mleocasas

I think speaking with students in an interview-like format really helps them contextualize the language. So, as often as possible, the teacher should be asking questions like, 'What do you like to do after school?' and 'How are you feeling right now,' etc. The point should be to get the students comfortable speaking the language before getting into all the technical ins and outs. Think about how you speak English, how you're comfortable with basic communication before you investigate more complicated syntax structures and tenses.

I feel like 'icing on the cake' and 'over the top' are at least understandable. I mean, both of those sayings make sense as metaphors for whatever you're talking about. The ones that really get me are those that don't make much sense at all, like 'screwed the pooch,' or 'kicked the bucket.' I like to use them a lot though:) They make language colorful and quirky- and playing with language is the basis of the art of language.

It kills me too! I'm usually not one to correct people on that kind of thing, but for some reason 'irregardless' sounds so much like nails on a chalk board! I'm also put off by people who use an acronym, then repeat a word that's part of the acronym. An example is like, 'ATM machine'. ATM already stands for 'Automatic Teller Machine,' you don't need to say machine again. That eats at my ear more than it should I guess.

All of the automated online translation applications are horrible for anything more than a single word. Even when they get the syntax right, they just aren't able to interpret the qualitative aspect of a sentence. We have entire schools of human beings who argue over the right way to preserve the context and tone of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Flaubert, Nietzsche, Cervantes, etc. Machines aren't quite at a place yet where they can make those kind of abstract judgements about the meaning of words.

I think the growth, change, and progress of cultures is a beautiful thing. I definitely would not want to ever lose sight of the historical importance of a language, but we do also have to acknowledge that there is not just an artistic, but a pragmatic use for language. For example, in the Middle East and Asia Minor many semitic languages are being overtaken by Arabic. No one can or should deny the weight of the impact of Aramaic, but it does seem somewhat obtuse to take a stand against the 'Arab Language Take Over.' Globalization and advancement in communication technologies are going to have an effect on language among many other things. It's ok to be open to new traditions and cultures, and it doesn't mean you can't honor the past ones.

Well, what do you mean by 'slang'? If we include any colloquialisms under that umbrella, than it's very important to get comfortable with them if you want to reach fluency in a given language. Above and beyond that, understanding idioms and common phrases (i.e. 'screwed the pooch' or 'jumped the gun') displays real communicative fluency in a foreign language.

...when you get excited thinking about the first time you'll be able to read Virgil for the first time in it's original form...

This is really cool, thanks for the link. I;m surprised more people don't know about this....a resource this useful should definitely be garnering more credibility and respect than software like Rosetta Stone...Bookmarked it, I'm sure I'll be referring to it a lot as long as it's up =]

This one's a little unconventional, but I think it's interesting to see how different syntax and language can be across cultures. We often make the mistake of thinking that their some kind of global coincidence in the way languages are so similar and translatable. This is kind of a fun way for us to step out of our shells.

The oldest logographic languages (languages that use predetermined images/written elements to portray semi-specific meanings) probably developed around 3300 BCE...no coincidence, I think, that this is when the first 'great civilizations' formed (Egypt, Babylonia, Sumeria, etc.) So those would be things like hieroglyphs...but what would you classify as written language? Technically those hieroglyphs were just organized and codified version so the kind of neolithic art we see on cave walls. Alphabetic language didn't come until a few millennia after that. The Ancient Greek of the Iliad/Odyssey (c.700 BCE) is probably the oldest example of a language that contains organized syntax and the kind of precise communication we associate with language today. The original manuscripts of the old testament (none of which survive today) and sacred Sumerian/Babylonian documents were probably among the first long form examples of organized syntax out of Asia minor. The oldest extant language though, is probably Aramaic. Though it's debatable whether we could really call Aramaic 'extant.' It's been majorly outmoded by Arabic and Persian over the centuries, but remains in use in some places simply because of it's historical relevance. If not Aramaic though, i would definitely say it's one of the other Semitic languages like Hebrew or something similar.

I think it's pretty clear that languages are structured differently based on their place within the 'languge ancestry tree.' So, of course Romance languages sound more familiar to the ear and more easily recognizable as structured language than say Semitic or Far-Eastern languages. As far as the tone of individual languages...that's tough. I mean, I've been speaking English for my entire life and I feel liek i've gotten the whole array of emotional and psychological triggers from m language so i would hate to label English as 'romantic' or 'casual.' I'm guessing that native Spanish speakers probably feels similarly about Spanish, despite how exotic and romantic I find it to be.

Fun with apostrophes and tails: In Tommy's tale, he dogs' tails wag while the Katie's cats tail them.

Tried out Tengwar once years ago....it felt kind of silly without real world context. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fantasy nerd, but....I guess the exciting part of learning new languages to me is the ability to communicate with people and explore different points of view. It's kind of hard to do that with fictional characters who can't so much be developed further with their creator being dead.

I'm a big advocate of immersion-over-classroom learning. The thing is though, that the two don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. Even int he classroom environment, I think it would be exponentially more productive to contextualize the use of the language rather than run arbitrary drills. It is true that we need to accommodate for the differences in our brain and knowledge acquisition faculties between learning our first and second languages, but the fact of that mater is that understanding the proper use of the predicate versus the subjunctive is only as helpful in Spanish as it is in English. That is, it can take you only as far as you are comfortable with the casual use of the language.

My first lesson in Spanish was actually duringt eh conventional junior high curriculum course I was required to take. The pros were that I was no more oblivious and confused about the language than every other student in the room, and I was definitely encourages to try and fail rather than not to try at all. The negatives though...I feel like most people start learning Spanish in this really 'hands off' way where you conjugate verbs in the present tense and construct random simple sentences. I think a better method would be to contextualize from the start- make the vocabulary real, conversational, and useful to the student.

"Oh, a lion hunter, in the jungle dark, and a sleeping drunkard, up in Central Park. and a Chinese dentist, and a British queen, all fit together In the same machine, nice, nice, very nice nice, nice, very nice, nice, nice, very nice, all these different people, in the same device" -Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.