|
Post by BobWilliston on May 3, 2015 1:28:38 GMT -5
Je parle courament français. Ich sprache auch Deutsch, aber nich gut. Hablo español tambien – no perfecto, pero puedo explicar a los padres de mis alumnos que hacen sus niños en ls classe. Nini genu demahinih. What's that last one? Bob stopped by to see me frequently on his way from work in the months I was laid up in my parents' home in Carson City, Nevada, following the "big bang" in August of '87, in which I broke both of my legs. We often talked language! Mi'kmaq. The native language in Nova Scotia, PEI, eastern NB, and Gaspe Peninsula.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on May 3, 2015 1:32:24 GMT -5
What's that last one? Bob stopped by to see me frequently on his way from work in the months I was laid up in my parents' home in Carson City, Nevada, following the "big bang" in August of '87, in which I broke both of my legs. We often talked language! Mi'kmaq. The native language in Nova Scotia, PEI, eastern NB, and Gaspe Peninsula. Are you conversant in it? What does it say? Sounds interesting . . .
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 3, 2015 1:35:59 GMT -5
Actually Alan, you didn't learn the language backwards. Remember, everyone in this group spoke their first language fluently, for their age, before they ever went to school. It's the easiest way to learn a second language -- puts me greatly at odds with a lot of other language teachers in this country, but I've had students attend university in Paris straight from my high school class..... Interesting! I often hear people saying how they pick up a foreign language "in the street," or how they can understand a language but can't speak it. I always preferred learning through a combination of books and sitting down with people - often children - to get pronunciation and usage of specific words. What most people fail to realize is that it is perfectly normal to understand completely before you even begin to speak. That's what prompts children to learn to speak -- they've learned the words in context. In the usual language classrooms kids are taught to speak and never given the opportunity to understand normal natives speaking the language on the street. It's entirely counterproductive. For me, the most ignorant thing a person can say to a non-English speaker is "If you can understand so well, then why don't you answer me?" They should be thankful the person even understands what they're saying -- otherwise there's be no communication at all. ..... That can get you shot by the police in this country.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 3, 2015 1:38:53 GMT -5
Mi'kmaq. The native language in Nova Scotia, PEI, eastern NB, and Gaspe Peninsula. Are you conversant in it? What does it say? Sounds interesting . . . No -- very little. But I had native speakers in my classes both in English language schools and French language schools. It would have been good for us to have known a lot more because we kept a number of Mi'kmaq kids as foster children.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on May 3, 2015 1:40:47 GMT -5
Interesting! I often hear people saying how they pick up a foreign language "in the street," or how they can understand a language but can't speak it. I always preferred learning through a combination of books and sitting down with people - often children - to get pronunciation and usage of specific words. What most people fail to realize is that it is perfectly normal to understand completely before you even begin to speak. That's what prompts children to learn to speak -- they've learned the words in context. In the usual language classrooms kids are taught to speak and never given the opportunity to understand normal natives speaking the language on the street. It's entirely counterproductive. For me, the most ignorant thing a person can say to a non-English speaker is "If you can understand so well, then why don't you answer me?" They should be thankful the person even understands what they're saying -- otherwise there's be no communication at all. ..... That can get you shot by the police in this country. But this is where I'm saying I seem backwards - in that it has always been easier for me to speak than to understand a language. It was only after about five year of studying Marshallese, and two consecutive years of immersion in the language - 1990-92 - that my hearing and comprehension actually caught up with my speaking ability.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 3, 2015 2:20:18 GMT -5
What most people fail to realize is that it is perfectly normal to understand completely before you even begin to speak. That's what prompts children to learn to speak -- they've learned the words in context. In the usual language classrooms kids are taught to speak and never given the opportunity to understand normal natives speaking the language on the street. It's entirely counterproductive. For me, the most ignorant thing a person can say to a non-English speaker is "If you can understand so well, then why don't you answer me?" They should be thankful the person even understands what they're saying -- otherwise there's be no communication at all. ..... That can get you shot by the police in this country. But this is where I'm saying I seem backwards - in that it has always been easier for me to speak than to understand a language. It was only after about five year of studying Marshallese, and two consecutive years of immersion in the language - 1990-92 - that my hearing and comprehension actually caught up with my speaking ability. It's understandable. Where I came from they distinguish between learning a language and acquiring a language. You've only acquired a language when you can participate in real life matters without needing the time to translate in your mind. I've described it as rails, like a railroad. Once you have a solid track for each language, you can dispense with running back and forth on the ties between the rails, and just go ahead. You know you've got your second rail in place when the first language doesn't interfere with your second language. I know -- the time I had a car accident everything went perfectly fine with the cops until I used an antiquated French word for a "horn". The policeman looked at me really strange, then asked his next question, which I understood, and answered in French. He looked at me strangely again, then I realized he has asked it in English and I hadn't recognized it. SO he gave up and didn't try to speak English any further.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 3, 2015 2:23:35 GMT -5
Mi'kmaq. The native language in Nova Scotia, PEI, eastern NB, and Gaspe Peninsula. Are you conversant in it? What does it say? Sounds interesting . . . I really can't have a conversation. I can identify myself to parents and tell them I'm the French teacher, or the English teacher, whichever. The interesting thing about having Mi'kmaq kids in my classes was that it didn't matter whether they were in an English school or a French school, the language I was teaching them was their third language.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 3, 2015 18:56:37 GMT -5
Je parle courament français. Ich sprache auch Deutsch, aber nich gut. Hablo español tambien – no perfecto, pero puedo explicar a los padres de mis alumnos que hacen sus niños en ls classe. Nini genu demahinih. You forgot English or is that not a language any more? Well, I do switch between English and Ebonics on occasion.
|
|
|
Post by xna on May 3, 2015 19:53:55 GMT -5
FWIW I was on an flight recently, going to listen to Hayden speak (a guy who know about languages)*. Sitting next to me was a university linguistics professor (an atheist born in VT), so remembering this thread I asked her about religion, and linguistics. She said, when she worked in the southern USA bible belt it was hard for her to adjust, as people do not first say what they mean, but rather say what’s expected first, then only when you get to know them will they tell you what they think. She said glossolalia is considered babel, and not a language. As far as she knows it has not been a topic of study by linguists. Many languages have an overall reference framework, like every"thing" having a sex, but some languages have a framework based on your “source of knowledge”. With these, which word you used depends on “how you know”, such as; I saw first hand, a person told me, etc. I told her I am very poor in language skills, especially spelling, yet have a large vocabulary. I told her for me spelling is like music. I can tell when a note is off key, and I can tell when a word is misspelled, but I can’t come up with the correctly spelled word or hold a tune on my own. She said this is common with people like myself who have exceptional pattern recognition & spatial memory skills. Said spoken language and spelling is not logical, and if you understand the world using only logic you will give up on spelling, as this is not how you learn spoken language or spelling. She said we do not speak the way we write. Few speak in complete sentences. How you write and how you speak come out very different, and are learned differently. When you speak - you speak, when you write - you think - then you write. * en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on May 3, 2015 20:51:30 GMT -5
FWIW I was on an flight recently, going to listen to Hayden speak (a guy who know about languages)*. Sitting next to me was a university linguistics professor (an atheist born in VT), so remembering this thread I asked her about religion, and linguistics. She said, when she worked in the southern USA bible belt it was hard for her to adjust, as people do not first say what they mean, but rather say what’s expected first, then only when you get to know them will they tell you what they think. She said glossolalia is considered babel, and not a language. As far as she knows it has not been a topic of study by linguists. Many languages have an overall reference framework, like every"thing" having a sex, but some languages have a framework based on your “source of knowledge”. With these, which word you used depends on “how you know”, such as; I saw first hand, a person told me, etc. I told her I am very poor in language skills, especially spelling, yet have a large vocabulary. I told her for me spelling is like music. I can tell when a note is off key, and I can tell when a word is misspelled, but I can’t come up with the correctly spelled word or hold a tune on my own. She said this is common with people like myself who have exceptional pattern recognition & spatial memory skills. Said spoken language and spelling is not logical, and if you understand the world using only logic you will give up on spelling, as this is not how you learn spoken language or spelling. She said we do not speak the way we write. Few speak in complete sentences. How you write and how you speak come out very different, and are learned differently. When you speak - you speak, when you write - you think - then you write. * en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELONThis is all interesting, xna, and concurs with what I have observed through the years. I am particularly fascinated with what she told you about languages having a "framework." Marshallese and other Micronesian languages have a very interesting set of what we call "possessive pronouns," which focus more on a person's relationship to a person or thing, rather on whether it is "mine" or "yours." For instance - the Marshallese word "bao," which can refer to birds in general, or specifically to the chicken, always requires one of several "possessive classifiers." It can be "Neju bao," (child-my bird), in reference to a pet or chickens one is caring for; it can be "kiju bao" (food-my bird), in reference to the specific portion that is yours to eat; or "kwonau bao," (contribution-my bird), which refers to a person's contribution to the feast. These are all expressed as "classifiers" which take an ending denoting the person - my, yours, theirs, etc. These endings and the other pronouns total about 12, as the plural forms can be distinguished up to four people, and then just "five or more" - and the plurals vary by human and non-human. But at least he, she, and it are all the same word! The "locators" - here and there, these and those - which have only two places in English, have three places in many Pacific languages, and five in Marshallese - here by me, here by both of us, there by you, there away from both of us, and way over there out of sight. There are upwards of 30 variations of these, depending on human and non-human, specific one or ones within a group . . . my head hurt when I was trying to get on to all of this, and I know I will never have native ability! This all presents difficulty to the foreigner, but it really brings the character to the language, and I am saddened to see some of it being lost among younger, "transplanted' speakers.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 3, 2015 21:12:25 GMT -5
FWIW I was on an flight recently, going to listen to Hayden speak (a guy who know about languages)*. Sitting next to me was a university linguistics professor (an atheist born in VT), so remembering this thread I asked her about religion, and linguistics. She said, when she worked in the southern USA bible belt it was hard for her to adjust, as people do not first say what they mean, but rather say what’s expected first, then only when you get to know them will they tell you what they think. She said glossolalia is considered babel, and not a language. As far as she knows it has not been a topic of study by linguists. Many languages have an overall reference framework, like every"thing" having a sex, but some languages have a framework based on your “source of knowledge”. With these, which word you used depends on “how you know”, such as; I saw first hand, a person told me, etc. I told her I am very poor in language skills, especially spelling, yet have a large vocabulary. I told her for me spelling is like music. I can tell when a note is off key, and I can tell when a word is misspelled, but I can’t come up with the correctly spelled word or hold a tune on my own. She said this is common with people like myself who have exceptional pattern recognition & spatial memory skills. Said spoken language and spelling is not logical, and if you understand the world using only logic you will give up on spelling, as this is not how you learn spoken language or spelling. She said we do not speak the way we write. Few speak in complete sentences. How you write and how you speak come out very different, and are learned differently. When you speak - you speak, when you write - you think - then you write. * en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELONThe reason a lot of language learning without native exposure still keeps people from understanding well is because in most of conversation a person normally expects about 70 percent of what is spoken. Once you become accustomed to the rhythm of a language you only have to listen to the critical words in any statement. You have to be patient with the guy who can't answer immediately because he's still trying to figure out the other 70 percent. By the way, the phonics of English is a nightmare. Try teaching English to someone who speaks a language with straightforward phonics.
|
|
|
Post by xna on May 3, 2015 21:59:07 GMT -5
AL, Some day I intend to study words and language more. It's an area where I need improvement. I see your new "work" is working with words,. ? I find knowing a words origin gives me a more complete understanding of the idea, and allows for more precise distinctions of ideas. In aviation I communicate using very specific standardized language so as to communicate quickly and without ambiguity. But when I write contracts I use words at some places because of their penchant for wiggle room. Then at other places for just the opposite reason, like at the beginning of a contract, where words are locally defined to limit scope and reduce the number of possible interpretations. . Was told the dictionary does not define words, but is a history book of word usage. I notice that when I am in some countries, especially Asia it feels like my brain "turns off" my ears after a few days, as it decides their is no hope of making any sense of the inputs. But in Europe there are enough borrowed words for the ears keep listening. I impressed the linguist when I told her I had intentionally tried to coined a word, and now it is in "common" use, in my field. Google gives me credit for coining it, so it's official. ? She said she has also been tiring to do the same, but so far without success. I guess it a common goal of linguists.! All in all, words seem inadequate, most of the time, ?
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on May 3, 2015 22:41:44 GMT -5
AL, Some day I intend to study words and language more. It's an area where I need improvement. I see your new "work" is working with words,. ? I find knowing a words origin gives me a more complete understanding of the idea, and allows for more precise distinctions of ideas. In aviation I communicate using very specific standardized language so as to communicate quickly and without ambiguity. But when I write contracts I use words at some places because of their penchant for wiggle room. Then at other places for just the opposite reason, like at the beginning of a contract, where words are locally defined to limit scope and reduce the number of possible interpretations. . Was told the dictionary does not define words, but is a history book of word usage. I notice that when I am in some countries, especially Asia it feels like my brain "turns off" my ears after a few days, as it decides their is no hope of making any sense of the inputs. But in Europe there are enough borrowed words for the ears keep listening. I impressed the linguist when I told her I had intentionally tried to coined a word, and now it is in "common" use, in my field. Google gives me credit for coining it, so it's official. ? She said she has also been tiring to do the same, but so far without success. I guess it a common goal of linguists.! All in all, words seem inadequate, most of the time, ? Yes, xna, I translate documents, a vocation that highlights the cultural chasm between some languages. When translating a document that is "splitting hairs" on legal terminology, or speaking of some new job restriction that is "for your benefit," I sometimes want to tell someone, "But we don't talk about that stuff in this language!" And, lest I make their language sound inadequate and simplistic to you, I will turn things around, and cite the difficulty of talking of the different parts or stages of a coconut tree in English, or about the reef and the various sections of an island or atoll, or navigating by the stars and waves . . . and not that I possess all of this knowledge either! We scarcely realize how highly metaphoric our language use is, and how this usage actually shapes our ways of thinking about everything we do, all of our relationships. I would say it is inadequate, while yet if we understand this and learn to listen beyond the technical meaning, there is a richness we lack in our modern, highly technical use of language, in which we understand things as objective facts, containing the entire reality about something. The "wiggle room" makes sense in light of the documents I translate, and I often realize that this kind of usage is very difficult, sometimes impossible to convey in another language. Language is frustrating and wonderful!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 4, 2015 0:00:10 GMT -5
I had an aunt who was not very linguistically adept. We had a visitor one day who had very limited English, and we were watching a raft race in the river behind our house. One raft came close to shore and everyone on it was crazy drunk. So my aunt said, "Those guys are all three sheets to the wind." Our poor guest frowned over it for a while, then askd, "What is three sh-s to ... what?"
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 4, 2015 0:04:13 GMT -5
That reminded me of one day when we were in a waiting room at a clinic. This man came in, and approached the receptionist and loudly said: Where may I sh-?" The lady blinked, and said, "Excuse me." He said, "I must sh-." So she pointed to a restroom down a hallway and left her station for a short while -- presumably to laugh.
|
|
|
Post by xna on May 4, 2015 3:13:57 GMT -5
More word thoughts....
I know some German, and their words seems to be made up of concatenations. When a person does not know a certain word in your language they combine words to describe the idea. These combinations can give you a new insights of the thing, or idea. When a truly new invention, or discovery is made, this combination method fails. Here you will be at a loss for words to describe it. These new ideas demand their own new words, and these new words have staying power.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on May 4, 2015 14:27:46 GMT -5
What about Aramaic...is anyone fluent in that? The apostles who wrote the gospels spoke Aramaic for their first language... Aramaic English New Testament on Amazon.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on May 4, 2015 15:06:44 GMT -5
What about Aramaic...is anyone fluent in that? The apostles who wrote the gospels spoke Aramaic for their first language... Aramaic English New Testament on Amazon. Great point. Excerpt from David Wilcox's "Native Tongue": Spoken words in Aramaic Sounds I wouldn't understand In a local ancient dialect For the people of that land No little words can hold a candle To the splendor of the sun That can explain this world of wonder And shine the same on everyone But little words can hold a candle All your own when darkness comes They're just the size for us to handle And God knows your native tongue
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on May 4, 2015 18:22:11 GMT -5
That reminded me of one day when we were in a waiting room at a clinic. This man came in, and approached the receptionist and loudly said: Where may I sh-?" The lady blinked, and said, "Excuse me." He said, "I must sh-." So she pointed to a restroom down a hallway and left her station for a short while -- presumably to laugh. He needed to shave??
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on May 4, 2015 19:00:03 GMT -5
In Marshallese, the term "sleep with" carries no sexual connotation whatsoever. It simply states where you sleep.
Eldon Huff and I rented a room from a certain family on Majuro Atoll - Corrie and Pinak Lejjena - and when people would ask where we stayed, after telling them (in Marshallese) that we rented from the Lejjenas, they would say something like, "Oh! You sleep with Corrie!" Even knowing the lack of any insinuation in their culture, our American ears still had a hard time with this one, and we would reply, "Yes. We rent a room from Corrie and his wife."
On the other hand, when I explained to a Marshallese friend in Honolulu how this was understood by American ears, he was like, "Oh no! I have said that before in English, to American people!"
They use the Marshallese term "babu ippen" - an exact translation of "lay with" if they are wanting to convey sexual connotations.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 5, 2015 1:15:23 GMT -5
What about Aramaic...is anyone fluent in that? The apostles who wrote the gospels spoke Aramaic for their first language... Aramaic English New Testament on Amazon. I understand there is an small group of people in the Middle East who still speak Aramaic -- undoubtedly not identical to the Aramaic of Jesus day, but that was the group of people that Mel Gibson is supposed to have consulted for The Passion of the Christ.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 5, 2015 1:19:24 GMT -5
In Marshallese, the term "sleep with" carries no sexual connotation whatsoever. It simply states where you sleep. Eldon Huff and I rented a room from a certain family on Majuro Atoll - Corrie and Pinak Lejjena - and when people would ask where we stayed, after telling them (in Marshallese) that we rented from the Lejjenas, they would say something like, "Oh! You sleep with Corrie!" Even knowing the lack of any insinuation in their culture, our American ears still had a hard time with this one, and we would reply, "Yes. We rent a room from Corrie and his wife." On the other hand, when I explained to a Marshallese friend in Honolulu how this was understood by American ears, he was like, "Oh no! I have said that before in English, to American people!" They use the Marshallese term "babu ippen" - an exact translation of "lay with" if they are wanting to convey sexual connotations. Interesting. In Bible times the euphemism for "sleeping" with someone was "washing his feet". Makes one wonder about some passages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 6:08:56 GMT -5
Interesting. In Bible times the euphemism for "sleeping" with someone was "washing his feet". Makes one wonder about some passages. What?! In Bible times, washing someone's feet meant ... literally ... washing their feet!
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 5, 2015 9:35:26 GMT -5
Interesting. In Bible times the euphemism for "sleeping" with someone was "washing his feet". Makes one wonder about some passages. :) What?! In Bible times, washing someone's feet meant ... literally ... washing their feet! Are you sure? 2 Samuel 11: Verse 8 - And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet. And Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him a mess of meat from the king.Verse 11 - And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.Seems that Uriah understood the euphemism. And then there is the verse in Ruth: Ruth 3:4 - It shall be when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies, and you shall go and uncover his feet and lie down; then he will tell you what you shall do.Have to wonder what needs to be done after 'feet' are uncovered. Could feet also be a euphemism for male genitalia?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 9:40:11 GMT -5
What?! In Bible times, washing someone's feet meant ... literally ... washing their feet! Are you sure? 2 Samuel 11: Verse 8 - And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet. And Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him a mess of meat from the king.Verse 11 - And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.Seems that Uriah understood the euphemism. And then there is the verse in Ruth: Ruth 3:4 - It shall be when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies, and you shall go and uncover his feet and lie down; then he will tell you what you shall do.Have to wonder what needs to be done after 'feet' are uncovered. Could feet also be a euphemism for male genitalia? Seems to me like you're looking for something that isn't there
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 5, 2015 10:15:06 GMT -5
Seems to me like you're looking for something that isn't there :) Seems to me that you are avoiding something that is there! Why would David tell Uriah to wash his feet? Why did Ruth uncover a man's feet and then wait for him to tell her what to do? Why would he pay her (n grain) afterwards? And this doesn't even touch on the Song of Songs! The people who wrote the bible were human. They wrote human stories. And they were lusty!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 11:07:34 GMT -5
Seems to me like you're looking for something that isn't there Why would David tell Uriah to wash his feet? Why did Ruth uncover a man's feet and then wait for him to tell her what to do? Why would he pay her (n grain) afterwards? And this doesn't even touch on the Song of Songs! The people who wrote the bible were human. They wrote human stories. And they were lusty! Maybe his feet were dirty As for Ruth, I believe she literally lay down on the ground at his feet, like it says he "turned himself: and behold, a woman lay at his feet". He woke up and saw her there. Then he called her "a virtuous woman" which he'd hardly have done if your interpretation was correct. He didn't pay her either, he gave her a gift of barley because he knew she needed it. It says in the last chapter of the book of Ruth, that Boaz took her and she was his wife, and he went in unto her etc - no mention of feet. Are you familiar with "Strange Scriptures that Perplex the Western Mind" ? Here is a quotation from that book: [Lying at the Feet (Ruth 3:7-14). Ruth, when reaping in the field of Boaz, went to the resting place of Boaz, uncovered his feet, and lying crosswise, covered herself with his cloak or skirt, a custom common all over the East. By doing so, Ruth just placed herself under the protection of Boaz; later she asked Boaz to spread his skirt over her. She only asked him to acknowledge her right to his protection. Boaz replied, “I will do to thee all that thou requirest, for all the city doth know that thou art a virtuous women. If thy kinsman will not take thee to wife, I will.” This same custom is referred to in Ezekiel 16:8: “I will spread my skirt over thee, and thou becomest mine.”]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 12:48:41 GMT -5
Thread hijackers.
|
|