Hyperboreus:For example "Rosetta Stone" is a quite popular and effective way to learn foreign languages and goes beyond the scope of classical class-room language teaching.

Rosetta Stone is popular because it gives people the idea that they are learning a foreign language when in fact it's little more than multimedia phrase study.

There's nothing wrong with using Rosetta Stone to learn some phrases and basic structures for a trip, etc. but please don't perpetuate the myth that Rosetta Stone is an "effective" way to learn a foreign langauge except in a VERY limited context.

When did Linguistics ever produce an insight into brain function that has been subsequently proved in the laboratory?

Pyschoacoustics has been used to obtain lower bitrate codecs, audio file compression (e.g. MP3), etc. because it allows the removal of "less important" information based on knowledge of how the brain (and ear, specifically the basilar membrane) process acoustic information.

This was actually a professional specialty of mine for many years : you can read a (moderately technical) article I wrote about this for IEEE Spectrum magazine here.

Every time you listen to an MP3, use Skype/VoIP, talk on a cell phone, etc. you are making use of technology that's based on linguistic / pyschoacoustic data.

Why does Google use a statistical rather than a structural method in its translation software?

There's a saying among engineers that you can only pick two out of the following three attributes : quick, inexpensive, and good. Guess which two Google translate uses ...

Amike,

Paul

Hyperboreus:

sudanglo:HB, if some linguistic insight had produced a much better way of teaching languages, it would surely now be universally adopted.

Universally certainly not. But just compare the way foreign languages were taught 100 years ago (or even when I was at school) and how they are (sometimes) taught today.

When I was teaching foreign language at the university all the instructors had to take a (semester-long) "teaching methodologies" class. Part of this class was going over all the different approaches to teaching language. Some of them (like grammar-translation) are no longer used, except perhaps for some "dead" languages. Some of them (e.g. audio-lingual) are still popular and some of them (e.g. communicative) are still relatively new.

One issue is that different methodologies are sometimes better for different purposes. It would be very difficult (and silly) to teach Latin using a communicative approach. On the other hand, this approach works very well for developing speaking skills in modern languages. Ultimately, most people benefit from a mixture of different methodologies : e.g. audiolingual is better for developing grammar skills (using pattern-substitution) that the communicative approach.

The end goal also determines methodology : if you're simply trying to learn to read a language (not speak, write, or orally comprehend), the most effective methodology is usually different than if you want to be able to actively use the language.

Amike,

Paul

sudanglo:HB, I don't think that you have grasped the extent to which Esperanto is a non-idiomatic language.

In the natural languages it can often happen that a particular way of expressing some idea is the preferred one, and if foreigners don't copy that, they will sound odd.

Esperanto plays a different game.

To a much greater extent, any way of expressing an idea, through a verb or an adjective or a noun, or with one word order or another, or with one structure rather than another, is acceptable providing it is seen to be encompassed by the 'rules'.

This is not to say that there are no preferences, but the freedom to vary within what is permissible is much greater.

Actually, it is this feature of the language which many Esperantists would single out to be most charming and to hold a particular fascination.

Esperanto is not a language of set phrases. It is much more like a Lego or Mechano set that presents endless possibilities for you to exercise your creativity.

Very well put.

erinja:I was calling my suitcase a "valizo" and they were calling it a "kofro"

They weren't German, were they? "Koffer" is still the common German word for "suitcase." Do a Google image search for "Koffer" and you'll see what falls under the definition of "Koffer."

The ReVo article does make a good point about the range of meanings "kofro" can have, although I'm not sure I would make sweeping statements like "la rusoj kaj angloj emas atribui al kofro la signifon meblan."

Amike,
Paul

Hyperboreus,

In my dialect A) ain't great, C),D),and E) are fine, but B) is dreadful.

Almost as bad as, "a safe arrival was arrived by them."

I'm thinking that the answer has to do with how the verb 'die' takes it's argument. It is unaccusative and takes a noun theta marked for patient instead of agent as it's subject. In a way, I would say it is already kinda like a passive before you try and passivize it.

The other examples, even though uncomfortable to some speakers, do seem to take agentative subjects... complete with volition.

Forigite

Forigite

In any discussion about a preference for particular compound word to name a certain object by a certain group of speakers of Esperanto, the drawing of any conclusion about dialectal variation in the language needs to be moderated by a recognition of the way Esperanto sets about its word-building.

Thus a benzin-stacio might be referred to by some as a benzinejo. It's not so much a question of one word being right and the other being wrong, as of generality.

Benzin-stacio is highly specific. There would be benzinejoj which are not stacioj.

Ĉerpejo (roughly meaning a place, like a well or source, from which a liquid or something can be drawn) needs contextualization to be interpretable as a Petrol station.

It's not a usage that I am familiar with, but it maybe that Erinja has encountered it being so used.

But if presented with a picture of a Petrol station and the above three words, and asked to choose which best identifies the item in the picture, Esperanto speakers are most likely to agree.

For things that are infrequently talked about in Esperanto, various Esperantists might come up with different variants. But I don't think that this tells you anything significant about dialects of Esperanto or local flavour.

It is, of course, a great strength of Esperanto that it permits the ready naming of things that you don't know THE word for, allowing you to get on with the conversation unimpeded.

In the context of a murder case, an American and an Englishman would have very different immediate interpretations of 'a body in the trunk'. (It is unfortunate how Americans will use the wrong words sometimes).

This really is a case of regional variation in the English language, as also is a phrase such as I've wet my pants (trousers in American, an undergarment in English).

Nevertheless, context may rescue the situation from incomprehension.

If there is a tendency among German Esperantists to say Kofro (I'm not sure about this) when they mean Valizo, it's not a total disaster any more than when Americans misuse English.

However, there's an important difference.

Americans stubbornly won't give up their perversions of the Queen's English.

But, given the traditions within the Esperanto-speaking community, German Esperantists attached to Kofro for suitcase can be more readily persuaded to change to Valizo, by gentle reference to a dictionary.

Esperanto is all about expressing yourself in a way which will be understood internationally. The very raison d'être of Esperanto guarantees the avoidance of too much 'local' colour.

sudanglo:Americans stubbornly won't give up their perversions of the Queen's English.

Britain and America : two great nations separated by a common language.