Re: THEORY: Hebrew revival (was: THEORY: Irish, and language death)

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Costentin Cornomorus wrote:

> --- "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...> wrote:
>
> > I do stand by my claim that, even in the case
> > of Romeo and
> > Juliet, the vast, vast majority of
> > English-speakers could
> > not give you plot summaries in the same way
> > that many of
> > them could of the more well-known events in the
> > Bible.
>
> The two are generally approached _very_
> differently. Without intending to step on toes,
> bible stories are usually taught as a form of
> quasi-history, from a _very_ young age in a
> sacro-mythical lattice work. Shaxepere, on the
> other hand, is taught for a year in High School
> English classes to kids much too interested in
> nintendo to internalise the plots so thoroughly.
>
> Also, by the time a kid reaches HS, he has had 10
> or 12 years of good christian indoctrination to
> cement those stories in his mind. I also think S.
> ought to be taught via attending actual
> performances (live or screen), rather than by
> reading him. I mean, it's like joining band and
> having to write reports and journals based on
> one's copy of the conductor's score, yet not a
> single note is ever heard! Music, like
> Schaeckspeire, is meant to be experienced via the
> ear.
>
> Padraic.
>
I have had experience teaching both Romeo and Juliet and Bible texts, amd
my observation is for the modern American students I teach, R&J is at
least as more familiar as many Bible stories--almost any student at
least knows R&J were lovers who died for love, while students often do not
know Samson and Delilah, for example. Most do have some idea who Moses
and Jesus were, of course.
I endorse the idea of using live performance or films to teach
Shakespeare (and other drama).  I do it regularly.
John Leland>
> ===== > Et ters davigaint deck y yaithes 'n el drichlend le Roy Markon;
> y cestes d' ils yspoil morès y ddew chaumèz e-z-el tons l' organón.
>
>
>
>
> .
>

Reply