Richard

"Captain!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:EDRTc.14550$X12.11174@edtnps84...

    > countries like the united states are full of immigrants who
    > teach their native languages to students wishing to learn them.
    > this has got to be one of the most pathetic america bashing
    > reasons i have ever seen.

That sounds nice in theory but in the US and Canada, when schools look for
teachers, formal education is required while ability is only an added bonus.
A recent French literature graduate from the University of <insert your
favourite mid-western state here> has a better chance of becoming a French
teacher in the US than a Frenchman (or a Quebecois, Haitian, Algerian, etc.)
despite the fact that the grad might not even speak French fluently.

Not even in Quebec - where 80% of the population is francophone - is this
rule broken. More often than not, French teachers are francophones because
the demographics facilitate finding people with both education and ability
but it happens that non-francophones with proper education apply and get
hired.

Richard

Richard

"Wassup its Will" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] om...

    > Do most of you speak a lot of languages? How many? Why and
    > how? Here is my current situation, I wonder what you guys think:

I speak three. English is my native language, French I picked up from
elementary school onwards and Spanish I started studying in university. I'm
reasonably fluent in all three, now.

    > 1) Does it matter that you can't understand audio?

Would my reply to you have been affected if I didn't understand a word you
wrote? ;-)

    > Should I listen to Italian radio as well?

Yes, definitely.

    > 2) I'm greedy. I want to learn another language. I'm torn. Is it a
    > bad idea to start learning a THIRD language while I'm at
    > staggered levels of French and Italian? It won't mess me up will
    > it?

    > 3) Three languages. I don't know which to choose. I'm debating
    > between Spanish, Russian and German. Each have their advantages
    > and disadvantages.

At this point you need to sit back and consider why it is that you want to
learn so many languages.

If your goal is to be a walking phrasebook for each of the languages so
you'll be able to ask for directions to the washroom or order a beer in a
couple dozen countries but don't care to be able to have a conversation,
then by all means go for it. Following this train of thought, the answer to
#3 is simple: learn Spanish, Russian AND German. Time spent debating could
have been used to learn to say "Das Bier ist gut!"

If your goal is to be able to go to Paris and strike up a conversation with
someone at a cafe and spend the afternoon discussing philosophy or politics
in French (and be able to do the same with your other languages) then stop
right where you are. The answer to #3 is that you're already making things
more difficult than they need be by learning French and Italian
simultaneously. German, Russian, Spanish or anything else would be too much
right now. Don't spread yourself too thinly, your slow progress would
discourage you.

    > I have a few Latin friends, as a soccer fan it'd be great to read the
    > Spanish media like La Marca?

When you understand two romance languages, reading a third is often very
simple. That your Spanish reading material will all be about soccer would
make it much easier - spend an afternoon learning all the vocabulary that
goes along with the sport and you'd be done.

Richard

Mxsmanic

Richard writes:

    > That sounds nice in theory but in the US and Canada, when schools look for
    > teachers, formal education is required while ability is only an added bonus.

True for traditional public institutions, where foreign-language
instruction has always been abysmal. Some specialized language schools
actually do look for competence in the target language: Berlitz, for
example, hires native speakers whenever it can and trains them in the
school's own (quite effective) methods. Some language schools
specialize in blowing smoke and fleecing large corporate customers
rather than actually teaching languages, however, and they behave much
the same as the traditional institutions, with an emphasis on
credentials (in order to assist marketing) and no concern at all over
actual competence in the target language.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

DeMaisonneuve

"Richard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Captain!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:EDRTc.14550$X12.11174@edtnps84...
    > > countries like the united states are full of immigrants who
    > > teach their native languages to students wishing to learn them.
    > > this has got to be one of the most pathetic america bashing
    > > reasons i have ever seen.
    > That sounds nice in theory but in the US and Canada, when schools look for
    > teachers, formal education is required while ability is only an added
bonus.
    > A recent French literature graduate from the University of <insert your
    > favourite mid-western state here> has a better chance of becoming a French
    > teacher in the US than a Frenchman (or a Quebecois, Haitian, Algerian,
etc.)
    > despite the fact that the grad might not even speak French fluently.
    > Not even in Quebec - where 80% of the population is francophone - is this
    > rule broken. More often than not, French teachers are francophones because
    > the demographics facilitate finding people with both education and ability
    > but it happens that non-francophones with proper education apply and get
    > hired.
    > Richard

After high school, even with mandatory second language classes, I don't know
anyone who was talking this second language properly as a result of his
education. Be it either english or french. Those who really learn the
foreign languages do it on a voluntary basis.

You can call me Al

"DeMaisonneuve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Richard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> "Captain!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:EDRTc.14550$X12.11174@edtnps84...
    >> > countries like the united states are full of immigrants who
    >> > teach their native languages to students wishing to learn them.
    >> > this has got to be one of the most pathetic america bashing
    >> > reasons i have ever seen.
    >> That sounds nice in theory but in the US and Canada, when schools look
    >> for
    >> teachers, formal education is required while ability is only an added
    > bonus.
    >> A recent French literature graduate from the University of <insert your
    >> favourite mid-western state here> has a better chance of becoming a
    >> French
    >> teacher in the US than a Frenchman (or a Quebecois, Haitian, Algerian,
    > etc.)
    >> despite the fact that the grad might not even speak French fluently.
    >> Not even in Quebec - where 80% of the population is francophone - is this
    >> rule broken. More often than not, French teachers are francophones
    >> because
    >> the demographics facilitate finding people with both education and
    >> ability
    >> but it happens that non-francophones with proper education apply and get
    >> hired.
    >> Richard
    > After high school, even with mandatory second language classes, I don't
    > know
    > anyone who was talking this second language properly as a result of his
    > education. Be it either english or french. Those who really learn the
    > foreign languages do it on a voluntary basis.

If you want to get ahead, you learn English. If you are a stupid Frenchman,
you learn only French and you go nowhere.


    >

Bjorn Olsson

[email protected] (?ystein) wrote in message news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > [email protected] (Bjorn Olsson) wrote in message news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > > [email protected] (?ystein) wrote in message news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > >
    > > > Within the numbers of languages you refer to it is probably true that
    > > > it comes easier to learn new languages the more languages you allready
    > > > know. It is limited how many languages the human brain is capable of
    > > > learning though.
    > >
    > > It is highly unlikely that the human brain has such a limit.
    > >
    > I have heard people refer to rewievs that suggest there is such a
    > limit. If you have heard about rewievs conculding otherwise that is
    > interesting. There are lots of opposite conclutions in this line of
    > reaseach.
    >
    > > > Most people will have great difficulties learning say
    > > > more than 10 languages fluently.
    > >
    > > Only because it takes so darn long that they have difficulty finding
    > > enough time and/or motivation to do it.
    > >
    > As important is that the language has to be practiced regulary if you
    > should be able to use them over time.
    >
    > Also you have the effect of living in a community with a very similar
    > language as in the Scandinavian country. It is typical that
    > Scandinavians living in another Scandianvian country for a long time
    > is not able to speak and write real either in their mothers tounge or
    > in the language spoken in the country they live, because they mix
    > their vocabulary, accent and grammar all the time.

That problem only (or mainly) occurs for very similar languages. If
you restrict yourself to learning languages that are quite different
from each other, you will have (almost) no tendency to mix them up.
For example, I don't think I have ever by mistake mixed any English
into my Russian, or vice versa. Also, my wife never mixes any Swedish
into her English (by mistake), but she does mix a bit of Swedish into
her German.

Björn

Mxsmanic

You can call me Al writes:

    > If you want to get ahead, you learn English. If you are a stupid Frenchman,
    > you learn only French and you go nowhere.

French is arguably the second-best language to learn to get ahead, after
English.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

DeMaisonneuve

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > You can call me Al writes:
    > > If you want to get ahead, you learn English. If you are a stupid
Frenchman,
    > > you learn only French and you go nowhere.
    > French is arguably the second-best language to learn to get ahead, after
    > English.

It used to be. However, these days, it faces more competition. La langue de
Molière a perdu de sa noblesse. However, it is still one of the major
languages in this world. But the main purpose of learning french as a
foreign language is to open the access door to a multitude of literal
masterpieces, a huge culture, probably the second cultural producer after
USA, some of the most influential philosophers of the known history, the
first chart of human rights, and many more... It is hard to learn I think.
Especially hard to write it, since many people born french have a lot of
difficulties writing it without a lot of mistakes.

Spanish involves a larger amount of territories, so it is more useful than
french for a traveller. Russian is also a considerable language, because it
is spoken in many territories that are very nice places to visit.

Mxsmanic

DeMaisonneuve writes:

    >
    > "Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > You can call me Al writes:
    > >
    > > > If you want to get ahead, you learn English. If you are a stupid
    > Frenchman,
    > > > you learn only French and you go nowhere.
    > >
    > > French is arguably the second-best language to learn to get ahead, after
    > > English.
    > >
    >
    > It used to be. However, these days, it faces more competition. La langue de
    > Molière a perdu de sa noblesse. However, it is still one of the major
    > languages in this world. But the main purpose of learning french as a
    > foreign language is to open the access door to a multitude of literal
    > masterpieces, a huge culture, probably the second cultural producer after
    > USA, some of the most influential philosophers of the known history, the
    > first chart of human rights, and many more... It is hard to learn I think.
    > Especially hard to write it, since many people born french have a lot of
    > difficulties writing it without a lot of mistakes.
    >
    > Spanish involves a larger amount of territories, so it is more useful than
    > french for a traveller. Russian is also a considerable language, because it
    > is spoken in many territories that are very nice places to visit.
    >
    >
    >


--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

DeMaisonneuve writes:

    > It used to be. However, these days, it faces more competition.

Not much. Only English is real competition.

    > But the main purpose of learning french as a
    > foreign language is to open the access door to a multitude of literal
    > masterpieces, a huge culture, probably the second cultural producer after
    > USA, some of the most influential philosophers of the known history, the
    > first chart of human rights, and many more...

True only if you ignore all history and culture outside of Europe, and
even then it's debatable. France hasn't produced that much; it has just
gotten a lot of press in the Western world.

    > It is hard to learn I think.

It's no more difficult to learn than any other language.

    > Especially hard to write it, since many people born french have a lot of
    > difficulties writing it without a lot of mistakes.

It's no more difficult to write than any other language.

    > Spanish involves a larger amount of territories, so it is more useful than
    > french for a traveller.

Spanish is useful mainly in the Americas, especially South and Central
America. However, its worldwide geographic distribution is poor.

    > Russian is also a considerable language, because it
    > is spoken in many territories that are very nice places to visit.

The same comments apply to Russian, only more so.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

DeMaisonneuve

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > DeMaisonneuve writes:
    > > It used to be. However, these days, it faces more competition.
    > Not much. Only English is real competition.
    > > But the main purpose of learning french as a
    > > foreign language is to open the access door to a multitude of literal
    > > masterpieces, a huge culture, probably the second cultural producer
after
    > > USA, some of the most influential philosophers of the known history, the
    > > first chart of human rights, and many more...
    > True only if you ignore all history and culture outside of Europe, and
    > even then it's debatable. France hasn't produced that much; it has just
    > gotten a lot of press in the Western world.
    > > It is hard to learn I think.
    > It's no more difficult to learn than any other language.
    > > Especially hard to write it, since many people born french have a lot of
    > > difficulties writing it without a lot of mistakes.
    > It's no more difficult to write than any other language.


Do you speak and write french?


    > > Spanish involves a larger amount of territories, so it is more useful
than
    > > french for a traveller.
    > Spanish is useful mainly in the Americas, especially South and Central
    > America. However, its worldwide geographic distribution is poor.
    > > Russian is also a considerable language, because it
    > > is spoken in many territories that are very nice places to visit.
    > The same comments apply to Russian, only more so.

Well, maybe you could name me one language that is more useful for
travelling than spanish, english and russian, considering the territories it
covers?



    > --
    > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

DeMaisonneuve writes:

    > Do you speak and write french?

Fluently. I've also taught both French and English.

    > Well, maybe you could name me one language that is more useful for
    > travelling than spanish, english and russian, considering the territories it
    > covers?

French

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

M. Ranjit Mathews

[email protected] (?ystein) wrote ...

    > Also you have the effect of living in a community with a very similar
    > language as in the Scandinavian country. It is typical that
    > Scandinavians living in another Scandianvian country for a long time
    > is not able to speak and write real either in their mothers tounge or
    > in the language spoken in the country they live, because they mix
    > their vocabulary, accent and grammar all the time.

How interesting! I have the same trouble with Malayalam (my native
language) and Tamil (the language of the place of my ex-domicile); I
can't speak either without mixing in the other.

robert

I can get by in Spanish, Russian, Cantonese, Korean, Italian German
and French... yet in 20 years of travelling I've only used French a
handful of times... Certainly if you go to a francophone country
you'll need French, but that goes without saying. Is French really
going to help you if you're in a non Francophone country?

RB

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:57:59 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >You can call me Al writes:
    >> If you want to get ahead, you learn English. If you are a stupid Frenchman,
    >> you learn only French and you go nowhere.
    >French is arguably the second-best language to learn to get ahead, after
    >English.

"?N?ikuli, Willi?m?"

Mxsmanic wrote:

    > DeMaisonneuve writes:
    >
    >
    >>Do you speak and write french?
    >
    >
    > Fluently. I've also taught both French and English.
    >
    >
    >>Well, maybe you could name me one language that is more useful for
    >>travelling than spanish, english and russian, considering the territories it
    >>covers?
    >
    >
    > French

Isn't French used for instance in airports EVERYWHERE, and also like the
only language along with French that's spoken in every continent?