|
 |
What makes some people good at languages? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| apparition Octoglot Senior Member United States Joined 6448 days ago 600 posts - 667 votes  Speaks: English*, Arabic (Written), French, Arabic (Iraqi), Portuguese, German, Italian, Spanish Studies: Pashto | Message 89 of 91 18 October 2007 at 4:52pm | IP Logged |
|
I guess my hint wasn't noticed.
Start up a new thread! :-) 1 person has voted this message useful | |
| Earle Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 6113 days ago 276 posts - 276 votes Speaks: English*, German Studies: Norwegian, Spanish | Message 90 of 91 18 October 2007 at 5:39pm | IP Logged |
|
"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 agree that the answer is yes. Another reason for close listening is that orthography doesn't match what is actually uttered, even in those lanugages with reformed spelling. Early on in learning German, I realized that what Germans thought they were saying and what the written work indicated they should be saying diverged from the actual every day pronunciation. I then modified towards what I was hearing. On our recent Norway trip, I gave up on the lilt, charming as it is. For one thing, my degree of fluency in the language didn't match my pronunciation, so I was getting in "over my head" (not for the first time), in that native speakers would think I was more fluent than I actually was. For another, I was perfectly understandable without the pitch. Of course, twice, I got told that I spoke Norwegian with a Danish accent (no lilt), once by a Norwegian and once by a Dane. (She actually said something to the effect that my Norwegian was "flat" like hers..) To revert to the imitation, as soon as I notice a common contraction, I adopt it, even if it's one that's never seen in writing. Those contractions will change by area also. To look at an American example, in southern dialects, we would never sound out "I would have never." No, we're too lazy. It come out as "I'd've never." There're many similar examples in other languages. I suppose it comes down to whether one wants to sound like a TV announcer or the bartender. It's nice to have the option...
1 person has voted this message useful | |
| Wings Senior Member Ireland n/a Joined 6152 days ago 130 posts - 131 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish | Message 91 of 91 20 October 2007 at 10:36am | IP Logged |
|
Wha cha up ta? = what are you up to. It’ a bit colloquial, it means, what are you doing?
¿qué va a hacer? And ¿qué va a ser? Sound the same in Spanish because of the way some vowels merge together. You end up with, kay baaa sir. They mean different things, but you can tell by context, Spanish context. Ida y vuelta = eedyebealta I think at a beginner’s level this means going over the same material you’re familiar with while listening, over and over again. I hope what ever I end up sounding like that it’s pleasant to Spanish ears. To be honest at this moment in time I wouldn’t know the difference in the way a tv presenter and a bar man speaks in Spanish. So we’ve discovered something useful thanks to this tread, which may have seemed obvious to a lot, but not to some. 1 person has voted this message useful |
If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
