I agree with Alexanderc, there are grammar rules in Chinese, Steve might call them patterns but I really don’t distinguish between those. Chinese has nouns, subjects, objects, verbs, auxiliary verbs, adjectives, adverbs, modifiers, prepositions, conjunctions. It has tenses and conditional constructions (albeit much different than in romance languages). For me a comprehensive Chinese grammar would be helpful although I have never seen one. Chinese grammar does not have conjunction tables but it is NOT a grammar less language.
I really don’t understand Steve’s terminology phobia. Those terms above are all ones I can handle easily and I am not a linguist. Terminology is actually very helpful because it sharpens and refines meaning and clearifies what we are talking about.
I find it much easier to have grammatical concepts (or patterns if you like that term better) explained to me in a good book than to find them out myself.
Again I don’t know what kind of grammar books people use but the ones I use (the German Langenscheidt books) always provide example and aren’t really that complicated.
In Chinese I ignored rules because they were unnecessary. In Russian I read the rules, and some are now clearer than they were and others remain obtuse but their contribution to my ability to speak is slight and indirect.
But I don’t doubt that others like grammar. I think such people are in the minority but could be wrong.
are 饿 and怒 verbs or adjectives, I have never concerned myself with such things.
Auxiliary verbs? Are you joking?
我要去，我打算去， 我没有去。 just how verbs are put together in Chinese. If I know what they mean in English that is all I need to know. Soon I know how they work in Chinese texts. Grammar terms and explanations would only confuse me.
Tenses? 我去， 我明天去， 明天要去， 昨天去了，
要是。。。 就， 就算。。。 还是 who needs terms like conditional
grammar terms and explanations would have slowed me down in my Chinese language learning. Chinese is such a practical and sensible language, it makes sense all by itself, no rules needed.
In Russian, grammar rules are more useful because the grammar is more complex, inflected, and full of unreasonable constructions that sometimes have to be pointed out. (One case for one of something, one case for 2,3 4 of something and another case for 5 or more, some verbs and prepositions take certain cases except for …, different cases depending on whether noun is animate or inanimate etc.) reading the grammar from time to time helps you notice, but only exposure will ever make it part of you.
I don’t know much Chinese grammar. I think it must exist but I have never paid much attention to it. I cannot explain how you would use the ending particles but somehow I know when to use them. I think I can speak Chinese.
While on the subject of Chinese and grammar, I was reminded that many if not most recent Chinese immigrants that I meet here, including one young man I was with this morning that I am mentoring for a local immigrant services organization, and who had spent two years at an ESL college,all study nothing but grammar, passionately.
But they continue to say “even I study hard, I cannot learn”, or " I listen him" or " I am interesting in music" and the like. They have not learned how the words work, but they have studied grammar.
So I think grammar based instruction is a major obstacle for most language learners. But I recognize that some like grammar.
I am a grammar person. I definitely love grammar. However, there’s no use in studying only from the book, that’s for sure.
I didn’t do grammar in Swedish and that is the language I keep struggling with most. I can understand quite well, but when it comes to producing, I just can’t remember the correct forms and words to keep me going.
Grammar helps me a lot to get to know differences in usage (e.g. Japanese しなければ、しなかったら、しないなら、しないと）For me as someone who likes grammar and who can use grammar books, grammar helps me a lot in understanding language better and gives me extra confidence. If I’m writing a text in Swedish, I can re-check myself if the verb is always in second position in the sentence or if I happened to use the English word order again. This is about the only ‘rule’ I really know in Swedish, but it helps me a lot. I’d like to study more rules.
Of course, you have to re-check whether you understood the grammar explanations correctly. So I only read about grammar that troubles me often (so I am already fairly used to it) or I try to use the new learnt grammar structures immediately, to check whether I got it right.
Friedemann said: “You didn’t seem to be pro nuclear last time we discussed this. You didn’t seem too supportive of Wall Street either.”
You misunderstand. I mean they are anti-nuclear in the sense that they want Britain to scrap its nuclear deterrent and donate its Trident submarines to Iran and North Korea as a goodwill gesture!!
Obviously when it comes to Nuclear POWER even serious people can have some concerns about accident risks. Nevertheless, I am still basically in favour of nuclear - and I don’t recollect ever saying anything other than this. (Remember: Britain is - unlike Japan - not located in an earthquake zone.)
As for “supporting Wall Street”, well, it depends what you mean by that.
Do I believe in Capitalism and free enterprise? You betcha!
Do I believe in using tax-dollars to “support” dumb bankers who have screwed up and who deserve to fail?
Well, let’s say that I’m kind of sceptical about that (although in some cases it might be necessary for the greater good.)
BTW
My remarks about The Guardian were meant to be slightly tongue-in-cheek. Of course Steve is going to use any and every newspaper for promotional purposes, and nobody would expect otherwise. But knowing some of Steve’s views, I would be amazed if he personally would want to read their Socialist mumbo-jumbo!
(Ich würde diese Zeitung nur zu einem einzigen Zweck verwenden - doch ich tue es nicht, weil ich keine Lust habe, meine Hämorriden zu vergiften…)
JayB - The Guardian is a bit wet but those other papers you mentioned, especially the daily mail, certainly have their problems too. They seem pretty fond of ‘hate’ politics and they claim to be Unionist (in the UK sense) but their views of most part of the UK that are outside SE are usually derogatory (too many socialists in those parts, so their views aren’t important, is it?)
.
Still it doesn’t matter when it comes to language learning, I don’t think the papers divide into ‘Guardian’ on the output camp and ‘the Times, the Telegraph and Daily Mail’ on the input camp. An interview with any one of them will get expose to 100,000s of people.
You will have noticed that The Daily Mail was not my first recommendation to Steve, and that I described it as being a “…slightly lower brow option…” (my exact words.)
It’s amusing, however, to see how the sandal-band always has a collective nervous breakdown at the very mention of the Mail. They just can’t cope with the fact that it has (far and away) a bigger readership than their pitiful leftist rag! ;-D
@JayB: Whether you meant to or not, you DID risk offending all Guardian-reading LingQers with your comments. It IS considered a quality paper, whether it makes a profit or a loss is neither here nor there. And their readership are, on the whole, more interested in learning foreign languages than the readers of many other British newspapers.
By the way, I wouldn’t call the Guardian left-wing myself, rather highbrow liberal. If you want a left-wing newspaper in Britain these days, there’s pretty much just the Socialist Worker.
What’s wrong with the traditional teaching of languages.
and
How the internet will challenge (change) the traditional teaching of languages.
Are, to me at least, two very catchy and intriguing angles. I think these two angles would also be interesting to a lot of journalists, especially in the UK.
My nephew is 17 and his view is ‘I’m no good at languages, I did French but it was too difficult’. This is not just my nephew’s view but it’s a view of a lot of people in the UK.
And it seems to stem from the way we teach languages – basically it doesn’t seem to work for the majority of people and it seems to act as a deterrent to any further learning. One question that comes to me, is ‘Will more adults learn languages in the UK, if we didn’t teach them at school?’ It’s a question that can’t be answer but I do think about it.
The Guardian has a large ‘Educational’ section and is very popular with teachers – a lot of feathers to ruffle there.
And the others, I think the Times has a large educational section too, and they all have supplements on ‘lifestyle’ which I’m sure the benefits of Lingq would add value too.
I suspect that JayB’s interpretation of left-wing is anyone who is against unnecessary wars, gun rights, creationism in schools and unrestricted capitalism. (There, I said it :P)
Jay is a good man, sometimes we just have different opinions, that’s all. In fact I enjoy much more an exchange of contrasting views than agreeing all the time. Maybe I come back to the pros and cons of capitalism later today when I have time.
The bark is sometimes worse than the bite. Some of my friends are leftists. They think that I am a t*t. I think the same about them. We are still friends.
Just for the record: I was always opposed to the ground invasion of Iraq. I never believed for one second that Iraq had anything to do with Bin Laden. And I am also highly sceptical about the cost/justification for the West’s current military adventures in North Africa…
I don’t know exactly what you mean by “unrestricted Capitalism”. Certainly any decent society always has to have a ‘saftey-net’ to look after those who would otherwise bite the dust. I don’t know any Conservative would would disagree with that.
(The other issues you mention are completely irrelevant as regards leftwing vs.rightwing. Personally I have very little interest in them.)
I don’t know you well enough to make a proper judgement (nor am I an expert of any of the issues mentioned), but I was just taking a bit of a swipe at your use of language at times, such as “I guess not ALL leftists are fools (even if perhaps most of them are.)” or “even serious people” etc. No harm intended
“unrestricted capitalism” - I’m sure there is a better term out there, but since I don’t have it handy, I will explain what I was trying to say. I just think there need to be enough restrictions in place so that massive corporations don’t have too much power. Whether that be in market share and control (e.g. Monsanto) or the power to lobby politicians to amend (or not amend) legislation in their favour, and then there is the brainwashing effect of powerful, well-funded advertising to consider.
Yeah, well, my tone is frequently up there in the stratosphere - specially late at night when the nectar flows!
But I am a fairly moderate Conservative. In a UK context I would be very slightly to the right of David Cameron. In a US context I would be in some regards to the left of (for example) George Bush.
Fingerhut. I always say we should do what we like doing in language study. I do believe that a majority of people are discouraged by the emphasis on grammar in traditional teaching of languages, and so it is counter productive for these people. For people who like grammar it is great.
