The idea that a lot is left behind in translation just seems to makes sense.

I wasn’t sure whether to take this comment as a dig at Bible translation or what. I should have asked what they meant by that. I find this to be a good course of action to get to the bottom of people’s thinking. They’ll either be able to articulate a well-crafted explanation of whatever it is you asked them to clarify (rare) or they’ll stumble and sort of trail off (more common). Instead I replied by saying that over and over again in my studies I’m amazed at how well translations are able to reproduce what’s there in the original. For example, I’m doing an independent study this semester on Exodus wherein I’m reading through the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and two modern translations four times each to get a feel for what’s lost and how what is communicated is communicated. So far I’m amazed at how well the message of the text sings loud and clear.

Translation is what it is but I think I can safely conclude that the message of the Bible sings out loud and clear in any language despite whatever may be lost (a topic for another time). That is the point of translation: that God’s redemptive message faithfully sing loud and clear.