site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 2, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

'Teach Yourself French' by Sir John Adams and Norman Scarlyn Wilson. It was published in 1938 and so is quite different to modern textbooks, there is very little filler, there are no games or illustrations. The whole thing is self-contained such that if you have completed the earlier exercises and understood the previous chapter you will (they promise) be able to progress through the current one without consulting outside sources. Unlike the book Brighter French, the author promises that I do not even need to be 'particularly bright' to find this book useful.

I used a book from the same series to learn Spanish and helped me quite a lot. In this series there are 3 books, I'm starting on the more grammar focused one and will work through the 'Everyday French' (probably quite out of date by now) and then on to the 'French Reader' translating excerpts of novels and poems.

Is reading textbooks even a good way to learn the language? Spoken French certainly sounds very different to me than what a naive appraisal of the written form would suggest.

Listening before speaking. Reading before writing. Best way to learn a language is by listening, but there needs to be some context to what you're hearing, similar to how we learned language as infants. Audiobook + physical book + translation dictionary is your best bet. Lots of illiterate people can speak a language. Lots of jazz musicians couldn't read sheet music.

Generally, no, textbooks are not good for learning language. After learning proper pronunciation (i.e. listening to spoken) reading intresting books can help your vocabulary and grammar. At that point you've already learned the language enough to understand, speak basicly and read though.

Looking at the book the table of contents just looks like grammar and the first sentance states plainly, "It is impossible to learn French pronunciation properly from a book." so at least they're upfront that you will not be able to speak French. @Tollund_Man4 will probably be able to write basic french online, which might be more useful than speaking online, and "French Reader" sounds genuinely intresting.

@Tollund_Man4 will probably be able to write basic french online, which might be more useful than speaking online

I'm also listening to the Inner French podcast to get a sense for the pronunciation, and thinking of enrolling in a class for a short time just to break through the everyday conversation barrier (my experience with Spanish is that once you reach this point self-study can do the rest).

It's not enough on its own for sure. But while it might take a second to click knowing the grammar and plenty of vocabulary will help you make sense of what you're hearing in spoken French, and making an attempt at voicing what you've only seen written is better than drawing a blank (At least that's the bet I'm making with the time I'll be spending on these books).

As long as you've got some foundation and have a go at it a native speaker can always correct your pronunciation when you try for real.

If I was really invested in learning a new language, I would enlist GPT-4's help.

My Hindi is only conversational and not fluent, so my efforts to get it to coach me were quite successful.

It absolutely blows standard books out of the water, because it can actively catch your flaws and correct them, while building a customized curriculum.

But I wouldn't bother myself, because I don't intend to go anywhere where English + Google Translate won't suffice, and because I expect ubiquitous real time translation in my pocket or ears to be a reality sooner rather than later. (It kinda is, but you have to fiddle with apps. I'm talking something that's just running in the background or in my visual field through, say AR glasses)

If I was really invested in learning a new language, I would enlist GPT-4's help.

Sounds interesting, I suspect I'll need a lot more help drilling grammatical gender exercises so it should be useful here.

But I wouldn't bother myself, because I don't intend to go anywhere where English + Google Translate won't suffice, and because I expect ubiquitous real time translation in my pocket or ears to be a reality sooner rather than later. (It kinda is, but you have to fiddle with apps. I'm talking something that's just running in the background or in my visual field through, say AR glasses)

I'm finding the process very rewarding but it is a big time commitment so I can see why people wouldn't bother. As for real time translation, it sounds like it would be of great practical help but intellectually I do wonder if something would be lost in the process the same way 'I can just google it' has given people an excuse not to bother memorising a large number of historical facts.

I draw a distinction between learning a language simply because it's enjoyable versus learning one for its practical utility.

Sure, there's some overlap, but I fall into the latter category, and so far there's no language out there that offers me enough value that I can be bothered to learn it intentionally.

As for real time translation, it sounds like it would be of great practical help but intellectually I do wonder if something would be lost in the process the same way 'I can just google it' has given people an excuse not to bother memorising a large number of historical facts.

I'm not fussed about that in the least, since I'm the kind of nerd who enjoys learning obscure historical facts, which Google only makes easier, and I see no reason to care what other people get up to.