Languages

[sv]

i've heard about one guy who spoke 11 languages. when you know 2-3 languages except your native one (from different language groups), to study some more languages is much easier. The matter is in motivation and what those languages are...

E.g., i learn Ojibwe. And either i want it or not i know something on some closely related languages - Cree, Potawatomi, Ottawa. I can understand how they work, i can understand something written in them even without learning them. A little more effort and time - and i could know them too, and i would be able to claim not one but four languages at a time. It's much easier for me, than e.g. to learn some of Iroquois languages. Maybe it's easier to learn four Algonquin languages than two, but e.g. from Algonquin and Muskogee.

So the problm not in number of languages, but in number of regions (where language families/groups represented) I would not wonder if someone knows 10-15 European languages, the only matter is if he or she wants to spend some more of his/her time to learn them.

Usually the person learns languages based on the region (it usually happens so, someone just likes the culture of this or that region, or languages of this or that language family), so it's strange that closely related languages are not on the list. E.g. knowing Russian and Ukrainian means that you understand Belorussian almost automatically.

In that list of 28 the problem for me - i can't trace the reason why. why such a choice? The reason in not in region/culture/language families. So I can't understand why someone needs to learn them? Some sort of a language race?

I've heard about a method of learning languages (based on reading), created by Ilya Frank in Russia. They say that it's rather hard thing (3-4 hours a day), but it takes just some 3-4 month to learn the language - they could read books in it without problems.

[svernoux]

Have you ever seen the interview of Georges Kersaudy ?

He is official translator of 50 languages... so, it's possible !


http://www.freelang.com/mag/interview_kersaudy.html

I've just read this article again, thank you I ya qda
This is of course interesting and very amazing, but I still think the same. Just have a look at what Kersaudy says : "I used to speak them more or less, but I don't remember them all very well" "there's manay ways of knowing a language : either reading it or speaking it."

For me, only reading a language is not speaking it fluently. And I am convinced that this man has known different languages all along his life, but not all at the same time ! That's positively impossible ! I also had an old uncle who pretended to speak about 20 languages. I used to be very impressed, but when I think of it now, I can remember that in some languages, he was just able to say a few words and to compare languages, as does Kersaudy.

I know how to say some basic words in Japanese + I can compare how "Mac Donald's" is said and pronounced in Tokyo and Osaka. But do you think it means that I'm fluent in Japanese ??????

[Sanya]

I know how to say some basic words in Japanese + I can compare how "Mac Donald's" is said and pronounced in Tokyo and Osaka. But do you think it means that I'm fluent in Japanese ??????

Right...
And there is one another thing. I am Serbian, and that means I can perfectly understand Croatian and Macedonian, little less Bulgarian. But, do I SPEAK Croatian? - No, of course not. Also, as SV said, crucial thing is "group of languages".
With just a little of effort I learned enough to understand Ucranian & Russian. I do understand written text in those languages, but when listening it - I get tired soon.
Similarly, I learned Portuguese - and it was so easy to get familiar with Spanish - in order to understand it (written and spoken), while French I can understand just written. That knowledge doesn't give me right to say I speak either of them.