zekecoma Senior Member United StatesRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5125 days ago 561 posts - 655 votes Speaks: English* Studies: German, Spanish
| Message 17 of 31 28 July 2010 at 7:44am | IP Logged |
johntm93 wrote:
Finnish is a Uralic
language, and even with "related" languages it has little vocab in common. |
|
|
Awww nuts. I thought Finnish was part of the Germanic family. I guess I was wrong :(
1 person has voted this message useful
|
johntm93 Senior Member United States Joined 5108 days ago 587 posts - 746 votes 2 sounds Speaks: English* Studies: German, Spanish
| Message 18 of 31 28 July 2010 at 7:51am | IP Logged |
zekecoma wrote:
johntm93 wrote:
Finnish is a Uralic
language, and even with "related" languages it has little vocab in common. |
|
|
Awww nuts. I thought Finnish was part of the Germanic family. I guess I was wrong :( |
|
|
No :( I can see why you think it would be, just because of where it's spoken. The only reason I know this about Finnish is from Barry Farber's book.
Edited by johntm93 on 28 July 2010 at 7:51am
1 person has voted this message useful
|
doviende Diglot Senior Member Canada languagefixatio Joined 5767 days ago 533 posts - 1245 votes Speaks: English*, German Studies: Spanish, Dutch, Mandarin, Esperanto, Hindi, Swedish, Portuguese
| Message 19 of 31 28 July 2010 at 9:56am | IP Logged |
Remember that there's a big jump from figuring out some things written down (when you have plenty of time to think), and understanding them by hearing...and then another big jump to actually speaking properly. When you're looking at it on paper, it can be moderately easy to "figure out" with some thought, but it'll take a lot more work to be able to hear all of the sounds properly, and then actually put them together in your head into something understandable when you're doing it in realtime.
Still, there is an advantage somewhat. I can currently understand a moderate amount of spoken and written Swedish, and that has helped me understand a lot of written stuff here in Copenhagen where I'm visiting this week....but spoken Danish is still completely incomprehensible. A beautiful sounding language, but I understand nothing when it's spoken. At least I can read the Danish menus and then order in English.
Swedish came after German for me, so this is somewhat related to the topic at hand. You will not get Swedish for free, it will take a lot of work. I've read several books, done many hours of vocab work, flashcards, etc, and I still can't really speak Swedish that much. That said, German did give me a big advantage.
To get to a decent level, you're still going to have to "pay your dues", but perhaps it'll seem a bit easier to figure out when you're stuck, and it'll move faster at the beginning. Recognition will come a bit faster, but production will still take time.
If it (hypothetically) takes only 70% of the time because of your advantage, remember that 70% of 1000 hours is still 700 hours. Putting in lots of time is still your only solution.
4 persons have voted this message useful
|
Romanist Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5063 days ago 261 posts - 366 votes Studies: Italian
| Message 20 of 31 28 July 2010 at 2:49pm | IP Logged |
cordelia0507 wrote:
[...] so in that case you can compare with the difficulty of learning English for a French person, since English shows about as many signs of being a "spinoff" of French as your example about Scandinavian languages. |
|
|
Of course! A person who knows French should find English much easier to master than another learner who only knows (for example) Japanese or Russian.
It is very well known that some languages are relatively close together, and it seems rather odd that anyone would be offended by this fact...
cordelia0507 wrote:
[...] let me assure you that there is no "two-for-the-price-of-one" here despite some of the claims. |
|
|
Nobody has said there is "two-for-the-price-of-one" - that is an idea which you are throwing in.
Just because something is relatively easy, it doesn't mean that zero effort is required to learn it!
cordelia0507 wrote:
[..] I am not sure how much practical experience some people who commented actually have of learning these languages in sequence, and what kind of proficiency is being considered. |
|
|
I guess that's a fair point. But equally we're not sure how much practical experience you have - so that kind of makes us all square, doesn't it?
Edited by Romanist on 28 July 2010 at 3:09pm
1 person has voted this message useful
|
jeff_lindqvist Diglot Moderator SwedenRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 6690 days ago 4250 posts - 5710 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English Studies: German, Spanish, Russian, Dutch, Mandarin, Esperanto, Irish, French Personal Language Map
| Message 21 of 31 28 July 2010 at 2:55pm | IP Logged |
tracker465 wrote:
I know in Danish, the a with the o on top can be written also as "aa" as in Aarhus. I am guessing that it is the same in Swedish or? |
|
|
Nobody does that, but I suppose that many people know (or figure out) what you mean if you write something with 'aa'. If nothing else, they'll think of the word as Danish: "Ah, this is a word with 'aa', that combination should probably be pronounced as 'å'".
2 persons have voted this message useful
|
alang Diglot Senior Member Canada Joined 7002 days ago 563 posts - 757 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish
| Message 22 of 31 28 July 2010 at 6:13pm | IP Logged |
johntm93 wrote:
zekecoma wrote:
johntm93 wrote:
Finnish is a Uralic
language, and even with "related" languages it has little vocab in common. |
|
|
Awww nuts. I thought Finnish was part of the Germanic family. I guess I was wrong :( |
|
|
No :( I can see why you think it would be, just because of where it's spoken. The only reason I know this about Finnish is from Barry Farber's book. |
|
|
I thought the same at one time also. It was when I saw a picture of an IE branch of languages and noticed Finnish was not in it. Research followed after and of course the information was revealed. Anyway many Finnish communities that I know about in Canada are involved with the Scandinavian communities and vice versa. If someone wanted to learn Finnish, just call the Scandinavian center.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
johntm93 Senior Member United States Joined 5108 days ago 587 posts - 746 votes 2 sounds Speaks: English* Studies: German, Spanish
| Message 23 of 31 28 July 2010 at 6:34pm | IP Logged |
Romanist wrote:
cordelia0507 wrote:
[...] so in that case you can compare with the difficulty of learning English for a French person, since English shows about as many signs of being a "spinoff" of French as your example about Scandinavian languages. |
|
|
Of course! A person who knows French should find English much easier to master than another learner who only knows (for example) Japanese or Russian.
It is very well known that some languages are relatively close together, and it seems rather odd that anyone would be offended by this fact...
|
|
|
Not offended, but it's a bad comparison. German and the Scandi languages are both in the Germanic family (as is English), even though they split off quite early (Proto-Germanic split into East, West, and North Germanic, German comes from the West Germanic while the Scandis come from the North Germanic) while English and French are in two different families (Germanic and Romance, respectively).
1 person has voted this message useful
|
Romanist Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5063 days ago 261 posts - 366 votes Studies: Italian
| Message 24 of 31 28 July 2010 at 9:13pm | IP Logged |
johntm93 wrote:
[...] it's a bad comparison. German and the Scandi languages are both in the Germanic family (as is English), even though they split off quite early (Proto-Germanic split into East, West, and North Germanic, German comes from the West Germanic while the Scandis come from the North Germanic) while English and French are in two different families (Germanic and Romance, respectively). |
|
|
Not quite. English is indeed a Germanic language, but it is highly untypical of the other 'family members' in that about 70% of Modern English vocab is of Romance origin.
(By contrast about 65% of Modern Swedish vocab is of Middle High German origin...)
Edited by Romanist on 28 July 2010 at 9:41pm
1 person has voted this message useful
|