2 November 2007 (21 Kheshvan 5768)
In my daily life in Israel I mainly use the following six languages orally: Hebrew ([only!] ca. 40%), English (ca. 30%), Esperanto (ca. 15%), Yiddish (ca. 5%), Japanese (ca. 5%), and Russian (ca. 5%). But when it comes to written use (reading and writing), be it academic or not, the share of each of these six languages is quite different: English (ca. 50%), Japanese (ca. 20%), Hebrew (ca. 15%), Esperanto (ca. 10%), Yiddish (negligible), and Russian (negligible).
I wish I knew some cost-effective way of dramatically improving my academic English and Hebrew both in speech and in writing, but I feel I am rather stuck. Although my academic career does not depend so much on my practical knowledge of Yiddish, Esperanto and Russian, I have decided recently to brush up these three languages, simply because I have suddently recalled the pleasure of learning languages in general and these three languages in particular. I started to learn them in 1986, 1988 and 1989 respectively and studied them very intensively in the first year, but afterwards I did not invest enough time and energy. In spite of that, my Yiddish and Esperanto are quite fair though naturally there still remains much to be desired, while my Russian has become rather rusty for lack of use.
The main incentive to this renewed Sisyphean labor was the fact that recently I acquired acquired really excellent dictionaries in Yiddish, Esperanto and Russian. There are two preconditions for me to study new foreign languages: firstly, they have written documents and are still spoken, and secondly, they have good dictionaries. I tried to study Russian many times, but it was not until a truly amazing Russian-Japanese dictionary was published that I could continue my study.
Brushing up the languages I have already "trampled" is not like starting to learn totally new languages, but nevertheless I have been feeling quite excited to brush up my Yiddish, Esperanto, and especially Russian. In the last several years I have so difficulty in concentrating on reading and writing academic papers, but not only can I concentrate on their study to my great surprise but also do I feel that I will be willing and able to brush up two other languages I studied before a little (Italian and Polish) and spend hours learning totally new languages, even with scripts unknown to me, if their cultures appeal to me, which will be the single most important incentive for me. In short, I feel that I have a renewed intellectual pastime now.
9 November 2007 (28 Kheshvan 5768)
[no update due to a technical problem]
16 November 2007 (6 Kislev 5768)
In one of the online radio programs I listen to regularly I heard one of its listeners claim that fax tax should be introduced for the obese on flights. I have always had a feeling of unfairness every time I fly. We are required to pay for the extra weight of baggage, but we passengers ourselves are the main loads of an airplane. Nevertheless, every adult is charged the same fare regardless of his or her weight unlike baggage. I am not sure if it is possible to introduce fat tax, but at least the baggage allowance should be coordinated with the weight of its owner so that the total allowance instead of the baggage allowance may be the same for every passenger. Next time I take a flight, I am thinking of making this question at the airport.
Obesity is said to be one of the main challenges to health now. In the United States, which is considered the fattest nation in the world, about 30% of the population is said to be obese. From what I see on the street, the percentage of the obese in Israel must also be quite high if not higher. I have just read that certain states in the US implement the so-called fat tax on unhealthy foods, like on cigarrettes, that lead to health problems. I have also read a proposal for a more radical version of fat tax, which is not on unhealthy foods but is linked to BMI (Body Mass Index) of tax payers, unless their obesity is due to illness.
Although I am not sure if such fat tax may be introduced in any country in the foreseeable future, the rational for it makes perfect sense. Obesity is the main cause of various diseases, which cost a huge sum of money paid evenly by those who suffer from it or not. Most cases of obesity are said to be resuls of bad eating habits. I can also see this from the way many fat people eat; they simply cannot control what, when and how much to eat. I cannot find any fair reason why those of us who do have a strong will power to control our own diet have to pay for those who do not. Of course, the obese themselves suffer most. They are fat because they cannot control themselves, so there must be some external regulators that keep their bodies as are intended to be. In my opinion fat tax in any or all of the forms mentioned above is an excellent idea to reduce the number and BMI of the obese.
23 November 2007 (13 Kislev 5768)
I feel that I witnessed a historic moment this week, and this feeling may even increase as the time goes by. On Wednesday and Thursday this week a conference was held in honor of Professor Moshe Bar-Asher, who recently retired after 44 years of work at the Department of the Hebrew Language, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Without doubt, he is among the most important scholars of Hebrew and Jewish linguistics in our time. I had the privilege of participating in a few courses of his when I studied for my doctorate at the above mentioned department, and met him in various conferences in Israel and abroad since then. Of course, I was enlighted by talks given by some of his ex-teachers, colleagues, ex-students and even his own son, but I was most impressed by the presentation of a Festschrift for him, which includes 99 articles (!) in three volumes (I had the privilege of contributing one), in the opening session and his talk about his own life at the closing session.
I feel that the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has given me more than any other alma mater of mine. I had the privilege of studying directly from eminent scholars, some of whom are not with us any more, including Professors Shelomo Morag z"l (my supervisor), Chaim Rabin z"l, Haiim Rosén z"l, David Bunis, Marcel Erdal, Gideon Goldenberg, Aharon Maman, Yechiel Szeintuch, Chava Turniansky, Wolf Moskovich, and of course Professor Moshe Bar-Asher, and am pround of being part of the Jerusalem School of Hebrew and Jewish linguistics. Through these ex-teachers of mine and various conferences held by some of them I have also met new people, some of whom have become my very close colleagues and even friends. I took this chance of visiting my Israeli alma mater to join its renewed alumni association, which will make it easier for me to maintain my connection with it and keep updated on what is new there.
30 November 2007 (20 Kislev 5768)
I have been giving presentations in three areas of my research interests, i.e., Modern Hebrew linguistics (mainly morphology, lexicon and sociolinguistics), Hebrew-Yiddish contact linguistics (mainly morphology and lexicon) and Jewish linguistics (Jewish onomastics in the meanwhile), in this descending order of frequency. The more talks I give, the more keenly I have come to be aware of some decided tendency in the reactions of the audience. My talks seem to be better accepted when they are on diachronic, sociolinguistic and/or multilingual topics than on synchronic, structural and/or monolingual ones. So paradoxically, those dealing with the synchronic study of the morphology of Modern Hebrew, which was the area of my dissertation and which I still consider my home ground, turn out to be the least popular talks among the audience of all the talks I have given.
In the beginning I thought this was just a coincidence, but now I am quite convinced that it is not. I have at least third explanations for this seeming paradox. The first concerns the very name of studies, the second me, and the third the audience. First of all, synchronic, structural and/or monolingual topics are probably much more investigaged than diachronic, sociolinguistic and/or multilingual ones in Hebrew and Jewish linguistics, so it is invevitably more difficult to impress the audience with totally new descriptions and analyses. Secondly, I am probably more interested in, thus fascinated by the latter, as they can make use of more things I have studied in more languages and more areas simultaneously than the former. We generally appeal more to others when we are doing something we really like. Thirdly, for this very reason, i.e., the latter presuppose more knowledge than the former, so the audience is likely to be composed of more professional linguists who are familiar with more languages and of less monolingual linguists and amateurish lovers of Hebrew or some Jewish language.