96 messages over 12 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 7 ... 11 12 Next >>
alexptrans Pentaglot Senior Member Israel Joined 6765 days ago 208 posts - 236 votes Speaks: English, Modern Hebrew, Russian*, French, Arabic (Written) Studies: Icelandic
| Message 49 of 96 08 October 2009 at 3:52pm | IP Logged |
irrationale wrote:
So I take it that no one here claims to have reached "native fluency". If such a person exists, make your self known here. If not, can we all assume it is practically impossible for an adult, then? Even the most dedicated among us language learners haven't done this? |
|
|
Go ahead and assume that. Maybe the people who have reached native fluency are simply tired of trying to convince everyone that it's doable and, having realized the futility of that exercise, have moved on to more productive ways of spending their time.
1 person has voted this message useful
| zenmonkey Bilingual Tetraglot Senior Member Germany Joined 6552 days ago 803 posts - 1119 votes 1 sounds Speaks: EnglishC2*, Spanish*, French, German Studies: Italian, Modern Hebrew
| Message 50 of 96 08 October 2009 at 4:45pm | IP Logged |
irrationale wrote:
So I take it that no one here claims to have reached "native fluency". If such a person exists, make your self known here. If not, can we all assume it is practically impossible for an adult, then? Even the most dedicated among us language learners haven't done this? |
|
|
Me. ;) English and French. These are my second (started at 10) and third (started seriously at 22) languages.
1 person has voted this message useful
| datsunking1 Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5585 days ago 1014 posts - 1533 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: German, Russian, Dutch, French
| Message 51 of 96 08 October 2009 at 4:46pm | IP Logged |
I believe it's possible certainly possible to reach native fluency in a language, with given time. In 7 years (I'll be 25) I should be close to native-like fluency in both Spanish and German. after all, IT'S SEVEN YEARS. lol
I just want to understand music, news, books etc. I don't want to have to "think" about it. I want it all to flow. Like a switch I'll be able to turn it on and off. Into certain languages.
I picture it as if I'm atttending school in the country of whose language I'm learning, I try to translate EVERYTHING a teacher or friend says to me into my target language. My Spanish is pretty fluent in that, I miss only a couple idioms or words a day.
It's my personal challenge :D
1 person has voted this message useful
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6011 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh
| Message 52 of 96 08 October 2009 at 5:14pm | IP Logged |
numerodix wrote:
some portion of Brits write things like "would of" and don't even know that it's incorrect.
So who's kidding who? I mean, native speakers have no bar to clear in order to qualify as natives. Whatever their level is, *that* is a native speaker. |
|
|
Those two statements are kind of contradictory, don't you think?
If they're natives, it's their language so what they say must surely be right.
"In language, there´s no such thing as a common mistake."
(Can´t remember who said that.)
1 person has voted this message useful
| numerodix Trilingual Hexaglot Senior Member Netherlands Joined 6783 days ago 856 posts - 1226 votes Speaks: EnglishC2*, Norwegian*, Polish*, Italian, Dutch, French Studies: Portuguese, Mandarin
| Message 53 of 96 08 October 2009 at 5:35pm | IP Logged |
Cainntear wrote:
Those two statements are kind of contradictory, don't you think?
If they're natives, it's their language so what they say must surely be right.
"In language, there´s no such thing as a common mistake."
(Can´t remember who said that.) |
|
|
This is getting semantic. Every language I would think has some kind of official national body that presides over the language definition at any given time. Statements outside that definition are then wrong, at least for the time being. Otherwise, what is the point of sending kids to school in England to learn English if anything they say is automatically English?
There is a language, English, which is defined. There is a standard, "the native speaker", which is not defined and merely exists as a consequence of the degree to which any English person speaks English. If you say you want to speak as well as a native, you should know which native (or group of natives) you're talking about.
Edited by numerodix on 08 October 2009 at 5:36pm
1 person has voted this message useful
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6011 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh
| Message 54 of 96 08 October 2009 at 5:52pm | IP Logged |
numerodix wrote:
Every language I would think has some kind of official national body that presides over the language definition at any given time. Statements outside that definition are then wrong, at least for the time being. [...] There is a language, English, which is defined. |
|
|
The English language has no "academy" or any other body to define what is officially "correct", so anyone who tries to define one form as more "correct" than another is not adhering to a "standard", but trying to impose one, and more often than not one that does not reflect the (statistically measurable) language of the street.
4 persons have voted this message useful
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7156 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish
| Message 55 of 96 08 October 2009 at 5:59pm | IP Logged |
Numerodix, English doesn't have an official national body. The most that it has are dictionary or reference manual publishers. Publications made by Oxford University Press or Merriam-Webster are usually held to be representations of what is "standard" in British or American English respectively. At the same time, these publishers (more like "recorders") have no overt prescriptivist sway as they describe what they observe and publish their findings in the form of dictionaries or style manuals. Users themselves consult these publications when they're unsure of a certain usage. To reiterate, the content of these publications reflects what been recorded and is indicative of usage among the speech community.
The idea of having a purist/prescriptivist linguistic regulatory body which is dominated by a small group of academic elitists as in France, Croatia or Iran is not applicable to the English-speaking world.
1 person has voted this message useful
| numerodix Trilingual Hexaglot Senior Member Netherlands Joined 6783 days ago 856 posts - 1226 votes Speaks: EnglishC2*, Norwegian*, Polish*, Italian, Dutch, French Studies: Portuguese, Mandarin
| Message 56 of 96 08 October 2009 at 7:35pm | IP Logged |
Wow, that's surprising. I've never heard of such anarchy before. :) You learn something new everyday.
So if that's the case, on what basis can you ever claim that something is incorrect in English? Because Oxford University Press, which is not a prescriptive institution, has recorded it so statistically? Sounds very odd.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.4531 seconds.
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|