BBC Television programmes  permalink

The Story Of The Jews

Messages: 1 - 50 of 189
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Turner (U14992668) on Saturday, 31st August 2013

    Starts tomorrow, BBC2 9pm.

    I like Prof Schama, and I am looking forward to this. I just hope it will be better than the (much-repeated) trailers, which seem to indicate this will be a sentimental, partisan, Hollywood-style tale, complete with self-mythologising, wild claims and selective historical memory.
    But trailers are often rather misleading, so I hope I will be the first here tomorrow night to post my praise for this promising, exciting new series.

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Rosemary (U7231409) on Saturday, 31st August 2013

    Yes, Simon Schama's 'History of Britain' was excellent.

    I too am looking forward to this, although I'm a bit surprised that you can draw such conclusions about it already purely on the basis of a brief trailer, however often it's been shown. I imagine the programme will be controversial - the subject-matter seems to rouse passions both for and against - but I live in hope that any discussion might be able to avoid deteriorating into a political slanging match.

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Turner (U14992668) on Sunday, 1st September 2013

    I'm a bit surprised that you can draw such conclusions about it already purely on the basis of a brief trailer 

    Well, it was the "As a kid I always knew we Jews had an extra-ordinary story to tell", and the "Jews *made* America" claim, and the accompanying literature's stress on the Jews' specialness ("creativity and 'epic' spirit in the face of relentless oppression", etc) as if it was some kind of prestigious club.

    I think a look at Jewish faith and culture through the centuries is an extremely interesting subject, as long as it's not a succession of baseless claims and myths to bash the viewer with in order to push the narrative of the Jew's 'destiny' and singularity, which can only further division and entrench positions. I am reminded of the great Richard Feynman, and his insistence on not being identified as Jewish (he famously refused to be included in a book about Jewish Nobel laureates), because he thought anything that supposedly made Jews special, and he didn't think such a thing existed, could also be the foundation of prejudice and discrimination.

    So one has to be cautious about the premise of this series, especially a few months after Ilan Ziv's documentary about Jewish history was unceremoniously and inespicably pulled - see here www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... .

    The litmus test I guess will be how Schama deals with the most controversial subject of all - the creation of the state of Israel. It will be interesting to see if he will stick to the 'orthodox' view, give or take a few details, or if he will be more courageous and give us a franker version of those events.

    Anyhoo, I am probably being a bit premature here, and I do hold Simon Schama and his work in high regard, so I should watch the programme first. As it happens, tonight I will be out now, so will have to catch up on iPlayer - will take a look at this thread tomorrow and see what fellow POVers thought!

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Sunday, 1st September 2013

    The litmus test I guess will be how Schama deals with the most controversial subject of all - the creation of the state of Israel. 

    Schama's account of the history of the British Empire in his "History of Britain" series had a distinctly sour tone. So we may well get the airbrushed Israeli version.

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Pumpkin_Patch_Paul (U14565900) on Sunday, 1st September 2013

    My eyesight give me laughs,this time it read to me " The Story Of The Jaws". I thought it was about the Spielberg film.smiley - smiley

    I will give it a go.

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Celtic_Milwr (U14001791) on Sunday, 1st September 2013

    If this series is anything like Simon Schama's history of Britain it will be a complete load of old nonsense.

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Rosemary (U7231409) on Sunday, 1st September 2013

    If this series is anything like Simon Schama's history of Britain it will be a complete load of old nonsense.  Oh right. Well that's put me in my ignorant place, then. smiley - sadface

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by heterodox (U14291406) on Sunday, 1st September 2013

    '.... I am probably being a bit premature here, .......... so I should watch the programme first.'

    Seems like a good plan.
    I'm with Rosemary here in thinking that Schama's work is of the highest standard. I treat his three-part history of Britain as almost definitive and I use it as a quick reference. Everything is easy to find and clearly explained.
    I expect this to be up to the level of his best but I shall wait to see before deciding.

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 4.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Jewel Staite (U14313760) on Sunday, 1st September 2013

    I agree that this could be a good, great and even excellent series, which Simon Sharma would be proud to be associated with, if it offers an open, critical, and balanced approach when analysing the conflicting origin accounts and evidence on which one mere belief system is based

    Hopefully, the BBC will maintain a balanced approach in future, and rather than offending the Anti Semites and Uber Zionists in equal measure, invest similar resources in order to analyse similar standing Old World Belief Systems and other variants of Cargo Cult Science in future.

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Pax (U9699410) on Sunday, 1st September 2013

    I agree that this could be a good, great and even excellent series, which Simon Sharma would be proud to be associated with, if it offers an open, critical, and balanced approach when analysing the conflicting origin accounts and evidence on which one mere belief system is based

    Hopefully, the BBC will maintain a balanced approach in future, and rather than offending the Anti Semites and Uber Zionists in equal measure, invest similar resources in order to analyse similar standing Old World Belief Systems and other variants of Cargo Cult Science in future. 
    I found this very interesting and was very impressed.
    I have never seen Simon Sharma before but he seems just right for the job of telling the story.
    I am looking forward to next weeks episode.

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Rosemary (U7231409) on Sunday, 1st September 2013

    ... invest similar resources in order to analyse similar standing Old World Belief Systems and other variants of Cargo Cult Science in future.  I couldn't watch this tonight but hope to catch the repeat. But in the meantime ... what are Old World Belief Systems and Cargo Cult Science, please? I've never heard of either ... smiley - blush

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by bootjangler (U880875) on Sunday, 1st September 2013

    It got a bit of a Twitter-bashing from Prof Stavrakopopolou, with running commentary.

    Perhaps she was miffed she didn't get the job, but it shows there are disagreements with historians.

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Fullday (U15829298) on Sunday, 1st September 2013

    One mere belief system that gives a foundation to another, the Judeo-Christian faith. The programme had been wholly enjoyable so far and a good walk through history according to their scriptures. Not being Jewish myself, it is refreshing to view a programme on the Jewish faith without having to be drawn into the complexities of current day affairs. I'm quite sure it will draw its criticism, however I am thankful to BBC 2 for airing it.

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by zen humbug (U14877400) on Sunday, 1st September 2013

    I hoped it would have more about the authorship of the Bible and discussion of moot historical issues. There was a lot of padding - which seems to be the norm for television these days. Some spectacular photography - although too much of the modish and irritating tilt shift effects.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Guv-nor (U7476305) ** on Sunday, 1st September 2013

    In reply to Rosemary:
    Old World Belief Systems = Established religions.
    Cargo cult science = Arguments that look like science but are not.

    The understanding of other people may differ and the exact intention of the poster is open to interpretation.

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by bootjangler (U880875) on Sunday, 1st September 2013

    This is how another biblical historian saw it as it played out.

    storify.com/chattrbo...

    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 4.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Jelliss (U14666069) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    The program was full of inaccuracies and tall stories passed as facts.
    With regards to the origins of the Jewish people, if you believe the Israelites version, they are part of the Arab, semitic, nomad culture of the lands bordered by Turkey in the North, the Mediterranean, the Red Sea in the West and Iran to the East. That these particular tribes spent time in Egypt, most probably as unwelcome immigrants rather than captives, according to archaeologists (even Israeli archaeologists) , at a time when the Pharaoh was attempting to impose the idea of monotheism on his unwilling subjects, that probably accounts for their distinctive religion and the siege mentality behind the arrogant insistence that they are 'a race apart'.
    Their addiction to tall stories about an imaginary rich and glorious past, for which there is no concrete evidence whatsoever, has merely cemented their unpopularity.

    Reply to this message 21

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    Can I remind posters that posts must relate to the programme itself.

    General posts about religions will be removed, because this board is specifically for discussion of BBC TV programmes.

    More info on this here:

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Reply to this message 22

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by meddaboy (U15031418) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    i watch a lot of history progs, his history of britain was good,but his civil war usa was terrible, this looks abit the same slow ponderous story of the jews,i hope they go into detail of what king edward hammer of the scots did to them in england at the time theres a great story to be told there.

    Reply to this message 23

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Rosemary (U7231409) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    In reply to Rosemary:
    Old World Belief Systems = Established religions.
    Cargo cult science = Arguments that look like science but are not.

    The understanding of other people may differ and the exact intention of the poster is open to interpretation. 
    Thank you, Guv-nor, I appreciate that. Plain English is just so much easier ... smiley - smiley

    Reply to this message 24

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Jeff (U13971268) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    Rosemary, there is quite a bit about how cargo cults arose, and why they are called that, on Wikipedia, if you want to look.

    Reply to this message 25

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Rosemary (U7231409) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    Rosemary, there is quite a bit about how cargo cults arose, and why they are called that, on Wikipedia, if you want to look.  Thank you, Jeff, I will! I'm afraid I'm a bit of an old dinosaur about some of the euphemistic English around these days, but although I refuse point-blank to use it, I should at least know what it means. Thanks again!

    Reply to this message 26

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Tafkaj (U3674656) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    Starts tomorrow, BBC2 9pm.

    I like Prof Schama, and I am looking forward to this. I just hope it will be better than the (much-repeated) trailers, which seem to indicate this will be a sentimental, partisan, Hollywood-style tale, complete with self-mythologising, wild claims and selective historical memory.
    But trailers are often rather misleading, so I hope I will be the first here tomorrow night to post my praise for this promising, exciting new series. 
    This is how a documentary SHOULD be produced. The focus was on the subject and the artefacts that tell the story, rather than on the presenter. When Sharma WAS shown in shot, it was either while talking about his subject (which is always eminently watchable) or the camera was passing over him, as it were, giving the viewer the opportunity to see the landscape on its own, without the camera lingering on the presenter in a form of hero-worship - we were just shown the presenter viewing the landscape and then given the opportunity to view the landscape ourselves instead of having to 'experience' it vicariously through the presenter.

    I thought the program qua documentary was also perfectly paced - well done for that.

    The only qualm I have, at least abut the opening episode, is the topic under scrutiny. Thus far, the documentary seems to be more A Story of The Jewish Faith rather than The Story of the Jews per se. Indeed, the title of the first episode is 'In the Beginning', but the opening shots were all about Freud and the Nazis. Surely any story of the 'beginning' of the Jews as a people has to open with the Habiru, but there was no mention of them. As they're well documented in Assyrian texts (among others) it can't be argued that they don't fit an historical explanation of the origins of the Jews.

    If the series is actually A Story of the Jewish Faith, perhaps it could be renamed as such.

    Reply to this message 27

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by shytalker (U15033137) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    The program was full of inaccuracies and tall stories passed as facts.
    With regards to the origins of the Jewish people, if you believe the Israelites version, they are part of the Arab, semitic, nomad culture of the lands bordered by Turkey in the North, the Mediterranean, the Red Sea in the West and Iran to the East. That these particular tribes spent time in Egypt, most probably as unwelcome immigrants rather than captives, according to archaeologists (even Israeli archaeologists) , at a time when the Pharaoh was attempting to impose the idea of monotheism on his unwilling subjects, that probably accounts for their distinctive religion and the siege mentality behind the arrogant insistence that they are 'a race apart'.
    Their addiction to tall stories about an imaginary rich and glorious past, for which there is no concrete evidence whatsoever, has merely cemented their unpopularity. 
    No mention so far of the Judean Proples Liberation Front-maybe in a later episode!

    Reply to this message 28

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by shytalker (U15033137) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    The program was full of inaccuracies and tall stories passed as facts.
    With regards to the origins of the Jewish people, if you believe the Israelites version, they are part of the Arab, semitic, nomad culture of the lands bordered by Turkey in the North, the Mediterranean, the Red Sea in the West and Iran to the East. That these particular tribes spent time in Egypt, most probably as unwelcome immigrants rather than captives, according to archaeologists (even Israeli archaeologists) , at a time when the Pharaoh was attempting to impose the idea of monotheism on his unwilling subjects, that probably accounts for their distinctive religion and the siege mentality behind the arrogant insistence that they are 'a race apart'.
    Their addiction to tall stories about an imaginary rich and glorious past, for which there is no concrete evidence whatsoever, has merely cemented their unpopularity. 
    No mention so far of the Judean Peoples Liberation Front-maybe in a later episode!

    Reply to this message 29

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by signonymous (U14407751) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    This is how a documentary SHOULD be produced. 

    There was a lot going on here - which is a welcome change - but I may need a crash course in how to watch intelligent documentaries again after this long in the wilderness!

    Reply to this message 30

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by freddy naftel (U14961373) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    Then I would certainly take exception to the previous post(No.21), which is objectionable, to say the least.

    Reply to this message 31

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    Then I would certainly take exception to the previous post(No.21), which is objectionable, to say the least.  Hi freddy

    This board is reactively moderated, which means that posts are only reviewed by a moderator when alerted by a board member.

    www.bbc.co.uk/messag...

    If you see a post which you think breaks the house rules, please alert it and it will be reviewed by a moderator.

    Please note that posts have to break a house rule to be removed, 'factually inaccurate posts' are not seen to be rule breaking.

    Reply to this message 32

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by beverley (U15185570) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    I really wanted to enjoy this, I love history and hoped that it wouldn't be a dumbed down PBS type "Wow is this really Mount Sinai Bob" type of programme. It wasn't, but it was a mush of things. There was history, not all of it evidential. My main problem was there was just not enough history. NOT ENOUGH HISTORY AT ALL. Family meals, whether cultural or religious anywhere in the world have ritual, stories about harrowing journeys are touching and uplifting. The main problem for me was that it kept jumping centuries; David and Goliath, then Freud, then back to the Greeks, and then back to the future!! I thought this would last about the first 10 15 minutes to set the scene, but it appears it is the scene. I made my teenage children switch off their media and join me to watch this as I thought it would be interesting and educational. It did succeed in one thing, they stopped watching about 20 minutes in and had a conversation with each other! I will give it another go, but please put the HISTORY as we now understand it, backed up by evidence into the programme don't turn it into a list of famous Jews through time, that's not the history of the Jews, that's the story of a few lucky people, interesting though it may be.

    Reply to this message 33

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 31.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by lluncoolj (U7676659) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    I've given it 20 minutes, but it's sooooo slow and leisurely, and little for the non-Jews to find terribly interesting. It has the tone, the pace and level of detail you would expect in an Open University programme.

    Reply to this message 35

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by maestaf (U14145694) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    My thoughts exactly. I thought a programme about the history of the Jews would be really interesting, but I began to get a sinking feeling when Schama started talking about cancer eating Freud's jaw. The programme jumped about like a flea on a hotplate and I tuned in for a history of the Jews, not to watch Schama's family eating a meal and discussing Jewishness. Unfortunately, I lost interest and I'm not sure if I will be able to find the enthusiasm to finish watching the first programme.

    Reply to this message 36

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Frosty (U15830042) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    Really irritated by the constant background music. I wish there was a digital channel where you had the option of watching without the music.

    Reply to this message 37

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Monday, 2nd September 2013

    I fear that many of those who were disappointed in this programme didn't take enough cognisance of the title, it's "The Story of the Jews" and not "The History of the Jews". If I understood Shama's proposition it was that what unites and defines the Jews is their 'story', that is their traditions and myths (in the true sense) which largely maintain their identity and sense of self . In this first programme he was exploring the origin myths that have maintained that identity through the years although he did acknowledge that there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever of the Exodus tale.

    I enjoyed it, although there was little that I wasn't already aware of, and I'm looking forward to the next episode.

    Reply to this message 38

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Turner (U14992668) on Tuesday, 3rd September 2013

    Finally got round to watching this last night. Oh dear. What a frustrating, at times fascinating, but mostly maddeningly confused and confusing piece of television this was.
    I'm really struggling to understand what the logic behind it is: is it an history documentary, or one on folk traditions? What exactly is Schama's point of view on Jewish identity?

    Let's see. He goes on about Freud's 'beloved' Menorah, although he must know Freud was passionate about and collected many other antique artefacts from many civilisations and cultures, and then shows a self-deprecatingly jokey postcard of his at the end as proof of... what?
    Lots of borderline fiction statements, delivered in an emotive, overly dramatic tone ("When land, kingdom and power had been lost", "The world made them pay dearly for it", eh??).
    He says that historical evidence doesn't matter because it's all about shared experience and cultural memory anyway, then goes and picks a few chosen texts and unquestioningly accepts them in their literal value, although many have been since discredited.
    He says Jewish identity is about a shared cultural heritage and not just about faith, but then bases the entire premise of why they endured as a people for so long mainly on their devotion and worship of the Sefer Torah through the centuries (and this from a man that publicly criticised Islam's great respect for the Quran).
    He chucks in his family, then an Ethiopian woman who thinks her "perilous journey back to the Promised Land" is like Moses' and symbolic of every Jew's, although both her and her life seemed to me fairly atypical on many levels.
    He makes many, many, many statements about the Jewish faith and culture (their values, food, myths) meant to show how unique and special they are, but the same statements could be made about any other religion or culture.
    And he keeps mentioning, again and again and again, the dreaded D word, the Jews' Destiny.

    All of which would be ok had Prof Schama called this a personal journey of discovery, or a collection of beautiful, poetic folk traditional tales - but he hasn't, and he must be aware that many Jewish people take these beautiful poetic tales dead seriously and in fact base on them the claim to a big piece of land somewhere in the Middle East.
    It's disingenuous, to say the least, to maintain this ambiguity and to keep walking back and forth between what should be two very separate areas, especially for a respected historian like him.

    On top of this, he seem to think that anti-semitism and persecution are the only factors forming the Jewish narrative - a view that many other Jews share, but not all.
    Does he really believe this is all that Jewish identity amounts to, being victims? You've got to ask yourself what this might be doing to the character of a culture, when their entire mentality, even according to someone as educated and 'rational' as Schama, is based on 'past martyrdoms' and the false sense of entitlement this brings. I expected better from him.

    I found this whole programme based on tendentious premises, the misreading of central texts, the wilful misinterpretation of key events, the arbitrary and borderline fraudulent ascribing of meaning when there isn't any - I really feel he's risking seriously damaging his name and undermining his integrity with this.
    And as well as being based on spurious grounds, it was also sentimental, cloying, and overall really quite arid and stodgy. I had some doubts about the programme before watching, but I have to say even I didn't expect it to be this poor.
    Will watch the second part with an open mind, but it'd have to do a 180° for me to change my mind.

    Reply to this message 39

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by Turner (U14992668) on Tuesday, 3rd September 2013

    Oh, and sorry for the long post smiley - blush

    Reply to this message 40

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Tuesday, 3rd September 2013

    I liked the Ethiopian woman's tapestries. I thought they qualified as art rather than just craftsmanship.

    Reply to this message 41

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Tafkaj (U3674656) on Tuesday, 3rd September 2013

    I fear that many of those who were disappointed in this programme didn't take enough cognisance of the title, it's "The Story of the Jews" and not "The History of the Jews". If I understood Shama's proposition it was that what unites and defines the Jews is their 'story', that is their traditions and myths (in the true sense) which largely maintain their identity and sense of self . In this first programme he was exploring the origin myths that have maintained that identity through the years although he did acknowledge that there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever of the Exodus tale.

    I enjoyed it, although there was little that I wasn't already aware of, and I'm looking forward to the next episode. 
    If that's the case, SWS, and I admit yours seems a good and plausible explanation, I would suggest that the viewing public have been somewhat hoodwinked into learning about the Jews as a cultural group rather than the story of their origins, etc.

    Reply to this message 42

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by GrouchoM (U14261501) on Tuesday, 3rd September 2013

    I have this on record & am looking forward to viewing.

    One question - does Pete Wylie sing the theme tune?

    Reply to this message 43

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Tafkaj (U3674656) on Tuesday, 3rd September 2013

    Yes, but not to this programme. smiley - laugh

    Reply to this message 44

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by hollyberry (U13700692) ** on Tuesday, 3rd September 2013

    I quite enjoyed it, must be easy to please in this instance.

    Reply to this message 45

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 3rd September 2013

    Mount Sinai 

    I was struck by Schama's pronunciation of the name 'Sinai'. He seemed to pronounce it as:

    "Sigh Knee Eye"

    I've only ever heard that pronunciation in the UK and even then only by junior school pupils. Surely more phonetically logical pronunciations would be:

    "Sin Eye"

    or else

    "See Nigh"

    or else

    "Sigh Nigh"

    Does anyone know where the "Sigh Knee Eye" pronunciation stems from?

    Reply to this message 46

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by Pax (U9699410) on Wednesday, 4th September 2013

    Mount Sinai 

    I was struck by Schama's pronunciation of the name 'Sinai'. He seemed to pronounce it as:

    "Sigh Knee Eye"

    I've only ever heard that pronunciation in the UK and even then only by junior school pupils. Surely more phonetically logical pronunciations would be:

    "Sin Eye"

    or else

    "See Nigh"

    or else

    "Sigh Nigh"

    Does anyone know where the "Sigh Knee Eye" pronunciation stems from? 
    I have no idea where the pronunciation comes from.
    I have always heard it said as Scharma says it, - at school, and ever since.
    I have never heard it pronounced in any other way!!

    Reply to this message 47

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Wednesday, 4th September 2013

    I have no idea where the pronunciation comes from.
    I have always heard it said as Scharma says it, - at school, and ever since.
    I have never heard it pronounced in any other way!!  


    Same here! When I were a lad, it was always pronounced "Sin-i-ai" in class or in Church. "Sinai" seems to have come in more recently.

    I think there are fashions in pronunciation. For example, during the 1980's/1990's the BBC began to pronounce the Himalayas as "HimAHlyas." I don't hear this any more. I don't suppose "HimAHlyas" corresponded with any accuracy to any local language so it was a bit pointless. We might as well use the accepted English pronunciation.

    Reply to this message 48

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by Jeff (U13971268) on Wednesday, 4th September 2013

    Same here! When I were a lad, it was always pronounced "Sin-i-ai" 
    Ditto! I have never pronounced it any other way.

    I think there are fashions in pronunciation. For example, during the 1980's/1990's the BBC began to pronounce the Himalayas as "HimAHlyas." 
    Of course, the highest mountain in that range should be pronounced "Eve-rest", because that's the way Sir George Everest pronounced his name.

    Oh, and in keeping with the thread, Happy New Year by the way! smiley - smiley

    Reply to this message 49

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by caissier (U14073060) on Wednesday, 4th September 2013

    Starts tomorrow, BBC2 9pm.

    I like Prof Schama, and I am looking forward to this. I just hope it will be better than the (much-repeated) trailers, which seem to indicate this will be a sentimental, partisan, Hollywood-style tale, complete with self-mythologising, wild claims and selective historical memory.
    But trailers are often rather misleading, so I hope I will be the first here tomorrow night to post my praise for this promising, exciting new series. 
    This is how a documentary SHOULD be produced. The focus was on the subject and the artefacts that tell the story, rather than on the presenter. When Sharma WAS shown in shot, it was either while talking about his subject (which is always eminently watchable) or the camera was passing over him, as it were, giving the viewer the opportunity to see the landscape on its own, without the camera lingering on the presenter in a form of hero-worship - we were just shown the presenter viewing the landscape and then given the opportunity to view the landscape ourselves instead of having to 'experience' it vicariously through the presenter.

    I thought the program qua documentary was also perfectly paced - well done for that.

    The only qualm I have, at least abut the opening episode, is the topic under scrutiny. Thus far, the documentary seems to be more A Story of The Jewish Faith rather than The Story of the Jews per se. Indeed, the title of the first episode is 'In the Beginning', but the opening shots were all about Freud and the Nazis. Surely any story of the 'beginning' of the Jews as a people has to open with the Habiru, but there was no mention of them. As they're well documented in Assyrian texts (among others) it can't be argued that they don't fit an historical explanation of the origins of the Jews.

    If the series is actually A Story of the Jewish Faith, perhaps it could be renamed as such. 
    Agree .... I like his manner and kind of analysis. It is a breath of freshness after the modish presentational idiocy which blights so much tv now. The incidental camerawork was as good as I hoped it would be , recalling SS's history programmes. He was sometimes waving his hands rather in the loony modern way but you can't have everything.

    Reply to this message 50

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2014 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.