Do you read any other languages?

[WICKES]

Can you read books in any language other than English? C. S Lewis read literature in the original Anglo Saxon, Old Norse, Middle English, Latin, Greek, Medieval French, Modern French, Italian and German! :eek2: He also got by in things like Medieval Welsh (while at Oxford John Betjamen was his student and disliked him so much that he chose Medieval Welsh as his special language just to annoy him).

[Saphira]

I am Swedish and 12 years old, so I am still learning more English and I've just started to study Spanish and I am working on learning French at home. I'd like to learn Latin too. I usually read more English books than Swedish books right now. And Swedish is similar to Norway and Danish, so I can read books in those languages too.

/Saphira

[WICKES]

I am Swedish and 12 years old, so I am still learning more English and I've just started to study Spanish and I am working on learning French at home. I'd like to learn Latin too. I usually read more English books than Swedish books right now. And Swedish is similar to Norway and Danish, so I can read books in those languages too.

/Saphira

My god Saphira, that is extremely good English for a 12 year old! If you can write so well in another language at just 12 I'm sure you will be fluent in no time. In fact, though I live in Britain, I am rather depresssed to say that you write better English than many British adults I know. When I was 12 I spent most of my time watching TV and eating crisps (actually, I still do)- you make me feel rather inadequate ;)

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes we British are WAY behind our European counterparts on the issue of languages, so much so it is shameful. I tried to learn French a few years ago, hopeless! such things need to be done much earlier. I am trying to introduce languages to my kids though.

[WICKES]

Yes we British are WAY behind our European counterparts on the issue of languages, so much so it is shameful. I tried to learn French a few years ago, hopeless! such things need to be done much earlier. I am trying to introduce languages to my kids though.

It staggers me sometimes when I see French or Dutch football managers interviewed in the UK. They almost always (and I really mean this) speak better English than the the majority of British players.:(

Though that probably says more about our terrible education system than anything else!

[LitNetIsGreat]

It staggers me sometimes when I see French or Dutch football managers interviewed in the UK. They almost always (and I really mean this) speak better English than the the majority of British players.:(

Though that probably says more about our terrible education system than anything else!

Oh god yes. I work in education and it is a very sorry sight indeed. The National Curriculum seems to be a rule book used in order to batter a child's enthusiasm out of their head, and that is not the worst of it.

The thing is Wickes, at least we realise this and are personally trying to improve our own personal knowledge, while the vast majority of the British public hungrily devour the latest episode of East Enders.

No, it seems that the British tradition of learning languages (speaking loudly and slowly) is unfortunately here to stay.

[cipherdecoy]

Chinese. But only when I'm forced to read my textbooks :lol:

[JBI]

Easy Italian children's stories and simple prose, and some Hebrew, though less now than before. At one point I was reading Anglo-Saxon, but I seem to have forgotten the little I knew.

[MorpheusSandman]

No, though I'd love to learn Greek, Latin, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, and maybe French and Russian.

[jgweed]

As long as the question is limited to reading a language and not speaking or writing it, and if the reading is with the help of a dictionary, I can get through a text in French, Spanish, Latin,German and Greek (more or less in order of ability).

[bouquin]

Yes, in French and in Pilipino.

[Kafka's Crow]

Oh god yes. I work in education and it is a very sorry sight indeed. The National Curriculum seems to be a rule book used in order to batter a child's enthusiasm out of their head, and that is not the worst of it.

The thing is Wickes, at least we realise this and are personally trying to improve our own personal knowledge, while the vast majority of the British public hungrily devour the latest episode of East Enders.

No, it seems that the British tradition of learning languages (speaking loudly and slowly) is unfortunately here to stay.


I was watching a Stephen Fry interview the other day and he tried to point out some major differences between our (British) and American character. I have always noticed these things but he put it across so eloquently: We British are utilitarian, skeptical of anything that can not be proven rationally, are more concrete and do not believe in much that is not concrete. On the other hand American society has a strict but invisible hierarchy based on financial prowess. It is invisible but still strictly adhered to without any questioning. Americans have faith. We don't believe in fairy-tales. I think this main difference makes us avoid things that do not have immediate utilitarian value. The most obvious example is our attitudes towards languages. Britons hate learning languages and consider it a wastage of time: "I know English, why should I learn another language." Tax-payers in the streets resented the money spent on Rushdie's protection during those dark fatwa years. There is a marked prejudice, even hatred towards people who can not speak English even if they are fluent in all Romance Languages and Latin. I do not see this situation improving in near future. I met quite a few Scandinavian students during my time at the University of London. They speak good English almost worthy of a native speaker. The only difference is their larger and better vocabulary. I think the worst problems with our society are two things called 'snobbery' and 'reverse-snobbery' or what Jane Austen called Pride and Prejudice. I did not see much reverse-snobbery in America. People don't hate finer things in life just because at some time in history they were the prerogative of the upper classes only. As Stephen Fry points out in The Ode Less Traveled, we all do different activities in our spare time. People create music, do painting etc and tell their friends about it, tell someone that you write poetry in your spare time and then notice that person's reaction! If you are very, very lucky, they would leave you with an 'Oh!' otherwise they will make you feel that you are a snob and a misfit. Same goes with learning languages as well. Unfortunately learning languages is considered to be an activity for people with too much 'spare' time at their disposal. Even the worst redneck American would not look down upon this fine activity. He would look at you as if saying, "Good luck to you, if that's what you want, buddy!" but he would not make you feel small about investing your time in a seemingly non-utilitarian activity. I would love Britain if only somebody could take away reverse-snobbery, the ugliest, the most uncouth thing I have ever come across in my life.

Stephen Fry is the quintessential modern Englishman for me, and yes he knows different languages. He is erudite, he is highly educated, a novelist, a poet, a supreme actor (one of the 21st century "University Wits" along with Hugh Laurie and Emma Thomson). These are the links to the interview I am talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weycaui6Do0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL_8a28l0bY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0wL4hXQOA0&feature=related

As far as the original topic is concerned, I can read and understand English, French, Persian, Urdu, Arabic. I can not speak Arabic but I do understand when I read it as reading is always easier than speaking because you can take your time with the words. My Persian needs a lot of brushing up but many many years ago I was fluent in this language and I am sure I can learn it again very easily.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think you make some excellent points there Kafka, I agree with them totally. I am a big fan of Stephen Fry too, though most people find him a snob, which of course is far from the truth. If people would actually bother reading his words and listening to what he says maybe they would see otherwise, though I doubt it, such would require independent thought, and that is seriously frowned upon.

I will check out the links, thanks for posting them.

[WICKES]

[QUOTE]We British are utilitarian, skeptical of anything that can not be proven rationally, are more concrete and do not believe in much that is not concrete. On the other hand American society has a strict but invisible hierarchy based on financial prowess. It is invisible but still strictly adhered to without any questioning. Americans have faith. We don't believe in fairy-tales.

Maybe that is one of the reasons the British are so much less religious than Americans. The British love to give religion a kicking- in fact, a prospective Prime Minister who proclaimed he was an atheist would probably find it an advantage. In the USA it would be political suicide. Very strange. It is one of THE biggest differences between Britain and the USA and one that is very difficult to explain. You have only to look at Blair and Bush. Both are committed christians, but Blair more or less had to keep it secret while he was Prime Minister for fear of being thought a weirdo. Bush's christianity, by contrast, was one of the reasons he was elected.


As long as the question is limited to reading a language and not speaking or writing it, and if the reading is with the help of a dictionary, I can get through a text in French, Spanish, Latin,German and Greek (more or less in order of ability).

How difficult is Greek? I'd love to learn to read Greek or Latin.

I can sort of get by (with a dictionary) in French. As far as speaking goes I stumble through in French, German and pigeon Italian


I would love Britain if only somebody could take away reverse-snobbery, the ugliest, the most uncouth thing I have ever come across in my life..

I agree. What I hate even more though is the lack of respect or enthusiasm for the incredible cultural heritage of this island. The sneering, self hatred and contempt for Britain that SO many Brits are encouraged to feel is dreadful. There is a general attitude that to take pride in living on the island that has produced Chaucer, Shakespeare, Donne, Dickens, Milton, Keats, Byron, Shelley, Wordsworth Newton, Darwin, John Locke etc, that played a big part in establishing modern, liberal parliamentary democracy, modern science, the industrial revolution and secular humanism is somehow racist or jingoistic. At times I feel as if many people believe only self loathing is appropriate. I don't know if they think this is the way to make multiculturalism work or what, but it is horrible and unnatural. I'm not advocating nationalism or arrogance of course, but Americans have more respect for our culture than we do ourselves. I have heard tourists comment on this self loathing- in fact Bill Bryson, in his book on Britain, says it bewilders him too (he's an American).

[manolia]

I can read in greek, english, french and german. But i am afraid that my german is a bit rusty lately..

[Etienne]

French and English perfectly bilingual. Spanish and German basics. My Spanish is rusty and I'm learning German at the moment.

[kiki1982]

French, English, German and Dutch (mothertongue). Spanish would also be possible in the meantime (after watching Martín y Monita for nearly a year. Although I can't really find a lot of books in Spanish here and not where I lived in Belgium before... And Cervantes was just a little too difficult...:(

About Englsih writing: I took the Test The Nation test and I was better than the secretaries!! Nearly perfect spelling test, apart from one question. I ended up in the top three!

I don't think so much that the system is boring, but rather too easy. They go for skills... You shouldn't be able to look the spelling of a word up in the dictionary, you should just know how it is spelt. The same with foreign languages: for a start they should be compulsory (at least one) and they should be taught not to be able to merely speak (we are not in the prehistoric times before written language anymore!), pupils should know how to write as well... If every anglophone person would know French seriously, he would be able to write his own language a lot better.
Nothing worse than to leave the choice that will determine his life up to a teenager who is lazy. I decided to leave Latin, I still regret it. Maybe I should start learning it again...

[LitNetIsGreat]

French, English, German and Dutch (mothertongue). Spanish would also be possible in the meantime (after watching Martín y Monita for nearly a year. Although I can't really find a lot of books in Spanish here and not where I lived in Belgium before... And Cervantes was just a little too difficult...:(

About Englsih writing: I took the Test The Nation test and I was better than the secretaries!! Nearly perfect spelling test, apart from one question. I ended up in the top three!

I don't think so much that the system is boring, but rather too easy. They go for skills... You shouldn't be able to look the spelling of a word up in the dictionary, you should just know how it is spelt. The same with foreign languages: for a start they should be compulsory (at least one) and they should be taught not to be able to merely speak (we are not in the prehistoric times before written language anymore!), pupils should know how to write as well... If every anglophone person would know French seriously, he would be able to write his own language a lot better.
Nothing worse than to leave the choice that will determine his life up to a teenager who is lazy. I decided to leave Latin, I still regret it. Maybe I should start learning it again...

Tut, tut, that is only FIVE languages and a little Latin.

Seriously, the UK for learning "foreign" languages has got to be the worst in Europe. At times I am embarrassed to be British. Learning a language is easy if you are taught young and it is incorporated into everyday life, but it is not taught until you reach the age of eleven, and then it is only one hour a week.

As you say French has many root words in English and understanding both languages would compliment each other perfectly. I speak as an insider to the British educational system and I tell you it is a shambles.

For the record I speak English and ..., that is it, just like 99.95% of the UK population probably.

That's it I am vowing to learn French again, what's the secret of learning a new language? How best to start? I have those silly CD's with chapters like "Greetings" "Asking for directions" "Renting a car" but it does little good.

Sorry, excuse my rant, continue.

[Scheherazade]

Can you read books in any language other than English? Read? Yes.

But I cannot claim that I necessarily understand what I read.

[HerGuardian]

in my mother tongue, i read poetryand religious and historic books. in english, i read mostly literature and self-development books.

[Kafka's Crow]

An Afghan friend of mine says, "A new language makes you a new person. A person who speaks two languages is twice a person than the one who can only speak one." My friend can speak English, French, Russian, Hungarian and his mother-tongue, i-e Persian.

[Michigan J Frog]

English and Mandarin. Both can count as first language but I forgot how to write in mandarin. No real great literature in mandarin so being able to read it isn't that big of a plus.
Interested in learning German/Russian/French. Trying to get a class for German right now.
Maybe even Norweigian or Czech.

[WICKES]

French, English, German and Dutch ...

Are you Dutch? The Dutch really do make me feel ashamed of being British. As Eddie Izzard said ''they speak 4 languages and still find time to smoke cannabis''. Amazing. So many European footballers and managers who come to the UK speak better English than most of our players. As I've said, I really mean this. I do think things are changing here though. Kids have always learnt French (and most educated Brits can stumble through in French) but now I believe German is compulsory too. In the last 10 years I've noticed a new enthusiasm for the E.U and I think a lot of Brits are beginning to feel more European than they used to.

Btw, which languages are compulsory in Australian, Canadian and American schools? I'd be interested to hear from anyone from those nations.

If I had the time I'd learn French, German, Dutch, Italian, Latin and Greek. I'd also like to have a go at Russian. Realistically, I think, with effort, I could learn to read books in French and maybe German. At a stretch possibly Latin or Greek as well, but not both.

I want to learn one of the ancient languages- either Latin or Greek. I can't decide which. Greek is obviously harder, but how much harder?

[kasie]

Ah well, if dictionaries are allowed, that's a different story! In that case I can manage English, French (reasonably well), Italian (a bit rusty), Latin (more has stuck than I realised), German (hmmm, more of that has been lost in the mists of time but would come back with a bit of effort - I think), Old English (aka Anglo Saxon but not by my tutor who would not have the term used despite the title of our main text book) and modern Welsh (every day and in every way, I am getting better and better - I wish - but I want to speak that rather than read it.)

So - does that make me an a-typical British citizen? Learning languages was encouraged when I was in school - but I speak of days of yore, of course.

All of the above are written in Roman alphabet - I've never learned a language that had a different alphabet. I much admire people who can cope with totally different scripts. I once taught a nine-year old who could read and write English (best in the class by a long chalk), Urdu and Arabic ('but only so that I can read the Koran, Miss') - I expect to see him in High Places in time - I was in awe of his ability while he just shrugged his shoulders and got on with it.

[manolia]

I want to learn one of the ancient languages- either Latin or Greek. I can't decide which. Greek is obviously harder, but how much harder?

I wish i could answer that for you but i don't speak latin :blush:
In school we did greek (of course :D). The first foreign language was french (at least when i went to school) and then english. In some schools you could have german instead of english. Now that was when i was a student ;)
Latin was taught too, but it was introduced in high school (the last year if i am not mistaken) but people like me who chose the technical branch (to become engineers, mathematicians etc) were never taught latin. I am aware that the last 10 years the educational system has changed and perhaps latin is taught to everyone..not sure though. Now my friend who wanted to be a lawyer (and was succesful) was taught latin in highschool and she said that it was very easy to learn..but then again my friend was fluent in italian prior to learning latin so perhaps her opinion doesn't count :D:p

[WICKES]

I wish i could answer that for you but i don't speak latin :blush:
In school we did greek (of course :D).


Is there much difference between the Greek of Plato and modern Greek? Can a modern Greek person read ancient Greek? Languages change so much I'm guessing that a modern Greek couldn't read ancient Greek. I mean, I'm English but I struggle with the English of Chaucer (d 1400) and at times even Shakespeare, who lived 50 miles from me and died only 400 years ago. As for the language of Beowulf of course- completely incomprehensible.

[manolia]

Is there much difference between the Greek of Plato and modern Greek? Can a modern Greek person read ancient Greek? Languages change so much I'm guessing that a modern Greek couldn't read ancient Greek. I mean, I'm English but I struggle with the English of Chaucer (d 1400) and at times even Shakespeare, who lived 50 miles from me and died only 400 years ago. As for the language of Beowulf of course- completely incomprehensible.

Yes it's true the language has changed a lot..especially the syntax and certain grammar issues. My answer would be that an educated greek, who has finished high school can read an ancient text and comprehend it satisfactorily. It won't be an easy task though..mainly due to syntax. When i read the odyssey for example i have to scan the text and find which verb goes with which noun etc..the vocabulary is the same but there are some words that have slightly shifted their meaning and this sometimes complicates things since you have to be aware of the original meaning of the word..ex the word "μωρός" means a person with a limited understanding in ancient greek (and sometimes it has the meaning of stupid)..in modern greek the same word means "baby" (which is a person with a limited understanding). So if one encounters this word in an ancient greek text it must be taken with the original meaning. So basically yes an educated greek can understand..but then again an educated greek was instructed simultaneously in ancient and modern greek. Modern greek can't exist on its own as a language if you know what i mean..

[kiki1982]

That's it I am vowing to learn French again, what's the secret of learning a new language? How best to start? I have those silly CD's with chapters like "Greetings" "Asking for directions" "Renting a car" but it does little good.

Those CD's can help you of course, but unless you are clever and you can teach it yourself, they don't teach you the structure of the language (grammar let's say). Grammar and vocabulary are what you need together to be able to understand and speak a language. A good grammarbook and a lot of vocabulary learning is required... There are people who are comfortable with endlessly repeating the same row of words every hour. There are people who are comfortable with making exercises until they come out of their ears... It depends what you are comfortable with. I would say, unless you are a genious at languages, that a classic textbook is probably better. With a CD of course, because it makes you hear the prononciation as well. Record yourself so you can hear yourself and you should be able to find the good 'mouth' to be able to speak properly.

The Spanish I learned from tv, but it is not at all up to standards speaking-wise. I can read it but that's it, however if I would spend some time in Spain, no doubt I would be able to get up to level one: ask info and understand it. But, Spanish is a very easy and straightforward language, grammarwise, so no problem there...

What you said about starting too late. I also started with one hour French, I think, in the year I became 11. When I was 14 I started English and when 15 German (very close to Dutch, so not that difficult, but it needs dedication with all those cases). School is finished when you are 18. But French becomes a main subject with 4 hours a week from 13, and English stays a minor subject with 2 hours a week from 14 to 15, and if you after that choose 'modern languages' it becomes a main subject with 3 hours a week, the same for German, from 15 to 16 minor subject 1 hour a week, and if ML 3 hours at 17 and 18. I suppose they put a lot more effort into grammar than conversation in the beginning... You get to read books in the language and to write stuff as well.


Are you Dutch?

No, sorry, I am Belgian. From the northern side that DOES NOT SPEAK FLEMISH, but Dutch, the same as the country to the north of it, the Netherlands.

Actually Luxemburgers would be the most multilingual people in Europe: 4 standard and mostly more. And they all speak them fluently, not a little...
Letzebuerg (their own), French, German, English and what they want... You can have a dicussion wit them in four languages at once if you want, amazing...

[LitNetIsGreat]

Those CD's can help you of course, but unless you are clever and you can teach it yourself, they don't teach you the structure of the language (grammar let's say). Grammar and vocabulary are what you need together to be able to understand and speak a language. A good grammarbook and a lot of vocabulary learning is required... There are people who are comfortable with endlessly repeating the same row of words every hour. There are people who are comfortable with making exercises until they come out of their ears... It depends what you are comfortable with. I would say, unless you are a genious at languages, that a classic textbook is probably better. With a CD of course, because it makes you hear the prononciation as well. Record yourself so you can hear yourself and you should be able to find the good 'mouth' to be able to speak properly.


Thanks for the advice, I think I have an old textbook around somewhere, if not I will "borrow":idea: one from school. Knowing the pronunciation is obviously important so for this I will use CD or video online.

I was surprised to read that foreign languages overseas were started at around the age of eleven, I just assumed that because everyone were so good at additional languages that they learnt them much earlier. There must be other reasons why languages on the continent are much more widely adapted into learning than in the UK; it must just be a cultural thing.

[Drkshadow03]

If CDs aren't you're thing, you could always try Software for the comp. (http://www.tellmemorestore.com/) I have the Tell Me More Spanish. It's a good program because it covers everything from writing, to reading comprehension, to vocabulary, oral listening, and speaking (you need a decent microphone for your comp).

It's also more entertaining than boring CDs that I have ineffective in the past or vocab/grammar books in a language.

I suspect in reality the best method is to be serious and try a little bit of everything. Boring CDs for the car ride to work/school/whatever, half hour to an hour a day of Comp program, and traditional Vocab/grammar books for half hour each day or every other day.

The biggest problem I think with computer software is the expense and keeping to it.

[JBI]

If you're Canadian, and in a big city, chances are you can get French language classes (adult classes too) for free, and often other languages as well through culture institutes.

[Leabhar]

Btw, which languages are compulsory in Australian, Canadian and American schools? I'd be interested to hear from anyone from those nations.


In highschool in the US you get a choice between doing some useless class or one language class, either French, German or Spanish usually (French Canadians to the north, Mexicans to the south and everyone's part German). Of course they don't actually teach the language very good and almost everyone forgets it all. I took a German class but now I can only count to five. Education just sucks badly here. Not to be racist, but a big problem is lowering the passing grades because of minorities, which just makes everyone dumber.

[WICKES]

Education just sucks badly here. Not to be racist, but a big problem is lowering the passing grades because of minorities, which just makes everyone dumber.

Education in the USA can't possibly be as bad the state schools here in the UK. French is compulsory at school, but by the time I left I could barely speak a word of it. The main problem is kids disrupting lessons and parents who don't care and don't back up the teachers. Very depressing. Kids who can't speak English to begin with don't help either. My cousins little boy goes to a school in London where at least half the kids in his class don't speak English as their first language. They are from Somalia, eastern Europe...you name it. Some people think this is great, I don't tbh. When I was at school my science teacher was from Nigeria and only spoke broken English. When my parents complained they were told they were being racist! My cousin is planning to emigrate to Australia as is my oldest friend. Can't say I blame them.

[Kafka's Crow]

Education in the USA can't possibly be as bad the state schools here in the UK. French is compulsory at school, but by the time I left I could barely speak a word of it. The main problem is kids disrupting lessons and parents who don't care and don't back up the teachers. Very depressing. Kids who can't speak English to begin with don't help either. My cousins little boy goes to a school in London where at least half the kids in his class don't speak English as their first language. They are from Somalia, eastern Europe...you name it. Some people think this is great, I don't tbh. When I was at school my science teacher was from Nigeria and only spoke broken English. When my parents complained they were told they were being racist! My cousin is planning to emigrate to Australia as is my oldest friend. Can't say I blame them.

My son goes to a private preparatory school in London as ha won a scholarship last year. 85% kids in his school are from emigrant families. Most of them end up in top grammar and independent schools. And yes he receives regular French and Latin lessons and is right at the top of his class in both subjects as well as in English Language. We had to change his school because of disruptive class fellows and the boredom that the low standards were causing him. The school was more concerned about 'bringing everybody up to the standard' at the cost of the talented. Even Vladimir Nabokov could not speak a word of English till quite late in his life. I don't think this is one of the factors. Successfully learning a new language out of necessity can only make one stronger in character and determination.

[Etienne]

In highschool in the US you get a choice between doing some useless class or one language class, either French, German or Spanish usually (French Canadians to the north, Mexicans to the south and everyone's part German). Of course they don't actually teach the language very good and almost everyone forgets it all. I took a German class but now I can only count to five. Education just sucks badly here. Not to be racist, but a big problem is lowering the passing grades because of minorities, which just makes everyone dumber.

Well I think you are doing again the mistake of blaming others for your own failures. Not that I disagree that the education system is bad, but the fact that you can only count to 5 is your own failure, as I really doubt that it's all you learned during your classes. The rest you forgot, and that's your very own responsibility. You can't just expect (in one class?) to learn German just because they teach it well at school. Education has a lot to do with what one does with the tools given. Education system is bad, but in my opinion the students are even worse.

[JBI]

Education in the USA can't possibly be as bad the state schools here in the UK. French is compulsory at school, but by the time I left I could barely speak a word of it. The main problem is kids disrupting lessons and parents who don't care and don't back up the teachers. Very depressing. Kids who can't speak English to begin with don't help either. My cousins little boy goes to a school in London where at least half the kids in his class don't speak English as their first language. They are from Somalia, eastern Europe...you name it. Some people think this is great, I don't tbh. When I was at school my science teacher was from Nigeria and only spoke broken English. When my parents complained they were told they were being racist! My cousin is planning to emigrate to Australia as is my oldest friend. Can't say I blame them.

That is racist. If half the kids are from Somalia, or Eastern Europe, then the teacher is doing exactly what she should be doing - teaching the class. It isn't her fault that there is a native English speaker in her class.

Either way though, the best education one can get is self-taught, or perhaps provoked by ones parents/family. If I only went with what I had learned in school, I would only have read, so far, about 22 novels (many novellas and not novels at all) and only about 4 of them good.

I would have read about 50 poems, being generous, and would know nothing about them, beyond that they were written.

I would have read about 35-40 or so essays, give or take. These are a mix of good and bad essays. At the grade 12 level, they were decent, and about half the grade 11 ones were decent. The rest had very few good ones.


That would be my English education. I essentially have no French language education, despite being enrolled in the program through elementary school and grade 9, and received no other language training inside the public schools.

Now, if you add what I read on my own, and the languages I taught myself/were taught by my parents, it looks something like this:

Countless novels: I would estimate between 700-1000. At one point I was reading 500-600 pages a day, and plunging through those things quickly. If I was still reading the junk I started on when I was 11, I would probably be at 2000 books, as genre fiction takes about 1/3 the time to read.

Countless poems: I would say over 800 poetry anthologies, if you count a collected poems as being an accumulation of anthologies, and therefore count it 4 times - or however many.

Countless essays: I would estimate around 5000 essays, averaging around 8 pages each. That is only counting academic or personal essays, and not things in popular magazines, or the news-paper.

Quite a few plays: I would say around 200-300. This is still my weakest genre, and I hardly touch it.



As for language learning - at that point I was fluent in English and Hebrew. Now I have moved on to Italian, and next year to French and probably Japanese.


Of course, everything comes at a price. I never played organized sports, or basketball like most other people, and I never really played videogames, or any of that stuff, like most people do. The friends I had back then I didn't see as often as would have been normal, and of the ones I see maybe 1 or perhaps 2 now.

That being said, it all depends. With new technology, it is possible to get a proficient reading level of a Romance Language in a few months of self-study. It is much faster with a teacher, though far more expensive.

[Etienne]

and I never really played videogames, or any of that stuff, like most people do.

The key! People go to school, then watch TV and play video games, and wonder - why the hell are we so ignorant? - I know! the education system is bad! Unfortunately I consider the bad education system merely a symptom, not a cause.


That is racist. If half the kids are from Somalia, or Eastern Europe, then the teacher is doing exactly what she should be doing - teaching the class. It isn't her fault that there is a native English speaker in her class.

Hmm I don't see what is racist since the point was that the TEACHER could only speak broken English. I also think that there shouldn't be cases where someone who do not speak very well the native language slows down everyone who DOES speak the native language. Separate classes might not be the most appropriate idea, but I believe that in classes where the difference margin in language is a big factor should be separated, native speakers will have a more advanced course, and those with difficulties will have a course aimed at giving them a decent level (and perhaps also extra courses to make them catch up as much as possible).

[JBI]

Yes, but as mentioned before, it is half the class, not just a few kids, or one kid. If it is half a class, then clearly there are no minority "slow kids" but an equal number. Thereby to separate a group equal in size to the rest is racist, whereas to push everyone around because they don't happen to be fluent in English is silly.

If most people do not speak English, then it is the job of the English teacher to teach English. If you speak English already, then there is no problem, as you don't need what she is teaching, and you get free marks.

As for the Nigerian teacher, that is a different teacher (if I understand the paragraph correctly) and is completely irrelevant. What bearing does English proficiency have on science.

There will always be kids who are above the average. It is not the teacher's job to cater to them, but to cater to the ones bellow the average. If you are above the average, you should cater to yourself.

To say that all the immigrants in a class are a problem, because they do not have the same language proficiency is of course racist. If you were in their country, would you prefer to be sent to the "other class" and shoved aside? Of course not, you would be offended of being robbed of the opportunity for success, a right which is so essential to our society.

The whole point of public schools is that everyone is entitled to an education, regardless of background. For all you know, after the assistance of a teacher, who caters to new speakers, a student will move on to become something great. If you cut them off before them, you are defeating the purpose of the public school.

Of course, it is not unfair to put a kid in a lower class, or an additional special class as a supplement at the beginning, which is the policy in Canada (though they need to complete the higher English course by the end of high school), but to deny them access to the higher class, or to be angered that they are in there is racist.

As long as they pass, that is that matters. As long as they are putting the effort (which from my experience, seems to be greater than the L1 English students) then there is no problem.

In Canada, in the university I go to, the bulk of the students in my classes (which are English classes mostly) are English Second Language students. If they were cut off from the rest of the people before, they would probably not have made it to study university English, and the academies would suffer from it.

To blame minorities for holding people back is a dated, and offensive. Blame your parents, or blame yourselves, but not the minorities, and not the schools for allowing them education.

After all, by grade 2 you should be able to read. I see no reason, if you have the desire to read, and read on your own, that you shouldn't be able to read works as difficult as Jane Austen by grade 5 or 6, or Dickens by grade 8. It's not the teachers fault that advantaged students do not exercise their advantage, where minority students are unable to.

[Drkshadow03]

In highschool in the US you get a choice between doing some useless class or one language class, either French, German or Spanish usually (French Canadians to the north, Mexicans to the south and everyone's part German). Of course they don't actually teach the language very good and almost everyone forgets it all. I took a German class but now I can only count to five. Education just sucks badly here. Not to be racist, but a big problem is lowering the passing grades because of minorities, which just makes everyone dumber.

Yeah, I have to agree with JBI, that's pretty racist. Dont blame minorities for your problems. You could just as easily engage in self-study if you don't like how things are being taught.

Also, why would you assume everyone is part German if you live in America? Even if one were to grant the theory that most Europeans are "Germanic" and many people of color have such roots through intermarriage and less savory forms of forced gene sharing, there are still plenty of Asian populations who immigrated here later and haven't necessarily intermarried. There are plenty of people in America who have no German or Germanic roots.

[Etienne]

Yes, but as mentioned before, it is half the class, not just a few kids, or one kid.

I think you are confusing two posts, the one you quoted only mentioned the case of the teacher.

But:


If it is half a class, then clearly there are no minority "slow kids" but an equal number. Thereby to separate a group equal in size to the rest is racist

No as you are not separating them based on race, rather than language skill. An immigrant might have very good language skill and will follow the "normal" curriculum, which the ones with difficulties will have an adapted curriculum aimed at their specific needs.


whereas to push everyone around because they don't happen to be fluent in English is silly.

Who's pushing anyone around?


If most people do not speak English, then it is the job of the English teacher to teach English. If you speak English already, then there is no problem, as you don't need what she is teaching, and you get free marks.

If you live in an English country, it means that it should be taken for granted that one has decent English skills (just like an Englishmen that moves to China should not expect the Chineses to lower the mandarin class to the level of his barely mandarin-speaking child). And I don't agree with the notion of making people lose their time at school with free marks, and making them used to being lazy. This kind of thing has plagued me in High School where I never had to work to get good grades and became a lazy student, whereas I could have learned much more by being pushed to work.


As for the Nigerian teacher, that is a different teacher (if I understand the paragraph correctly) and is completely irrelevant. What bearing does English proficiency have on science.

Well it all depends what level was his English skills, I personally had at University teachers who could not make a continuous discourse, were always stopping to look for words, used wrong vocabulary, and were in general incoherent due to their weak French skills. It was incredibly hard to follow and learn anything from the course, and as a matter of fact. Teaching and language skills are extremely linked as the goal in teaching is not to be incredibly good at what you teach but being good enough to teach your students correctly and having the skills to teach them correctly, which imply good language skills, among others.


There will always be kids who are above the average. It is not the teacher's job to cater to them

It is not the teacher's job, you are entirely right, but it is not the teachers that are blamed rather than the education system.


but to cater to the ones bellow the average. If you are above the average, you should cater to yourself.

To cater for oneself when in High School, for example is quite hard. Chances are that, like me and many other, you will just take the free grades, and then realize later that you've kind of wasted much time as a kid.


To say that all the immigrants in a class are a problem, because they do not have the same language proficiency is of course racist.

Well worded like this, I'd have to agree, although the term racist might seem a bit strong. But the fact is that even if this is a generalization, there might be quite some truth in there.


If you were in their country, would you prefer to be sent to the "other class" and shoved aside? Of course not, you would be offended of being robbed of the opportunity for success, a right which is so essential to our society.

If I don't know their language, I do expect to have access to a course which is not aimed to native-speakers, and I will make the effort to catch up. They don't have to be put in a different class for, say, science if their language skill allow them to follow it. But as for language class, this is a different matter.


The whole point of public schools is that everyone is entitled to an education, regardless of background.

Education can be adapted in different levels to allow everyone to realize it's full potential. if not everyone is equal on an intellectual level, there is no reason why the curriculum should be equal.


For all you know, after the assistance of a teacher, who caters to new speakers, a student will move on to become something great. If you cut them off before them, you are defeating the purpose of the public school.

Who is talking about cutting anyone off? I don't see what you do not understand. It is not about cutting anyone off, it is about taking those who are slowed down to a level adapted to their needs (in this case it would be to a class of superior level to the existing one) while keeping those to whose the current curriculum and level is adapted where they are.


Of course, it is not unfair to put a kid in a lower class, or an additional special class as a supplement at the beginning, which is the policy in Canada (though they need to complete the higher English course by the end of high school), but to deny them access to the higher class, or to be angered that they are in there is racist.

I'm not sure where you read that they would be denied anything... anyone will have access to what his own level allows. I am learning German right now, no need to put me in a class discussing Goethe and Schiller before I learn German correctly - it will be over my head.


As long as they pass, that is that matters.

I disagree, the current policy is to make everyone pass, therefore you have people passing who shouldn't be. What matter is that they reach a decent level.


As long as they are putting the effort (which from my experience, seems to be greater than the L1 English students) then there is no problem.

This is my point, that -everyone- should be putting efforts. That includes the stronger students.


In Canada, in the university I go to, the bulk of the students in my classes (which are English classes mostly) are English Second Language students. If they were cut off from the rest of the people before, they would probably not have made it to study university English, and the academies would suffer from it.

Well chances is that they got an education adapted to their being "second language" before, ad that is why they reached a decent level allowing them to go further. I would be surprised if as they started learning the second language they were put in the same class as native speakers.


To blame minorities for holding people back is a dated, and offensive.

To blame minorities - I agree - but to blame less skilled people is in part correct (well it is more the education system that causes this, in fact, not the less skilled people per se). In fact in my case it is native people who held me back.


Blame your parents, or blame yourselves, but not the minorities, and not the schools for allowing them education.

Well my parent did their best and succeeded in my opinion, but thy cannot account for time wasted in the school. As for blaming myself, I have a hard time blaming myself as I didn't have the maturity at that age to cater correctly for myself intellectually as I do now. Even though if I did do some effort it was far from being up to my potential, and I know many instances of other people for which it is the same. Will you blame a kid for not using his potential to the maximum and studying hard on extra-curricular studies instead of playing outside with friends? I can blame an adult for that, but not a kid.


After all, by grade 2 you should be able to read. I see no reason, if you have the desire to read, and read on your own, that you shouldn't be able to read works as difficult as Jane Austen by grade 5 or 6, or Dickens by grade 8. It's not the teachers fault that advantaged students do not exercise their advantage, where minority students are unable to.

While what you say is entirely true, I don't think it addresses the point at hand.


Leabhar made the point that the education system is useless because he forgot everything he had learnt. I make the point that the education is bad because I didn't get as much as I could (actually could not) have from it.

[JBI]

The point at hand is whether or not the education system should cater to immigrants, or to the natives. If it is a 50% divide, then it is a toss up. Logically, you cover the immigrants, as they are needing the education more. There is a standard, if you meet it, you don't need the education, if you don't you work at it. The native speakers generally need more work than others, and therefore the teachers cater to them. There is no problem.

Creating above average people is not the business of a school. A school's job is to bring its students to the average, allowing them to join the workforce, or continue education. To blame them for not giving people the drive to go on, or for not teaching more than what they do is to just push the blame.

It is somewhat different for you, since you speak French instead of English. French is not as learned a language as English, and doesn't have the same exposure. English is, essentially, the language of technology, and of international communications.

In addition to this, there is also the history of the country to consider; I am not very familiar with the history of education in the UK, but if you look at the U.S. as an example, you can see that they whole "better-worse" class is a form of racism. Take for instance the situation in the past where African Americans were all put in lower classes because of "worse language skills." What good did that do? It simply just cut the class in half, and held back the minorities.

But there is an even bigger problem than that. The fact that if you cut a class in half, send the English L1 kids to one class, and the L2 kids to another, you essentially stop the class from helping itself. If you have a class where only the teacher can pronounce English, or speak it in the "proper form" then you simply just cut the effectiveness of the education, by not allowing the students to adapt to the language.

In order to learn a language, you must hear it, speak it, and read and write it. If you put all the people who can't speak it into one classroom, how do you expect them to learn it? But even worse than that, how do you expect the groups of students will react to each other? Do you think it will encourage people to be friends with non-English speakers, or to simply sit on the other side of the cafeteria from them?


The English you need to function in society isn't very high. The government of each country creates there own standards, and requires a student to pass them. As long as everyone passes the standard, then there should be no complaining with anything but the standard. If the standard is too low, that is the issue. Not the teacher, and not the immigrant students.

As it is, one need only be literate to function. Reading James Joyce is not really viewed as an essential part of ones education. Merely being able to wake up, and do your job is what people want from their education. They want to get a job, so they can make money, get married, and raise a family. They don't care about Shakespeare, or Chaucer, or Wordsworth, or Blake, they care about getting through school, and then either going to work, College, or University. That is the job of the school, to prepare them to go in one of these three directions, and to give them what they need in order to succeed in them.

As it is, according to statistics, more people are university/college educated, and more people are literate today than ever. People complain they are being held back on one hand, yet 50 years ago, chances are most people wouldn't have gone to university or to college in the first place. The system clearly seems to be improving, if we can agree that universities have not degraded (and, judging by the amount of developments done by them these days, I would say they have not).

The complaint is whether or not a kid should be getting an "above what is expected" education from a public school. The answer is no, they shouldn't. They should get what they need, and get the rest by themselves elsewhere.

[Etienne]

Well while I fundamentally disagree with the purpose of the education system which should be aimed at bringing everyone to an average (I believe that it's purpose should be to bring it to the same average as now, let's say, and then up for those who can). But one problem here is what IS this average. Should this average be the same for one who is 2nd or thirds language speaker as one who is native?

So if in a class there is only native speakers, necessarily the average will be higher than in a class where half are only semi-competent. So the other half of the latter class are penalized. Or do you say that the expected average, and therefore the curriculum should be the same for the class of all-native speakers (let's even assume they are all geniuses) then for the class where half are semi-competent?

In the same way, what is your opinion on the people who have learning difficulties? Should they be given the same treatment as the genius? Meaning lowering down to the lowest denominator? Maybe that will be a non-English speaking semi-idiot with a couple of different syndromes, a mother that beats him, a father that rapes him and too poor to eat breakfast with only peanut-butter-white-bread sandwich at lunch?

Such case should be cared for as any other (and perhaps more) but should not be given the same treatment as the "regular" student or the very good student.

See my point? I think that education should be adapted to the student and not some national homogenized average. Taste for studies does not come naturally either, by being pushed to their natural limits students may come to appreciate what they don't appreciate in boring, too easy classes.

So I don't think that classes should cater a) for immigrants and b) for natives. But it should cater, especially concerning the language issue - other areas are more universal - skill (which in this case would consist mostly of immigrants, of course, but only those with weak English skills).

What if, for example, an immigrant, instead of having the "second language course", say French, should not have more English courses along with the adapted English course (meaning more time of English and thus trying to catch up on the native curriculum and perhaps indeed catching up after 1, 2 or 3 years, as soon as the person is fluent, which would probably not take such a long time living in an English environment, simply giving them time and helping the adaptation)?

[JBI]

I see no point. You get the average for free, and you get the rest yourself. The beaten-raped-sandwich-eating-kid should get the same thing from the school. Since you, I assume, are not as unfortunate as that (and if you are, I mean no offense) you should have no problem going out and getting some books from the library.

The more you appeal to the geniuses, the more you divide the classes. Genius is just another word for more fortunate, as the bulk of "genius" is education and experience, whereas very rarely, it is natural talent. Many kids, from lower income families, have no time to be reading many books, and doing hours of homework, as they need to, perhaps, take care of family members, maintain a job to support their family, and a million and a half other things which the fortunate person does not have to do. Is it fair to say he should be shoved aside, because he simply does not have what the others do, money?

I see the point - no body should be held back - yet should people be left behind? OF course, not all students are cut out for higher education - they simply aren't smart enough - but what about those that are, but are merely less advantaged.


It is the job of the school to allow these people to come up, and support themselves. It is also desirable that the education system allows these people to go from rags to riches. Of course, poor-family people are disadvantaged automatically. But lets be honest, would you rather them, like in the past, be put out on their *** without having a chance, or would you rather they had the opportunity to get an education, without being shoved into a "special class".

If a kid wants to study literature in depth, and science in depth, and math in depth, and philosophy in depth, in high school, let them do it on their own time. As it is, personal objectives have no bearing on a system that is designed to accommodate everyone.

[Etienne]

I see no point. You get the average for free, and you get the rest yourself. The beaten-raped-sandwich-eating-kid should get the same thing from the school. Since you, I assume, are not as unfortunate as that (and if you are, I mean no offense) you should have no problem going out and getting some books from the library.

But I am not simply referring to reading either here. Sciences, mathematics, etc. too. Tell a kid to go study mathematics in his free time, even if he does like mathematics. Kids are not so mature as to care for their own education I'm afraid, I've mentioned it a few times, but you have not taken it into account.


The more you appeal to the geniuses, the more you divide the classes. Genius is just another word for more fortunate, as the bulk of "genius" is education and experience, whereas very rarely, it is natural talent.

I'm sorry but that is false in many cases. Natural talent has a lot to play, and I'm not talking about creating 100 different levels, but perhaps two or something like that. There is such system where I live, and it works very well.


Many kids, from lower income families, have no time to be reading many books, and doing hours of homework, as they need to, perhaps, take care of family members, maintain a job to support their family, and a million and a half other things which the fortunate person does not have to do.

Those things are pretty much staple for any student where I live (over the age of 16, I started working at 15 personally). Younger students do not and cannot work, in those societies we are talking about, but where I live pretty much any student works except a few rich-parent kids (and even then, most rich parents choose to support their children but have them have to work anyway).


Is it fair to say he should be shoved aside, because he simply does not have what the others do, money?

As I said probably 80% or more of the students where I live have a job.


I see the point - no body should be held back - yet should people be left behind?

Dude! I thought you were a good reader! You talked to me about this straw man non-nonsensical argument numerous times. If you consider in what i described that some would be "left behind" it means that with the current system it's everyone who is "left behind".


OF course, not all students are cut out for higher education - they simply aren't smart enough - but what about those that are, but are merely less advantaged.

Low-cost education. Government programs to support these students financially. I'm not sure what this has anything to do with the discussion, as I am not referring to higher education at all, mostly High School in fact.


It is the job of the school to allow these people to come up, and support themselves. It is also desirable that the education system allows these people to go from rags to riches. Of course, poor-family people are disadvantaged automatically. But lets be honest, would you rather them, like in the past, be put out on their *** without having a chance, or would you rather they had the opportunity to get an education, without being shoved into a "special class".

A "special class" is not made to hold anyone back, on the contrary, it's to tailor an education adapted to it's "clientèle" in a view to make them catch up in the areas where there are lacking (in the case that interests us, language). But as for the more general education it's more about creating a special class for those who want to go further rather than the contrary.


If a kid wants to study literature in depth, and science in depth, and math in depth, and philosophy in depth, in high school, let them do it on their own time. As it is, personal objectives have no bearing on a system that is designed to accommodate everyone.

But still you are ignoring my point that a talented teenager most often do not have this desire to develop certain of his talents for many reasons: maturity, puberty, girls, sport, etc. especially since while they are in "regular" classes are merely wasting their time and getting bored. A more advanced class would more probably instill more interest for them.

If there is no need for them to work to succeed, they won't work. However if in their case the bar is raised and they HAVE to work, then they WILL work.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I work in a school in the UK (unfortunately) and it’s supposed policy that the school caters for the individual level of the learner. In other words there is no average as such, though there is a target level which is nearly the same thing, but the school and teachers are supposed to differentiate for every given student. If one student is capable of getting an A grade, the school is supposed to push that student to that level, if one is capable of gaining a low grade F, then they should make sure they achieve that particular level. As well as this the classes are set to ability to accommodate this.

The problem of course in nearly all cases is that poor behaviour and general disruption means that those top level students are more or less left to fend for themselves and often don’t get pushed as even top learners need to. This is partially that I work in a poorer deprived area, but it is also a common theme amongst other schools across the city, and indeed country.

One of my main issues is class sizes. It is not uncommon to see class sizes of 30 per class and this I believe is too much. The very best schools in Sheffield where I live, have class sizes at around 12-14, going up to 20. It stands to reason that a small ratio is better, but as ever the problem is money.

It does come down to individual motivation and learning, but as a school student I never had much of that until it was almost too late. If I had the motivation then, as I do now and the past few years, I would have smashed my way through school and college. Though, is that not a common saying and wish amongst many? We can’t go back and often people have to learn through the mistakes they make in their life.

[Etienne]

Well exactly, from what you are saying, teachers are given a big melting pot of different strength and told to push each student to it's level. This is not reasonable. If, say, there were two different programs, one regular and one enriched where each student could have access to the enriched program in a certain course depending on his past results. This would mean that the classes would be much more homogeneous in term of strength, with much benefit to the general education.

[Annamariah]

I can read books in Finnish (of course), English (obviously), and Swedish. In a couple of years I hope I'll be able to read books in Russian too.

In Finland it's compulsory to study at least one foreign language (usually English) in comprehensive school from the third grade (when children are 9 years old). In some schools one can start another foreing language in fourth grade, and from the seventh grade everyone must study Swedish (unless they have started it earlier, of course), since it's the second official language of Finland. In most school there are "language showers" in first and second grade, which means that the children learn some basic words and phrases, but are not taught much grammar or anything like that.

Now that I study at university, I can't graduate unless I have studied some courses in at least two foreign languages plus Swedish. I major in English translation and started Russian last year, so that's not a problem for me.

[wilbur lim]

Precisely,I read Chinese literature too.I am not conversant with other languages yet,nonetheless,I will endeavour to do it! Here in Singapore,if you attained high grades for all the subjects,the school would recommend you to learn foreign languages.I would be appreciate to learn them.

[kiki1982]

Concerning the average-thing:

I think one should be realistic. There should be a curriculum, but differenciated towards several types of students. A student with problems to do 2 + 2 shouldn't be required to learn French in the same way as a student who can explain the relativity theory of Einstein. Children who are highly intelligent and get no positive attention towards their intelligence (i.e. get appropriate things to learn for their own level, or are put in a higher class because of that), get bored and in the end end up achieving nothing at all. They don't see the joy of learning anymore because they don't get the chance, and then they suddenly realise that their marks are going down because they don't pay attention...

The lowest denominator shoud never be the criterium, because it is the lowest. The highest denominator should never be the criterium because it is the highest. However there is 'the average person' who can do 2 + 2 but not necessarily understands fully the theory of relativity of Einstein, but nonetheless is better than the person who has trouble with 2 + 2.

A class programm should not be determined by what the poor stupid boy (no judgement here, the denomination is only used as a contract to the smart equivalent) can do, the class programm should be determined by the vast amount of students who are average. The poor stupid boy should be helped by another teacher, or brought to a class that is less advanced, or even to a lower year. The genius of the class should either be brought to a higher class or should be kept allert by other things he can learn.

A better situation would even be that the poor stupid boy would be taken out of general education, which he has probably already given up on, and taught to learn something that interests him. And that is good for society, so he doesn't feel useless and others don't feel kept behind by him.

Concerning the immigrant question, those children/youngsters should be taught the education language first in order to become part of the system. It is not fair on the student's brain that he can gain no information because the language which it was explained in is not understandable for him. In this way a lot of potentially intelligent people miss out on a degree and end up unemployed because they couldn't understand what was being said. What is one year out of a life if it determines the rest of it? You can better spend that year, keeping the student behind and teaching him the language than to throw him into the system and eternally condemn him to low marks and eventualy an unhappy life... A lot of immigrants would be grateful if that would happen.

Of course, what happens after education is only your own doing, but the education system should provide a healthy basic level, for each type of brain, be it the one of a genius or the one of the poor stupid boy. Neither of them should be condemned to spend their daily hours with people that are far below or far above their level, because like that the joy of life is beaten out of them.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes I would agree with the above post. I also find it beyond belief that students who haven’t, for whatever reason got a grounding in the basics aren’t pulled out of mainstream classes in order to be drilled in this area.

Students who barely read and write in their main language, or who struggle with basic maths should not be in normal classes, for the sake of their benefit and those of the rest of the class. As it says above, just one year out can put them on the correct path for life and why this is not implemented is beyond belief, I would suspect politics and money lies at the heart of the issue as always.

[Etienne]

Well kiki's post are exactly my thoughts, perhaps simply better put.

[Leabhar]

Well I think you are doing again the mistake of blaming others for your own failures. Not that I disagree that the education system is bad, but the fact that you can only count to 5 is your own failure, as I really doubt that it's all you learned during your classes. The rest you forgot, and that's your very own responsibility. You can't just expect (in one class?) to learn German just because they teach it well at school. Education has a lot to do with what one does with the tools given. Education system is bad, but in my opinion the students are even worse.

The students are bad because the education system fails to teach them in any interesting and/or realistic way, so they get bored and forget everything. Its a brutal cycle. I retained more French from getting one of those cheap learning things from the bookstore on CD's then I did in an entire German class. I didn't expect to learn the entire language, but I thought I would learn more than how to count to five and ask someone their name.

[JBI]

The students are bad because the education system fails to teach them in any interesting and/or realistic way, so they get bored and forget everything. Its a brutal cycle. I retained more French from getting one of those cheap learning things from the bookstore on CD's then I did in an entire German class. I didn't expect to learn the entire language, but I thought I would learn more than how to count to five and ask someone their name.

Yeah... like education was more interesting in our parents' day... no it wasn't, if anything it was more difficult.

I've heard enough of the tapes in Italian, and you learn more than 1-10, but that still isn't the only resource. There are early reading books designed to boost reading comprehension, skill, and vocabulary, there are grammar guides, vocabulary boosters, and a whole bunch of others things available for cheap, or at the library.

[Annamariah]

I guess it's good to live in a small country. You simply have to learn foreign languages, because no one understands your language outside your own country. But if you live in an English speaking country, you don't necessarily have to learn other languages, because you can use English almost everywhere in the world.

[Goodfella]

I read English. Its also 'other language' to me.

[Hank Stamper]

As for the Nigerian teacher, that is a different teacher (if I understand the paragraph correctly) and is completely irrelevant. What bearing does English proficiency have on science.

some interesting points raised here but I completely disagree with this comment (me disagree with JBI? Never!) - if you go to school in the UK (regardless of your ethnicity) you would expect that your teacher is fluent in English even if he/she is teaching science. How can you be expeced to learn anything if you can't understand what your teacher is saying?

[JBI]

some interesting points raised here but I completely disagree with this comment (me disagree with JBI? Never!) - if you go to school in the UK (regardless of your ethnicity) you would expect that your teacher is fluent in English even if he/she is teaching science. How can you be expeced to learn anything if you can't understand what your teacher is saying?

Because Greek is the language of science. If he has a good enough understanding of the language to pass an exam in order to become a teacher (which they have to do) then the ministry has clearly decided he was fit to teach. You don't need very many words in English to teach science, as it is a subject of symbols, and Greek, with most of its literary component being in the textbook to begin with.

We'd of course need to see the teacher in order to judge, but it is fair to say he wasn't completely unable to speak English, otherwise he wouldn't have been hired. Teachers need to go through exams, and interviews in addition to their education.

[Scheherazade]

Can you read books in any language other than English? C. S Lewis read literature in the original Anglo Saxon, Old Norse, Middle English, Latin, Greek, Medieval French, Modern French, Italian and German! :eek2: He also got by in things like Medieval Welsh (while at Oxford John Betjamen was his student and disliked him so much that he chose Medieval Welsh as his special language just to annoy him).It is amazing how far the discussion has moved on! :D

[JBI]

I guess our own smugness was found more interesting than C.S. Lewis.

[Kafka's Crow]

some interesting points raised here but I completely disagree with this comment (me disagree with JBI? Never!) - if you go to school in the UK (regardless of your ethnicity) you would expect that your teacher is fluent in English even if he/she is teaching science. How can you be expeced to learn anything if you can't understand what your teacher is saying?

As I mentioned earlier, even if you know all the Romance Languages and Latin, your deficiency in English language can put you in trouble here. I think you can be a good teacher of science without a good command of the language you teach in. Heck, I have had teachers of English who could teach but their language skills were not up there with Cecil Day Lewis's! The undue fixation with language (only one language) makes Britain so very unique. I have seen all kinds of people teaching all kinds of subjects in American universities but here you have to fit a certain 'type' to be one of them! English teachers wear tweed jackets, teachers of maths are boring all the rest are nondescript "women"! Maybe the Nigerian teacher was really bad at teaching. Maybe there were other short-comings, luckily his/her accent covered all other faults. The real problem lies in the fact that we are less comfortable with change and like to see the things like they have always been. Luckily our native graduates are more interested in useless subjects like 'Media Studies' (pronounced 'meejia' studies when mouthed by an undergraduate!) which leaves the doors open to immigrants not only in teaching but other respectable fields like medicine and computer science (quite a few Somalis study pharmacy) etc. Westminster University (London) offered a degree in kite-flying some years ago. I don't think many Nigerians enrolled in that course. Incidentally my Ghanaian friend, Albert, was doing his degree in Business Administration at the same university, he told me about the kite-flying course. His wife is a chartered accountant. Think of it, even she is not interested in kite-flying!

Back to the topic. I have decided to start learning Russian. Now this is going to be interesting.

P.S: And when they ask me why I don't smoke cigarettes and carry that pipe and tobacco everywhere, I tell them "I taught English once for a few years." (They don't know that I still have a couple of tweed jackets in my cupboard upstairs, complete with elbow patches and all!)

[Niamh]

The only language i can read in is english. I was once able to read a bit in french and Irish gaelic but not anymore which is a shame.

[librosdesangre]

I read books in German, English and Spanish. Although I prefer reading German because it's a very difficult language and if I don't keep it updated I'll be lost. I read English in news web pages or in books too. And of course in forums. And I hope that one day I'll be able too read in scandinavian languages, cause I'd like to learn them.

[Hank Stamper]

You don't need very many words in English to teach science

you do if the students only speak English.

[kiki1982]

Because Greek is the language of science. If he has a good enough understanding of the language to pass an exam in order to become a teacher (which they have to do) then the ministry has clearly decided he was fit to teach. You don't need very many words in English to teach science, as it is a subject of symbols, and Greek, with most of its literary component being in the textbook to begin with.

We'd of course need to see the teacher in order to judge, but it is fair to say he wasn't completely unable to speak English, otherwise he wouldn't have been hired. Teachers need to go through exams, and interviews in addition to their education.

I completely disagree, sorry. It is true that science can be understood in an international and general language, whether that is Greek or not I will not comment. BUT, science needs to be explained. How will you explain the flow of electricity that comes to exists in Physics, through certain materials? How will you explain what is acually Watt, Volt and Ohm (to make a start)? If you do not speak the language of your students? How will you explain organic chemistry? By the method of example?? If languge wasn't needed in the process of understanding scniece then the universtity books woldn't be so big, because the book would only be filled up with scientific formulae. But that is not the case, is it?
There is more to science than unerstanding and practise! A teacher needs to teach his class and that means: not merely understand and be able to solve the problems he gives his students, but also to ask his students questions to test them (whether they have understood alright) AND to answer questions of his students who haven't understood. How can a teacher answer questions and make his students understand what he means if he does not speak their language properly??

The real question, though, is whether the teacher actually spoke English with an accent or rather with mistakes.

[Etienne]

If he has a good enough understanding of the language to pass an exam in order to become a teacher (which they have to do) then the ministry has clearly decided he was fit to teach.

I'd also add that this is exactly the point of contention. Also, such reasoning is ultimately flawed. We should just agree with everything the government does "because if the government (dictator, tyran, pope, boss, whoever is in a situation of authority) has decided it was the right decision, then it was clearly the right decision?". You certainly do not believe this seriously JBI?

[JBI]

It is a government school... you are trusting in them for your education anyway. If you don't like it, go out and pay, or don't vote for the politician. It isn't the teacher's fault that he was deemed fit to teach.

[Etienne]

It is a government school... you are trusting in them for your education anyway. If you don't like it, go out and pay, or don't vote for the politician.

Come on, JBI you are smarter than this, stop these rhetorics (the first part of the sentence might seem like rhetorics itself, but it is very honest, I really do believe you cannot mean what you said). Do you wish me to explain myself?


It isn't the teacher's fault that he was deemed fit to teach.

No but it's the fault of those who deemed him fit to teach, and that's who our criticism is targeting.

[Hank Stamper]

I completely disagree, sorry. It is true that science can be understood in an international and general language, whether that is Greek or not I will not comment. BUT, science needs to be explained. How will you explain the flow of electricity that comes to exists in Physics, through certain materials? How will you explain what is acually Watt, Volt and Ohm (to make a start)? If you do not speak the language of your students? How will you explain organic chemistry? By the method of example?? If languge wasn't needed in the process of understanding scniece then the universtity books woldn't be so big, because the book would only be filled up with scientific formulae. But that is not the case, is it?
There is more to science than unerstanding and practise! A teacher needs to teach his class and that means: not merely understand and be able to solve the problems he gives his students, but also to ask his students questions to test them (whether they have understood alright) AND to answer questions of his students who haven't understood. How can a teacher answer questions and make his students understand what he means if he does not speak their language properly??

The real question, though, is whether the teacher actually spoke English with an accent or rather with mistakes.

exactly. say for instance the theory of relativity... everybody is familiar with the equation e=mc2, but unless the concept is explained, the equation means nothing.

[kasie]

re: the comments about the science teacher who spoke poor English - schools in UK are desperately short of science teachers. If a non-English speaking teachers with suitable qualifications in scientific subjects presented himself I can't help feeling he would be appointed even if he barely manged to 'scrape through' the language tests. The same thing happens with the appointment of doctors. Kiki's reply is apposite - the very time you need a clear explanation is in a moment of doubt in a difficult subject (or during a diagnosis in a consulting room).

[Scheherazade]

Yep, it is aaaaallll the teacher's fault! Let's all blame the teachers for all they have done and all they can and they will do!

:p

[kainso]

I read both Chinese and English. Chinese literature and its translation is rarely discussed here. Others like Amy Tan are famous for their chinese theme.

After all the discussion about curriculm in the UK, Canada and the States, I think the learning of foreign languages depends on self-motivation. In Hong Kong, despite English as a foreign language , it is used as a medium of instruction in school. The majority of students can't speak or understand grade three text or can't even utter a complete sentence. I think the problem of learning a language here is even more complex as we have a rather unrealistic expectation and pressure over our Chinese kids.

[Saladin]

Yes most of what i read is in english or norwegian. I can read english, norwegian and somali, and understand all of it, ergo its my first language(s). My french and arabic is a bit rusty.

[Mr.K]

Norwegian and english primarily, I can if need be read german and spanish. Im learning japanese, but i doubt ill be able to read any in a long while.

Oh, and btw, JBI - your way off here..

[LC_Lancer]

I read books in German... Although I prefer reading German because it's a very difficult language
I agree, but sign language books would be the hardest to read. :D :D

[librosdesangre]

If you see it like this, German may be even easy... jajaja, German and easy, I don't think there's a relationship between both words.

[mangueken]

I can read in English and Portuguese. When I have to, I can read Spanish.

[Melmoth]

Actually I'm bilingual by nature (Catalan and Spanish) and tri-lingual by adopting English. Thus, I always try to combine reading two books at a time (one in English and the other in Catalan or Spanish) I even tried to adopt Italian and German but I eventually neglected their study....

[jaywalker]

Kiki 1982; I live in Gent in Belgium. I watch that Martin y monita sometimes. don't always understand it all,but I love the sound and the Acting style. I read Dutch OK but I can't get lost in a book as I can in English;if you know what I mean.

[Kaltrina]

I can read in English, Spanish, Serbo-croatian and of course Albanian

[kiki1982]

Kiki 1982; I live in Gent in Belgium. I watch that Martin y monita sometimes. don't always understand it all,but I love the sound and the Acting style. I read Dutch OK but I can't get lost in a book as I can in English;if you know what I mean.

It can be difficult to really get lost in a book in a foreign language, but the longer you read, the better it goes. In the beginning when I used to start reading Dumas in French, I used to get a lot less lost in it, but now, I even can laugh straight away at the jokes in it. It is as if the barrier that was there before (to process the meaning of the words in my brain) is gone... Practice makes perfect. :)
About Martin y Monita:
I loved it as well. I used to watch it religiously. I found it a lot better than normal soaps because it went a lot faster. What's more, I found it very poetical and very cleverly consructed. It could have been a great book...
They tried to make a kind of 'telenovela' on a Flemish chanel... Soooooooooo slow and boring. If you didn't watch Martin y Monita the next day they would have moved on...
Anyway, the end of it gets really funny... I don't know where they are at now, but certainly keep watching it...:p It's worth to see Quique's sister and the last episode. :lol:
It is indeed difficult to understand them sometimes, but not because the language is too difficult but because they tend to speak too fast... If there would be subtitles in Spanish, it would probably not be a problem to understand them. After a while I was able to follow simple reports on TVE. I was so pleased with myself... :)Shame there was nothing really easy on a lot. The news was too fast. :(

[sturmgewehr]

I can read in English, Turkish, Macedonian, Serbian and Albanian

[JuniperWoolf]

I read Japanese veeeeeery sloooooowly and with a dictionary that I still have to reference every forty-five seconds. Also, mostly kids' books or something in the vein of "Japanese for beginners." It turns out that learning a new language takes a lot of work and persistence. Who knew?

[Lulim]

I (...) It turns out that learning a new language takes a lot of work and persistence. Who knew?

I knew :-) About 13 years ago, I learned English in similar fashion. We had English lessons in school, but that was a long while ago and just the basics anyway. So I decided to freshen it up. Now I read books in English and in German.

[Artorius]

I love languages and can read fluently in Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and Icelandic and also decently in Spanish, French and German. A few days ago I started teaching myself Portuguese (partly so i can read Pessoa).

The way I like to learn languages is to:
1) memorize the most common words, 100 key words
2) read a dual-language book so i don't have look up the words in a dictionary. I read the same book over and over again till I've pretty much mastered it.
3) watch movies in the language. Also when I watch DVDs in English I put on the subtitles of the language I wanna learn if possible.
4) rehearse some conversation in my mind when bored and waiting (for the bus or something)
5) try to write in my diary in the language

No grammar or rules or verbs or anything like that which only puts the brain to switch off.

[KCurtis]

No, I am truly American, :lol:

[hillwalker]

First language Welsh - second language English. Fortunately I attended a Welsh-medium school where bilingualism was essential. I can also get by in French.

H

[KCurtis]

I hope everyone knows what I posted above about being an American is a joke. It is the "joke" among other countries that few Americans born in America country speak a different language other than English- at least it was, I hope I did not offend. I wish I did learn Spanish, it seems to be a beautiful language and I have many students who are spanish speaking, maybe I can learn from them. Both my parents are from other countries and were bilingual.

[topgar]

English, French, and Spanish. Each one has their own rhythm, their own music and sound. Translations make books lose the very spirit the writer was embodied with when coming up with words.

[Lady D. Luffy]

Yes, Japanese.
I have yet to improve though, It's takes me a while to read an entire book.

[kiki1982]

I hope everyone knows what I posted above about being an American is a joke. It is the "joke" among other countries that few Americans born in America country speak a different language other than English- at least it was, I hope I did not offend. I wish I did learn Spanish, it seems to be a beautiful language and I have many students who are spanish speaking, maybe I can learn from them. Both my parents are from other countries and were bilingual.

It's still a joke I think, at least my hubby says that and he is British;).

Say i' 'gain?!

(If you do not know what I mean, look here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaLikjgJssk&feature=related) and go to minute 2:55.

But pray, why didn't your parents theach you their languages? They issed a huge chance there (although I expect that here in Europe we are more aware of languages in general as countries and language areas are much smaller).


English, French, and Spanish. Each one has their own rhythm, their own music and sound. Translations make books lose the very spirit the writer was embodied with when coming up with words.

I believe, or that is my impression anyway, that it depends in what language something has been translated. Dutch and French for example... they just don't work.

To me, English weirdly works, although they may be because I've seen many more translations into English than I've seen into Dutch or French.

I just think Dutch is inadequate and French changes tone too much. As does German. I once tried 'Stolz und Vorurteil' (P&P) in German and the title was already much too dramatic. But it just... wasn't natural.

[KCurtis]

It's still a joke I think, at least my hubby says that and he is British;).

Say i' 'gain?!

(If you do not know what I mean, look here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaLikjgJssk&feature=related) and go to minute 2:55.

But pray, why didn't your parents theach you their languages? They issed a huge chance there (although I expect that here in Europe we are more aware of languages in general as countries and language areas are much smaller).


My parents were not very interested in teaching us their languages (mother;German, father;French)
I'm not sure why, but knowing my parents as I do, it would be too much work for them!! And you are right about America and Europe- my country is so huge, and English is the language. In Europe the countries are so small and the languages different, so the opportunity is much greater to learn them.
And that youtube video is so funny!!!!! The British are funnier than we are.