http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/about/newspubs/news/ViewNews.aspx?id=2458&newslabel=hn
Chalk one up for Antimoon!
Chalk one up for Antimoon!
Why Ain't Nobody Discussing This?
You're on a language forum!
Learn to speak properly.
I think the author mean to say 'Why isn't anyone discussing this?'
Learn to speak properly.
I think the author mean to say 'Why isn't anyone discussing this?'
Your double negative in "ain't nodbody" suggests that everyone is discussing 'this'.
"Your double negative in "ain't nodbody" suggests that everyone is discussing 'this'."
You fail logic. It suggests that somebody is, but not necessarily EVERYone.
You fail logic. It suggests that somebody is, but not necessarily EVERYone.
<<Your double negative in "ain't nodbody" suggests that everyone is discussing 'this'. >>
I'm not sure the double negative rule really applies to "aint'" in English.
"We ain't got none of those."
vs
"We do not/don't have none of those."
The first means "We don't have any of those". The second (besides sounding "wrong") implies that "We do have some of those."
I'm not sure the double negative rule really applies to "aint'" in English.
"We ain't got none of those."
vs
"We do not/don't have none of those."
The first means "We don't have any of those". The second (besides sounding "wrong") implies that "We do have some of those."
No it doesn't. Whether you think it's acceptable to say or not, neither of those means "We do have some of those". There is not such double negative rule in English, it's a false application of logic. Double negatives are used for emphasis.
If this forum is indeed for language learners we shouldn't lie about something that one will inevitably encounter with native speakers just because it's nonstandard.
If this forum is indeed for language learners we shouldn't lie about something that one will inevitably encounter with native speakers just because it's nonstandard.
Guest,
"You're on a language forum!
Learn to speak properly.
I think the author mean to say 'Why isn't anyone discussing this?'"
Speaking <i>properly</i> is not the goal of this forum, but rather speaking like how a native speaker would.
Also, that last sentence, was that a typo and that you know that you should have used "meant," or did you actually think that "mean" was the correct word to use? If it is the former, you should be more careful; but if it is the latter, you should actually read the article I wrote, take its advice, and after a while you should realize that "the author mean to say" sounds weird!
"You're on a language forum!
Learn to speak properly.
I think the author mean to say 'Why isn't anyone discussing this?'"
Speaking <i>properly</i> is not the goal of this forum, but rather speaking like how a native speaker would.
Also, that last sentence, was that a typo and that you know that you should have used "meant," or did you actually think that "mean" was the correct word to use? If it is the former, you should be more careful; but if it is the latter, you should actually read the article I wrote, take its advice, and after a while you should realize that "the author mean to say" sounds weird!
My apologies, I should give credit where it is due, as I did NOT write that article. I meant, "I posted"
Ok now that nonsense is cleared up...
<<< http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/about/newspubsnews/ViewNews.aspx?id=2458&newslabel=hn
Chalk one up for Antimoon! >>>
<<< http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/about/newspubsnews/ViewNews.aspx?id=2458&newslabel=hn
Chalk one up for Antimoon! >>>
<<Ok now that nonsense is cleared up...
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/about/newspubs/news/ViewNews.aspx?id=2458&newslabel=hn >>
That's nonsense as well, or at least the way it's presented makes it sound like it's the stupidest claim ever. Listening if you don't understand "everything" is definitely useful, but listening if you don't understand "anything" or most of what is said is another thing, and it's definitely useless. You can't learn a language "exactly" like a baby, since babies have an innate ability to pick up a language that is almost completely gone by the time they are 12.
The study probably showed that listening even if you don't understand most of what is said might be useful, provided you have already learned the basic sounds, phonemes, and possibly the basic grammatical structures of that language. So, in my opinion, the author of that article was the typical retarded journalist who inflates their articles and hardly reports the crux of the matter, so that every piece of news turns into a sensational bunch of meaningless statements. Sorry for not liking the article :)
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/about/newspubs/news/ViewNews.aspx?id=2458&newslabel=hn >>
That's nonsense as well, or at least the way it's presented makes it sound like it's the stupidest claim ever. Listening if you don't understand "everything" is definitely useful, but listening if you don't understand "anything" or most of what is said is another thing, and it's definitely useless. You can't learn a language "exactly" like a baby, since babies have an innate ability to pick up a language that is almost completely gone by the time they are 12.
The study probably showed that listening even if you don't understand most of what is said might be useful, provided you have already learned the basic sounds, phonemes, and possibly the basic grammatical structures of that language. So, in my opinion, the author of that article was the typical retarded journalist who inflates their articles and hardly reports the crux of the matter, so that every piece of news turns into a sensational bunch of meaningless statements. Sorry for not liking the article :)
My teacher told that avoiding double negations was a rule in English language. He was not native...
Johnny,
<<You can't learn a language "exactly" like a baby, since babies have an innate ability to pick up a language that is almost completely gone by the time they are 12.>>
What is your evidence for this statement?
<<You can't learn a language "exactly" like a baby, since babies have an innate ability to pick up a language that is almost completely gone by the time they are 12.>>
What is your evidence for this statement?
Johnny,
<<Listening if you don't understand "everything" is definitely useful, but listening if you don't understand "anything" or most of what is said is another thing, and it's definitely useless.>>
Would it not help you become accustomed to listening to the sounds of the language?
<<Listening if you don't understand "everything" is definitely useful, but listening if you don't understand "anything" or most of what is said is another thing, and it's definitely useless.>>
Would it not help you become accustomed to listening to the sounds of the language?
"Ain't" is used for effect. It ain't nothin' to get upset about here. It's used on occasion by educated and professional people in the southern part of the US or people who have southern roots. They know it is not standard and it's used in a deliberate way.
Imo, there is some benefit in simply listening to sounds in a relaxed way before the learner starts speaking the language. It piques one's curiosity.
However, at some point for the adult learner, there has to be some explanation of what those sounds means.
The reason kids learn languages by immersion is because they have plenty of teachers-other kids, teachers, friendly cafeteria workers, tutors,
playmates in the neighborhood, etc., to teach them.
I don't think there is a shut-off period in the brain. I think Chomsky or someone thinks that, but I don't agree with him.
Adults sabotage themselves with adult behavior. They are too reserved, resist natural curiosity as rudeness, etc. When they fall on their faces and say something ridiculous they are "scarred" for life and hate French people or Mexicans or whoever laughed when they said, " I prefer shoes with my meal."
I'm not in Krashen's camp all the way. What people forget is that they need plenty of input. It is not enough to sit in Japanese or French class and acquire the language that way.
If you want to learn languages, you need to pick the brains of people who can speak several of them well, not people who have theories, but are only fluent in one or two languages.
That's my opinion and I think I'm right because I'm American.
That last part was meant to be funny.
Imo, there is some benefit in simply listening to sounds in a relaxed way before the learner starts speaking the language. It piques one's curiosity.
However, at some point for the adult learner, there has to be some explanation of what those sounds means.
The reason kids learn languages by immersion is because they have plenty of teachers-other kids, teachers, friendly cafeteria workers, tutors,
playmates in the neighborhood, etc., to teach them.
I don't think there is a shut-off period in the brain. I think Chomsky or someone thinks that, but I don't agree with him.
Adults sabotage themselves with adult behavior. They are too reserved, resist natural curiosity as rudeness, etc. When they fall on their faces and say something ridiculous they are "scarred" for life and hate French people or Mexicans or whoever laughed when they said, " I prefer shoes with my meal."
I'm not in Krashen's camp all the way. What people forget is that they need plenty of input. It is not enough to sit in Japanese or French class and acquire the language that way.
If you want to learn languages, you need to pick the brains of people who can speak several of them well, not people who have theories, but are only fluent in one or two languages.
That's my opinion and I think I'm right because I'm American.
That last part was meant to be funny.
<<There is not such double negative rule in English, it's a false application of logic. Double negatives are used for emphasis.>>
That'll be a shock to the makers of Sara Lee, and their slogan "Nobody doesn't like Sara Lee!"
That'll be a shock to the makers of Sara Lee, and their slogan "Nobody doesn't like Sara Lee!"