universal concept list
Marc Adler
list of words in the back for different language families.
That got me to thinking: is there is some kind of list of concepts - a
sort of a concept frequency list - that could be used to gain a basic
vocabulary? I understand that there would be concepts which wouldn't
universalize so well (e.g. some languages use grammatical constructions
instead of single verbs to express "to have" or "to be"), and there
might even be entire languages to which this might not apply, but it
would seem like a useful thing to have.
Anyone know of such a thing? Or would it be completely impractical, and
if so, why?
Thanks in advance.
On a related note, anyone know of any good Finnish word frequency lists
(besides the 10,000-word behemoth floating around on the internet which
is useless since all the words are in their declined/conjugated forms)?
Thanks again in advance.
--
Maar God weet, dat, ten dage |
als gij daarvan eet, zo zullen | Marc Adler |------
uw ogen geopend worden, en gij | /
zult als God wezen, kennende het | ------| marc....@gmail.com
goed en het kwaad. - Genesis 3:5 |
Peter T. Daniels
>
> I remember reading The Loom of Language a long time ago, and it had a
> list of words in the back for different language families.
Perhaps even worse than Mario Pei's books.
> That got me to thinking: is there is some kind of list of concepts - a
> sort of a concept frequency list - that could be used to gain a basic
> vocabulary? I understand that there would be concepts which wouldn't
> universalize so well (e.g. some languages use grammatical constructions
> instead of single verbs to express "to have" or "to be"), and there
> might even be entire languages to which this might not apply, but it
> would seem like a useful thing to have.
>
> Anyone know of such a thing? Or would it be completely impractical, and
> if so, why?
See Umberto Eco, The Search for the Perfect Language.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> On a related note, anyone know of any good Finnish word frequency lists
> (besides the 10,000-word behemoth floating around on the internet which
> is useless since all the words are in their declined/conjugated forms)?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Rolleston
[...]
>That got me to thinking: is there is some kind of list of concepts - a
>sort of a concept frequency list - that could be used to gain a basic
>vocabulary?
Do tell us what a concept is, in formal terms.
R.
Pekka Karjalainen
>On a related note, anyone know of any good Finnish word frequency lists
>(besides the 10,000-word behemoth floating around on the internet which
>is useless since all the words are in their declined/conjugated forms)?
>
>Thanks again in advance.
>
The Finnish word for one is "taajuussanasto". All the hundred odd hits
seem to be about printed material, so if you want a good one you probably
have to settle for a real book.
It's rather easy to make a simple one with a computer. A program can do
most of the work by reading in text files and separating all the words in
the forms they appear in. That's why you can get that 'behemoth' for free.
If you want knowledge of declinations & conjugations, then it's a whole
another story...
--
Pekka Karjalainen
J.D.F. Stone
> The Finnish word for one is "taajuussanasto".
I shudder to think what the Finnish word for two is.
HAW! HAW! HAW!
[...]
--
if this is fiction, then i wasted several hours
reading b.s. that i didn't need to. -- h3
Pekka Karjalainen
> pkar...@paju.oulu.fi (Pekka Karjalainen) writes:
>
>> The Finnish word for one is "taajuussanasto".
>
> I shudder to think what the Finnish word for two is.
>
> HAW! HAW! HAW!
>
> [...]
[pretending to not get it]
Oh, it is "taajuussanastopari" or "taajuussanastokaksikko". Most often
we would say "kaksi taajuussanastoa", though.
--
Pekka Karjalainen :P
Nigel Greenwood
> >> The Finnish word for one is "taajuussanasto".
> >
> > I shudder to think what the Finnish word for two is.
> >
> > HAW! HAW! HAW!
> >
> > [...]
>
> [pretending to not get it]
>
> Oh, it is "taajuussanastopari" or "taajuussanastokaksikko". Most often
> we would say "kaksi taajuussanastoa", though.
At the other extreme, we have the Chinese for "one hundred million",
which in the Wade-Giles transliteration is I4.
Nigel
ScriptMaster language resources (Persian/Turkish/Modern & Classical
Greek/Russian/Romanian/Esperanto/IPA):
http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk
New! EsperScript:
http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk/esperanto.htm
Bart Mathias
> [...]
> At the other extreme, we have the Chinese for "one hundred million",
> which in the Wade-Giles transliteration is I4.
Borrowed from Greek for "8."
Bart Mathias
John A. Rea
For a limited set of languages, try Carl Darling Buck's "A selected list
of synonyms in the principal Indo-European Languages." For those who
wish to work in other language families this would give one a starter
list to elicit from! Have fun!!
Jack
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Gosh I find that book frustrating. What I don't understand is why he
does what is seemingly always done, he seeks out words from the current
meaning backwards instead of from the root forwards.
--
"And he did bring them. It took a number of years, but one by one he
brought them here. Except for his father, that old man died where he was
born." -+ "Elia Kazan, "America, America"
Peter T. Daniels
> > For a limited set of languages, try Carl Darling Buck's "A selected list
> > of synonyms in the principal Indo-European Languages."
> >
> Gosh I find that book frustrating. What I don't understand is why he
> does what is seemingly always done, he seeks out words from the current
> meaning backwards instead of from the root forwards.
How do you suppose the IE forms and meanings are arrived at in the first
place?
Brian M. Scott
Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in
<news:41307C85...@backpacker.com> in sci.lang:
> "John A. Rea" wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Marc Adler wrote:
[...]
>>>>On a related note, anyone know of any good Finnish word frequency lists
>>>>(besides the 10,000-word behemoth floating around on the internet which
>>>>is useless since all the words are in their declined/conjugated forms)?
>> For a limited set of languages, try Carl Darling Buck's "A selected list
>> of synonyms in the principal Indo-European Languages."
> Gosh I find that book frustrating. What I don't understand is why he
> does what is seemingly always done, he seeks out words from the current
> meaning backwards instead of from the root forwards.
How else? Divine revelation?
Brian
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
I want someone to trace the roots forward through time and make each
list based on the root and not the current meaning.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
The two ways are from the current meaning backwards, in which case you
often end up with many roots and different ones in different languages,
or, as I said above, from the root in question forward.
Brian M. Scott
> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 05:37:25 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo
>> Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in
>> <news:41307C85...@backpacker.com> in sci.lang:
>>> "John A. Rea" wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> Marc Adler wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>>>On a related note, anyone know of any good Finnish word frequency lists
>>>>>>(besides the 10,000-word behemoth floating around on the internet which
>>>>>>is useless since all the words are in their declined/conjugated forms)?
>>>> For a limited set of languages, try Carl Darling Buck's "A selected list
>>>> of synonyms in the principal Indo-European Languages."
>>> Gosh I find that book frustrating. What I don't understand is why he
>>> does what is seemingly always done, he seeks out words from the current
>>> meaning backwards instead of from the root forwards.
>> How else? Divine revelation?
> The two ways are from the current meaning backwards, in which case you
> often end up with many roots and different ones in different languages,
> or, as I said above, from the root in question forward.
You're completely missing the point. How are you going to
get information about the root except by looking at attested
forms with known meanings? What other source do you have in
the absence of divine revelation or a time machine? Your
second way simply doesn't exist. Just as the roots
themselves can only be reconstructed from their attested
reflexes, so also their meanings can only be reconstructed
from those of the attested reflexes.
Brian
benlizross
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >
> > Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) wrote:
> >
> > > > For a limited set of languages, try Carl Darling Buck's "A selected list
> > > > of synonyms in the principal Indo-European Languages."
> > > >
> > > Gosh I find that book frustrating. What I don't understand is why he
> > > does what is seemingly always done, he seeks out words from the current
> > > meaning backwards instead of from the root forwards.
> >
> > How do you suppose the IE forms and meanings are arrived at in the first
> > place?
> >
> I want someone to trace the roots forward through time and make each
> list based on the root and not the current meaning.
Worterbuch (compendious, out of date, in German) or C.Watkins' American
Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European roots (much more friendly but deals
only with roots that have left traces in English).
Just out of curiosity, what sort of use would you be making of such a
work, for which you find Buck so unsuited?
Ross Clark
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
There are plenty of examples of words that have changed meanings over
time. So, for example, say we are looking at the English word 'cow' and
we want to know if that word can be connected to other words in related
languages, not just whether those connections mean the same thing in
those languages, 'cow'.
> What other source do you have in
> the absence of divine revelation or a time machine? Your
> second way simply doesn't exist. Just as the roots
> themselves can only be reconstructed from their attested
> reflexes, so also their meanings can only be reconstructed
> from those of the attested reflexes.
>
It would be like the English word 'pigeon' becoming some other
language's word for 'bird'. In the words list, we would not see this
connection since they would give the other language's word for pigeon
and not bird.
benlizross
Right. But Buck does tell you (in the notes after the list of synonyms)
which words are cognate with each other, and what sort of IE root they
come from. So if you start with "cow", you can get that much information
from Buck. In fact any large dictionary with decent etymologies will
give you the PIE source, and might even throw in a cognate from Latin or
Sanskrit for free. Then if you want to know more detail about everything
that happens to this root, you would have to look at one of the works I
mentioned in my other post.
Ross Clark
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
But if the words aren't cognates, then one root isn't being explained on
the page, rather one meaning. See, I'd like to know if I learn a word
in, say, Italian, if that same basic word, perhaps with a different
meaning, is in French and Spanish.
> So if you start with "cow", you can get that much information
> from Buck. In fact any large dictionary with decent etymologies will
> give you the PIE source, and might even throw in a cognate from Latin or
> Sanskrit for free. Then if you want to know more detail about everything
> that happens to this root, you would have to look at one of the works I
> mentioned in my other post.
>
I am talking about following the root forward. If there are books that
do that, the Buck book isn't one of them.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
benlizross wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) wrote:
> >
> > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) wrote:
> > >
> > > > > For a limited set of languages, try Carl Darling Buck's "A selected list
> > > > > of synonyms in the principal Indo-European Languages."
> > > > >
> > > > Gosh I find that book frustrating. What I don't understand is why he
> > > > does what is seemingly always done, he seeks out words from the current
> > > > meaning backwards instead of from the root forwards.
> > >
> > > How do you suppose the IE forms and meanings are arrived at in the first
> > > place?
> > >
> > I want someone to trace the roots forward through time and make each
> > list based on the root and not the current meaning.
>
> Then you want something like J.Pokorny's Indogermansches Etymologisches
> Worterbuch (compendious, out of date, in German) or C.Watkins' American
> Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European roots (much more friendly but deals
> only with roots that have left traces in English).
>
I'll look into them.
> Just out of curiosity, what sort of use would you be making of such a
> work, for which you find Buck so unsuited?
>
I'm interested in the connections between related languages and how much
help one can get in learning basics of languages related to ones that
one knows or is studying. It's part of my theory that learning the
meaning of a word is about ten percent of the effort while learning the
word about 90%.
benlizross
So now you have defined another task you might be wanting to undertake,
and you should not be surprised that you may need another book. In this
case, since Buck includes Italian in his listings, you would be able to
find out from Buck what other languages have cognates of that word with
the same meaning, and if there is a root cited you would be able to
check the other books I mentioned to find a fuller story on its semantic
developments. Or you could find an Italian etymological dictionary.
>
> > So if you start with "cow", you can get that much information
> > from Buck. In fact any large dictionary with decent etymologies will
> > give you the PIE source, and might even throw in a cognate from Latin or
> > Sanskrit for free. Then if you want to know more detail about everything
> > that happens to this root, you would have to look at one of the works I
> > mentioned in my other post.
> >
> I am talking about following the root forward. If there are books that
> do that, the Buck book isn't one of them.
No, it's not. But see the other books. Of course in order to follow the
root forward you must first know what the root is.
Ross Clark
John A. Rea
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) wrote:
>
> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 05:37:25 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo
>>Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in
>><news:41307C85...@backpacker.com> in sci.lang:
>>
>>
>>>"John A. Rea" wrote:
>>>
>>>>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Marc Adler wrote:
>>>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>>>>On a related note, anyone know of any good Finnish word frequency lists
>>>>>>(besides the 10,000-word behemoth floating around on the internet which
>>>>>>is useless since all the words are in their declined/conjugated forms)?
>>>>>
>>>>For a limited set of languages, try Carl Darling Buck's "A selected list
>>>>of synonyms in the principal Indo-European Languages."
>>>
>>>Gosh I find that book frustrating. What I don't understand is why he
>>>does what is seemingly always done, he seeks out words from the current
>>>meaning backwards instead of from the root forwards.
>>
>>How else? Divine revelation?
>>
>
> The two ways are from the current meaning backwards, in which case you
> often end up with many roots and different ones in different languages,
> or, as I said above, from the root in question forward.
>
>At this point in the dialogue, we might wish to see what the original
post on this "topic" asked for:
"is some kind of list of concepts - a sort of a concept frequency list
- that could be used to gain a basic vocabulary? "
The current poster seems to complain that people were responding to that
query, rather than a different one. Strange!
>
Jack
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Usually on usenet replies are connected in threads with the replies to
specific posts being directed at whatever that specific post was about
and not what the original post starting the thread asked.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
I didn't claim that his book wasn't useful just that it didn't directly
answer my question about following roots forward. If this is how it
works, then I don't understand what comparative linguistics is about.
> and if there is a root cited you would be able to
> check the other books I mentioned to find a fuller story on its semantic
> developments. Or you could find an Italian etymological dictionary.
>
What I don't get is why there isn't a book that deals with this. I guess
I know that some books are geared towards learning languages, I guess
that is what it is, and they therefore want to tell you what the word
for whatever is in each of a select number of languages.
> >
> > > So if you start with "cow", you can get that much information
> > > from Buck. In fact any large dictionary with decent etymologies will
> > > give you the PIE source, and might even throw in a cognate from Latin or
> > > Sanskrit for free. Then if you want to know more detail about everything
> > > that happens to this root, you would have to look at one of the works I
> > > mentioned in my other post.
> > >
> > I am talking about following the root forward. If there are books that
> > do that, the Buck book isn't one of them.
>
> No, it's not. But see the other books. Of course in order to follow the
> root forward you must first know what the root is.
>
Sure. You could say that these are the roots that made it to English,
let's see what they mean in eleven different languages that include
them. That's interesting, isn't it?
Peter T. Daniels
> > > > Right. But Buck does tell you (in the notes after the list of synonyms)
> > > > which words are cognate with each other, and what sort of IE root they
> > > > come from.
> > > >
> > > But if the words aren't cognates, then one root isn't being explained on
> > > the page, rather one meaning. See, I'd like to know if I learn a word
> > > in, say, Italian, if that same basic word, perhaps with a different
> > > meaning, is in French and Spanish.
> >
> > So now you have defined another task you might be wanting to undertake,
> > and you should not be surprised that you may need another book. In this
> > case, since Buck includes Italian in his listings, you would be able to
> > find out from Buck what other languages have cognates of that word with
> > the same meaning,
> >
> I didn't claim that his book wasn't useful just that it didn't directly
> answer my question about following roots forward. If this is how it
> works, then I don't understand what comparative linguistics is about.
Evidently you don't.
Comparative linguistics is about (among other things) trying to figure
out what the roots were and how they changed. The only way we have of
figuring that out is looking at all the attested survivals and figuring
out their ancestry.
> > and if there is a root cited you would be able to
> > check the other books I mentioned to find a fuller story on its semantic
> > developments. Or you could find an Italian etymological dictionary.
> >
> What I don't get is why there isn't a book that deals with this. I guess
> I know that some books are geared towards learning languages, I guess
> that is what it is, and they therefore want to tell you what the word
> for whatever is in each of a select number of languages.
Ross has already given you at least two books to look in. You might also
try the Encyclopedia of Indo-European (or something like that), edited
by Adams & Mallory (IIRC), published a few years ago by the now defunct
Fitzroy-Dearborn.
Buck most certainly isn't "geared towards learning languages."
> > > > So if you start with "cow", you can get that much information
> > > > from Buck. In fact any large dictionary with decent etymologies will
> > > > give you the PIE source, and might even throw in a cognate from Latin or
> > > > Sanskrit for free. Then if you want to know more detail about everything
> > > > that happens to this root, you would have to look at one of the works I
> > > > mentioned in my other post.
> > > >
> > > I am talking about following the root forward. If there are books that
> > > do that, the Buck book isn't one of them.
> >
> > No, it's not. But see the other books. Of course in order to follow the
> > root forward you must first know what the root is.
> >
> Sure. You could say that these are the roots that made it to English,
> let's see what they mean in eleven different languages that include
> them. That's interesting, isn't it?
The American Heritage Dictionary appendix won't do that.
Peter T. Daniels
> I'm interested in the connections between related languages and how much
> help one can get in learning basics of languages related to ones that
> one knows or is studying. It's part of my theory that learning the
> meaning of a word is about ten percent of the effort while learning the
> word about 90%.
What is "learning the word" as opposed to "learning the meaning of a
word"?
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) wrote:
>
> > > > > Right. But Buck does tell you (in the notes after the list of synonyms)
> > > > > which words are cognate with each other, and what sort of IE root they
> > > > > come from.
> > > > >
> > > > But if the words aren't cognates, then one root isn't being explained on
> > > > the page, rather one meaning. See, I'd like to know if I learn a word
> > > > in, say, Italian, if that same basic word, perhaps with a different
> > > > meaning, is in French and Spanish.
> > >
> > > So now you have defined another task you might be wanting to undertake,
> > > and you should not be surprised that you may need another book. In this
> > > case, since Buck includes Italian in his listings, you would be able to
> > > find out from Buck what other languages have cognates of that word with
> > > the same meaning,
> > >
> > I didn't claim that his book wasn't useful just that it didn't directly
> > answer my question about following roots forward. If this is how it
> > works, then I don't understand what comparative linguistics is about.
>
> Evidently you don't.
>
> Comparative linguistics is about (among other things) trying to figure
> out what the roots were and how they changed. The only way we have of
> figuring that out is looking at all the attested survivals and figuring
> out their ancestry.
>
I'm fine with that. I just think that comparing the same roots in
different languages has something to do with comparative linguistics.
> > > and if there is a root cited you would be able to
> > > check the other books I mentioned to find a fuller story on its semantic
> > > developments. Or you could find an Italian etymological dictionary.
> > >
> > What I don't get is why there isn't a book that deals with this. I guess
> > I know that some books are geared towards learning languages, I guess
> > that is what it is, and they therefore want to tell you what the word
> > for whatever is in each of a select number of languages.
>
> Ross has already given you at least two books to look in. You might also
> try the Encyclopedia of Indo-European (or something like that), edited
> by Adams & Mallory (IIRC), published a few years ago by the now defunct
> Fitzroy-Dearborn.
>
> Buck most certainly isn't "geared towards learning languages."
>
It's also not geared towards following the roots forward.
> > > > > So if you start with "cow", you can get that much information
> > > > > from Buck. In fact any large dictionary with decent etymologies will
> > > > > give you the PIE source, and might even throw in a cognate from Latin or
> > > > > Sanskrit for free. Then if you want to know more detail about everything
> > > > > that happens to this root, you would have to look at one of the works I
> > > > > mentioned in my other post.
> > > > >
> > > > I am talking about following the root forward. If there are books that
> > > > do that, the Buck book isn't one of them.
> > >
> > > No, it's not. But see the other books. Of course in order to follow the
> > > root forward you must first know what the root is.
> > >
> > Sure. You could say that these are the roots that made it to English,
> > let's see what they mean in eleven different languages that include
> > them. That's interesting, isn't it?
>
> The American Heritage Dictionary appendix won't do that.
>
No, we end up with the history of the word in English going backwards.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
There is the word itself, its sounds, spelling, etc., and there is what
it means. There is a certain amount of effort required to learn the word
and to learn what it means. The effort needed to learn the word is
mostly removed if you already know it in another language, even if the
meaning is different. All you need do then is figure out the new
meaning.
Peter T. Daniels
The "roots" aren't "in different languages." They are discovered by
comparing words in different languages.
> > > > and if there is a root cited you would be able to
> > > > check the other books I mentioned to find a fuller story on its semantic
> > > > developments. Or you could find an Italian etymological dictionary.
> > > >
> > > What I don't get is why there isn't a book that deals with this. I guess
> > > I know that some books are geared towards learning languages, I guess
> > > that is what it is, and they therefore want to tell you what the word
> > > for whatever is in each of a select number of languages.
> >
> > Ross has already given you at least two books to look in. You might also
> > try the Encyclopedia of Indo-European (or something like that), edited
> > by Adams & Mallory (IIRC), published a few years ago by the now defunct
> > Fitzroy-Dearborn.
> >
> > Buck most certainly isn't "geared towards learning languages."
> >
> It's also not geared towards following the roots forward.
So the fuck what?
You might be able to drive a nail with a screwdriver, but you can't
drive a screw with a hammer. Use the right tool for the job.
> > > > > > So if you start with "cow", you can get that much information
> > > > > > from Buck. In fact any large dictionary with decent etymologies will
> > > > > > give you the PIE source, and might even throw in a cognate from Latin or
> > > > > > Sanskrit for free. Then if you want to know more detail about everything
> > > > > > that happens to this root, you would have to look at one of the works I
> > > > > > mentioned in my other post.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I am talking about following the root forward. If there are books that
> > > > > do that, the Buck book isn't one of them.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's not. But see the other books. Of course in order to follow the
> > > > root forward you must first know what the root is.
> > > >
> > > Sure. You could say that these are the roots that made it to English,
> > > let's see what they mean in eleven different languages that include
> > > them. That's interesting, isn't it?
> >
> > The American Heritage Dictionary appendix won't do that.
> >
> No, we end up with the history of the word in English going backwards.
And this is the tool for doing that.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >
> > Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) wrote:
> >
> > > I'm interested in the connections between related languages and how much
> > > help one can get in learning basics of languages related to ones that
> > > one knows or is studying. It's part of my theory that learning the
> > > meaning of a word is about ten percent of the effort while learning the
> > > word about 90%.
> >
> > What is "learning the word" as opposed to "learning the meaning of a
> > word"?
> >
> There is the word itself, its sounds, spelling, etc., and there is what
> it means. There is a certain amount of effort required to learn the word
> and to learn what it means. The effort needed to learn the word is
> mostly removed if you already know it in another language, even if the
> meaning is different. All you need do then is figure out the new
> meaning.
(a) If it doesn't have a meaning, then it isn't a word. There's no point
in "learning" series of sounds or letters with no meaning attached to
them.
(b) The most difficult words of all to learn in a related language are
the "faux amis" -- and when translating from either French or German, if
I find myself putting down the same word in English, it's almost always
not the correct way to render the expression.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) wrote:
> >
> > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm interested in the connections between related languages and how much
> > > > help one can get in learning basics of languages related to ones that
> > > > one knows or is studying. It's part of my theory that learning the
> > > > meaning of a word is about ten percent of the effort while learning the
> > > > word about 90%.
> > >
> > > What is "learning the word" as opposed to "learning the meaning of a
> > > word"?
> > >
> > There is the word itself, its sounds, spelling, etc., and there is what
> > it means. There is a certain amount of effort required to learn the word
> > and to learn what it means. The effort needed to learn the word is
> > mostly removed if you already know it in another language, even if the
> > meaning is different. All you need do then is figure out the new
> > meaning.
>
> (a) If it doesn't have a meaning, then it isn't a word. There's no point
> in "learning" series of sounds or letters with no meaning attached to
> them.
>
I didn't say you should do that. I said you can divide out the two
actions and that if you already know the word shape, you don't have to
learn it again, just its new meaning. Isn't this what people are trying
to do when they learn words by finding puns and the like between the
word they are learning and words they already know, perhaps in another
language?
> (b) The most difficult words of all to learn in a related language are
> the "faux amis" -- and when translating from either French or German, if
> I find myself putting down the same word in English, it's almost always
> not the correct way to render the expression.
>
False friends are a problem at a different level. I'm not disputing
that. I'm saying that the effort needed to learn the word shape is
minimal since you already know it from the other language. The fact that
the words that seem the same in two languages often don't mean the exact
same thing suggests that books like Buck's could be missing a lot of
these words from their lists.
Brian M. Scott
Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in
<news:41323A0...@backpacker.com> in sci.lang:
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) wrote:
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>>> > Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) wrote:
>>>>> I'm interested in the connections between related
>>>>> languages and how much help one can get in learning
>>>>> basics of languages related to ones that one knows or
>>>>> is studying. It's part of my theory that learning the
>>>>> meaning of a word is about ten percent of the effort
>>>>> while learning the word about 90%.
>>>> What is "learning the word" as opposed to "learning the
>>>> meaning of a word"?
>>> There is the word itself, its sounds, spelling, etc.,
>>> and there is what it means. There is a certain amount
>>> of effort required to learn the word and to learn what
>>> it means. The effort needed to learn the word is mostly
>>> removed if you already know it in another language,
>>> even if the meaning is different. All you need do then
>>> is figure out the new meaning.
Rubbish: the difficulty lies in learning how to use the
word, which includes learning its meaning.
>> (a) If it doesn't have a meaning, then it isn't a word.
>> There's no point in "learning" series of sounds or
>> letters with no meaning attached to them.
> I didn't say you should do that. I said you can divide out
> the two actions and that if you already know the word
> shape, you don't have to learn it again, just its new
> meaning. Isn't this what people are trying to do when
> they learn words by finding puns and the like between the
> word they are learning and words they already know,
> perhaps in another language?
No. Such tricks have to do with associating the right
meaning with the sequence of sounds or symbols.
>> (b) The most difficult words of all to learn in a related
>> language are the "faux amis" -- and when translating
>> from either French or German, if I find myself putting
>> down the same word in English, it's almost always not
>> the correct way to render the expression.
> False friends are a problem at a different level. I'm not
> disputing that. I'm saying that the effort needed to
> learn the word shape is minimal since you already know it
> from the other language.
The idea that in learning a language people learn the
'shapes' of words independently of their meanings is
bizarre, to say the least. Knowledge of the English word
<elf> does not make the German word <elf> easier to learn
than the German word <zehn>.
> The fact that the words that seem the same in two
> languages often don't mean the exact same thing suggests
> that books like Buck's could be missing a lot of these
> words from their lists.
Such lists have nothing to do with 'words that seem the
same'; cognates often look very different, and wholly
unrelated words can be identical in form.
Brian
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
I'm talking about two separate things that happen when you add a word to
your vocabulary. It is possible, for example, to learn a word shape
without learning its meaning.
> >> (a) If it doesn't have a meaning, then it isn't a word.
> >> There's no point in "learning" series of sounds or
> >> letters with no meaning attached to them.
>
> > I didn't say you should do that. I said you can divide out
> > the two actions and that if you already know the word
> > shape, you don't have to learn it again, just its new
> > meaning. Isn't this what people are trying to do when
> > they learn words by finding puns and the like between the
> > word they are learning and words they already know,
> > perhaps in another language?
>
> No. Such tricks have to do with associating the right
> meaning with the sequence of sounds or symbols.
>
No? People do use a sound shape they know from one language to learn it
as a different word in another.
> >> (b) The most difficult words of all to learn in a related
> >> language are the "faux amis" -- and when translating
> >> from either French or German, if I find myself putting
> >> down the same word in English, it's almost always not
> >> the correct way to render the expression.
>
> > False friends are a problem at a different level. I'm not
> > disputing that. I'm saying that the effort needed to
> > learn the word shape is minimal since you already know it
> > from the other language.
>
> The idea that in learning a language people learn the
> 'shapes' of words independently of their meanings is
> bizarre, to say the least.
>
There aren't words you know the shape for (is there a term you'd prefer
for 'shape') that you don't know the meaning of? Assuming that you come
up with some examples, how long would it take you to learn the meaning?
Compare this to a word that you don't know its shape or meaning.
I think learning the shape is much more effort than the meaning and that
that effort is mitigated by the use of similar sounding words or
cognates, even false friends. I'm not saying that false friends won't
come back later to bite you on the bottom, just that at this stage,
learning the word shape, they can be an aid.
> Knowledge of the English word
> <elf> does not make the German word <elf> easier to learn
> than the German word <zehn>.
>
Of course it does. You really believe that knowing the English word
"wagon" doesn't help with the German word "Wagen"?
> > The fact that the words that seem the same in two
> > languages often don't mean the exact same thing suggests
> > that books like Buck's could be missing a lot of these
> > words from their lists.
>
> Such lists have nothing to do with 'words that seem the
> same';
>
Buck's list is by meaning. What I'm saying is that if the words have
shifted meanings in various languages, those roots might not be the ones
represented when you put together a list based on meaning. If there are
six words for 'cow' in a language, how do you know he'll choose the ones
with the same root in all the languages.
> cognates often look very different, and wholly
> unrelated words can be identical in form.
>
I know and I am not saying otherwise.
Brian M. Scott
> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
I know what you're talking about; I'm telling you that the
distinction is pretty pointless in the context of language
learning. See below.
>>>> (a) If it doesn't have a meaning, then it isn't a word.
>>>> There's no point in "learning" series of sounds or
>>>> letters with no meaning attached to them.
>>> I didn't say you should do that. I said you can divide out
>>> the two actions and that if you already know the word
>>> shape, you don't have to learn it again, just its new
>>> meaning. Isn't this what people are trying to do when
>>> they learn words by finding puns and the like between the
>>> word they are learning and words they already know,
>>> perhaps in another language?
>> No. Such tricks have to do with associating the right
>> meaning with the sequence of sounds or symbols.
> No? People do use a sound shape they know from one
> language to learn it as a different word in another.
People don't learn just sound shapes; they learn words and
phrases. The mnemonic tricks, if they use any, are
primarily to get the meanings properly associated with the
sound shapes, not to remember the sound shapes themselves.
>>>> (b) The most difficult words of all to learn in a related
>>>> language are the "faux amis" -- and when translating
>>>> from either French or German, if I find myself putting
>>>> down the same word in English, it's almost always not
>>>> the correct way to render the expression.
>>> False friends are a problem at a different level. I'm not
>>> disputing that. I'm saying that the effort needed to
>>> learn the word shape is minimal since you already know it
>>> from the other language.
>> The idea that in learning a language people learn the
>> 'shapes' of words independently of their meanings is
>> bizarre, to say the least.
> There aren't words you know the shape for (is there a term
> you'd prefer for 'shape') that you don't know the meaning
> of? Assuming that you come up with some examples, how
> long would it take you to learn the meaning? Compare this
> to a word that you don't know its shape or meaning.
By and large, if I can recognize something as a word, either
in English or in German, I have at least a vague idea of its
semantic field, if not of its precise meaning. Even so,
learning to use such a word correctly would on average take
no less time than learning to use correctly a word that I'd
never encountered before at all.
> I think learning the shape is much more effort than the
> meaning
And I think that this idea is preposterous.
[...]
>> Knowledge of the English word
>> <elf> does not make the German word <elf> easier to learn
>> than the German word <zehn>.
> Of course it does. You really believe that knowing the
> English word "wagon" doesn't help with the German word
> "Wagen"?
It is of no use whatsoever in learning the German word
<wagen> 'to venture, to risk, to dare', which is the case
actually analogous to the one that I presented. It may be
of some assistance in learning the German word <Wagen> 'a
car; a wagon', but that is because the meanings as well as
the sounds are similar; this example, which I assume is the
one you intended, is therefore irrelevant to your claim that
the shape alone is helpful, independent of the meaning.
>>> The fact that the words that seem the same in two
>>> languages often don't mean the exact same thing suggests
>>> that books like Buck's could be missing a lot of these
>>> words from their lists.
>> Such lists have nothing to do with 'words that seem the
>> same';
> Buck's list is by meaning. What I'm saying is that if the
> words have shifted meanings in various languages, those
> roots might not be the ones represented when you put
> together a list based on meaning. If there are six words
> for 'cow' in a language, how do you know he'll choose the
> ones with the same root in all the languages.
He won't, necessarily, since he tries to choose the normal,
unmarked forms. But if you read the notes, you'll find that
he very often mentions cognates with shifted meaning that of
course don't appear in the lists themselves.
[...]
Brian
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
I don't see that. It is very possible to learn a sound shape and
meaning, and then forget the meaning while retaining the sound shape.
> >>>> (b) The most difficult words of all to learn in a related
> >>>> language are the "faux amis" -- and when translating
> >>>> from either French or German, if I find myself putting
> >>>> down the same word in English, it's almost always not
> >>>> the correct way to render the expression.
>
> >>> False friends are a problem at a different level. I'm not
> >>> disputing that. I'm saying that the effort needed to
> >>> learn the word shape is minimal since you already know it
> >>> from the other language.
>
> >> The idea that in learning a language people learn the
> >> 'shapes' of words independently of their meanings is
> >> bizarre, to say the least.
>
> > There aren't words you know the shape for (is there a term
> > you'd prefer for 'shape') that you don't know the meaning
> > of? Assuming that you come up with some examples, how
> > long would it take you to learn the meaning? Compare this
> > to a word that you don't know its shape or meaning.
>
> By and large, if I can recognize something as a word, either
> in English or in German, I have at least a vague idea of its
> semantic field, if not of its precise meaning. Even so,
> learning to use such a word correctly would on average take
> no less time than learning to use correctly a word that I'd
> never encountered before at all.
>
Leaving out confusing and complicated words, I just don't see that. You
can't claim that if one language has the word 'cow' meaning the same
thing as another language with 'cow' that that is the same level of
difficulty as learning 'cow' and 'asdf'.
> > I think learning the shape is much more effort than the
> > meaning
>
> And I think that this idea is preposterous.
>
> [...]
>
> >> Knowledge of the English word
> >> <elf> does not make the German word <elf> easier to learn
> >> than the German word <zehn>.
>
> > Of course it does. You really believe that knowing the
> > English word "wagon" doesn't help with the German word
> > "Wagen"?
>
> It is of no use whatsoever in learning the German word
> <wagen> 'to venture, to risk, to dare', which is the case
> actually analogous to the one that I presented. It may be
> of some assistance in learning the German word <Wagen> 'a
> car; a wagon', but that is because the meanings as well as
> the sounds are similar; this example, which I assume is the
> one you intended, is therefore irrelevant to your claim that
> the shape alone is helpful, independent of the meaning.
>
Obviously I was referring specifically to the German noun, but it
doesn't really matter. I am claiming that the verb is also easier to
learn than one that has no similar English word sound shape or spelling.
> >>> The fact that the words that seem the same in two
> >>> languages often don't mean the exact same thing suggests
> >>> that books like Buck's could be missing a lot of these
> >>> words from their lists.
>
> >> Such lists have nothing to do with 'words that seem the
> >> same';
>
> > Buck's list is by meaning. What I'm saying is that if the
> > words have shifted meanings in various languages, those
> > roots might not be the ones represented when you put
> > together a list based on meaning. If there are six words
> > for 'cow' in a language, how do you know he'll choose the
> > ones with the same root in all the languages.
>
> He won't, necessarily, since he tries to choose the normal,
> unmarked forms. But if you read the notes, you'll find that
> he very often mentions cognates with shifted meaning that of
> course don't appear in the lists themselves.
>
So if in a dozen languages, we keep getting, say, about three roots
popping up to the top for each 'universal concept', that all three roots
are still in most of the languages, but not at the top, might be missed.
Brian M. Scott
> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>>> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>>>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
[...]
>>>>>> (a) If it doesn't have a meaning, then it isn't a word.
>>>>>> There's no point in "learning" series of sounds or
>>>>>> letters with no meaning attached to them.
>>>>> I didn't say you should do that. I said you can divide out
>>>>> the two actions and that if you already know the word
>>>>> shape, you don't have to learn it again, just its new
>>>>> meaning. Isn't this what people are trying to do when
>>>>> they learn words by finding puns and the like between the
>>>>> word they are learning and words they already know,
>>>>> perhaps in another language?
>>>> No. Such tricks have to do with associating the right
>>>> meaning with the sequence of sounds or symbols.
>>> No? People do use a sound shape they know from one
>>> language to learn it as a different word in another.
>> People don't learn just sound shapes; they learn words and
>> phrases. The mnemonic tricks, if they use any, are
>> primarily to get the meanings properly associated with the
>> sound shapes, not to remember the sound shapes themselves.
> I don't see that. It is very possible to learn a sound shape and
> meaning, and then forget the meaning while retaining the sound shape.
Irrelevant: you appear to be confusing what is retained
after some period of time with what was originally learnt.
[...]
>>>> The idea that in learning a language people learn the
>>>> 'shapes' of words independently of their meanings is
>>>> bizarre, to say the least.
>>> There aren't words you know the shape for (is there a term
>>> you'd prefer for 'shape') that you don't know the meaning
>>> of? Assuming that you come up with some examples, how
>>> long would it take you to learn the meaning? Compare this
>>> to a word that you don't know its shape or meaning.
>> By and large, if I can recognize something as a word, either
>> in English or in German, I have at least a vague idea of its
>> semantic field, if not of its precise meaning. Even so,
>> learning to use such a word correctly would on average take
>> no less time than learning to use correctly a word that I'd
>> never encountered before at all.
> Leaving out confusing and complicated words, I just don't
> see that.
Whether *you* see it is beside the point; it is *my*
experience of *my* language-learning.
> You can't claim that if one language has the word 'cow'
> meaning the same thing as another language with 'cow'
> that that is the same level of difficulty as learning
> 'cow' and 'asdf'.
I didn't. Aren't you paying attention to your own words?
You asked whether knowing that something was a word would
help me to learn its meaning more quickly. The answer is
'no'.
Now you're asking a different question. It's dealt with
below.
[...]
>>>> Knowledge of the English word
>>>> <elf> does not make the German word <elf> easier to learn
>>>> than the German word <zehn>.
>>> Of course it does. You really believe that knowing the
>>> English word "wagon" doesn't help with the German word
>>> "Wagen"?
>> It is of no use whatsoever in learning the German word
>> <wagen> 'to venture, to risk, to dare', which is the case
>> actually analogous to the one that I presented. It may be
>> of some assistance in learning the German word <Wagen> 'a
>> car; a wagon', but that is because the meanings as well as
>> the sounds are similar; this example, which I assume is the
>> one you intended, is therefore irrelevant to your claim that
>> the shape alone is helpful, independent of the meaning.
> Obviously I was referring specifically to the German noun,
> but it doesn't really matter. I am claiming that the verb
> is also easier to learn than one that has no similar
> English word sound shape or spelling.
It certainly does matter; the claim strikes me as being not
only absurd, but obviously so.
To return to your 'cow' example: knowing English <cow> may
help me to learn German <Kuh> 'cow', but these cognates are
of fuck-all use in learning Finnish <kuu> 'moon'.
>>>>> The fact that the words that seem the same in two
>>>>> languages often don't mean the exact same thing suggests
>>>>> that books like Buck's could be missing a lot of these
>>>>> words from their lists.
>>>> Such lists have nothing to do with 'words that seem the
>>>> same';
>>> Buck's list is by meaning. What I'm saying is that if the
>>> words have shifted meanings in various languages, those
>>> roots might not be the ones represented when you put
>>> together a list based on meaning. If there are six words
>>> for 'cow' in a language, how do you know he'll choose the
>>> ones with the same root in all the languages.
>> He won't, necessarily, since he tries to choose the normal,
>> unmarked forms. But if you read the notes, you'll find that
>> he very often mentions cognates with shifted meaning that of
>> course don't appear in the lists themselves.
> So if in a dozen languages, we keep getting, say, about
> three roots popping up to the top for each 'universal
> concept', that all three roots are still in most of the
> languages, but not at the top, might be missed.
Gesundheit.
If I'm guessing correctly what you meant to say here, the
answer is that it's not a serious problem with Buck: he's
likely to mention all three and virtually certain to mention
at least one.
Brian
LEE Sau Dan
Brian> The idea that in learning a language people learn the
Brian> 'shapes' of words independently of their meanings is
Brian> bizarre, to say the least. Knowledge of the English word
Brian> <elf>
Oh! I didn't know this English word.
Brian> does not make the German word <elf> easier to learn
But knowing the English word "eleven" DID make it much easier for me
to learn the German word "elf".
Brian> than the German word <zehn>.
That's helped by the knowledge of the English word "ten".
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
LEE Sau Dan wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Brian" == Brian M Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes:
>
> Brian> The idea that in learning a language people learn the
> Brian> 'shapes' of words independently of their meanings is
> Brian> bizarre, to say the least. Knowledge of the English word
> Brian> <elf>
>
> Oh! I didn't know this English word.
>
> Brian> does not make the German word <elf> easier to learn
>
> But knowing the English word "eleven" DID make it much easier for me
> to learn the German word "elf".
>
Do you now know the English word 'elf'? Even if you don't know what the
English meaning for 'elf' is, it is still very possible that you now
know it's an English word. So I don't think the division that I'm
suggesting is as nuts as it is being portrayed by the other poster.
> Brian> than the German word <zehn>.
>
> That's helped by the knowledge of the English word "ten".
>
Did you learn the Finnish word for moon too? I did and without any real
effort. Had the word been 'eruturaateetta', effort would have been
required.
--
"Well, I just didn't want to get killed."
"Until people stop dying for freedom, they ain't going to be free."
-+Robert Altman, "McCabe & Mrs Miller"
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Most people try to attach some meaning to a sound shape they are
learning. What would be the point otherwise? I'm just saying that there
are sound shapes that you remember that you don't remember the meaning
for, or that you don't remember the meaning for in the target language.
Sound shapes that exist in a known language and a target language might
have retained meanings by the learner only for the known language even
though the sound shape is know to be a word in the target language.
> [...]
>
> >>>> The idea that in learning a language people learn the
> >>>> 'shapes' of words independently of their meanings is
> >>>> bizarre, to say the least.
>
> >>> There aren't words you know the shape for (is there a term
> >>> you'd prefer for 'shape') that you don't know the meaning
> >>> of? Assuming that you come up with some examples, how
> >>> long would it take you to learn the meaning? Compare this
> >>> to a word that you don't know its shape or meaning.
>
> >> By and large, if I can recognize something as a word, either
> >> in English or in German, I have at least a vague idea of its
> >> semantic field, if not of its precise meaning. Even so,
> >> learning to use such a word correctly would on average take
> >> no less time than learning to use correctly a word that I'd
> >> never encountered before at all.
>
> > Leaving out confusing and complicated words, I just don't
> > see that.
>
> Whether *you* see it is beside the point; it is *my*
> experience of *my* language-learning.
>
Obviously I'm expressing my opinion. I wouldn't be replying if I didn't
want to discuss your opinion on the subject and that of anyone else who
cares to comment.
> > You can't claim that if one language has the word 'cow'
> > meaning the same thing as another language with 'cow'
> > that that is the same level of difficulty as learning
> > 'cow' and 'asdf'.
>
> I didn't. Aren't you paying attention to your own words?
> You asked whether knowing that something was a word would
> help me to learn its meaning more quickly. The answer is
> 'no'.
>
I thought that I said that knowing the sound shape in a target language
but not its meaning would make learning the word easier because the
effort to learn the sound shape has already occurred, and that learning
the sound shape is the hard part, at least for ordinary words. Obviously
learning how to properly and fluently use some complex word, say one
with many meanings in the known language, is its own difficulty.
And I feel like I now know the Finnish word for 'moon'. And with no
effort. We disagree, but I guess we are on the same page more or less.
Could we find five languages with something close to 'kuu', all with
different end meanings, and then almost instantly learn those end
meanings all attached to that one word shape?
Except that if you had a book that followed the roots up through into
their various end meanings in each of the languages, you'd have them
mentioned consistently. How many different roots for 'cow' exist in the
European languages? Let's say there are three. The question would be how
many of those roots ended up in each of those languages, perhaps not as
first choices or with the meaning 'cow'?
Brian M. Scott
> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>>> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>>>>> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>>>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>> [...]
Precisely. Which is why your insistence on separating the
two strikes me as being fairly absurd.
> I'm just saying that there are sound shapes that you
> remember that you don't remember the meaning for, or that
> you don't remember the meaning for in the target
> language.
Of course. But this is irrelevant to your original claim.
[...]
>>> You can't claim that if one language has the word 'cow'
>>> meaning the same thing as another language with 'cow'
>>> that that is the same level of difficulty as learning
>>> 'cow' and 'asdf'.
>> I didn't. Aren't you paying attention to your own words?
>> You asked whether knowing that something was a word would
>> help me to learn its meaning more quickly. The answer is
>> 'no'.
> I thought that I said that knowing the sound shape in a
> target language but not its meaning would make learning
> the word easier because the effort to learn the sound
> shape has already occurred, and that learning the sound
> shape is the hard part, at least for ordinary words.
You did. You then asked a question that boils down to my
paraphrase in the paragraph to which you just responded. To
put it a little differently, you asked whether your first
claim (that 'knowing the sound shape ... has already
occurred') was true for me, and I told you that it wasn't.
Your 'cow' question deals with another issue altogether,
since you are supposing a situation in which both shape
_and_meaning_ match.
> Obviously learning how to properly and fluently use some
> complex word, say one with many meanings in the known
> language, is its own difficulty.
Indeed. But since neither of us has suggested otherwise, or
(till now) even raised the issue, I don't see why you're
doing so now.
[...]
I really don't think so: your thought processes here remain
pretty opaque to me.
> Could we find five languages with something close to
> 'kuu', all with different end meanings,
Quite possibly; I really don't know.
> and then almost instantly learn those end meanings all
> attached to that one word shape?
No. First, it *isn't* the same 'shape', even when it's as
close as German <elf> '11' and English <elf> (unless, of
course, you're talking only about the written word), so
knowing the one *doesn't* give you the other. (I hold my
vocal apparatus quite differently when I speak German from
the way I hold it to speak English.) Secondly, 'shape' is
not independent of context. If I see <elf> in a German
context, or one in which I'm thinking about German, the
English word doesn't occur to me; what's more, this was as
true ~45 years ago, when I first learnt the German word, as
it is today.
Cognates are a real help, if they're recognizable,
especially once you've begun to pick up the rules relating
them; accidental resemblances are of no use to me, and I
doubt very much that they are useful to very many others
except perhaps for cramming for a vocabulary quiz.
[...]
Brian
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Except that the word shape and the word meaning exist as two separate
elements whenever you forget a word shape or word meaning. Discussing
how to respond to those situations isn't absurd.
> > I'm just saying that there are sound shapes that you
> > remember that you don't remember the meaning for, or that
> > you don't remember the meaning for in the target
> > language.
>
> Of course. But this is irrelevant to your original claim.
>
How?
> [...]
>
> >>> You can't claim that if one language has the word 'cow'
> >>> meaning the same thing as another language with 'cow'
> >>> that that is the same level of difficulty as learning
> >>> 'cow' and 'asdf'.
>
> >> I didn't. Aren't you paying attention to your own words?
> >> You asked whether knowing that something was a word would
> >> help me to learn its meaning more quickly. The answer is
> >> 'no'.
>
> > I thought that I said that knowing the sound shape in a
> > target language but not its meaning would make learning
> > the word easier because the effort to learn the sound
> > shape has already occurred, and that learning the sound
> > shape is the hard part, at least for ordinary words.
>
> You did. You then asked a question that boils down to my
> paraphrase in the paragraph to which you just responded. To
> put it a little differently, you asked whether your first
> claim (that 'knowing the sound shape ... has already
> occurred') was true for me, and I told you that it wasn't.
> Your 'cow' question deals with another issue altogether,
> since you are supposing a situation in which both shape
> _and_meaning_ match.
>
I was looking at the simplest of possibilities. You then added in
Finnish 'kuu', which means English 'Moon'. That took no effort learn, I
think because I already had the sound shape, the basic sound shape, down
from English. Perhaps this mechanism can be overloaded if you gave me a
hundred Finnish words that sound like English words but have different
meanings. I don't know. It is what I've been thinking about, however.
> > Obviously learning how to properly and fluently use some
> > complex word, say one with many meanings in the known
> > language, is its own difficulty.
>
> Indeed. But since neither of us has suggested otherwise, or
> (till now) even raised the issue, I don't see why you're
> doing so now.
>
I'm bringing it up to make it clear that my claim that learning the
sound shape was the hard part did not mean in comparison to learning how
to use this comparatively small set of difficult words.
That it took no effort to learn Finnish 'kuu' means English 'moon'
because I knew the sound shape already is my point.
> > Could we find five languages with something close to
> > 'kuu', all with different end meanings,
>
> Quite possibly; I really don't know.
>
So let's say we found these five languages. What level of effort would
there be in learning the five meanings attached to one sound shape
compared to learning five sound shapes and five meanings?
> > and then almost instantly learn those end meanings all
> > attached to that one word shape?
>
> No. First, it *isn't* the same 'shape', even when it's as
> close as German <elf> '11' and English <elf> (unless, of
> course, you're talking only about the written word), so
> knowing the one *doesn't* give you the other. (I hold my
> vocal apparatus quite differently when I speak German from
> the way I hold it to speak English.)
>
I'm sure that Finnish 'kuu' and English 'cow' are not exactly the same
either but that doesn't stop the effect.
> Secondly, 'shape' is
> not independent of context. If I see <elf> in a German
> context, or one in which I'm thinking about German, the
> English word doesn't occur to me; what's more, this was as
> true ~45 years ago, when I first learnt the German word, as
> it is today.
>
It's never occurred to you that German and English both have words spelt
'also'? It makes no sense to pay any attention to that fact in the other
language when thinking in its opposite but when just learning the word,
I don't see why not.
> Cognates are a real help, if they're recognizable,
> especially once you've begun to pick up the rules relating
> them; accidental resemblances are of no use to me, and I
> doubt very much that they are useful to very many others
> except perhaps for cramming for a vocabulary quiz.
>
What does that mean? If you learn a word for a quiz, and you can really
remember it, then you are learning it for learning the language too. I
grant you there are people who can 'learn' things for a test and then
just forget them. I don't know how that words exactly.
--
"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"
Brian M. Scott
Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in sci.lang:
> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>>> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>>>>> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>>>>>>> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>>>> [...]
The topic under discussion is learning the word in the first
place, so these situations are not relevant.
>>> I'm just saying that there are sound shapes that you
>>> remember that you don't remember the meaning for, or that
>>> you don't remember the meaning for in the target
>>> language.
>> Of course. But this is irrelevant to your original claim.
> How?
Your original claim is about the sources of difficulty in
learning a new word in a foreign language. You are now talking
about a situation that can arise only after you have learnt the
word.
>> [...]
>>>>> You can't claim that if one language has the word 'cow'
>>>>> meaning the same thing as another language with 'cow'
>>>>> that that is the same level of difficulty as learning
>>>>> 'cow' and 'asdf'.
>>>> I didn't. Aren't you paying attention to your own words?
>>>> You asked whether knowing that something was a word would
>>>> help me to learn its meaning more quickly. The answer is
>>>> 'no'.
>>> I thought that I said that knowing the sound shape in a
>>> target language but not its meaning would make learning
>>> the word easier because the effort to learn the sound
>>> shape has already occurred, and that learning the sound
>>> shape is the hard part, at least for ordinary words.
>> You did. You then asked a question that boils down to my
>> paraphrase in the paragraph to which you just responded. To
>> put it a little differently, you asked whether your first
>> claim (that 'knowing the sound shape ... has already
>> occurred') was true for me, and I told you that it wasn't.
>> Your 'cow' question deals with another issue altogether,
>> since you are supposing a situation in which both shape
>> _and_meaning_ match.
> I was looking at the simplest of possibilities. You then added in
> Finnish 'kuu', which means English 'Moon'. That took no effort learn,
I very much doubt that you've learnt the word at all in any
useful sense. Could you recognize it in its inflected forms? I
doubt it.
And you apparently still don't understand that a claim that one
can use English <cow> to help learn German <Kuh> is completely
different from a claim that one can use English <cow> to help
learn Finnish <kuu>. No one is disputing the former claim; it's
the latter that in my opinion is absurd.
[...]
>>> Obviously learning how to properly and fluently use some
>>> complex word, say one with many meanings in the known
>>> language, is its own difficulty.
>> Indeed. But since neither of us has suggested otherwise, or
>> (till now) even raised the issue, I don't see why you're
>> doing so now.
> I'm bringing it up to make it clear that my claim that learning the
> sound shape was the hard part did not mean in comparison to learning how
> to use this comparatively small set of difficult words.
You have the strangest ideas about language. Long English words
compounded of many morphemes are in general *easy* to use; words
that are hard to use correctly include <the>, <a(n)>, <to>, and
<get>, for instance.
>> [...]
And I flatly don't believe the 'no effort' claim. The real work
is in associating the meaning with the Finnish word. Right now
that association is very weak, and if you don't reinforce it, it
will disappear very quickly. In short, you really haven't (at
this point) learnt much of anything.
>>> Could we find five languages with something close to
>>> 'kuu', all with different end meanings,
>> Quite possibly; I really don't know.
> So let's say we found these five languages. What level of effort would
> there be in learning the five meanings attached to one sound shape
> compared to learning five sound shapes and five meanings?
The same, if one is actually learning the languages. If one is
playing silly parlour games, the first task might be easier.
>>> and then almost instantly learn those end meanings all
>>> attached to that one word shape?
>> No. First, it *isn't* the same 'shape', even when it's as
>> close as German <elf> '11' and English <elf> (unless, of
>> course, you're talking only about the written word), so
>> knowing the one *doesn't* give you the other. (I hold my
>> vocal apparatus quite differently when I speak German from
>> the way I hold it to speak English.)
> I'm sure that Finnish 'kuu' and English 'cow' are not exactly the same
> either but that doesn't stop the effect.
>> Secondly, 'shape' is
>> not independent of context. If I see <elf> in a German
>> context, or one in which I'm thinking about German, the
>> English word doesn't occur to me; what's more, this was as
>> true ~45 years ago, when I first learnt the German word, as
>> it is today.
> It's never occurred to you that German and English both have words spelt
> 'also'?
Of course I noticed this coincidence long ago. I also noticed
the <elf> coincidence. If you read what I actually wrote in the
sentence beginning ('If I see ...'), you'll see that there is no
contradiction here.
> It makes no sense to pay any attention to that fact in the other
> language when thinking in its opposite but when just learning the word,
> I don't see why not.
Because the meaningless resemblance, being meaningless, is
utterly unhelpful.
>> Cognates are a real help, if they're recognizable,
>> especially once you've begun to pick up the rules relating
>> them; accidental resemblances are of no use to me, and I
>> doubt very much that they are useful to very many others
>> except perhaps for cramming for a vocabulary quiz.
> What does that mean? If you learn a word for a quiz, and you can really
> remember it, then you are learning it for learning the language too. I
> grant you there are people who can 'learn' things for a test and then
> just forget them. I don't know how that words exactly.
WTF did you think I was talking about when I specified cramming?
I am distinguishing between learning the word in a useful sense
and learning it as half of a matched pair for the purpose of
being able to supply on demand the other half.
Brian
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
"Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:37:53 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo
> Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in sci.lang:
>
> > Except that the word shape and the word meaning exist as two separate
> > elements whenever you forget a word shape or word meaning. Discussing
> > how to respond to those situations isn't absurd.
>
> The topic under discussion is learning the word in the first
> place, so these situations are not relevant.
>
For me at least, forgetting the word meaning and/or shape is a part of
the process of learning the word. Since I've seen the forgetting bit
mentioned in language learning books, I think I'm not unique in that
regard. It's difficult to compare one's own learning methods to others
because everyone is different.
> >>> I'm just saying that there are sound shapes that you
> >>> remember that you don't remember the meaning for, or that
> >>> you don't remember the meaning for in the target
> >>> language.
>
> >> Of course. But this is irrelevant to your original claim.
>
> > How?
>
> Your original claim is about the sources of difficulty in
> learning a new word in a foreign language. You are now talking
> about a situation that can arise only after you have learnt the
> word.
>
I haven't changed my claim. The forgetting of the shape is a part of the
learning. I still remember that kuu is moon though. It might be that
this process can easily be overloaded, if I were to try to instantly
learn 100 Finnish words that had similar English shapes.
I have no idea how nouns are declined in Finnish beyond that they have
something like 15 cases. You are edging into other related subjects I've
been thinking about. For example, is learning a pidgin type language
helpful in learning the language from which most of its words are
borrowed? How about learning your own 'pidgin' version of a language and
then expanding it to the standard? For example, would it word to learn
words and not learn their plurals (say in a language where plurals are
difficult) hoping to just pick those up as you go along?
> And you apparently still don't understand that a claim that one
> can use English <cow> to help learn German <Kuh> is completely
> different from a claim that one can use English <cow> to help
> learn Finnish <kuu>. No one is disputing the former claim; it's
> the latter that in my opinion is absurd.
>
I don't understand why you think it is absurd. Is it because I can't
decline 'kuu' from just knowing the English 'cow'? I don't know the
gender of German 'Kuh' from using the English word shape to learn the
German shape yet you don't think that method of gaining benefit in
learning is absurd.
> [...]
>
> >>> Obviously learning how to properly and fluently use some
> >>> complex word, say one with many meanings in the known
> >>> language, is its own difficulty.
>
> >> Indeed. But since neither of us has suggested otherwise, or
> >> (till now) even raised the issue, I don't see why you're
> >> doing so now.
>
> > I'm bringing it up to make it clear that my claim that learning the
> > sound shape was the hard part did not mean in comparison to learning how
> > to use this comparatively small set of difficult words.
>
> You have the strangest ideas about language. Long English words
> compounded of many morphemes are in general *easy* to use; words
> that are hard to use correctly include <the>, <a(n)>, <to>, and
> <get>, for instance.
>
I'm not sure what is strange about my ideas about language. I agree that
you've described some of the difficult words in English. You would find
similar problems in other languages. Often screwing these words up
doesn't destroy the ability to communicate, if the listener actually
wants to understand.
Not in learning the shape? You are now making a claim too. I'd love to
see any study on this to see what is the real difficult part for most
learners.
> Right now
> that association is very weak, and if you don't reinforce it, it
> will disappear very quickly.
>
Sure but 'kuu' is even weaker, I mean if you ignore that it has a
similar shape to 'cow' or 'Kuh'. I keep remembering it because I
remember that the Finnish word for moon sounds similar to the English
word 'cow' and even more similar to the German word 'Kuh'.
> In short, you really haven't (at
> this point) learnt much of anything.
>
I've only claimed to have learnt that Finnish 'kuu' means 'Moon' in
English. I don't know if it means 'moon' too. Finnish might have a
different word for the Moon and for other moons. Learning one word in
aother language isn't much of anything, I agree.
> >>> Could we find five languages with something close to
> >>> 'kuu', all with different end meanings,
>
> >> Quite possibly; I really don't know.
>
> > So let's say we found these five languages. What level of effort would
> > there be in learning the five meanings attached to one sound shape
> > compared to learning five sound shapes and five meanings?
>
> The same, if one is actually learning the languages. If one is
> playing silly parlour games, the first task might be easier.
>
I think that learning the words is the most difficult part about having
a basic simple conversation in another language, or in reading a
newspaper or the like.
> >>> and then almost instantly learn those end meanings all
> >>> attached to that one word shape?
>
> >> No. First, it *isn't* the same 'shape', even when it's as
> >> close as German <elf> '11' and English <elf> (unless, of
> >> course, you're talking only about the written word), so
> >> knowing the one *doesn't* give you the other. (I hold my
> >> vocal apparatus quite differently when I speak German from
> >> the way I hold it to speak English.)
>
> > I'm sure that Finnish 'kuu' and English 'cow' are not exactly the same
> > either but that doesn't stop the effect.
>
> >> Secondly, 'shape' is
> >> not independent of context. If I see <elf> in a German
> >> context, or one in which I'm thinking about German, the
> >> English word doesn't occur to me; what's more, this was as
> >> true ~45 years ago, when I first learnt the German word, as
> >> it is today.
>
> > It's never occurred to you that German and English both have words spelt
> > 'also'?
>
> Of course I noticed this coincidence long ago. I also noticed
> the <elf> coincidence. If you read what I actually wrote in the
> sentence beginning ('If I see ...'), you'll see that there is no
> contradiction here.
>
I know you don't think of the similar shape when you think of the word
in a sentence in each language. I'm talking about ways to learn the word
in the first place.
> > It makes no sense to pay any attention to that fact in the other
> > language when thinking in its opposite but when just learning the word,
> > I don't see why not.
>
> Because the meaningless resemblance, being meaningless, is
> utterly unhelpful.
>
As I keep saying, my claim is that it helps you learn the shape part of
the word, er, or at least it helps me. The example of 'kuu' is pointed
to.
> >> Cognates are a real help, if they're recognizable,
> >> especially once you've begun to pick up the rules relating
> >> them; accidental resemblances are of no use to me, and I
> >> doubt very much that they are useful to very many others
> >> except perhaps for cramming for a vocabulary quiz.
>
> > What does that mean? If you learn a word for a quiz, and you can really
> > remember it, then you are learning it for learning the language too. I
> > grant you there are people who can 'learn' things for a test and then
> > just forget them. I don't know how that works exactly.
>
> WTF did you think I was talking about when I specified cramming?
>
I said I didn't understand how you would go about doing that, learning
and then forgetting it all. I mean as a separate process from learning
it so that even if you forgot it, you could bring it back later with
some effort less than you originally required.
> I am distinguishing between learning the word in a useful sense
> and learning it as half of a matched pair for the purpose of
> being able to supply on demand the other half.
>
I know and I didn't understand what the difference was.
André Keshav
"Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
| Sure but 'kuu' is even weaker, I mean if you ignore that it has a
| similar shape to 'cow' or 'Kuh'. I keep remembering it because I
| remember that the Finnish word for moon sounds similar to the English
| word 'cow' and even more similar to the German word 'Kuh'.
I once came across short downloadable language courses on the Internet which were
based on this very principle -- and which according to them makes the memorizing
much easier. For every word of a given language, they made a connection with an
existing word in English. But their connections were often rather far-fetched. For
instance if it were Finnish 'kuu', they would write something like "Imagine cows
on the moon". The course I had downloaded was Turkish, and I must admit that I
don't remember much of it, though I haven't done any revisions since, which may be
part of the reason. Turkish has many words borrowed from French, some of which are
similar to the English word, in which case the mnemonics in the course invariably
involved turkeys. For example "police" is almost the same word in Turkish, so the
mnemonic they suggested was "Imagine turkeys being rounded up by the police"!
Peter T. Daniels
> Sure but 'kuu' is even weaker, I mean if you ignore that it has a
> similar shape to 'cow' or 'Kuh'. I keep remembering it because I
> remember that the Finnish word for moon sounds similar to the English
> word 'cow' and even more similar to the German word 'Kuh'.
And "The cow jumped over the moon"?
This is as absurd as those books for "learning" Chinese characters that
turn them into pictures for their meaning (that have nothing to do with
the pictograms they started out as 3500 years ago).
When you want to say 'moon' in Finnish you have to remember some cow
mnemonic? The worst possible way of learning vocabulary. You learn
vocabulary by studying words with their meanings.
Ron Hardin
> This is as absurd as those books for "learning" Chinese characters that
> turn them into pictures for their meaning (that have nothing to do with
> the pictograms they started out as 3500 years ago).
>
> When you want to say 'moon' in Finnish you have to remember some cow
> mnemonic? The worst possible way of learning vocabulary. You learn
> vocabulary by studying words with their meanings.
Check out H.A.Rey _The Stars a new way to see them_ for the difference that
a picture makes.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > This is as absurd as those books for "learning" Chinese characters that
> > turn them into pictures for their meaning (that have nothing to do with
> > the pictograms they started out as 3500 years ago).
> >
> > When you want to say 'moon' in Finnish you have to remember some cow
> > mnemonic? The worst possible way of learning vocabulary. You learn
> > vocabulary by studying words with their meanings.
>
> Check out H.A.Rey _The Stars a new way to see them_ for the difference that
> a picture makes.
> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
We're not indigo buntings.
Rey's pictures (which I found useful long ago) were adopted for the
second edition of the Peterson Field Guide to the Stars and Planets, and
then abandoned for the third (and successive). The astronomical
educators presumably found that they were less helpful than the
traditional, non-representative schemata usually used.
And constellations ain't language.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
"André Keshav" wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com>
>
> | Sure but 'kuu' is even weaker, I mean if you ignore that it has a
> | similar shape to 'cow' or 'Kuh'. I keep remembering it because I
> | remember that the Finnish word for moon sounds similar to the English
> | word 'cow' and even more similar to the German word 'Kuh'.
>
> I once came across short downloadable language courses on the Internet which were
> based on this very principle -- and which according to them makes the memorizing
> much easier. For every word of a given language, they made a connection with an
> existing word in English. But their connections were often rather far-fetched.
>
I know that people do this with names they are trying to remember.
> For
> instance if it were Finnish 'kuu', they would write something like "Imagine cows
> on the moon".
>
I just remembered it without any effort at all but later thought about
the 'cow jumps over the Moon' rhyme. All we need now is a language where
'jumps' is 'kuu'.
> The course I had downloaded was Turkish, and I must admit that I
> don't remember much of it, though I haven't done any revisions since, which may be
> part of the reason.
>
But I don't think there is any language or system that would end up
differently if you never use what you've 'learned'. The question now is
how hard would it be to go back and 'relearn' those words.
> Turkish has many words borrowed from French, some of which are
> similar to the English word, in which case the mnemonics in the course invariably
> involved turkeys. For example "police" is almost the same word in Turkish, so the
> mnemonic they suggested was "Imagine turkeys being rounded up by the police"!
>
Of course if the word is of the same meaning, why even bother with that.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) wrote:
>
> > Sure but 'kuu' is even weaker, I mean if you ignore that it has a
> > similar shape to 'cow' or 'Kuh'. I keep remembering it because I
> > remember that the Finnish word for moon sounds similar to the English
> > word 'cow' and even more similar to the German word 'Kuh'.
>
> And "The cow jumped over the moon"?
>
I thought of that later. I'm not remembering that the sounds are similar
because of that, however.
> This is as absurd as those books for "learning" Chinese characters that
> turn them into pictures for their meaning (that have nothing to do with
> the pictograms they started out as 3500 years ago).
>
Maybe you could explain techniques for learning words in another
language that aren't 'absurd'.
> When you want to say 'moon' in Finnish you have to remember some cow
> mnemonic?
>
Of course not. You bring words into your active vocabulary by using them
in real sentences within the language. All this does is give you a base
to work from, hopefully avoiding you having to look up 'moon' every time
you look up in the sky in Finland.
> The worst possible way of learning vocabulary. You learn
> vocabulary by studying words with their meanings.
>
kuu means moon. It sounds sort of like German 'Kuh'. Who cares if I
learned it that way?
Jacques Guy
> I remember reading The Loom of Language a long time ago, and it had a
> list of words in the back for different language families.
> That got me to thinking: is there is some kind of list of concepts - a
> sort of a concept frequency list - that could be used to gain a basic
> vocabulary?
One, if you bring in "frequency" you water down "universal".
Two, how "universal"? _All_ languages, I should think. If not
then we are back to (One) above.
Three, how do you identify concepts? Can we have a concept
without a corresponding word?
Four, "to gain a basic vocabulary". We've just seen here,
quite recently, that Piraha had no word for three and
beyond, and possibly none either for one and two. I don't
mind, I had no concept of number until I went to primary
school (but, like Dennis says, "I got better"). Yet,
is a basic vocabulary without numbers acceptable? And
if it is not, how do we justify that? And if it is,
what about a basic vocabulary without colours? Without...
Brian M. Scott
> "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:37:53 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo
>> Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in sci.lang:
>>> Except that the word shape and the word meaning exist as
>>> two separate elements whenever you forget a word shape
>>> or word meaning. Discussing how to respond to those
>>> situations isn't absurd.
>> The topic under discussion is learning the word in the
>> first place, so these situations are not relevant.
> For me at least, forgetting the word meaning and/or shape
> is a part of the process of learning the word.
This makes no sense to me. In the process of learning, one
may forget the meaning of a word that one recognizes as
familiar, but this certainly need not happen. And I have no
idea how one could forget the 'shape' and remember the
meaning, except in the trivial sense of remembering that
there is a word of the given meaning. In most cases one
could predict that ahead of time, however, so it seems a
very empty sort of 'knowledge'.
[...]
>>>>> I'm just saying that there are sound shapes that you
>>>>> remember that you don't remember the meaning for, or
>>>>> that you don't remember the meaning for in the target
>>>>> language.
>>>> Of course. But this is irrelevant to your original claim.
>>> How?
>> Your original claim is about the sources of difficulty in
>> learning a new word in a foreign language. You are now
>> talking about a situation that can arise only after you
>> have learnt the word.
> I haven't changed my claim. The forgetting of the shape is
> a part of the learning.
Not as far as I'm concerned.
[...]
No. I'm talking about learning a language; you're talking
about parlor memory tricks, so far as I can tell.
[...]
>> And you apparently still don't understand that a claim
>> that one can use English <cow> to help learn German
>> <Kuh> is completely different from a claim that one can
>> use English <cow> to help learn Finnish <kuu>. No one
>> is disputing the former claim; it's the latter that in
>> my opinion is absurd.
> I don't understand why you think it is absurd.
Do you even understand the difference between the two
claims? So far I've seen no evidence of it. And if you
don't, it's hardly surprising that you don't understand why
I think the second claim absurd, especially since you appear
to have no understanding of the difference between learning
a word as part of learning a language and learning a word as
part of a vocabulary list.
[...]
>>>>> Obviously learning how to properly and fluently use
>>>>> some complex word, say one with many meanings in the
>>>>> known language, is its own difficulty.
>>>> Indeed. But since neither of us has suggested
>>>> otherwise, or (till now) even raised the issue, I
>>>> don't see why you're doing so now.
>>> I'm bringing it up to make it clear that my claim that
>>> learning the sound shape was the hard part did not mean
>>> in comparison to learning how to use this comparatively
>>> small set of difficult words.
>> You have the strangest ideas about language. Long
>> English words compounded of many morphemes are in
>> general *easy* to use; words that are hard to use
>> correctly include <the>, <a(n)>, <to>, and <get>, for
>> instance.
> I'm not sure what is strange about my ideas about
> language.
Christ on a crutch, I just gave you a specific example! The
set of what you call difficult words is *not* particularly
small and contains many of the more common words.
[...]
> Often screwing these words up doesn't destroy the ability
> to communicate, if the listener actually wants to
> understand.
Which has nothing to do with the subject.
[...]
>>>>>> To return to your 'cow' example: knowing English
>>>>>> <cow> may help me to learn German <Kuh> 'cow', but
>>>>>> these cognates are of fuck-all use in learning
>>>>>> Finnish <kuu> 'moon'.
>>>>> And I feel like I now know the Finnish word for
>>>>> 'moon'. And with no effort. We disagree, but I guess
>>>>> we are on the same page more or less.
>>>> I really don't think so: your thought processes here
>>>> remain pretty opaque to me.
>>> That it took no effort to learn Finnish 'kuu' means
>>> English 'moon' because I knew the sound shape already
>>> is my point.
>> And I flatly don't believe the 'no effort' claim. The
>> real work is in associating the meaning with the Finnish
>> word.
> Not in learning the shape?
Exactly so.
[...]
>> Right now that association is very weak, and if you don't
>> reinforce it, it will disappear very quickly.
> Sure but 'kuu' is even weaker, I mean if you ignore that
> it has a similar shape to 'cow' or 'Kuh'.
Piffle. Once <kuu> goes, you have nothing except perhaps a
memory of having once known the nominative case of the
Finnish word for 'moon'. As far as the language goes, you
have nothing. If, on the other hand, you remember that
you've encountered <kuu> as a Finnish word, but you don't
remember what it means, you're in the same position in which
you find yourself when you recognize an English word but
don't know its meaning; you still have a piece of the
language, albeit a very tiny one.
[...]
>>>>> Could we find five languages with something close to
>>>>> 'kuu', all with different end meanings,
>>>> Quite possibly; I really don't know.
>>> So let's say we found these five languages. What level
>>> of effort would there be in learning the five meanings
>>> attached to one sound shape compared to learning five
>>> sound shapes and five meanings?
>> The same, if one is actually learning the languages. If
>> one is playing silly parlour games, the first task might
>> be easier.
> I think that learning the words is the most difficult part
> about having a basic simple conversation in another
> language, or in reading a newspaper or the like.
Unless your 'basic simple' means 'possibly completely
ungrammatical but understandable with a bit of good will'
(in which case we're not talking about the same thing at
all), you're wrong, except *possibly* in the case of a
language whose syntax is similar to that of your own and
whose inflectional morphology can be mangled without too
much loss of comprehensibility. It's only after you have a
decent grasp of the structure of the language that
vocabulary becomes the limiting factor.
So am I (as well as the other). I prefer not to clutter my
mind with irrelevant and unhelpful mnemonics.
[...]
>>>> Cognates are a real help, if they're recognizable,
>>>> especially once you've begun to pick up the rules
>>>> relating them; accidental resemblances are of no use
>>>> to me, and I doubt very much that they are useful to
>>>> very many others except perhaps for cramming for a
>>>> vocabulary quiz.
>>> What does that mean? If you learn a word for a quiz, and
>>> you can really remember it, then you are learning it
>>> for learning the language too. I grant you there are
>>> people who can 'learn' things for a test and then just
>>> forget them. I don't know how that works exactly.
>> WTF did you think I was talking about when I specified
>> cramming?
> I said I didn't understand how you would go about doing
> that, learning and then forgetting it all. I mean as a
> separate process from learning it so that even if you
> forgot it, you could bring it back later with some effort
> less than you originally required.
Eh? Cramming notoriously leads to forgetting quickly, since
the material typically gets only into short-term memory, but
I don't know of anyone who has crammed who hasn't also found
it at least a little easier to relearn the same material
later. You seem to imagine that the original state is later
restored; in my experience, both first- and second-hand,
that is not the case.
[...]
I'm going to stop here, because every post that you've made
in this thread has contained at least one comment that makes
me want to ask what color the sky is in your universe. It's
not clear that we have enough common ground to make possible
a worthwhile discussion, and with my teaching load this term
I don't have the free time to work at it.
Brian