 |
 |
Definitely. Knowing a lot of languages gives you perspective that most people don't have. Most people wouldn't be able to deduce the things he did in an hour. Nika On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Samuel Stutter < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Also, I suspect it may take me somewhat longer than an hour to get to the > state he achieves. Surely having attuned your brain to learning languages (a > grounding in 22 langs?) gives you a massive advantage to, for example, the > guy in a campus bookshop who wants to flirt with the cute Norwegian girl. > > > On 20 May 2011, at 04:32, Roger Mills wrote: > > --- On Thu, 5/19/11, Roberto Suárez Soto <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> I just found this on the web, and couldn't >>> help sharing it here for >>> review: >>> >>> >>> http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/11/07/how-to-learn-but-not-master-any-language-in-1-hour-plus-a-favor/ >>> >>> It's not something to take very seriously, >>> but it's quite interesting >>> anyway. Opinions, comments? >>> >>> I just don't get it. One hour sitting next to some guy on a plane? You >> might learn how to say "I'm eating a....." and pick up a couple names of >> foods, but where's that going to get you? And in a native script?? What >> exactly does he mean by "deconstructing"? >> >> Actually, the late Prof. Kenneth Pike used to do his famous "monolingual >> demonstration"-- with a speaker of some language (preferably obscure), and >> Pike using only Mixteco, a lang. of Central America/Mexico that involved >> whistles, in which he was fluent. With a few props (table, chair) and lots >> of pointing and miming, he could get a pretty good grasp of the sounds in 15 >> min.s or so, then on to simple sentences like "I'm sitting down", you're >> sitting down, I'm getting up" and so on. All in the space of an hour or so. >> Sort of a field methods class on steroids. So it can be done, provided >> you're a master phonetician/linguist. >> >> I saw him do it once, back in the 60s; there's also a film version of >> similar vintage. >> >> But for discussion of serious subjects, you'd need a lot more. Economic >> development? Water supply/purification? Agriculture? Arts and culture? >> >