craig1985 said:
So when learning languages, what comes first, or is "easiest" to learn first, speaking, or reading and writing? But I do like the idea of finding some cycling torrents in Japanese (and there is some), and so how I go. I have watched Het Volk in Dutch, and after a while I got the gist of what they are saying.
It will be much harder to pick up Japanese than Dutch in such a way (though you can pick up pieces of languages this way); because Dutch is related to a language or languages you already know (English, German) you can quickly pick up on things that sound familiar and subconsciously fill in the gaps in your knowledge, I can do this with Romance languages and West Germanic languages; it will also help if you can spot patterns (eg, initial Z- in German = initial T- in English and Dutch, eg "Zinn" 'tin', "Zwei" 'two'), which is always much easier in languages where there is some grammatical or especially lexical similarity to a language you're comfortable in.
The other thing I'm interested in, and this aimed at those who don't speak English as a first language (like Barrus, Redheaded Dane), how do you react if somebody where to visit your country and made an effort to learn your language and speak to you, even though you knew (or assumed) they're native English speakers, would you talk back to them in the language they're trying to learn, or would you just respond in English? I had that in Italy, where I would try and practise my Italian, only to have people talk back to me in English. Serves me right for visiting places like Rome.
I think it depends on the ability you display. If you talk the language very well then they'll tend to stick to the language, but if you trip over words, or have any trouble they'll revert to English. Don't just go and talk in English without first making an attempt to use the native language - even if you're terrible and after one sentence they know to go into English, many places will get offended if you don't at least try, and many will then play dumb when it comes to English in that case; depending on how proud they are of their own language. The French are the ones that are notorious for this, but they are by no means the only ones, and by no means are all French like this either.
The other thing I've found in Europe, and I've been to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (and I loved my time there), and I was impressed with the all round quality of English that people spoke. From speaking to the locals, to walking into a bus station to buy a bus ticket to Warsaw in Vilnius. But I also remember a conversation that I had with an Estonian lad, and he told me he could speak fluently Estonian (that one is a given), Finnish (I assume those two are closely related Libertine?), and English. On top of that he could get by in Italian, German, and Russian. When I asked him how he was able to know so many languages, he just responded with "if you don't know languages in Estonia, then you don't know anything" .
Estonian is indeed closely related to Finnish, they are Uralic languages, which is a separate family entirely from Indo-European (which subdivides into various families that cover most of Europe and the Indian Subcontinent). Most of these languages are fairly obscure tribal and regional languages in the Ural mountains and central Russia, but the Finno-Ugric branch contains a few languages that are more well-known. Finnish and Estonian (along with Sami aka Lappish) constitute one branch of this, and Hungarian constitutes the other branch of it. They are three of only 5 current languages in Europe that aren't Indo-European - the others being Maltese (which is related to Arabic but with a large English and Italian element to its vocabulary) and Basque (which is a language isolate that has baffled linguists for centuries).
The Hitch said:
I think more people do speak English. China has the most english speakers in the world with 200 mil there. Then you have US with another 200, Canada UK Australia New Zealand various African states probably another 200 mil. And then the bulk, people living around the world who speak English. If 1 6th of chinese people speak English, how many in Japan, Korea, Europe, Latin America, India, rest of Asia etc. I think this makes up for more than the 1.3 bill or so who speak Mandarin. Also Mandarin is not Chinas only language.
In terms of number of native speakers, Mandarin is top. In terms of geographical spread, Spanish is top. But in terms of number of speakers, English is top.
Interestingly, the Chinese government considers the various versions of Chinese to be "dialects", because that way the Chinese (whose language family is Sino-Tibetan and doesn't cover much area outside of present-day China) are felt to be better united. However, these "dialects" are in fact far more distinct and different than some areas where languages are clearly demarcated, such as between Czech, Slovak and Polish. I had two Chinese housemates a few years ago when studying, and they said that they were taught that Chinese was one language. They were also completely baffled when I told them that Taiwanese is not related to Chinese at all (it's related to Maori and Hawaiian), mainly because they didn't know there was a separate Taiwanese language at all (it is spoken by very few because Chinese/Mandarin is so dominant in Taiwan). They also said that they were taught that Japanese came from Chinese prisoners escaping abroad and making up a language to prevent re-capture. This seems implausible - if you try to make up a language, the chances are it will hold a close similarity in structure and grammar to a language you know - even most auxiliary languages like Esperanto and Ido fall into this trap, and are essentially constructed indo-European languages. Therefore, were this urban legend to be true, you would expect Japanese to be a related language to Chinese, whereas in fact it is another language isolate - although a theory has been postulated that it is part of a super-family, including Korean and the various 'Altaic' and 'Turkic' languages, which covers most of Central Asia (Mongolian, Tajik, Kazakh etc) and Turkey, no conclusive evidence that links Japanese to the other languages in this group (a relationship between which have been proven, with the exception of Korean). It is plausible that this urban legend resulted in WRITING being brought to Japan (there are four writing systems in Japanese, with kanji (Chinese characters) being one, and two of the others (hiragana and katakana) being derived from it), but language? Definitely not.
The Hitch said:
But a question for others on this thread.
DO you think that a language can be learned by listening to the radio in that language continuesly for a month - from the following startingpoints
Starting from beginner ? If not, COuld basics be picked up, or will it all just fly past without being understood?
Starting from basic knowledge?
Starting from a basice understanding of grammar, and decent vocabulary?
Starting from intermediate.
My personal belief would be that, if the language was closely related to one you know you could pick up the basics with the most rudimentary of knowledge of the language, as long as you had some kind of idea of the pronunciation system. The further a language strays from what you already know, the more background knowledge of that language you would need to have. Don't fool yourself into thinking you could possibly be fluent in just a couple of weeks. You may be able to get by and understand everything, but vocabulary is a neverending process. Even after a year in Germany I could still detect subtle differences in the way that some of my German friends talked to me from how they talked to fellow Germans. It wasn't a case of scorn or simplification; it was a case of intonation being slightly clearer, fewer modal particles, and so on. People who say that they were somewhere for a month and became fluent in the native language are either supernaturally gifted, or they're not quite right. You can certainly pick up enough to pass as fluent in such a short period of time, but from scratch to being totally fluent in a month is just not feasible.
I'm not calling the people on here liars, I'm just saying that language is a fluent and expanding thing; after years of immersing yourself you may still make mistakes of tense, mistakes of gender or declension errors. But in speech, these things are quickly covered up (I very quickly learnt to just use d' before nouns in German if I wasn't sure of the gender) and you can be understood even with these errors. I once erroneously used the past participle "gefindet" when I was 13 (as would be the ptp of "finden" were it a regular verb). Nobody corrected me, they all knew what I meant by it. But when I found out I should have been saying "gefunden", it was like I'd been saying "finded" all this time - being able to comfortably express yourself and being fluent aren't the same thing, so if it gets to your set amount of time and you feel like you aren't getting anywhere in the same time period as others seem to be able to discuss anything with anybody, don't get disheartened.