tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8554337268732390744.post6372123183476045037..comments2008-04-29T14:09:52.807+03:00Danny Brothershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03372641972664155753noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8554337268732390744.post-57922986502745201782008-04-29T14:09:00.000+03:002008-04-29T14:09:00.000+03:00Ronni, I'm sure you know your linguistics, but I don't think you read that article. According to Professor Ram Frost, the guy that did the study, the difficulty in picking up jumbled Hebrew is not due to the Abjad system of Hebrew writing, but rather to the root based structure of the language. Not the orthography, but specifically the morphology. <BR/><BR/>No, the jumbled letters were not picked up holistically. That is the entire point. They could not identify the parts WITHOUT the whole - the root intact being "the whole." Yes, a Hebrew root is holistically picked up by Hebrew readers, but only when the parts (the 3 letters) are organized as they are supposed to be. If "it" were picked up holistically, it wouldn't matter if a couple letters were out of place. That's what holistic means - the importance of the whole and interdependence of the parts. In fact, 59% of the words in jumbled Hebrew were NOT holistically processed. If the root wasn't intact, the word was not read properly. That's the entire point of the article and study.<BR/><BR/>Hey, that's according to the doctor that did the research. As you said, "It is not especially plausible to explain this based on morphology when there are more local writing-system differences in play." You're saying that you disagree with the findings of this research. That's fine, Professor Ronni.<BR/><BR/>Go argue with Professor Frost, not me! Sheesh, everyone always has some kind of "you've got it wrong, it's actually..." This is why I provide the article that I base my post off! READ THE ARTICLE and make it clear WHO you disagree with.<BR/><BR/>And of course I was exaggerating when I said that Hebrew is goobly gunk to Israelis. I realize it's not. Hope that colloquialism didn't bother you.Danny Brothershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03372641972664155753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8554337268732390744.post-77664115534964497572008-04-29T04:29:00.000+03:002008-04-29T04:29:00.000+03:00I don't think you got it quite right. The Hebrew orhtography is an <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abjad" REL="nofollow">Abjad</A>. This is a fact completely separate from Hebrew's semitic morphology (3 letter roots etcetera.) The abjadic writing system largely explains the phenomenon you described. As you said, Hebrew text will scans somewhat differently than English, particularly when it's jumbled. But it still gets processed holistically. Fluent readers of Hebrew see the text as transparently meaningful. It's just the letter jumbles that behave differently. And it is not especially plausible to explain this based on morphology when there are more local writing-system differences in play.Ronnihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15100386740019274296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8554337268732390744.post-9814204719826534912008-04-18T01:07:00.000+03:002008-04-18T01:07:00.000+03:00DK? Donkey Kong? Awesome!<BR/><BR/>Thanks!<BR/><BR/>Chag SameacherDanny Brothershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03372641972664155753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8554337268732390744.post-53860473531402818532008-04-18T00:33:00.000+03:002008-04-18T00:33:00.000+03:00DB another awesome read. <BR/>you loyal reader<BR/>DK<BR/>hag sameachDebsnoreply@blogger.com