slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6676 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English
| Message 417 of 430 10 May 2008 at 2:16pm | IP Logged |
reineke wrote:
If I was under any wrong impression whatsoever, you are certainly the one to blame. I was not referring to money in particular. You sort of seem to confuse the love for a language and the love for what that language can provide - in your case, movies. For a beginner, just about anything reputable you can buy that has a head and a tail that facilitates learning and provides easy access to meaning, other than the motherless "language use" (intensive or extensive). Watching movies is not a method. Dictionaries rule! |
|
|
It doesn't matter if you get motivate by external or internal reasons, whatsoever you will need motivation to spend time.
By the way, do you think using a dictionary is better method than watching DVDs? :-))
1 person has voted this message useful
|
slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6676 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English
| Message 418 of 430 10 May 2008 at 2:19pm | IP Logged |
frenkeld wrote:
It took this forum several years and a lot more than 408 replies and 51 pages to hash out the various options for language learning. There is nothing we are going to be able to add to that store of knowledge in this thread – all you need to do is try out a few things and decide what works best for you. It appears that you have already done that and are having success with electronic flashcards. They are now an important part of your method.
|
|
|
In other words, you agree with me. There aren't other sensible methods outside using the language and subjetive preferences...
1 person has voted this message useful
|
reineke Senior Member United States https://learnalangua Joined 6448 days ago 851 posts - 1008 votes Studies: German
| Message 419 of 430 10 May 2008 at 2:33pm | IP Logged |
slucido wrote:
reineke wrote:
If I was under any wrong impression whatsoever, you are certainly the one to blame. I was not referring to money in particular. You sort of seem to confuse the love for a language and the love for what that language can provide - in your case, movies. For a beginner, just about anything reputable you can buy that has a head and a tail that facilitates learning and provides easy access to meaning, other than the motherless "language use" (intensive or extensive). Watching movies is not a method. Dictionaries rule! |
|
|
It doesn't matter if you get motivate by external or internal reasons, whatsoever you will need motivation to spend time.
By the way, do you think using a dictionary is better method than watching DVDs? :-))
|
|
|
A method may be constructed so as to let you spend your time effectively or more pleasantly or a combination thereof but in any case this makes methods important and different from each other (and "effective").
I believe that if you had been a little more precise in your assertions and definitions this would have been shorter. I like to have a dictionary handy even while watching movies. I am afraid seeking "fun" and little else may become problematic not only due to poor time management but also since such approach is likely to give you plenty of exposure in a limited field ("input"), and you might come across as gruff, even rude ("output"). Grammar and spelling are likely to suffer as well.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6676 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English
| Message 420 of 430 10 May 2008 at 2:39pm | IP Logged |
reineke wrote:
So it doesn't get lost in all the noise. I believe your question has been answered, repeatedly. |
|
|
Your quotes and misquotes are very interesting, but I am not sure if you have read them. People talk about their subjective preferences and about time as the main factor. It's the title of this thread.
reineke wrote:
Going back to your original question, methods are very important, even assuming everything else you wrote was true and this is reflected in your often contradictory posts and statements.
|
|
|
What methods? Are you talking generally?
Methods are not that powerful and a lot of times people learn languages in spite of the methods. Methods can only provide you a frame of motivation.
You learn your target language USING REPEATEDLY the language and not due to your methods. This is a delusion.
-Intensive use : listening, reading, writing and speaking slow and carefully.
-Extensive use: listening, reading, writing and speaking for a long time and a lot of time.
P.S. By the way, your conversation about restrooms and bathrooms is very interesting.:0)
1 person has voted this message useful
|
reineke Senior Member United States https://learnalangua Joined 6448 days ago 851 posts - 1008 votes Studies: German
| Message 421 of 430 10 May 2008 at 3:38pm | IP Logged |
slucido wrote:
Methods are not that powerful and a lot of times people learn languages in spite of the methods. Methods can only provide you a frame of motivation.
You learn your target language USING REPEATEDLY the language and not due to your methods. This is a delusion.
-Intensive use : listening, reading, writing and speaking slow and carefully.
P.S. By the way, your conversation about restrooms and bathrooms is very interesting.:0)
|
|
|
I am glad you like it. Now, if methods provide only motivation, this still makes them very important since we have previously established (even though frenkeld may disagree) that motivation is crucial. If methods have only this quality, this makes them a sort of a placebo, lol. But wait, methods are also connected with language content. But at the same time methods are not equal to the input formula which of course includes language content etc. If they are not equal to the content they provide this makes methods a separate entity which attempts to regulate content and facilitate absorption. If it succeeds it is active ingredient, if not it is a sort of a placebo administered alongside the drug (basic input formula). If you argue that methods may be detrimental and this is not related to strictly to motivation, this makes them an active ingredient which either dumbs down the content or does not provide the right input/output ingredients and success is due to motivation despite of these negaive effects. If this is the case, you are an advocate of raw input. You would I hope agree that according to your philosophy raw input, meaning living language (unpolluted and free of any negative effects certain methods may cause) is a superior approach assuming it's accompanied with the right motivation?
1 person has voted this message useful
|
Goindol Senior Member United States Joined 6075 days ago 165 posts - 203 votes
| Message 422 of 430 10 May 2008 at 4:10pm | IP Logged |
slucido wrote:
Do you mean scientists are morons??
The commentaries about sex between angels are very interesting, but the question is simple:
What are those sensible methods?
What evidence we have apart from subjetive preferences? I only need consensus between experts.
|
|
|
Some scientists are surely morons, but I'm not sure how you inferred that from my post. Also, where did I mention "sensible" methods? You must be confusing me with someone else.
I hope even you've noticed that you're directly contradicting your earlier posts, and how after being asked to furnish proof of scientific validity, you're now shying away from language of OBJECTIVITY.
Curious indeed.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6676 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English
| Message 423 of 430 10 May 2008 at 4:20pm | IP Logged |
reineke wrote:
I am glad you like it. Now, if methods provide only motivation, this still makes them very important since we have previously established (even though frenkeld may disagree) that motivation is crucial. If methods have only this quality, this makes them a sort of a placebo, lol. But wait, methods are also connected with language content. But at the same time methods are not equal to the input formula which of course includes language content etc. If they are not equal to the content they provide this makes methods a separate entity which attempts to regulate content and facilitate absorption. If it succeeds it is active ingredient, if not it is a sort of a placebo administered alongside the drug (basic input formula). If you argue that methods may be detrimental and this is not related to strictly to motivation, this makes them an active ingredient which either dumbs down the content or does not provide the right input/output ingredients and success is due to motivation despite of these negaive effects. If this is the case, you are an advocate of raw input. You would I hope agree that according to your philosophy raw input, meaning living language (unpolluted and free of any negative effects certain methods may cause) is a superior approach assuming it's accompanied with the right motivation? |
|
|
My philosophy has been repeated a lot of times in this thread. It's the title's thread.
Do whatever you feel like. As long as you work with input and output, TIME is the most important factor and not the method.
Do whatever you feel like means:
-whatever motivate you working harder and more time
-It could be Rambo method, Bambi method or whatever in between.
It's easy. Keep it simple.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6676 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English
| Message 424 of 430 10 May 2008 at 4:24pm | IP Logged |
Goindol wrote:
Some scientists are surely morons, but I'm not sure how you inferred that from my post. Also, where did I mention "sensible" methods? You must be confusing me with someone else.
I hope even you've noticed that you're directly contradicting your earlier posts, and how after being asked to furnish proof of scientific validity, you're now shying away from language of OBJECTIVITY.
Curious indeed.
|
|
|
Yes, it's very curious indeed asking proof of the scientific validity of the scientific validity about scientific validity...:0)
By the way, what are those efficient methods apart extensive and intensive usage of the language? Do you know?
1 person has voted this message useful
|