At what point (age) does learning a new language become futile?
Picasso
attains a certain age, learning a new language becomes very difficult
if not impossible. I was once fairly good in French and I can still get
by if I have to.
Recently I started a refresher course to improve my French. I find that
things I used to know are coming back to me, albeit much slower than I
had hoped. However, I am finding that learning newer elements of the
language to be more difficult than expected.
I was hoping to also learn a third language but I am wondering if I am
wasting my time in a futile endeavor. Also, as a speaker of English
who's second language is French what would be a logical choice for a
third language? By logical choice I suppose what I am really saying is
which language would be the easiest to learn and most useful
functionally.
p
Lee Sau Dan
Picasso> I was hoping to also learn a third language but I am
Picasso> wondering if I am wasting my time in a futile
Picasso> endeavor.
I started learning German at 28 by staying in Germany for 3 years.
(Of course, part of the progress is my endurance in attempting to
learn and use the language as well as attending evening courses.) And
now I have little difficulty in talking in it. I can even write
formal letters in German, and have no problem with reading.
Picasso> Also, as a speaker of English who's second language is
Picasso> French what would be a logical choice for a third
Picasso> language?
Franglais? :)
There is no logic choice. A good choice is the language that you
really want to learn. e.g. if you love Japanese culture and want to
learn more about it, go and learn Japanese. If you find the Chinese
culture interesting, go and learn Chinese.
A recent documentary TV programme in Hong Kong had an interview with
an Australian. There, he has made many Chinese friends (migrated from
Hong Kong) and hence he learnt Cantonese while still in Australia.
(The learning method was not mentioned, though. Maybe he found
classes to attend. But I think he spent a lot of time with his
Chinese friends, and felt not shy to ask and tried out the language he
was learning.) Then, to boost his Cantonese, he applied scholarship
for a 1 year stay in HK for learning Chinese. When he came, he could
already talk in Cantonese without much difficulty. He can even order
food in street stalls -- staffed by locals who speak little English.
(There is such a scene in the documentary.) This guy is now learning
Chinese characters quickly. He found it challenging (a positive word
for "difficult"), and he's making good progress: he can read the
Chinese menus in restaurants. He still can't understand newspaper
completely, but aided by context and guesses, he can understand most
of what the news articles talk about.
Picasso> By logical choice I suppose what I am really saying is
Picasso> which language would be the easiest to learn and most
Picasso> useful functionally.
Maybe Spanish or Spanglish. These are close to English and French
enough. Speakers are also not difficult to find if you're in the
states.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Padraic Brown
wrote:
>Although there are always exceptions to the rule it seems that once one
>attains a certain age, learning a new language becomes very difficult
>if not impossible.
Well, if you truly believe this, then I can only suggest that you've
already defeated yourself!
>I was once fairly good in French and I can still get
>by if I have to.
Losing a language once spoken well is no bad thing -- that just means
you haven't used it. I was once fairly good at French too, but now
could probably barely get very far at all.
>Recently I started a refresher course to improve my French. I find that
>things I used to know are coming back to me, albeit much slower than I
>had hoped.
Perhaps the problem is with the refresher course. Is it compatible
with your learning style?
>However, I am finding that learning newer elements of the
>language to be more difficult than expected.
Sorry to hear that! Though it seems you set up your own road blocks
already!
>I was hoping to also learn a third language but I am wondering if I am
>wasting my time in a futile endeavor. Also, as a speaker of English
>who's second language is French what would be a logical choice for a
>third language?
Haitian Creole? Beautiful language. You could try Spanish -- at least
you'd have some Romance commonalities.
>By logical choice I suppose what I am really saying is
>which language would be the easiest to learn and most useful
>functionally.
What is your reason for learning the language? A logical choice might
be Greek or Latin: they aren't too awful hard. All you really need to
concentrate on are grammar and lexicon and a whole world of original
ancient literature is opened up to you.
To answer the question in your subject line: the point at which
learning a new language becomes futile is the same moment you expel
your last breath on this Earth. Before that time, èvery moment spent
in sharpening your mind is time well spent, provided you enjoy the
activity involved. It could be music or puzzles or language learning.
Whatever floats your boat. To take an example from current events: the
Cardinal of Washington is retiring this month at age 75. He plans to
learn Arabic just for the heck of it. It will be his sixth language.
I'm in the middle of learning Tagalog and Waray-Waray (at the same
time). I'm taking it slow, but see absolutely no reason why there is
imposed some kind of limit on language learning.
>p
Padraic.
la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu
ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.
Lee Sau Dan
>> Although there are always exceptions to the rule it seems that
>> once one attains a certain age, learning a new language becomes
>> very difficult if not impossible.
Padraic> Well, if you truly believe this, then I can only suggest
Padraic> that you've already defeated yourself!
Haha... that's unfortunately a self-actualizing prophecy! :)
Padraic> To answer the question in your subject line: the point at
Padraic> which learning a new language becomes futile is the same
Padraic> moment you expel your last breath on this Earth.
I can't agree more!
Picasso
Padraic Brown wrote:
> Well, if you truly believe this, then I can only suggest that you've
> already defeated yourself!
Perhaps but it is also a general observation I have with other people
trying to learn or improve their French. The younger students have
better recall and retention as compared with older students. My class
has students ranging in age from 21 to 58.
>
> >Recently I started a refresher course to improve my French. I find that
> >things I used to know are coming back to me, albeit much slower than I
> >had hoped.
>
> Perhaps the problem is with the refresher course. Is it compatible
> with your learning style?
> Haitian Creole? Beautiful language. You could try Spanish -- at least
> you'd have some Romance commonalities.
Spanish or Italian then?
> >By logical choice I suppose what I am really saying is
> >which language would be the easiest to learn and most useful
> >functionally.
>
> What is your reason for learning the language? A logical choice might
> be Greek or Latin: they aren't too awful hard. All you really need to
> concentrate on are grammar and lexicon and a whole world of original
> ancient literature is opened up to you.
My reasons are to keep active mentally and to pick up a language that
may become useful, i.e. travel, literature, etc.
That's the first time I've heard anyone say that Latin was easy to
learn. ;o)
It is another language I would consider learning.
> To answer the question in your subject line: the point at which
> learning a new language becomes futile is the same moment you expel
> your last breath on this Earth. Before that time, èvery moment spent
> in sharpening your mind is time well spent, provided you enjoy the
> activity involved. It could be music or puzzles or language learning.
Any recommendations with regards to learning Latin for complete
beginners?
> Whatever floats your boat. To take an example from current events: the
> Cardinal of Washington is retiring this month at age 75. He plans to
> learn Arabic just for the heck of it. It will be his sixth language.
I have heard of a Japanese gentleman of 98 years learning Chinese!
>
> I'm in the middle of learning Tagalog and Waray-Waray (at the same
> time). I'm taking it slow, but see absolutely no reason why there is
> imposed some kind of limit on language learning.
I hope not in my case.
Regards.
p
Neeraj Mathur
"Picasso" <sunt_eu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148239177.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>Padraic Brown wrote:
>> Well, if you truly believe this, then I can only suggest that you've
>> already defeated yourself!
>
>Perhaps but it is also a general observation I have with other people
>trying to learn or improve their French. The younger students have
>better recall and retention as compared with older students. My class
>has students ranging in age from 21 to 58.
The significant changes in language learning abilities happen more or less
around puberty; once you're into your teenage, you can no longer learn a
language in the way that you learned your first language. (Actually, you
can, but the process is significantly longer. There was an interesting study
I remember involving a girl who'd somehow been cut off from civilisation
until into her teenage or young adulthood - I can't remember the
circumstances, but it wasn't savoury - and it seemed that she went through
the same stages as infants do, but spending years at each stage where little
kids spend months.) After that, I don't know of anything to suggest that
there is a decline with age. It's probably more likely to be the case that
the younger students, in or freshly from full-time education, are simply
more 'in practice' when it comes to learning.
>> >Recently I started a refresher course to improve my French. I find that
>> >things I used to know are coming back to me, albeit much slower than I
>> >had hoped.
>>
>> Perhaps the problem is with the refresher course. Is it compatible
>> with your learning style?
>
>> Haitian Creole? Beautiful language. You could try Spanish -- at least
>> you'd have some Romance commonalities.
>
>Spanish or Italian then?
Spanish is what I'd recommend. It's widely spoken (together with French and
English, you've got a pretty good global spread), and it has fantastic
literature (Neruda, Garcia Marquez and Allende are a few of my favourites;
there are many more too!). It also has vibrant cinema - the works of
Almodovar, for instance, as well as Latin American hits like *Y Tu Mama
Tambien* and the masterful *Amores Perros*.
>> >By logical choice I suppose what I am really saying is
>> >which language would be the easiest to learn and most useful
>> >functionally.
>>
>> What is your reason for learning the language? A logical choice might
>> be Greek or Latin: they aren't too awful hard. All you really need to
>> concentrate on are grammar and lexicon and a whole world of original
>> ancient literature is opened up to you.
>
>My reasons are to keep active mentally and to pick up a language that
>may become useful, i.e. travel, literature, etc.
>
>That's the first time I've heard anyone say that Latin was easy to
>learn. ;o)
>It is another language I would consider learning.
Latin (and Greek) are easy enough to learn, but their core literatures are
very difficult and complex; indeed, they were designed to be difficult,
aimed at a highly educated, tiny urban elite at the top of the social
ladder. Tacitus and Thucydides, to name one example from each language, are
very difficult to understand indeed; even the better translations into
English are difficult to comprehend. That said, they are immensely
rewarding, if you're willing to put the time and the effort into them. There
are easier authors as well - Homer is quite easy, as is Herodotus, in Greek;
on the Latin side, Caesar is relatively easy and Ovid's extremely polished
and delightful artistry is easily accessible for modern readers.
>> To answer the question in your subject line: the point at which
>> learning a new language becomes futile is the same moment you expel
>> your last breath on this Earth. Before that time, èvery moment spent
>> in sharpening your mind is time well spent, provided you enjoy the
>> activity involved. It could be music or puzzles or language learning.
>
>Any recommendations with regards to learning Latin for complete
>beginners?
Yes: I highly recommend Sharpley's *Beginner's Latin* in the Teach Yourself
series (Hodder and Stoughton). It really is very, very good at explaining
the grammatical categories and how they function, which will likely be
necessary if your languages are English and French (as opposed to, say,
Russian).
Once you've finished with it, you would do well to use some of the standard
textbooks: Wheelock continues to be quite popular in the US, and has
generated quite an industry; it has weaknesses in terms of approachability
(which won't be an issue if you've worked through Sharpley already) and
scope, and it unfortunately leaves you poorly prepared to decode the long
and complex sentences of even Cicero or Livy, let alone Tacitus. I'd
recommend instead the *Reading Latin* books published by the Joint
Association of Classics Teachers, which is quite popular in the UK (used,
for instance, here at Oxford for those rare Classics undergraduates who have
no Latin when they arrive). If you go for that route, there are three
individual books you will need: the first is called *Reading Latin: Texts*,
the second *Reading Latin: Grammar, Vocabulary and Exercises*, and the third
is *An Independent Study Guide to Reading Latin*. The first two comprise the
course - they correspond section by section, and you work through them
together. The third aims to take the place of a teacher for those studying
on their own, and has things like answers for the exercises.
I taught myself using Wheelock (after Sharpley), and while I loved it while
I was using it and it was enough to get me into Classics at Oxford as the
equivalent of somebody who'd done a British A-Level in Latin, I felt that I
was underprepared for the amount of reading I had to do in my first year and
a half (which was, to be fair, substantial, and about as much as Americans
who major in Classics will do in their whole degree). I learned Greek at
Oxford, using the Reading Greek course which corresponds to the Latin one I
described above: I found it far, far better, and the transition from it to
the Herodotus, Homer and Euripides I had to read for my first set of exams
was much easier. (This might have been because of the Latin texts I'd been
reading for those two terms in which I learned Greek, but I credit and fault
the textbooks instead.)
Good luck!
Neeraj Mathur
Holly
Once you give up on the idea that you will become fluent in a second
language (unless you live in a country where it is the official
language) then learning a language can become joyous. I have studied
four languages beyond English, and Chinese was and is the one that gave
me the greatest pleasure. Perhaps the tonal aspect contributed to a
slightly elevated mood, which happened to me every time after a two
hour class, and I spent a lot of time in China Town. I love the
culture as well and have immersed myself in their art. I have studied
less formally but while living among native speakers, Tibetan ~
although my love for their culture and most definitely for the people
is deep, the language was learned (poorly) as a necessity to enhance
communication but nothing more. I studied French and lived in France
awhile ... a wonderful language. I know that one best. And I studied
Spanish two decades after the French. When I traveled to Spain after
four semesters of Spanish what popped out of my mouth was French -- as
if the four semester had been dissolved into the quick sand of my past.
Spanish is great ... fairly easy. In fact I cannot imagine any
language not being a pleasure to learn. So go with you heart or your
ear. Don't hesitate.
And by the way ... Hi.
sara
GIVE UP and like everything in life that is difficult, it is always
worth doing. One of the hardest things about languages is getting the
confidence to speak and not letting native speakers get you down when
you make mistakes.
I am currently studying French and Spanish and I did German last year
(hope to take it up again next term) I think you get to the stage where
you can express almost anything, perhaps only in simple language, and
the only way to be fluent is to have friends who speak it as their
native language or go and live in the country yourself--- surround
yourself with the language.
I am traveling next year and am determined to speak in French and
Spanish in the respective countries as much as possible!
Learning languages is so much fun and much more than just a subject for
me; it is a huge part of my life and has opened up a whole range of
opportunities as well as helping me meet some wonderful people. I
recommend it to everyone. It takes a lot of time and patience but once
you've mastered it you will have a skill to be proud of.
Also age is of no importance... just take every opportunity to read,
listen to or speak the language...the best way to learn is to loose you
inhibitions. Just like when you learnt you native tongue when you were
a child you would have spoke random words and phrases before slowly but
surely getting the grammar to put sentences together...it's all about
confidence. Sound like you are a pro, act like you are a pro and soon
you will be a pro!!!
BON CHANCE A TOUT LE MONDE, BUENA SUERTE A TODO EL MUNDO, GOOD LUCK TO
EVERYONE!!
Peter T. Daniels
> The significant changes in language learning abilities happen more or less
> around puberty; once you're into your teenage, you can no longer learn a
> language in the way that you learned your first language. (Actually, you
> can, but the process is significantly longer. There was an interesting study
> I remember involving a girl who'd somehow been cut off from civilisation
> until into her teenage or young adulthood - I can't remember the
> circumstances, but it wasn't savoury - and it seemed that she went through
> the same stages as infants do, but spending years at each stage where little
> kids spend months.)
Someone other than Genie?
As far as anyone knows, Genie never proceeded beyond the two-word stage,
and was taken away from the researchers when her guardianship was
settled.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Peter T. Daniels
> Also age is of no importance... just take every opportunity to read,
> listen to or speak the language...the best way to learn is to loose you
> inhibitions. Just like when you learnt you native tongue when you were
> a child you would have spoke random words and phrases before slowly but
> surely getting the grammar to put sentences together...it's all about
> confidence. Sound like you are a pro, act like you are a pro and soon
> you will be a pro!!!
Actually infants never go through a stage of "random words and phrases."
L1 acquisition proceeds pretty much the same around the world -- once
they have a few words, they start right away making two-word sentences.
phog...@abo.fi
Picasso wrote:
> Although there are always exceptions to the rule it seems that once one
> attains a certain age, learning a new language becomes very difficult
> if not impossible.
I started to learn Irish when I was 25. In three years, I was writing
it with a literary ambition.
phog...@abo.fi
Padraic Brown wrote:
the
> Cardinal of Washington is retiring this month at age 75. He plans to
> learn Arabic just for the heck of it. It will be his sixth language.
Amateurs...
Lee Sau Dan
Picasso> Padraic Brown wrote:
>> Well, if you truly believe this, then I can only suggest that
>> you've already defeated yourself!
Picasso> Perhaps but it is also a general observation I have with
Picasso> other people trying to learn or improve their French. The
Picasso> younger students have better recall and retention as
Picasso> compared with older students. My class has students
Picasso> ranging in age from 21 to 58.
That only makes it a bit more difficult. Not impossible.
s/difficult/challenging/ and you should ask, why not?
>> Whatever floats your boat. To take an example from current
>> events: the Cardinal of Washington is retiring this month at
>> age 75. He plans to learn Arabic just for the heck of it. It
>> will be his sixth language.
Picasso> I have heard of a Japanese gentleman of 98 years learning
Picasso> Chinese!
Why would that be surprising?
Learning is a life-long process. As long as you're still alive, you
have to learn new things. Is it impossible for people after a certain
age to learn how to use a mobile phone? Internet? A new song? A new
music instrument? A new sport (provided that he has the required
physical strength)? A new board game? A new card game? Why should
language learning be consider radically different from these?
Lee Sau Dan
Neeraj> The significant changes in language learning abilities
Neeraj> happen more or less around puberty; once you're into your
Neeraj> teenage, you can no longer learn a language in the way
Neeraj> that you learned your first language.
PTD is going to tell you that L1 is not learnt, but acquired! :)
But anyway, L1-learning is not the only way to learn a language. So,
I can't see that your statement, even if it is a 100% true golden rule
with zero exceptions, would suggest that there would be a deadline for
learning languages. You can't do it the L1-way? Then, why not take
an alternative way?
mb
sara wrote:
....
> Also age is of no importance... just take every opportunity to read,
> listen to or speak the language...the best way to learn is to loose you
> inhibitions.
Which is the best way to discourage some people from learning.
Age is supremely important here, because past the imbibing age, people
do not all learn the same way. Some are OK with the
lose-your-inhibitions style, with or without the hope that
trial-and-error will ultimately get them somewhere. Some aren't, and
they need thorough, systematic study of the rules of a game before they
play it. Past age X neither of these groups can function like children.
Forcing the rules-first approach will discourage a majority of learners
before they start. Imposing the happy-go-lucky school, as it is now
imposed by most teachers and teaching materials, will disgust (the
minority of) systematic people.
> Just like when you learnt you native tongue when you were
> a child you would have spoke random words and phrases
Daniels addressed that
> before slowly but
> surely getting the grammar to put sentences together...
It's "sure" only if you could keep the memory and rule-deducting
capacity of a child.
> it's all about confidence.
Exactly. Confidence that a number of people cannot have if they don't
already master the main rules of the game.
> Sound like you are a pro, act like you are a pro and soon
> you will be a pro!!!
Sell that to Madison Avenue.
As in:
> BON CHANCE
feminine
A TOUT LE MONDE, BUENA SUERTE A TODO EL MUNDO,
gallicism
> GOOD LUCK TO
> EVERYONE!!
Lee Sau Dan
Peter> Neeraj Mathur wrote:
>> The significant changes in language learning abilities happen
>> more or less around puberty; once you're into your teenage, you
>> can no longer learn a language in the way that you learned your
>> first language. (Actually, you can, but the process is
>> significantly longer. There was an interesting study I remember
>> involving a girl who'd somehow been cut off from civilisation
>> until into her teenage or young adulthood - I can't remember
>> the circumstances, but it wasn't savoury - and it seemed that
>> she went through the same stages as infants do, but spending
>> years at each stage where little kids spend months.)
Peter> Someone other than Genie?
Peter> As far as anyone knows, Genie never proceeded beyond the
Peter> two-word stage, and was taken away from the researchers
Peter> when her guardianship was settled.
Any followup news for her afterwards? Did she progress faster after
moving into a new family?
Lee Sau Dan
sara> I am currently studying French and Spanish and I did German
sara> last year (hope to take it up again next term) I think you
sara> get to the stage where you can express almost anything,
sara> perhaps only in simple language,
sara> ...
Yeah! I find that stage to be an important milestone as well as
stepping stone. Once you can do that, you would like to start to talk
much more in the language, and you'll find that you can INSIST on
using that language, without falling back to body language, or other
languages that you know.
sara> I am traveling next year and am determined to speak in
sara> French and Spanish in the respective countries as much as
sara> possible!
That adds much more fun to the trip. Something that you'll never
experience via translations or interpreters. Such as learning new
words, expressions, and even concepts and ideas along the trip. Being
able to talk to the locals directly is another advantage.
Practically, it solves problems like finding the way, bargaining, etc.
Intellectually, knowing the language enables you to talk to a wider
group of locals, and hence to learn more about the local life, history
and culture.
sara> BON CHANCE A TOUT LE MONDE, BUENA SUERTE A TODO EL MUNDO,
sara> GOOD LUCK TO EVERYONE!!
Herzlichen Glückwunsch! :)
--
Lee Sau Dan
Lee Sau Dan
Peter> Actually infants never go through a stage of "random words
Peter> and phrases." L1 acquisition proceeds pretty much the same
Peter> around the world -- once they have a few words, they start
Peter> right away making two-word sentences.
From time to time, infants spontaneously invent words for new objects
they see. Many parents find that interesting, and would learn those
words and use them when talking with these infants. The infants will
soon learn the normal words for those objects and replace them, and
forget their inventions. But the parents will remember them for the
rest of their lives. The infants may relearn this history from their
parents when they get older. But they'll never use those
self-invented words again.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Lee Sau Dan
phoglund> Padraic Brown wrote:
phoglund> the
>> Cardinal of Washington is retiring this month at age 75. He
>> plans to learn Arabic just for the heck of it. It will be his
>> sixth language.
phoglund> Amateurs...
Retired people have much more time to spend on things they want to do
(instead of things they NEED to do). Another advantage of them is
that they don't need to sleep that much. 4 hours of sleep a day might
be enough for a 75-old person!
Joachim Pense
>
> Latin (and Greek) are easy enough to learn,
I learned Latin and Greek at school decades ago; my impression I remember
from back then, and that I have again now when I get back to looking at
Latin and Greek, is that Greek seems to be much more difficult than Latin.
For me, Greek leaves sort of a "blurry" overall feeling; the main reason
is the verbal system, which has a rich morphology with forms that resemble
each other so much and is full of pitfalls and (language-internal) false
friends - and has a semantics that also doesn't make a really "clear-cut"
impression to me.
I wonder about Sanskrit. By what I've heard/read so far, Sanskrit is even
more difficult. Is that really the case? How much time should one invest to
get to a basic understanding of that language - see how it works, how it
compares to Greek, being able to find your way through a text with a
translation at hand?
Does it make sense to concentrate on classical (as opposed to Vedic)
Sanskrit? I hear that classical Sanscrit lost a big part of the verbal
system, and prefers a noun-centered style with long composed words (that
suits me well, modern German is alike).
Joachim
Neeraj Mathur
"Joachim Pense" <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in message
news:1h7n44wqlbtrr$.1al89f0ehbas4.dlg@40tude.net...
> Am Sun, 21 May 2006 21:26:00 +0100 schrieb Neeraj Mathur:
>
>>
>> Latin (and Greek) are easy enough to learn,
>
> I learned Latin and Greek at school decades ago; my impression I remember
> from back then, and that I have again now when I get back to looking at
> Latin and Greek, is that Greek seems to be much more difficult than Latin.
> For me, Greek leaves sort of a "blurry" overall feeling; the main reason
> is the verbal system, which has a rich morphology with forms that resemble
> each other so much and is full of pitfalls and (language-internal) false
> friends - and has a semantics that also doesn't make a really "clear-cut"
> impression to me.
I tend to find Greek somewhat clearer than Latin, largely because of its
nominal constructions with articles, which help to keep units together.
(Except in Thucydides, where half of the articles are used with infinitives,
that have their own arguments, some of which are articles with
infinitives...!) The morphology of Greek is relatively straightforward, I'd
have thought. If you want to return to reading Greek texts, there's a book
by Marinone called *All the Greek Verbs* published by Bristol Classical;
it's a (partial) translation from his Italian book, but contains quite
literally all the forms of all the Greek verbs in tables. It's a very common
crib around here!
> I wonder about Sanskrit. By what I've heard/read so far, Sanskrit is even
> more difficult. Is that really the case?
Nominal morphology is particularly complex in Sanskrit: you have eight cases
and three numbers. Some of the pronouns are particularly complex, and
participles are just insane! Verbal morphology is decidedly easier, I'd
think, than Greek, particularly for the Classical language.
> How much time should one invest to
> get to a basic understanding of that language - see how it works, how it
> compares to Greek, being able to find your way through a text with a
> translation at hand?
Two terms, or a term and a half perhaps - about three to four months. Use
Coulson's *Teach Yourself Sanskrit* - it's compact and to the point, and
despite the series its published in, it's quite a serious textbook. After
that, pick up a copy of Lanman's Sanskrit Reader and work through some of
the selections. (You can go to Lanman while you're still working on Coulson;
he tells you at what point you might want to start trying to read
literature.) Or instead of Lanman, you can try your hand at the
Bhagavad-Gita, particularly if you've an interest in Hinduism or Indian
philosophy; there's an edition by Winthrop Sargeant which is particularly
useful, devoting a page to each couplet, and parsing each word for you,
before producing a translation. He's not always right, unfortunately, but
he's usually not terribly wrong either, and it's a useful aid in starting to
read the language.
> Does it make sense to concentrate on classical (as opposed to Vedic)
> Sanskrit? I hear that classical Sanscrit lost a big part of the verbal
> system, and prefers a noun-centered style with long composed words (that
> suits me well, modern German is alike).
Yes, it does make sense. Classical Sanskrit is something of a con-lang; it's
the system that was described by Panini in his grammar. A lot of the
morphology is standardised in Classical Sanskrit, without the endless
variations you find in the Veda.
In terms of the Sanskrit verb, the differences are quite significant.
Classical Sanskrit is less interested in the various moods than is Vedic
(and is thus quite a refreshing change from Greek!), and it has lost all
(most) semantic differences between imperfect, aorist, and perfect - they
are all just generic past tenses. In fact there are probably three types of
Sanskrit - Vedic, Classical, and Epic. What I've just described is best for
Epic, which includes the language of the Gita and the first few stories in
Lanman (including the story of Nala, which has been described as 'the
Xenophon's Anabasis of Sanskrit', and has fascinating literary implications
for those who would study the Odyssey). Classical Sanskrit goes further: it
has a marked tendency to dispense with all finite past tense verbs, and
instead uses the past passive participle. So the past tense of 'Rama killed
Ravana' is expressed as 'ra:meNa ra:vaNo hataH', or 'Ravana was killed by
Rama'.
The most striking feature of Classical Sanskrit is the use of compounds.
While these occur in Vedic and in Epic as well, there really is nothing at
all similar to Classical Sanskrit compounds as used by the poets of the
Kavya literature and drama. These are well beyond what German normally does
for that matter, or any other Indo-European language that I've seen. Entire
sentences and long, complex thoughts are expressed as compounds; for
instance, there is a panegyric which describes the emperor Samudra Gupta as
"binding together the whole world by displaying the valour of his arm and by
[accepting] acts of service [from other kings], such as paying personal
homage, the presentation of gifts of maidens, and soliciting his charter,
sealed with the Garuda-seal, to confirm them in possession of their
territories" using a single compound that has some twenty elements to it.
Coulson's major interest was in Sanskrit drama, and as such, he deals with
syntax with a thoroughness completely absent from the standard grammars.
Using it will do the most that is possible to prepare you to deal with this
sort of thing!
Neeraj Mathur
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> Peter> Neeraj Mathur wrote:
> >> The significant changes in language learning abilities happen
> >> more or less around puberty; once you're into your teenage, you
> >> can no longer learn a language in the way that you learned your
> >> first language. (Actually, you can, but the process is
> >> significantly longer. There was an interesting study I remember
> >> involving a girl who'd somehow been cut off from civilisation
> >> until into her teenage or young adulthood - I can't remember
> >> the circumstances, but it wasn't savoury - and it seemed that
> >> she went through the same stages as infants do, but spending
> >> years at each stage where little kids spend months.)
>
> Peter> Someone other than Genie?
>
> Peter> As far as anyone knows, Genie never proceeded beyond the
> Peter> two-word stage, and was taken away from the researchers
> Peter> when her guardianship was settled.
>
> Any followup news for her afterwards? Did she progress faster after
> moving into a new family?
Do you not know the phrase "as far as anyone knows"?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Use
> Coulson's *Teach Yourself Sanskrit* - it's compact and to the point, and
> despite the series its published in, it's quite a serious textbook.
Ah, youth ... Teach Yourself used to be a sober, serious, valuable
series, sometimes the only "reference" grammar available -- of Maltese,
for instance.
Only in recent years have they attempted to emulate the "For Dummies"
series, branching into just anything, so that the quality of the
grammars has suffered.
Presumably Coulson is left over from the olden days.
Des Small
> Neeraj Mathur wrote:
> >
> > Use Coulson's *Teach Yourself Sanskrit* - it's compact and to the
> > point, and despite the series its published in, it's quite a
> > serious textbook.
>
> Ah, youth ... Teach Yourself used to be a sober, serious, valuable
> series, sometimes the only "reference" grammar available -- of
> Maltese, for instance.
I'm glad someone other than me pointed this out. The yellow-and-blue
TYSs are very serious, and often also good. (With the notable
exception of the notorious Icelandic one that was ironically still the
current one last time I checked.)
> Only in recent years have they attempted to emulate the "For Dummies"
> series, branching into just anything,
There was plenty of anything in the old days too - my local
antiquarian/junk bookshop currently has an ancient one on
"mothercraft".
> so that the quality of the grammars has suffered.
Well I think it might be fairer to say that a reference grammar is no
longer the favoured entry-level tool of L2 pedagogy - the new school
Routledge colloquials and TYSs are not especially bad for self-study
(except for the tendency to replace phonetics with the advice to
listen to the audio - and presumably borrow a pre-teen set of neural
wirings to make use of it), but they are worse than useless for the
comparative grammarian.
Assimil's "[Langwidge X] Sans Peine" are brisker and more focused L2
courses (I'm using the Dutch one and warmly recommend it), and for
sketch-grammars of living languages you can't beat the Kauderwelsh
Sprachführer, that I know of.
Des
has to pack up all his books for shipping this week
Neeraj Mathur
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4471BD...@worldnet.att.net...
When did they change tactics?
Coulson was originally published in 1976, though since he died before
publication, the book's been revised by James Benson (my tutor here at
Oxford) and Richard Gombrich (who retired just before I started Sanskrit,
and now devote his time to the Clay Library, which is being launched as
Sanskrit's answers to the Loeb series) since then.
In his delightful Preface, he writes: 'It is particularly students without a
teacher who need a fuller explanation of Sanskrit syntax and idiom than
existing primers give, and so I have been happy to model this book upon the
Teach Yourself volumes which I myself in the past have found so helpful and
stimulating. At the same time it seemed practical to assume a somewhat
greater degree of sophistication in potential students of Sanskrit than in
students proposing to teach themselves a language such as French. Someone
who has never previously learnt a foreign language will probably find the
early chapters rather heavy going unless he is fairly bright."
Neeraj Mathur
Peter T. Daniels
> There was plenty of anything in the old days too - my local
> antiquarian/junk bookshop currently has an ancient one on
> "mothercraft".
Not a topic that made it over here!
Is it about the ship the E.T.s arrived on?
> Des
> has to pack up all his books for shipping this week
my sympathies!
Richard Herring
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Des Small wrote:
>
>> There was plenty of anything in the old days too - my local
>> antiquarian/junk bookshop currently has an ancient one on
>> "mothercraft".
>
>Not a topic that made it over here!
>
>Is it about the ship the E.T.s arrived on?
There might be a tenuous link from there to Mr Spock to Dr Spock...
Just out of interest I typed "teach yourself mothercraft" into Amazon's
search engine and bizarrely it offered "The Christ Conspiracy", "The
Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read", and others in a similar
vein.
--
Richard Herring
Joachim Pense
> "Joachim Pense" <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in message
> news:1h7n44wqlbtrr$.1al89f0ehbas4.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Am Sun, 21 May 2006 21:26:00 +0100 schrieb Neeraj Mathur:
>>
>>>
>>> Latin (and Greek) are easy enough to learn,
>>
>> I learned Latin and Greek at school decades ago; my impression I remember
>> from back then, and that I have again now when I get back to looking at
>> Latin and Greek, is that Greek seems to be much more difficult than Latin.
>> For me, Greek leaves sort of a "blurry" overall feeling; the main reason
>> is the verbal system, which has a rich morphology with forms that resemble
>> each other so much and is full of pitfalls and (language-internal) false
>> friends - and has a semantics that also doesn't make a really "clear-cut"
>> impression to me.
>
> I tend to find Greek somewhat clearer than Latin, largely because of its
> nominal constructions with articles, which help to keep units together.
I can follow that. But the verbs...
> (Except in Thucydides, where half of the articles are used with infinitives,
> that have their own arguments, some of which are articles with
> infinitives...!) The morphology of Greek is relatively straightforward, I'd
> have thought. If you want to return to reading Greek texts, there's a book
> by Marinone called *All the Greek Verbs* published by Bristol Classical;
> it's a (partial) translation from his Italian book, but contains quite
> literally all the forms of all the Greek verbs in tables. It's a very common
> crib around here!
Sounds like a really cool book. Anyway one thing is clear: I have to do
some meditation on Greek verbs and try to understand their systematics -
equipped with a grammar and both my PIE books for reference.
>
>> I wonder about Sanskrit. By what I've heard/read so far, Sanskrit is even
>> more difficult. Is that really the case?
>
> Nominal morphology is particularly complex in Sanskrit: you have eight cases
> and three numbers. Some of the pronouns are particularly complex, and
> participles are just insane! Verbal morphology is decidedly easier, I'd
> think, than Greek, particularly for the Classical language.
I like the "verb" part!
>
>> How much time should one invest to
>> get to a basic understanding of that language - see how it works, how it
>> compares to Greek, being able to find your way through a text with a
>> translation at hand?
>
> Two terms, or a term and a half perhaps - about three to four months.
Three to four months per term, that is?
Two terms at how many hours per week?
> Use
> Coulson's *Teach Yourself Sanskrit* - it's compact and to the point, and
> despite the series its published in, it's quite a serious textbook.
I just read a reader recommendation on Amazon's site, which - together with
your recommendation - makes the choice very quick for me.
> After
> that, pick up a copy of Lanman's Sanskrit Reader and work through some of
> the selections. (You can go to Lanman while you're still working on Coulson;
> he tells you at what point you might want to start trying to read
> literature.) Or instead of Lanman, you can try your hand at the
> Bhagavad-Gita, particularly if you've an interest in Hinduism or Indian
> philosophy; there's an edition by Winthrop Sargeant which is particularly
I must admit that I don't have a particular interest in that, but maybe
that can develop. What different kinds of literature are accessible to
beginners? Panini perhaps?
That sounds interesting.
> Coulson's major interest was in Sanskrit drama, and as such, he deals with
> syntax with a thoroughness completely absent from the standard grammars.
That's what I am looking for.
I think it might also be fun learning Devanagari. This challenge will
probably prolong the time schedule a bit.
> Using it will do the most that is possible to prepare you to deal with this
> sort of thing!
>
Let me see. But before I try, I really have to freshen up my Greek.
Thank you a lot, Neeraj!
Joachim
Neeraj Mathur
> Am Mon, 22 May 2006 12:28:43 +0100 schrieb Neeraj Mathur:
>
>> "Joachim Pense" <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in message
>> news:1h7n44wqlbtrr$.1al89f0ehbas4.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> How much time should one invest to
>>> get to a basic understanding of that language - see how it works, how it
>>> compares to Greek, being able to find your way through a text with a
>>> translation at hand?
>>
>> Two terms, or a term and a half perhaps - about three to four months.
>
> Three to four months per term, that is?
>
> Two terms at how many hours per week?
Over here, one term is eight weeks, with six weeks in between them. We met
for a one-hour class three times a week, and spent about two-three hours
(me) up to six-eight hours on our own per week to do exercises. The idea was
to work through a chapter of Coulson in about two classes (there are fifteen
chapters in Coulson - I'm not sure that we bothered with the last few), with
us doing the exercises and class-time being to take things up, answer
questions, etc. As soon as we could, we spent class-time working through
Lanman's Reader; exercises and Coulson became less important and were pretty
much just for us to do in our spare time. By the end of the second term, we
'knew' Sanskrit, in the sense that we had most of the important paradigms
memorised and were good enough with Sanskrit that we could read a text with
the aid of a dictionary, and we had read through the first two selections in
Lanman, and four key books of the Gita. (This was in my third year; in my
first, I learnt Greek on a similar time-scale, where the emphasis again was
on getting to reading real texts as quickly as possible. I know that North
American universities tend to take a different approach, spending far, far
longer on mechanical learning - indeed, some US universities apparently use
Coulson for their 'Intermediate Sanskrit' classes - but I should think most
people's interest is in literature, no?)
>> Use
>> Coulson's *Teach Yourself Sanskrit* - it's compact and to the point, and
>> despite the series its published in, it's quite a serious textbook.
>
> I just read a reader recommendation on Amazon's site, which - together
> with
> your recommendation - makes the choice very quick for me.
>
>> After
>> that, pick up a copy of Lanman's Sanskrit Reader and work through some of
>> the selections. (You can go to Lanman while you're still working on
>> Coulson;
>> he tells you at what point you might want to start trying to read
>> literature.) Or instead of Lanman, you can try your hand at the
>> Bhagavad-Gita, particularly if you've an interest in Hinduism or Indian
>> philosophy; there's an edition by Winthrop Sargeant which is particularly
>
> I must admit that I don't have a particular interest in that, but maybe
> that can develop. What different kinds of literature are accessible to
> beginners? Panini perhaps?
Panini's harder, because of his highly specialised notation systems; you
would need to use several (Sanskrit) commentaries. Probably better to try
after a little while, not immediately.
Sanskrit drama is very enjoyable, and while some of it is amazingly
difficult, some are quite accessible, and have excellent student
commentaries (usually available from India).
Epic literature is something you may enjoy, especially if you like your
Homer. There are two Sanskrit epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana; of
the two, the first has probably the more compelling storyline, full of very
interesting situations and problems. It is also full of digressions and
myth-telling, as well as huge sections on things like philosophy and
kingship, which end up making it huge - I think the standard figure is eight
times the length of all of Homer! But it's certainly accessible, and there's
likely to be parts of it that you'll find enjoyable and rewarding to read.
There are also things like the Buddhist Sanskrit texts, which contain
everything from stories about Buddha to highly detailed philosophic
explorations of Buddhist thought; there are also Hindu texts like the Law
Code of Manu which make interesting reading (although one must be careful
not to get seduced into assuming that this is considered an authoritative
religious text in India, as the British unfortunately did).
Equally accessible are the collections of stories and fables. The classic
collection of animal fables is the Pancatantra, and much of its material
appears slightly reworked in the Hitopadesa. These collections of fables are
a bit more interesting than their Western incarnations, because they are
presented not as childrens' stories, but as lessons in kingcraft. Other
collections of stories include things like the massive Kathasaritsagara, or
'Ocean of the Rivers of Stories', which contains within it the very famous
stories about the Vetala, a ghost-type figure. (The frame story is that a
king has been instructed to fetch a corpse for a mendicant; there is a
Vetala ghost thing living in the corpse, who tells the king that if he says
anything, he will take the corpse and fly back to the graveyard. Then he
tells the king a story, which ends in a moral, legal or philosophical
question - basically to test his kingship - and instructs the king that if
he knows the answer but doesn't give it, his head will be blown up in a
million pieces. The king explains the issue, and the ghost flies back, and
we get the next story - very entertaining stories, and brain-boggling issues
too!)
Lanman's Reader, which I've been harping on about, contains a nice, broad
selection of Sanskrit (and Vedic) literature; if you work through it you'll
probably get an idea of what's out there and what you'll enjoy. (He doesn't
include much of the highly-wrought Sanskrit drama or 'mahakavya' - that is,
poetry - but he does have lots of other things in there.)
Another source that you'll likely find very useful is the Clay Library,
http://www.claysanskritlibrary.org/. It's a very recent project that's very
much in progress; they are creating small volumes, like Harvard's Loeb
Classical Library for Latin and Greek, of Epic and Classical Sanskrit. The
volumes provide reliable texts with facing-page translations.
Controversially, they don't use Devanagari, but their transcription system
is designed to reduce many of the most off-puttingly difficult aspects of
reading Sanskrit, in the way that they present compounds. Have a browse
through their catalogue and online resources/excerpts, and see what catches
your fancy.
> I think it might also be fun learning Devanagari. This challenge will
> probably prolong the time schedule a bit.
If you want help with that, you could do worse than have a look at Rupert
Snell's *Teach Yourself Beginner's Hindi Script*, which has a useful and
structured approach to the script, and to pronunciation. (You might find it
moves too slow, of course.)
> Let me see. But before I try, I really have to freshen up my Greek.
>
> Thank you a lot, Neeraj!
No problem - good luck!
Neeraj Mathur
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:4471BD...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Neeraj Mathur wrote:
> >>
> >> Use
> >> Coulson's *Teach Yourself Sanskrit* - it's compact and to the point, and
> >> despite the series its published in, it's quite a serious textbook.
> >
> > Ah, youth ... Teach Yourself used to be a sober, serious, valuable
> > series, sometimes the only "reference" grammar available -- of Maltese,
> > for instance.
> >
> > Only in recent years have they attempted to emulate the "For Dummies"
> > series, branching into just anything, so that the quality of the
> > grammars has suffered.
> >
> > Presumably Coulson is left over from the olden days.
>
> When did they change tactics?
Dunno. If you troll the sci.lang archives you'll find occasional
mentions of older vs. newer TY books.
> Coulson was originally published in 1976, though since he died before
> publication, the book's been revised by James Benson (my tutor here at
> Oxford) and Richard Gombrich (who retired just before I started Sanskrit,
> and now devote his time to the Clay Library, which is being launched as
> Sanskrit's answers to the Loeb series) since then.
>
> In his delightful Preface, he writes: 'It is particularly students without a
> teacher who need a fuller explanation of Sanskrit syntax and idiom than
> existing primers give, and so I have been happy to model this book upon the
> Teach Yourself volumes which I myself in the past have found so helpful and
> stimulating. At the same time it seemed practical to assume a somewhat
> greater degree of sophistication in potential students of Sanskrit than in
> students proposing to teach themselves a language such as French. Someone
> who has never previously learnt a foreign language will probably find the
> early chapters rather heavy going unless he is fairly bright."
Maybe I'll track it down!
Peter T. Daniels
Another triumph for AI! Take that, hanumizzle.
mb
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Neeraj Mathur wrote:
> >
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:4471BD...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > Neeraj Mathur wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Use
> > >> Coulson's *Teach Yourself Sanskrit* - it's compact and to the point, and
> > >> despite the series its published in, it's quite a serious textbook.
> > >
> > > Ah, youth ... Teach Yourself used to be a sober, serious, valuable
> > > series, sometimes the only "reference" grammar available -- of Maltese,
> > > for instance.
> > >
> > > Only in recent years have they attempted to emulate the "For Dummies"
> > > series, branching into just anything, so that the quality of the
> > > grammars has suffered.
> > >
> > > Presumably Coulson is left over from the olden days.
> >
> > When did they change tactics?
>
> Dunno. If you troll the sci.lang archives you'll find occasional
> mentions of older vs. newer TY books.
>
> > Coulson was originally published in 1976, though since he died before
> > publication, the book's been revised by James Benson (my tutor here at
> > Oxford) and Richard Gombrich (who retired just before I started Sanskrit,
> > and now devote his time to the Clay Library, which is being launched as
> > Sanskrit's answers to the Loeb series) since then.
> Maybe I'll track it down!
Coulson (-Gombrich-Benson) is still in print. Last reprint in 2004.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > Coulson was originally published in 1976, though since he died before
> > > publication, the book's been revised by James Benson (my tutor here at
> > > Oxford) and Richard Gombrich (who retired just before I started Sanskrit,
> > > and now devote his time to the Clay Library, which is being launched as
> > > Sanskrit's answers to the Loeb series) since then.
> ...
> > Maybe I'll track it down!
>
> Coulson (-Gombrich-Benson) is still in print. Last reprint in 2004.
Are you suggesting that (in-print) Sanskrit books are just flying off
the shelves in NYC's bookstores?
Neeraj Mathur
> Are you suggesting that (in-print) Sanskrit books are just flying off
> the shelves in NYC's bookstores?
Peter, every time I think I've figured it out, it turns out I don't. Are you
based in New York, Chicago, or New Jersey at the minute? For most of your
career? You do consider yourself a New Yorker, am I right?
Neeraj Mathur
mb
Nothing wrong with a little optimism. I could have written "reprinted
in 2004 to my knowledge; there may be a later edition".
Peter T. Daniels
Are you suggesting that booksellers in NYC stock Sanskrit books
(whatever the publication or reprint date)?
Peter T. Daniels
b. NYC
Ithaca, NY 1968-72
Chicago, IL 1972-97
Bronx, NY 1997-2004
just across the river 2004- (look at a map!)
Des Small
Are you suggesting that London (where I've seen a diverse range of
Sanskrit books in large mainstream bookshops) is better equipped than
NYC?
Des
mostly shops at Amazon anyway
Neeraj Mathur
In fact there has been a more recent reprint, just a few months ago I think,
in the UK at any rate. And New York is a huge place - there must be
bookstores that stock it! The local Borders here in Oxford does; I suppose
they might be slightly more academic than others, but then again they are
competing with Blackwell's for the academic texts; most of their customers
are tourists, locals, or students after movies/music/airplane books.
I've heard a rumour as well that TY Sanskrit is the all-time bestselling TY
book, apparently because of India's massive population and its
purchase-happy diaspora.
Neeraj Mathur
Peter T. Daniels
Of course.
(But then, as regards Skt., you have a larger South Asian population
than we do; there's a very large "sundries" store in Jackson Heights,
Queens, one of the principal South Asian neighborhoods, with a large
selection of books published in India.)
> Des
> mostly shops at Amazon anyway
I don't.
Peter T. Daniels
Barnes & Noble tends to be better at language books than Borders. I've
seen the Dover reprint of Whitney there a couple of times.
Neeraj Mathur
> Barnes & Noble tends to be better at language books than Borders. I've
> seen the Dover reprint of Whitney there a couple of times.
You tipped me about that a while ago; I meant to thank you - it's fantastic!
(I have to see about getting the Dover reprint of Wright as well; Amazon has
a way better deal for it in North America than here, so I'll wait until I'm
back in Canada).
Neeraj Mathur
mb
Neeraj Mathur wrote:
> The local Borders here in Oxford
Ouch. I hope the UK gets at least Porto Rico status.
Richard Herring
<azyt...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Neeraj Mathur wrote:
>
>> The local Borders here in Oxford
>
>Ouch. I hope the UK gets at least Porto Rico status.
>
--
Richard Herring
Peter T. Daniels
The proper hardcover Whitney that's served us for more than a hundred
years usually seems to be about $10 in usedbook stores. Lanman is harder
to find, but I eventually did.
OTOH I've never seen any format of Wright (I assume you mean Arabic) but
the 1-volume orange Cambridge paperback that I have (cover price $4.95,
and the Cornell Campus Store was having a 20% off everything sale that
day in 1971, so it cost me $4).
Peter T. Daniels
"Porto Rico" was the Anglicized spelling of Puerto Rico used on postage
stamps just after we took it from Spain in 1898.
Perhaps the azythos feels that American businesses opening in Britain
signals that Britain, or perhaps England, is about to be awarded
Commonwealth status.
Let it have no fear; Waterstone opened a beautiful store in Chicago in
1992, and it was gone less than five years later.
Larisa
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Neeraj Mathur wrote:
>
> > around puberty; once you're into your teenage, you can no longer learn a
> > language in the way that you learned your first language. (Actually, you
> > can, but the process is significantly longer. There was an interesting study
> > I remember involving a girl who'd somehow been cut off from civilisation
> > until into her teenage or young adulthood - I can't remember the
> > circumstances, but it wasn't savoury - and it seemed that she went through
> > the same stages as infants do, but spending years at each stage where little
> > kids spend months.)
>
>
> As far as anyone knows, Genie never proceeded beyond the two-word stage,
> and was taken away from the researchers when her guardianship was
> settled.
I vaguely remember reading a book about another case - a 30-year-old
deaf man who had never had any exposure to language. He learned ASL
just fine - way beyond the two-word stage (enough to get a job and
function in the real world). The author of the book (who is the one
who taught him) speculates that Genie may have been brain-damaged or
mentally disabled to begin with, which is why she had never progressed
beyond the two-word stage. Plus, she was not just language-deprived;
she was abused, and kept in a dark room with no exposure to the outside
world. The deaf man had a normal childhood with a loving family - he'd
just never had any exposure to any kind of sign language, and somehow
never "got" the idea of what words were for. Apparently, if there is
no additional problem (such as abuse or brain damage or whatever),
language can be learned even at quite an advanced age.
LM
Larisa
phog...@abo.fi wrote:
> Picasso wrote:
> > Although there are always exceptions to the rule it seems that once one
> > attains a certain age, learning a new language becomes very difficult
> > if not impossible.
>
> I started to learn Irish when I was 25. In three years, I was writing
> it with a literary ambition.
My mother is the author of 4 books in English; she emigrated to the US
when she was 47.
LM
mb
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Richard Herring wrote:
>> mb <azyt...@hotmail.com> writes
> > >Ouch. I hope the UK gets at least Porto Rico status.
> > ?
> "Porto Rico" was the Anglicized spelling of Puerto Rico used on postage
> stamps just after we took it from Spain in 1898.
It was just thoughtless typing in this case. Think of it, though, it
may well become the only correct spelling with the recent law passed or
being passed on the Reichssprache.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Neeraj Mathur wrote:
> >
> > > The significant changes in language learning abilities happen more or less
> > > around puberty; once you're into your teenage, you can no longer learn a
> > > language in the way that you learned your first language. (Actually, you
> > > can, but the process is significantly longer. There was an interesting study
> > > I remember involving a girl who'd somehow been cut off from civilisation
> > > until into her teenage or young adulthood - I can't remember the
> > > circumstances, but it wasn't savoury - and it seemed that she went through
> > > the same stages as infants do, but spending years at each stage where little
> > > kids spend months.)
> >
> > Someone other than Genie?
> >
> > As far as anyone knows, Genie never proceeded beyond the two-word stage,
> > and was taken away from the researchers when her guardianship was
> > settled.
>
> I vaguely remember reading a book about another case - a 30-year-old
> deaf man who had never had any exposure to language. He learned ASL
> just fine - way beyond the two-word stage (enough to get a job and
> function in the real world).
Then he had full "exposure to" and mastery of language.
> The author of the book (who is the one
> who taught him) speculates that Genie may have been brain-damaged or
> mentally disabled to begin with, which is why she had never progressed
> beyond the two-word stage. Plus, she was not just language-deprived;
> she was abused, and kept in a dark room with no exposure to the outside
> world. The deaf man had a normal childhood with a loving family - he'd
> just never had any exposure to any kind of sign language, and somehow
> never "got" the idea of what words were for. Apparently, if there is
> no additional problem (such as abuse or brain damage or whatever),
> language can be learned even at quite an advanced age.
Peter T. Daniels
Relevance?
Does she speak without a detectable accent?
John Atkinson
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
> Larisa wrote:
>>
>> > settled.
>>
>> I vaguely remember reading a book about another case - a 30-year-old
>> deaf man who had never had any exposure to language. He learned ASL
>> just fine - way beyond the two-word stage (enough to get a job and
>> function in the real world).
>
> Then he had full "exposure to" and mastery of language.
Eh? Larisa just told you he learned ASL at thirty, and had had no language
at all before then.
J.
Picasso
Holly wrote:
>
> Once you give up on the idea that you will become fluent in a second
> language (unless you live in a country where it is the official
> language) then learning a language can become joyous.
I live in Ontario situated on the border of Quebec so I have a shot at
achieving fluency in French. Frankly, all I want is to become
reasonably functional in French and Spanish. Fluency is not a goal but
it would be a nice to achieve. ;o)
> Spanish is great ... fairly easy. In fact I cannot imagine any
> language not being a pleasure to learn. So go with you heart or your
> ear. Don't hesitate.
I wanted to stick with a romance language. It seems that Spanish will
be my secondary focus after French. I have no time limits. Currently I
am trying to improve upon my present abilities in French.
> And by the way ... Hi.
Hola Holly! Ça me fait plaisir de faire votre connaissance. ;o)
p
Picasso
Ok, ok ... I'm getting the message! I won't use age as an excuse. ;o)
Merci.
p
mb
Picasso wrote:
> Holly wrote:
> >
> > Once you give up on the idea that you will become fluent in a second
> > language (unless you live in a country where it is the official
> > language) then learning a language can become joyous.
>
> I live in Ontario situated on the border of Quebec so I have a shot at
> achieving fluency in French. Frankly, all I want is to become
> reasonably functional in French and Spanish. Fluency is not a goal but
> it would be a nice to achieve. ;o)
Can't see why fluency can't be a goal. The only things on the high
shelves are having a native accent and your "own" vernacular.
Picasso
Ok, ok ... I'm getting the message! I won't use age as an excuse. ;o)
Merci.
p
Padraic Brown
wrote:
>
>Padraic Brown wrote:
>> Well, if you truly believe this, then I can only suggest that you've
>> already defeated yourself!
>
>Perhaps but it is also a general observation I have with other people
>trying to learn or improve their French. The younger students have
>better recall and retention as compared with older students. My class
>has students ranging in age from 21 to 58.
There are physical changes to all parts of the body, the brain
included, as one ages. Take your time and don't mind the young brats
if they recall quicker. YOU will be much better equipped to appreciate
the fruits of your labour!
>> >Recently I started a refresher course to improve my French. I find that
>> >things I used to know are coming back to me, albeit much slower than I
>> >had hoped.
>>
>> Perhaps the problem is with the refresher course. Is it compatible
>> with your learning style?
>
>> Haitian Creole? Beautiful language. You could try Spanish -- at least
>> you'd have some Romance commonalities.
>
>Spanish or Italian then?
Why not both?
>> >By logical choice I suppose what I am really saying is
>> >which language would be the easiest to learn and most useful
>> >functionally.
>>
>> What is your reason for learning the language? A logical choice might
>> be Greek or Latin: they aren't too awful hard. All you really need to
>> concentrate on are grammar and lexicon and a whole world of original
>> ancient literature is opened up to you.
>
>My reasons are to keep active mentally and to pick up a language that
>may become useful, i.e. travel, literature, etc.
In that case, there is no reason to limit thyself to one language. Try
Quechua. This would open up lots of travel possibilities in the Andes,
and will also expose you to some very interesting cultural modes of
thinking.
When you're done traipsing about in SA, try Swahili. This will get you
all over the place in Africa.
Like I just said before: try Latin and Greek! Nothing can beat Caesar
or Plato or Augustine in the original languages.
You might also take the Cardinal's lead and study Arabic: there is a
lòt of Arabic literature spanning a good 1200 years or more. Rumi is
good in English, but would certainly be better in its original
language.
>That's the first time I've heard anyone say that Latin was easy to
>learn. ;o)
Can't understand why. It's no worse than Spanish, and lot easier than
French if you ask me!
>It is another language I would consider learning.
>
>> To answer the question in your subject line: the point at which
>> learning a new language becomes futile is the same moment you expel
>> your last breath on this Earth. Before that time, èvery moment spent
>> in sharpening your mind is time well spent, provided you enjoy the
>> activity involved. It could be music or puzzles or language learning.
>
>Any recommendations with regards to learning Latin for complete
>beginners?
Borders' and B&N both carry reasonable introductory methods. I think
Wheelock's is one of them. They carry _Athenaze!_ for Greek (Ancient).
We used _Ecce Romani!_ for the first introduction to Latin. Take a
peek at Bolchazy-Carducci publishers -- they do a lot of classical
titles.
I'd also recommend books like _Virent Ova Viret Perna_ (published by
B-C), which take modern English works and render them in Latin.
Perhaps not "useful", but quite readable and loads of fun!
>> Whatever floats your boat. To take an example from current events: the
>> Cardinal of Washington is retiring this month at age 75. He plans to
>> learn Arabic just for the heck of it. It will be his sixth language.
>
>I have heard of a Japanese gentleman of 98 years learning Chinese!
Good on him! See what nonsense the original premise was!
>p
Padraic.
la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu
ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.
Padraic Brown
>
>Padraic Brown wrote:
>
>the
>> Cardinal of Washington is retiring this month at age 75. He plans to
>> learn Arabic just for the heck of it. It will be his sixth language.
>
>Amateurs...
There is absolutely NO shame in being an amateur linguophile!
Peter T. Daniels
No, she seems to be saying that ASL isn't a language: No exposure to
"language," but fluent in ASL.
Neeraj Mathur
I thought she just said he had no exposure to any language at all until 30,
but was taught ASL at 30. (I mentally edited 'a 30 year-old deaf man who had
never had any exposure to language' to '... never *before* had any exposure
to language', which seems to have been the intended meaning.) That meaning
was suggested by her next sentence, 'The author of the book (who was the one
that taught him)...'.
Neeraj Mathur
Larisa
Neeraj Mathur wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > No, she seems to be saying that ASL isn't a language: No exposure to
> > "language," but fluent in ASL.
>
> I thought she just said he had no exposure to any language at all until 30,
> but was taught ASL at 30. (I mentally edited 'a 30 year-old deaf man who had
> never had any exposure to language' to '... never *before* had any exposure
> to language', which seems to have been the intended meaning.) That meaning
> was suggested by her next sentence, 'The author of the book (who was the one
> that taught him)...'.
Yes, sorry; that was the meaning I intended. The language he acquired,
for the first time, at age 30, was ASL.
LM
Peter T. Daniels
So you think he did not communicate for 30 years? You think his parents
had no way of communicating with him, or he with them?
At best, your author is remarkably naive, assuming that ASL is the only
possible communication system for deaf people.
Larisa
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Larisa wrote:
> > Yes, sorry; that was the meaning I intended. The language he acquired,
> > for the first time, at age 30, was ASL.
>
> So you think he did not communicate for 30 years? You think his parents
> had no way of communicating with him, or he with them?
>
> At best, your author is remarkably naive, assuming that ASL is the only
> possible communication system for deaf people.
What he used was gestures, but only concrete gestures - no symbols.
Here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEFDD123BF930A35751C0A967958260
LM
John Atkinson
"Larisa" <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> As far as anyone knows, Genie never proceeded beyond the two-word stage,
>> and was taken away from the researchers when her guardianship was
>> settled.
>
> I vaguely remember reading a book about another case - a 30-year-old
> deaf man who had never had any exposure to language. He learned ASL
> just fine - way beyond the two-word stage (enough to get a job and
> function in the real world). The author of the book (who is the one
> who taught him) speculates that Genie may have been brain-damaged or
> mentally disabled to begin with, which is why she had never progressed
> beyond the two-word stage.
She was certainly abused. And it's very plausible that the _reason_ why her
parents abused her and hid her away was that her behaviour as a young child
annoyed them, and/or suggested to them that she wasn't "normal" -- i.e., she
was mentally handicapped.
I haven't read any of the literature on her, so don't take this random
thought of mine too seriously.
J.
Neeraj Mathur
"John Atkinson" <john...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:WQsdg.10762$S7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
When Peter reminded me of her name, I did a few minutes of Internet
searching that seem to bear this out. One of the sites said that a
pediatrician told her father when she was very small that she was mildly
handicapped, and that her father overreacted, leading directly to her abuse
and segragation.
Neeraj Mathur
Lee Sau Dan
>> At best, your author is remarkably naive, assuming that ASL is
>> the only possible communication system for deaf people.
Larisa> What he used was gestures, but only concrete gestures - no
Larisa> symbols. Here:
Larisa> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEFDD123BF930A35751C0A967958260
How does he tell people he's hungry? Or that he wants to go home?
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Christopher Culver
> You might also take the Cardinal's lead and study Arabic: there is a
> lòt of Arabic literature spanning a good 1200 years or more. Rumi is
> good in English, but would certainly be better in its original
> language.
Rumi wrote in Persian, not Arabic.
Christopher Culver
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Paul J Kriha
Larisa <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148601336.4...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What is a concrete gesture?
I thought all gestures were symbolic by their very nature of
being gestures.
pjk
Darkstar
>From what I read, there was some terrible tragedy there. The father
kept her tied up in a tiny room with no light, abusing her in a hard
way (at least beating up). Out of three of his other little children,
two were killed by abuse or criminal negligence. The mother could not
oppose because of her partial blindness. When they sued him, he shot
himself leaving a note "The world will never understand".
The research program was quite successful initially. She made a very
good progress and began to socialize. Some phrases were as complex as
"I want work continued on next page." "M. said not lift my leg in the
dentist chair." "Mr W. say put face in big swimming pool" (I have my
notes here, so I'm not typing from memory). After 4 years she probably
spoke like most children speak when they are 2 to 4. Although most of
her speech was still chopped and not quite shakespearean.
But when the program was over, someone wrote a negative thesis to the
extent that acquiring a language at this age is, like, difficult or
impossible, so the girl was sent back to the very home she was kept in.
Of course, she went uncontrollable again and was re-adopted several
times and sent to new families, where things didn't get much better.
Finally, she was confined to an asylum (or whatever the proper name for
this place) where she should be now. The court forbade her mother to
come near her. She's known to be regressing and losing her social
skills.
Whether she was brained-damaged or not, I think the whole story hardly
proves the existence of any biological age limit in acquiring L1, if
that was the initial question. I'd say, the limit is rather social
(lack of parental love, proper attention from caretakers, etc).
Darkstar
> brained-damaged
Brain-damaged. A typo.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Larisa wrote:
>
> > > Yes, sorry; that was the meaning I intended. The language he acquired,
> > > for the first time, at age 30, was ASL.
> >
> > So you think he did not communicate for 30 years? You think his parents
> > had no way of communicating with him, or he with them?
> >
> > At best, your author is remarkably naive, assuming that ASL is the only
> > possible communication system for deaf people.
>
> What he used was gestures, but only concrete gestures - no symbols.
That is simply incoherent -- or using a definition of "symbol" unknown
to semiotic science.
> Here:
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEFDD123BF930A35751C0A967958260
A 1991 review of a book by/about a "sign language interpreter" with no
knowledge of linguistics whatsoever. She probably delayed her victim's
assimilation into society by several years because she was unfamiliar
with the most basic relevant concepts.
Peter T. Daniels
Lenneberg's "critical age" hypothesis was enunciated decades before the
case of Genie was discovered or described.
What is your source of this version? It doesn't agree too closely with
either the original technical book published by Academic Press (I can't
think of the author's name) or the New Yorker article(s) that were
excerpted from a popular account of the case.
And as I said, no one in the professional world seems to know what
happened to her.
Darkstar
ASFAIK, the whole research was just in connection with Lenneberg's
work.
> What is your source of this version? It doesn't agree too closely with
> either the original technical book published by Academic Press (I can't
> think of the author's name) or the New Yorker article(s) that were
> excerpted from a popular account of the case.
I've collected some notes from web sources a couple of years ago. It's
a concise summary from several authors.
> And as I said, no one in the professional world seems to know what
> happened to her.
Is this *that* secret? There was a program on Discovery that had some
info to the same extent, though not particularly detailed. I heard
there was a book and and a movie about her life, too.
> Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Daniel al-Autistiqui
<neem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>and complex sentences of even Cicero or Livy, let alone Tacitus. I'd
>recommend instead the *Reading Latin* books published by the Joint
>Association of Classics Teachers, which is quite popular in the UK (used,
>for instance, here at Oxford for those rare Classics undergraduates who have
>no Latin when they arrive). If you go for that route, there are three
Why did you say "rare"?
daniel mcgrath
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
& periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]
Larisa
Hmm. Is there a difference between pointing at an apple, meaning "I
want that" and using ASL to say "I ate an apple yesterday", with no
apple being present? From the book, it seems that he could do the
former but not the latter.
LM
Larisa
No one else (certainly, no professional linguists or linguistics
professors) seemed to be all that interested in helping the "victim"
assimilate into society; she found him in an ASL class in which he was
sitting quietly in the back, not understanding a thing, and took an
interest in helping him when she realized that he (unlike the other
students) had no idea what was going on and what all those strange
gestures were all about.
What matters in teaching, incidentally, is not as much knowledge of the
theory as willingness to see things from the student's point of view,
and willingness to help the student learn. I am not a mathematician -
just a math tutor. When I was 16 years old and just getting started as
a math tutor, I tutored the daughter of a math professor at the local
university. For some reason, despite his extensive knowledge of
mathematics, he could not help his daughter learn fractions - and I
could.
LM
Larisa
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Larisa wrote:
> >
> > > Picasso wrote:
> > > > Although there are always exceptions to the rule it seems that once one
> > > > attains a certain age, learning a new language becomes very difficult
> > > > if not impossible.
> > >
> > > I started to learn Irish when I was 25. In three years, I was writing
> > > it with a literary ambition.
> >
> > My mother is the author of 4 books in English; she emigrated to the US
> > when she was 47.
>
She acquired enough English to write books in it, even though she
started learning it at age 47.
> Does she speak without a detectable accent?
Does that matter? I don't speak without a detectable accent, and I
think that my English is pretty good. For that matter, I think I'm
acquiring a slight accent in Russian, which would mean that I speak no
language without an accent - does it mean that I know no languages?
LM
Peter T. Daniels
It means that you have native competence in no language.
Why it matters is that it once again shows that L1 acquisition and L2
learning are totally different processes with different results.
Peter T. Daniels
Herman (or Brian) will gladly point out that grade-school arithmetic
just barely skims the surface of mathematics.
Peter T. Daniels
> > And as I said, no one in the professional world seems to know what
> > happened to her.
>
> Is this *that* secret? There was a program on Discovery that had some
> info to the same extent, though not particularly detailed. I heard
> there was a book and and a movie about her life, too.
I don't have cable; I forgot to mention that there was also a Nova
program, perhaps the same one you saw on Discovery, that was the latest
update I know of. They said they could not find her at the time of
production.
Brian M. Scott
<purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:1148671799....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> What matters in teaching, incidentally, is not as much
> knowledge of the theory as willingness to see things from
> the student's point of view, and willingness to help the
> student learn. I am not a mathematician - just a math
> tutor. When I was 16 years old and just getting started
> as a math tutor, I tutored the daughter of a math
> professor at the local university. For some reason,
> despite his extensive knowledge of mathematics, he could
> not help his daughter learn fractions - and I could.
This may have nothing to do with willingness to see the
student's point of view or willingness to help the student
learn. No matter how willing one is, it can be very hard to
see why and how someone is having trouble with a concept if
one never had the slightest difficulty with it oneself. It
is also not impossible that the father-daughter relationship
got in the way a bit. (And of course almost the whole of
his knowledge of mathematics was completely irrelevant to
the arithmetic of fractions.)
Brian
Larisa
Then why couldn't a respected mathematics professor instruct his child
in it?
LM
Peter T. Daniels
Because it takes a certain amount of talent to be a teacher.
And also because he's so many levels away from "fractions" that he
wouldn't remember how to explain them to people who didn't know what was
going on.
Holly
Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 21:26:00 +0100, "Neeraj Mathur"
> <neem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >and complex sentences of even Cicero or Livy, let alone Tacitus. I'd
> >recommend instead the *Reading Latin* books published by the Joint
> >Association of Classics Teachers, which is quite popular in the UK (used,
> >for instance, here at Oxford for those rare Classics undergraduates who have
> >no Latin when they arrive). If you go for that route, there are three
>
> Why did you say "rare"?
Bloody?
>
> daniel mcgrath
> --
> Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
> for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
You have developmentally arrived via com?
Larisa
Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On 26 May 2006 12:29:59 -0700, Larisa
> <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <news:1148671799....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > knowledge of the theory as willingness to see things from
> > the student's point of view, and willingness to help the
> > student learn. I am not a mathematician - just a math
> > tutor. When I was 16 years old and just getting started
> > as a math tutor, I tutored the daughter of a math
> > professor at the local university. For some reason,
> > despite his extensive knowledge of mathematics, he could
> > not help his daughter learn fractions - and I could.
>
> This may have nothing to do with willingness to see the
> student's point of view or willingness to help the student
> learn. No matter how willing one is, it can be very hard to
> see why and how someone is having trouble with a concept if
> one never had the slightest difficulty with it oneself.
Hmm. I've always actually been rather good at math (good enough to get
into gifted/talented math programs in school, to be on the math team
throughout my high school career, etc.). I have certainly never had
any trouble with fractions or any other grade-school math. The reason
I went into engineering was because I was good at math - and in fact, I
minored in math in college. Now, I'm not saying I'm some sort of
genius, but I can certainly do school-level math with no trouble, and
math has always been my best subject in school.
One of the reasons my tutoring business is prospering at present, btw,
is because a lot of people hold the above view - that the only way one
can be an effective teacher is if one has had difficulties with the
subject. Most of my students come to me because their teachers are
still having difficulties with math, including the grade-school level
math that they're supposed to be teaching. Contrary to what you're
saying, such difficulties do not inspire the teachers to empathy -
instead, they inspire them to confuse the students, to refuse to answer
their questions (this is surprisingly common), to dislike the
especially gifted kids (this is also very common). The best teachers I
have encountered are the ones who have a truly deep understanding of
the subject they're teaching; those people are almost always the ones
who were good at the subject in question as kids.
> It
> is also not impossible that the father-daughter relationship
> got in the way a bit.
Now that is a possibility.
> (And of course almost the whole of
> his knowledge of mathematics was completely irrelevant to
> the arithmetic of fractions.)
Sure; but arithmetic is still part of mathematics.
LM
Brian M. Scott
<purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:1148681933.6...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On 26 May 2006 12:29:59 -0700, Larisa
>> <purple...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <news:1148671799....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>> in sci.lang:
>>> What matters in teaching, incidentally, is not as much
>>> knowledge of the theory as willingness to see things from
>>> the student's point of view, and willingness to help the
>>> student learn. I am not a mathematician - just a math
>>> tutor. When I was 16 years old and just getting started
>>> as a math tutor, I tutored the daughter of a math
>>> professor at the local university. For some reason,
>>> despite his extensive knowledge of mathematics, he could
>>> not help his daughter learn fractions - and I could.
>> This may have nothing to do with willingness to see the
>> student's point of view or willingness to help the student
>> learn. No matter how willing one is, it can be very hard to
>> see why and how someone is having trouble with a concept if
>> one never had the slightest difficulty with it oneself.
[...]
> One of the reasons my tutoring business is prospering at
> present, btw, is because a lot of people hold the above
> view - that the only way one can be an effective teacher
> is if one has had difficulties with the subject.
That is not at all what I said. In fact I consider the
claim that only someone who has had difficulties with a
subject can teach it effectively to be both absurd and
pernicious.
Read it again: I said that it *can* be difficult under those
circumstances. Of course it isn't always, or there would be
very little undergraduate mathematics that I could teach
effectively, since I had no trouble with any of it. In fact
I've been teaching a wide range of undergraduate mathematics
for over 30 years, and one of my stronger suits is working
out what a student's misunderstandings are and finding
explanations that work for that student. Many potential
trouble spots are easy to see, whether one had difficulties
there or not. None the less, there are some very basic
topics with which I cannot do this nearly so effectively,
because I sometimes -- not always -- simply cannot work out
what the student's misconception is.
> Most of my students come to me because their teachers are
> still having difficulties with math, including the
> grade-school level math that they're supposed to be
> teaching. Contrary to what you're saying, such
> difficulties do not inspire the teachers to empathy -
Oy. I hope that you tutor more carefully than you read: I
said nothing whatsoever to that effect. In fact I made no
claim one way or the other.
> instead, they inspire them to confuse the students, to
> refuse to answer their questions (this is surprisingly
> common), to dislike the especially gifted kids (this is
> also very common). The best teachers I have encountered
> are the ones who have a truly deep understanding of the
> subject they're teaching; those people are almost always
> the ones who were good at the subject in question as
> kids.
Of course. That group also includes some of the worst,
however.
[...]
>> (And of course almost the whole of
>> his knowledge of mathematics was completely irrelevant to
>> the arithmetic of fractions.)
> Sure; but arithmetic is still part of mathematics.
This is almost wholly irrelevant to the question.
Brian
me
In the 12th century or so, a Danish author called "The First
Grammarian" (since he wrote anonymously) said of a 65 year old gent named
Hallr Teitsson that on an expedition to Rome, Teitsson spoke everywhere the
local language as if he were born there.
Holly
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Larisa wrote:
> >
> > > Picasso wrote:
> > > > Although there are always exceptions to the rule it seems that once one
> > > > attains a certain age, learning a new language becomes very difficult
> > > > if not impossible.
> > >
> > > I started to learn Irish when I was 25. In three years, I was writing
> > > it with a literary ambition.
> >
> > My mother is the author of 4 books in English; she emigrated to the US
> > when she was 47.
>
> Relevance?
>
You speak with a detectable accent. <geeze!>
Margaret Mikulska
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>Herman (or Brian) will gladly point out that grade-school arithmetic
>>just barely skims the surface of mathematics.
>
> Then why couldn't a respected mathematics professor instruct his child
> in it?
Because grade-school arithmetic is almost entirely about counting, while
mathematics is not.
-MM
Paul J Kriha
Daniel al-Autistiqui <gove...@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message
news:31fe72l2j1lufr13l...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 21:26:00 +0100, "Neeraj Mathur"
> <neem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >and complex sentences of even Cicero or Livy, let alone Tacitus. I'd
> >recommend instead the *Reading Latin* books published by the Joint
> >Association of Classics Teachers, which is quite popular in the UK (used,
> >for instance, here at Oxford for those rare Classics undergraduates who have
> >no Latin when they arrive). If you go for that route, there are three
>
> Why did you say "rare"?
Why did you write "say"?
pjk
> daniel mcgrath
Paul J Kriha
Do you mean, pointing at an apple (meaning "I want that") isn't symbolic?
pjk
Darkstar
They just mean they don't know her real identity or exact location --
that's true. But the general idea was she was still locked up somewhere
sometime ago. Hence the difference in our perspectives, prbly.
Joachim Pense
Wouldn't it be rather "indexic" than symbolic? Following the Peirce
triangle (my interpretations):
icon = a sign that exposes a similarity to the signified in some respect
index = a sign that shows a real-world relation to the signified (in the
case of pointing it is the line prolonging your arm to the apple)
symbol = a purely conventional mapping between sign and signified (like
most nouns of a language)
Joachim
Joachim Pense
> Daniel al-Autistiqui <gove...@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> Why did you say "rare"?
>
> Why did you write "say"?
>
That's what he does.
Joachim
Paul J Kriha
Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote in message
news:25ny838huudl.e...@40tude.net...
Or it might be both.
Wouldn't "I wan't that"-pointing have twofold functionality?
The indexic part of pointing is "I - that" while the verb "want"
is the symbolic content of it. The gesture could mean
"Take that smelly thing away". I suppose the way you move
while you point and the kind of facial expression you display
while you doing it symbolically conveys the verb.
pjk
Peter T. Daniels
?? That's the very definition of "secret." I don't know what you're
going on about.
Peter T. Daniels
Useful factoid: Cats cannot interpret pointing. They look at the finger,
not the toy or treat.
Joachim Pense
What about dogs? Is their reaction to pointing innate or trained?
What about people? Do children learn to interpret pointing from the adults
or does it just come with age?
Is it a criterion for being a symbol rather than an index if it cannot be
regularly interpreted without explanation/training?
Is a footprint a symbol, because you cannot interpret it without having
understood enough about the world to interpret it?
Joachim
Joachim Pense
If someone points to an apple, to me it just means "there is something I
care about where I point to"; and depending on the context it can well mean
"take that smelly thing away". If in a sign language there were a codified
meaning of the pointing gesture meaning "you may eat that!" or "I want
that", that'd probably be symbolic. But I don't think there is.
Pointing to an apple, meaning "I want that" is just incomplete. (That's the
behaviour that makes you angry when your loved one expects you to
understand what she wants without her making herself clear)
Peter T. Daniels
> > Useful factoid: Cats cannot interpret pointing. They look at the finger,
> > not the toy or treat.
>
> What about dogs? Is their reaction to pointing innate or trained?
I've never known any dogs well, and I don't know what they do when you
point to something. A pointer dog is doing something quite else --
reacting to the presence of a prey animal. When a dog points, do other
dogs look? or just people?
> What about people? Do children learn to interpret pointing from the adults
> or does it just come with age?
The focusing of eyes is one of the first things babies "learn" to do
after birth.
> Is it a criterion for being a symbol rather than an index if it cannot be
> regularly interpreted without explanation/training?
Not for Peirce, it isn't!
> Is a footprint a symbol, because you cannot interpret it without having
> understood enough about the world to interpret it?
Is there any reason to suppose that animals consult footprints when
tracking prey?