Hey, yes I can totally understand that passive/cognate understanding of a related language (in your case French and Spanish crossing over to Portuguese) would certainly make understanding texts, and some audio comprehension possible, whilst not leading to any ability to speak. I am would also agree that a solid command (instant recall and recognition in conversation) of 4000 words can be better than a looser and more passive knowledge of more words (7000+ or whatever), in communicating to some degree.
Iâm sure you can converse in Japanese but Iâd be really interested to know if you really know only 4000 words? As Iâm starting to find that I canât get through a full sentences of most everday media (in Russian) without coming across an unknown word which is essential to the meaning of the phrase. So the possibility of understanding all but the most sympathetic native in conversation at this point is pretty much impossible for me at this stage. again, Iâm totally not doubting what you say, just interested to know what it takes to start operating in a new language.
"Iâm totally not doubting what you say, just interested to know what it takes to start operating in a new language. "
What do you mean by starting to operate?
eg, in the short term maybe you want to be able to SPEAK so that you are understood. (Thatâs a native two-year-oldâs goal, also probably a touristâs). You focus on learning maybe 1000 words (thatâs 1000 LingQs learned), how to pronounce them, what contexts you can use them in. You find natives who will patiently listen to you expressing simple needs, demands, comments (Please show me, on this map, where Fortnum and Masonâs is) and give you feedback on how well you have make yourself understood. You will need to clock up maybe 15 hours of LingQ speaking time to meet that goal.
In Japanese, in the short term I want to be able to READ websites. So I need a very number of LingQs created, with kanji - English translations, and a high number of words read (maybe 100 000).
In Russian, I focussed on being able to LISTEN to books and podcasts. For that you need a very high passive vocabulary (ie no of known words) and to be able to translate the spoken word into English in your head in real time (maybe 1000 hours of listening time).
With German I focussed on WRITING, which needs maybe an active vocabulary of a few thousand words (4000 learned LingQs say), and maybe 5 to 10 000 words of writing.
I encourage would encourage everyone to write their short-term goals on their LingQ profile pages, then a tutor can see at a glance how well they are working towards them.
Good point, I guess my idea of âstarting to operateâ was/is actually quite high:
: Being able to understand, and be understood on a broad range of daily subjects in conversation
: Being able to read short news articles without too much technical language
: An acceptable level of grammar mistakes, few enough that a native speaker doesnât have to try too hard to understand.
A guess I mean using the language without expecting too much sympathy from a native speaker or text. Which come to think of it probably doesnât fit the idea of âstarting to operateâ .
"(maths)I am would also agree that a solid command (instant recall and recognition in conversation) of 4000 words can be better than a looser and more passive knowledge of more words (7000+ or whatever), in communicating to some degree. "
Well of course. But 4000 active words are buoyed up by 4000x passive ones, with âxâ = 6 or 7. Is the argument that âxâ should be as small as possible?
How do you get active vocabulary without a passive âgestationâ period, in the meantime picking up more passive vocab?
Iâm totally in the âpassive vocab firstâ camp. | donât see any other way it can happen. The next paragraph in my post was asking if 4000 words total, is really the upper limit if you have 4000 active words. I think we are in agreement?
âHow do you get active vocabulary without a passive âgestationâ period, in the meantime picking up more passive vocab?â
Obviously, any word you know actively was inevitably once known passively, but the less accessible the learned language is (say Japanese vs. Portuguese for a Spanish speaker), and the more efficient the learner is, the less words remain passive only. In the Portuguese scenario, the passive vocab is extremely easy to build up to huge numbers, but if the passive vocabulary in Japanese is only a quarter of that size and still includes 90% of the most common words, then the speakerâs ability could potentially be the same in both languages.
We are arguing over details, but the heart of the matter to me is that itâs not true that a passive vocabulary of 20,000 implies better speaking ability or communication than a passive vocab of 4,000.
âBy opting for more active speaking activities with native speakers rather than passive learning activities done alone, for one thing.â
Assuming this is an option, IE you live in a cosmopolitan situation like a large-ish city or a university town, how can you control what vocab you âactivateâ? You cannot control the discourse to that extent⌠or can you?
âWe are arguing over details, but the heart of the matter to me is that itâs not true that a passive vocabulary of 20,000 implies better speaking ability or communication than a passive vocab of 4,000.â
I disagree completely. More passive vocabulary leads to more active vocabulary. Itâs as simple as that.
Moreover, communication skills rely on understanding, too. A large passive vocabulary guarantees that I can understand others.
I have been through a time, when I could make myself understood to Japanese but couldnât understand their answers or questions. I really donât think that is a good thing to aim for. Even now, I rather struggle with understanding in conversations than with articulating my own thoughts. As soon as youâre thinking in a language and build sentences entirely in that language, you tend to only think within the limits of your known vocabulary.
Of course, I can say ăćŹăčŞăăŽă大弽ăăbut if I donât understand if someone refers to the same thing as ｢čŞć¸ă, I wonât understand. (Or a English speaker using âscentâ instead of âfragranceâ, thus puzzling me completely etc.)
I donât need 5 words for the same thing in my active vocabulary, even in my mother tongue I tend to use the same words over and over and there a few more which I use rarely, even more probably, I rarely ever speak out myself. But I do need these different words in my passive vocabulary or I will surely fail in conversation.
Oh, that is a strange usage of commas in my last paragraph⌠I wanted to say that probably most words I know passively in my mother tongue I hardly ever use.
The way I see it is⌠If a word is important to know, you will come across it a lot, and every time you come across it, you will know it a bit better. It should be a very natural process.
Cramming the important words (say⌠the 2000 most common words) through flash cards is absolutely pointless because if they really are so common and important, you will read them soooo many times that soon theyâll permanently become part of your vocabulary. So just stick to reading and understanding, flash cards are for more obscure words that you need for a test the next day and the like.
Anyways, Iâm no language expert. Good luck with your studies!
I was just wondering. Today i came across the word âsichtâ which means âviewâ in German. Now i just clicked known as i knew it was something to do with seeing, although i didnât exactly know how it differed from âsehe, sehen, gesehen, siehtâ etc.
Is it Okay to click it as known because i knew roughly what it means or should i know exactly before clicking?
I probably wouldnât mark âseheâ and âgesehenâ as two lingqs, but I would add an extra lingq for âSichtâ, as this is related (originally stemming from âsehenâ) , but not the same word. As you mentioned itâs a noun, meaning âview/sightâ. There are even other words that stem from the noun âSichtâ - for example the verb âsichtenâ, which means not âto seeâ (like âsehenâ), but âto sight/ to sort / to sift /to catch sight ofâ and so on. (as you realize âsehenâ and âto seeâ is closely related, as well as âSichtâ and âsightâ.)
Anyway, itâs up to everyoneâs own judgement whether a related word needs lingquing or whether it is easy-peasy. I lingq related words, if they donât match completely the patterns of word formation that are familiar to me. So I probably wouldnât mark âdas Schreibenâ, if I already marked âschreibenâ, but I would definitely mark âdie Schriftâ.
I guess everyone has to figure out how they like to LingQ.
I generally LingQ any form of a word that I am not confident using. This creates a new yellow LingQ, which I will notice the next time it comes up, helping me notice it, and get used to it. Not all forms of a word are equally easy to remember, (cases, or different verb endings), so seeing the different forms highlighted helps me.
Each time I save a different form of a word, this captures a different phrase. I often edit this phrase, which also helps me remember this form.
If these words begin with, or contain the same root, I can review them together in the Vocab section. I can also move them to âknownâ in batches in the Vocab section later if I want to get rid of them.
But it does not really matter. At other times I may choose to ignore words that I kind of think I know.
I lingq related words, if they donât match completely the patterns of word formation that are familiar to me. So I probably wouldnât mark âdas Schreibenâ, if I already marked âschreibenâ, but I would definitely mark âdie Schriftâ.