Re: History of French
From: Mxsmanic (mxsmanic_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/15/04
- Next message: Mxsmanic: "Re: History of French"
- Previous message: Nathan Sanders: "Re: History of French"
- In reply to: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: History of French"
- Next in thread: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: History of French"
- Reply: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: History of French"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 05:48:33 +0200
Ruud Harmsen writes:
> So why do grown-ups always have an accent? Even those who started
> early, and made a serious effort to perfectionate their accent in a
> foreign language?
They _don't_ always have an accent. Some adult language learners speak
without an accent. I've _seen_ this, I _know_ it is true, despite
vehement assertions to the contrary by some linguists (all of whom
coincidentally never manage to learn to speak any foreign language
without an accent themselves).
> There is hardly any confusion. There is training and patterns. And
> discovering what doesn't conform to them.
There's a huge amount of confusion, that's why it takes years for a
child to learn anything. How can one learn by pure trial and error
without confusion? In the absence of confusion, every trial is
error-free.
> You are right there. 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, for several years.
> Every single activity a child is involved is also language-learning.
> Any adult spending that much time on language learning would make
> great progress too.
Exactly. And some adults do that, which is one reason why some adults
don't have accents.
> It is. In one sense it is, in the other it is not. And do distinguish
> between language variants, if they learnt some other variant than the
> standard at home, that's two different variants, each with its own
> rules.
Unfortunately, anything less than 100% congruence between variants is an
obstacle to communication.
> Children learn grammar and vocabulary at the same time, before ever
> having thought of the difference. That is the best method, even for
> adult.
Why do you say this?
> English grammar is very complicated, especially if you use books that
> don't think it works the same as Latin.
English grammar is no more difficult than the grammar of any other
language.
-- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
- Next message: Mxsmanic: "Re: History of French"
- Previous message: Nathan Sanders: "Re: History of French"
- In reply to: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: History of French"
- Next in thread: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: History of French"
- Reply: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: History of French"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|