|
 |
What makes some people good at languages? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Wings Senior Member Ireland n/a Joined 6355 days ago 130 posts - 131 votes  Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish | Message 81 of 91 17 October 2007 at 11:29am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
Earle, thank you for that very interesting biographical sketch, growing up in Huntsville must have been a very interesting experience. It makes sense that the ability to imitate is important, it’s something I now take into consideration, rather than just repeat a phrase I really make the effort to imitate the way the phrase is spoken, the rhythm especially.
1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Obsolete Newbie United States Joined 6259 days ago 6 posts - 6 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish | Message 82 of 91 17 October 2007 at 7:37pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
That was a big draw for me to study French instead of Spanish, the cognates. I kind of would imagine the time in the past when the French term was brought to Britain. I've noticed a lot of similarities of Celtic languages and Italic. I'm of British descent, mostly "Celtic" British, and since it appears Celtic/Italic are related closer than Germanic and the others, learning Spanish is a bit closer to the language I'd be speaking if all the Celtic languages wouldn't have been absorbed into English/French/Spanish over time. I'm assuming vast similarities is why the Roman language was adopted so quickly and we speak "Roman" dialects. I believe large Celtic influence is why English is such an odd stepchild in the linguistic world. I could be wrong, thats just my theory and dedicated anglophiles have had centuries of time to cover up or downplay such a theory. The Romans said the Germanic speaking Belgae were on both sides of the English channel, long before the AngloSaxon "invasion" (which according to genetic studies, didn't happen, it was more a toppling of elites like the Norman "invasion" rather than a displacement of any number of population). I know Norwegian is probably far easier for you to pickup than Spanish. But my holy triad would be to know English/Spanish/German. Though I feel a slight disdain for Spanish due to the Spanish speaking world's seeming lack of exceptionalism. I have a lot more respect for the German speaking world, I come from a hardworking German heritage and both of my German grandmothers are as stalwart and resolute as you will find. Loyal to nation, folk and family. I feel a closeness to German culture because I feel they would have similar feelings, German language has taken a major blow in this nation due to the wars, but German absolution lives on (I feel). That said, to progress myself Spanish will prove more immediately useful. But the amount of Arabic etymological origin words puts the language is massive disdain and further purification (through further latinization) would be appropriate. Though, I do rest easy in knowledge that most of the "arabic" words in Spanish are indeed borrowings from other language families. I don't feel this is a controversial statement, most Americans view Arabic as something you learn if you are going to use it to fight them, not for pleasure (Riyad is not the most accomodating city regardless). As far as our countrymen, yes most Americans are too lazy to pickup another language and I'd be interested in hearing your story of shocking some natives. Also, Americans are very utility minded, if it progressed their social status many would learn it, but people (especially my age) are so lazy that I'm not sure if they would learn anything even if their life depended on it. Besides the midwest where we of German blood reside, the coasts of this country would get ran over by a foreign power in 3 days. The Ulster-blood filled south would hold up for a long while though as well.
Your intro videos on your website are fun to watch. I listened to them all and repeated a couple a few times. I can say with assurance that Italian is definitely the most beautiful / eloquent language to my ear. French is so "pour-la-pauwr" sounding and I firmly disagree with it being the language of love (outside of a few specialized phrases used by a woman possibly). :) Chinese dialects are definitely atrocious. Outside of English I like Italian and German (for its manliness). Spanish, Portuguese and French are behind Italian for being soft on the ears and equally so. Italian stands head and shoulders above the others and the more I hear the more I see why many consider it the most beautiful in the world. Anyway just wanted to comment after checking out your website. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| cymro Triglot Groupie Wales Joined 6455 days ago 76 posts - 98 votes Speaks: English*, Welsh, French Studies: Italian, Spanish, Latin, Ancient Greek | Message 83 of 91 18 October 2007 at 3:17am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
I'm sorry I have to contradict this. The evidence from personal names shows quite strongly that the Belgae spoke celtic. Genetics tells you nothing about the language people speak. Their names do. Kent for example, the closest part of England to the continent is a celtic name. And there are many celtic place names all over the counties down there. Dover for example the closest place of all to the continent has the river Dour. Both are very very obviously nearly identical to modern Welsh words used for water. The latin name for the port is Dubris obviously contains a sound change that we know occured between Brythonic and modern Welsh and which still occurs in places in modern Welsh as part of the grammar. The same thing occured with Sabrina and the river Severn where the name was borrowed from the celtic inhabitants. A further change occured in Welsh changing it to Hafren. (F always pronounced V in Welsh) This indicates that not only was the town Celtic in pre-roman times but that the occupants were celtic in early post-roman times as their language underwent a phonetic shift. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Obsolete Newbie United States Joined 6259 days ago 6 posts - 6 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish | Message 84 of 91 18 October 2007 at 3:53am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
I believe my comment there was misunderstood. I never claimed genetics = language, that's clearly not true.. nor did I say that. My point was a seperate, second point made within that sentence that the AngloSaxon invasion was a toppling of the elites like the Normans, not a "wipeout" as many claim. Genetic evidence proves THAT is true, and that is what I was stating. "(which according to genetic studies, didn't happen, it was more a toppling of elites like the Norman "invasion" rather than a displacement of any number of population)." All I said, is what was said. I made no statement about linguistic movement, it was an aside. And a true one at that. Now, when you say "names" in your post, you don't make it clear whether you mean personal names or landmarks. But I'm assuming from what you said about Kent that you meant placenames. All placenames (and the fact that the ones you name are Celtic) prove, is that the Celts were there before the other influences we know of, such as the Belgae, AngloSaxons ect. Not that the Belgae themselves spoke a Celtic language. Placenames tend to not change very often, usually the Saxons (or whoever) didn't run in and rename the Thames, for example. There wouldn't be much purpose. What I did say, is that its extremely likely that a Germanic language was indeed in Britain BEFORE the AngloSaxon era. This is where we differ on opinions- You say the Belgae are a definitively Celtic group. I tend to lean on the side of more Germanic, obviously not free of Celtic influence due to the area. So you could claim a "mix" based on personal names, at best. But wholly Celtic? I'd argue against that whole heartedly. I'll attach some evidence- "Whether the Belgae were of Celtic or Germanic origin, or a combination of both, is unclear. Caesar's sources informed him "that the greater part of the Belgae were sprung from the Germanic peoples, and that, having crossed the Rhine at an early period, they had settled there, on account of the fertility of the country".[2] He also says that those Germanic people who lived to the west of the Rhine were allied to the Belgae,[3] and describes four of the tribes who made up the Belgic alliance, the Eburones, Condrusi, Caerosi and Paemani, as Germanic.[2] The later historian Tacitus records that the Nervii and Treveri were also eager to claim Germanic rather than Gaulish origin.[4] It is claimed that the Menapii and the Eburones used a Germanic language.[citation needed] On the other hand, most of the Belgic tribal and personal names recorded, including that of Ambiorix, a later leader of the Eburones, are identifiably Celtic. The Romans were not precise in their ethnography of northern barbarians: by "Germanic" Caesar may simply have meant "originating east of the Rhine", with no distinction of language intended. Alternatively, it is possible that the Germanic-Gaulish language border crossed though Belgium then as the Dutch-French language border does today." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgae Though being a "hybrid" Celt-Germanic tribe wouldn't be anything surprising, the ancient relationship between "Celtic" and "Germanic" tribes is unknown exactly. But both were alike in elements of culture, such as their beer brewing. Their language? No one knows for sure. There is clearly conflicting evidence. But the existence of a Germanic language in Britain prior to the AngloSaxon makes a lot of sense and is likely. No one knows the extent of which Germanic languages influenced Celtic languages and vice versa even into relatively recent (Roman) times. If you have proof I'd love to read it! I tend to go with Tacitus who said the Belgae themselves claimed Germanic origin rather than Celtic. The Celtic personal names is obviously cultural exchange from being out of native Germanic lands for a long period of time... cultural exchange is/was inevitable as was intermarriage when you leave your native lands as the Belgae did. My point is, that Britain was a "melting pot" of Celtic/Germanic linguistics (as if the rest of Europe wasn't), far before the AngloSaxon debacle everyone has been pumped up for centuries about. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| apparition Octoglot Senior Member United States Joined 6651 days ago 600 posts - 667 votes Speaks: English*, Arabic (Written), French, Arabic (Iraqi), Portuguese, German, Italian, Spanish Studies: Pashto | Message 85 of 91 18 October 2007 at 9:13am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
Sounds like a good topic for a separate thread.
1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Wings Senior Member Ireland n/a Joined 6355 days ago 130 posts - 131 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish | Message 86 of 91 18 October 2007 at 2:28pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
Earle, and everyone, would you say that when you are learning a language that your speaking skills are proportional to your comprehension skills? I have noticed that whenever listen to material if the rate of speech I too fast I can’t understand it—naturally! You might say. But, if I have the script of that material and when I read it I can understand every word. But of course, I’m only reading it as fast as I can comprehend it, and that’s slow, even if I think it’s not. So I have discovered that if record at the pace that I am reading, and thus the speed at which I am comprehending, I have no problem comprehending what’s being said in the recording- if recorded. You might say, that’s all very well, obvious, what is your point. My point is this raises the importance of been a good copy cat, like Earle says. It just occurred to me if I work harder on trying to read aloud faster and to the same rate as a native speaker, this would vastly improve my comprehension skills in the real world. You got to work on the speed at which you are reading and comprehending. If you just try to read fast, it doesn’t work, if you listen to a recording of yourself, you won’t understand. But being able to imitate the rate and sound of speech must be important, a lot of meaning is tied up in the rate of speech and expression of sound, does this help with comprehension? I think so, at least if you got that right, you speak at the right rate and pitch, and comprehension will follow, or catch up to that speed.. So maybe you can read fast, and not understand it, or read as fast as you can comprehend and try to build up speed using the imitation process!!!!!!!!
I now understand what Earle was saying as plain as day. Edited by Wings on 18 October 2007 at 2:31pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| cymro Triglot Groupie Wales Joined 6455 days ago 76 posts - 98 votes Speaks: English*, Welsh, French Studies: Italian, Spanish, Latin, Ancient Greek | Message 87 of 91 18 October 2007 at 3:34pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
I don't propose to keep debating this but the place names DO prove it. We know that the celtic inhabitants of roman Britain spoke Brythonic, a celtic language. You say they were not celts but undowbtedly some of the tribes were or we wouldn't have Welsh today. Right then. Welsh has as part of its grammar a system of consonant changes. We know that they weren't in the Brythonic that was spoken at the end of the Roman period. However, in the earliest written material from 600 AD which documents a battle between celts and anglo-saxons they clearly and unequivovally do exist. We know the processes that occured. and I will use one as an example. The Brythonic Celtic word Abona meant River. It changed. The ending fell off and one of the consonants changed leaving Avon.( the Welsh is actually spelled afon but f=V) This set of changes also occurs in grammatical changes in modern Welsh usually in the beginning of words. e.g. Bryn = Hill. It is a hill= Mae'n Fryn. The same change happened between Dubris in the roman period based on the Brythonic name and Dover (Welsh Dyfr = Water) Since this change in the name, which is one of only many in place names, occured because of changes in the CELTIC language we can conclude that the people who lived there spoke the changing Brythonic language. We can also show that in some names changes that occured AFTER the conquest and AFTER the language of modern England was changed by it being colonised occured only in Welsh and not in English. To recap, we have a set of continuous linguistic evidence from pre-roman through to post-roman Britain. We have evidence like the rivers called Avon that they spoke Brythonic which was going through phonetic changes just before the anglo-saxons arrived. If they spoke Germanic at this time the changes would not have happened. and Shakespeare would have been born in Stratford upon Abona 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Obsolete Newbie United States Joined 6259 days ago 6 posts - 6 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish | Message 88 of 91 18 October 2007 at 4:23pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
You keep repeating the same thing, placenames.
I just stated in my last reply that placenames prove nothing, other than the fact that among the EARLIEST of arrivals spoke a Celtic language. That does not disprove the existence of Germanic languages prior to the AngloSaxon invasion. Your viewpoint on the subject is the typical story told about Britain, and I don't feel its true. But rather reinforced through centuries of the AngloSaxon origin for English-myth. I tend to agree with Peter Forster at Anglia Ruskin University, which is based on a statistical analysis of vocabulary, that English is an ancient, fourth branch of the Germanic language tree, and was spoken in England before the Roman invasion. "English is usually assumed to have developed in England, from the language of the Angles and Saxons, about 1,500 years ago. But Forster argues that the Angles and the Saxons were both really Viking peoples who began raiding Britain ahead of the accepted historical schedule. They did not bring their language to England because English, in his view, was already spoken there, probably introduced before the arrival of the Romans by tribes such as the Belgae, whom Caesar describes as being present on both sides of the Channel. The Belgae perhaps introduced some socially transforming technique, such as iron-working, which led to their language's replacing that of the indigenous inhabitants, but Forster said he had not yet identified any specific innovation from the archaeological record. Germanic is usually assumed to have split into three branches: West Germanic, which includes German and Dutch; East Germanic, the language of the Goths and Vandals; and North Germanic, consisting of the Scandinavian languages. Forster's analysis shows English is not an offshoot of West Germanic, as usually assumed, but is a branch independent of the other three, which also implies a greater antiquity. Germanic split into its four branches some 2,000 to 6,000 years ago, Forster estimates." The book is not closed as many have said for 1,000 years now, on the origins of English as many would believe. Edited by Obsolete on 18 October 2007 at 4:24pm 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
