Ha! Now you just think how much more rapidly and efficiently you can complete a jigsaw puzzle if have a complete picture of the puzzle-image to use as a guide - rather than just blundering around by blind trial and error. Well, it turns out that language learning is no different!! Maybe it's time to get yourself one of these puzzle guide pictures, Mr O'Kaufmann? (They are also known as GRAMMAR BOOKS!)

"Tell me how you would absorb this information without a lot of previous exposure to the language." Most learners couldn't. But there is a saying: "hard cases make bad law". The Russian language is a very 'hard case', because it has the grammar from hell! But let's remember that many languages are not even remotely so complex as Russian. (For example, you could completely crack the grammar of Norwegian or Indonesian in a matter of hours, I think.)

"Other than in the scientific literature you can claim what you want and make good money from it." You see, Friedemann, some of us are sceptical about scientists in general, and about scientific literature. The scientific establishment can sometimes get things wrong - even if they don't always like to admit it. Of course, when it comes to this particular issue -climate change - I actually KNOW that scientists are wrong! (Ich weiß es genau, denn die Sarah Palin hat es mir ins Ohr geflüstert, nachdem wir uns in ihrer Jagdhütte geliebt haben!;-D)

"But he calls himself Nutball, and would like to call me worse." It's cool. Steve can call me the Grammar-Gorilla if he likes! ;-D "...a pattern is the phenomenon itself, observed in the language by listening or reading, either discovered by the learner on his own, or pointed out." I don't follow this at all. A pattern cannot in any wise exist without the language - therefore I would say that the language itself has to be regarded as the raw phenomenon. As soon as a learner observes a 'pattern' within the language it becomes a 'rule'. For me it's that simple. I just don't get this idea that grammar is 'abstract'. For sure, the jargon and terminology used in many grammar books may be abstract - I would agree to that extent. (Having said that, almost every serious field of endeavour has its own jargon...) But the best modern grammar books always closely base their explanations on practical examples of the language in use. (My trusty Hammer's German Grammar contains copious amounts of material directly culled from German books, newspapers, etc.) Almost by definition this kind of thing cannot be abstract. Grammar Steve! Try it - you might like it! ;-D

My point is this: any distinction between a grammatical 'rule' and a grammatical 'pattern' is pretty much entirely semantic! Some people don't like the word 'rule' because they feel that it sounds kind of authoritarian - i.e. you MUST do it this way, etc. But in practise all that a grammatical 'rule' is actually doing is describing or defining the pattern of usage established as a consensus among native speakers - that's pretty much it. These are not 'rules' in the sense that anybody is forced to obey them. (Although if you don't, native speakers may sometimes fail to understand you, and will generally regard you as being linguistically second rate.) If it somehow makes people feel happier, then by all means let's use the word 'pattern' in place of 'rule'. But I fail to see that it makes any kind of difference in practise.

"...whether we need to learn grammar rules or patterns..." Steve, with all respect, this is completely crazy! The idea that a person would like grammar patterns but not grammar rules is a little bit like saying: "I'm all in favour of cars, but I hate automobiles!" Sure, some grammar books (i.e. bad ones) are written in a dense and obscure way. But this actually has nothing intrinsically to do with the 'rules' (i.e. the 'patterns') which are being described therein.

Food aside, have you checked out any of the local booze, Steve?

I'm trying to learn a difficult language right now. But I believe I also have the spare brain-capacity to learn an "easy" language at the same time. So I'm going to have a crack at learning Norwegian. Soon I will be able to attack the crazed leftist theory of global warming in Friedemann's Lieblingssprache! This will be fun! ;-)

Uh-huh. So you're a fan of oompah bands? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78vlhWlHUoo&feature=related

Okay, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. At any rate, Benny-the-Irish-polyglot (who is another of the speak-early school) once had a post on his website saying that the notion of a silent period was: "..a wet dream for perfectionists", and that we would never start speaking because we would never be ready, etc.. I'm glad to see that you don't agree with offensive nonsense like this.

"I don't want to tell people not to speak before they feel they have a solid base in the language. Otherwise, people like my Dad, would have never said anything in English." I just don't get it Susanna. Why wouldn't your Dad have ever said anything in English? Are you saying that if a person doesn't start speaking early on, then or he/she will NEVER start..!? I know from my own personal experience that this is incorrect (see my last post above.)

Ehrm, Friedemann, 'Rammstein' don't do rap - they do seriously heavy rock! (The group whose song we talked about below, calls itself 'Massive Töne'.)

@Susanna I have to agree with the position taken by Steve and Friedemann on this issue. I have a lot of respect for you and for your linguistic achievements, which are certainly very impressive. But I have to disagree with the speak-from-day-one idea. I just don't see how I could (for example) walk into a store in Japan and start speaking Japanese? How? What could I say? And even if I had something to say, what chance would I have of understanding the reply? Of course, I don't rate myself as a polyglot or language expert. But I do, nevertheless, speak with a certain amount of personal experience. In the past I got to spent quite a lot of time overseas, learning three foreign languages to varying levels. In one of these (German) I eventually reached a pretty high level of fluency. After about 2 months in Germany I could passively understand most of what was on the TV. But it was 5 or 6 months before I was ready to start having meaningful conversations with native speakers. And it took about a year before I was truly comfortable doing so. So for me there really was a silent period. I cannot imagine how it could have been otherwise.

Things weren't like this back in the good old days of the 1950s classroom. Back then, if a student had talked about "queer issues" in class, he would have been sent to the headmaster's study. There he would have been made to drop his pants, bend over, and have some really good corporal punishment.

It pains me to say it, but I think Friedemann is exactly right here. Nuclear power is fine so long as everything is working the way it is supposed to. But what the heck happens when things go wrong!? Sure, there are huge rewards to nuclear power, but these have to be weighed up against the even greater potential risks, IMO. As regards radiation hysteria, yeah, maybe. But would YOU be cool about taking your grandchildren for a little hike around the perimeter fence of the fukushima plant right now, Steve? (I gotta confess, I wouldn't!)

Friedemann, wouldn't you say that language is fundamentally different from many other fields such as music or sport? If you take two North American orphans who are both a few days old - picked completely at random - and have them brought up by the same adoptive parents in (let's say) Holland, well, I'm guessing that they would both start speaking Dutch at roughly the same point, right? Of course, it's different if you learn a second language at a later age. But this may be (according to some theories) because people start to learn in a conscious and formal way when they reach age 5 and above, whereas infants just 'soak it all up' subconsciously. It may be that hyper-polyglots have discovered how to - if you will - crack this code. It may be that they have found methods which allow them to learn language in a subconscious way? (I would be very interested to see some more videos from Robert, describing his learning methods in detail - in particular how he starts with a new language.)

QUOTE: "When I hear Chinese people on radio talk shows in Canada talking about how Canadians are all lazy and stupid, I do not really feel traumatized. But then if I had a chance at a few thousand dollars in compensation I might get traumatized pretty quickly." UNQUOTE I think this just about neatly sums it up. These folks are not traumatized in the slightest. They just want some nice money! (In a way, you can't even blame them too much: if you create a culture of victimhood and political correctness, then minorities will inevitably take advantage in every way that they can.)

'Nemesis' seems an odd kind of way to describe Benny. According to my dictionary, 'nemesis' is defined as "a punishment or defeat that is deserved and cannot be avoided". Our friend Benny doesn't really qualify as either of those things, does he? I would say he is a fairly shifty and slippery kind of guy (i.e. in the way he argues on internet forums, etc.) And he makes some very dubious claims about his language learning methods. But Benny as the nemesis of Steve? I don't get it!?

One thing they DO teach you in Canadian schools is how to dialogue. (Steve likes to dialogue with teachers - that way he can gradually move them towards his position.)

It takes a lot to make me speechless - but when I saw those pictures of what happened in Japan...ooohhh... What words can describe it? And now I hear that they may have a nuclear meltdown too! Terrible. It's just simply terrible.

QUOTE: "Steve's comments did leave me thinking about this "advantage" of aquiring a new language as a young child though. It seems to go against a lot of what he's said about being able to learn a language to fluency at any age and not needing to live in the country where it's spoken, etc".UNQUOTE You know, this is actually a very good point. Steve was brought up between the ages of 0 and 5 in a linguistic environment where Swedish, German and Czech were spoken. Then, from age 5-16, he was no longer hearing any Swedish, but he was hearing English (and some French) spoken all around him in Montreal. Later on he lived in France for 3 years, in Hong Kong for 1 year and in Japan for almost 10 years. A cynic might wonder whether the fact Steve speaks Swedish, English, French, Chinese and Japanese has everything to do with the fact the he has lived for a long time in countries where those languages are spoken? Sure Steve has used LingQ to learn Portuguese and Russian - but it just so happens that these are the very languages where he is (relatively speaking) at his weakest! It's a similar story with Susanna. She was born in Russia but moved to the USA at an early age - so no big surprises that she speaks Russian and English. Dig a little deeper and you find out that she spent some time living in France as a child, and later lived in Argentina for several years. So it is maybe no HUGE surprise if she speaks excellent French and Spanish. As far as I can see, the only language which she has learned out-of-country, by using her special musical method, is Portuguese. And this is the language in which she herself only rates her level as intermediate! So what is going on here? Is it REALLY possible to reach high fluency without living in a country where the language is spoken? I want to believe it is, but I'm not sure whether the facts really bear up. I have a lot of respect for Steve (and, for that matter, for Susanna.) But there is a part of me that wonders whether they aren't selling us a dream rather than cold hard reality? :-(

I've got a much better idea: you should have a picture of a hot girl who starts out fully clothed, but gradually strips off as you learn more words! :-D

Yes, it would be - at best - a kind of low register street-German that one would learn from songs like these! :-0 Having said that, there IS a certain kind of linguistic cleverness about it too. For example, the words "jeder Bulle wird sauer" sound inoffensive enough; but to my ears they speed it up in singing so that it sounds like "jede Bulle-Vixer". And there are some Anspielungen in there too. For example, when they say: "ich zeig ihr meine Einspritzpumpe", well, they probably aren't thinking about fuel injection systems! But still...

It would be interesting to hear some multilingual interviews. Susanna is native in English and Russian, and her Spanish is pretty awesome. It would be interesting to explore how many other languages she knows - and whether they are all at the same very high level?

The German song lyrics that I posted above include some vulgar language (which I know Steve normally doesn't like to see). But there is a very serious point here: what kind of German would someone learn by listening to songs like this!? Yet Susanna seemed to being saying that - if people enjoy songs like that - then it's fine to go ahead and try to learn by listening to them! I'm really not convinced. The song by Massive Töne may be a fairly extreme example, but many other songs contain things which simply would not sound right in the spoken language, IMO.