I have studied second language issues very extensively. It was the subject of my studies, research and dissertation. The method cited is known in the field as 'grammar translation'. The main goal is not speaking but reading. It has been used since the rise of humanism for studying 'the Classics', i.e. early Greek and Roman texts. Unfortunately, this method is still implicitly used in high schools in the US giving rise to the expression 'I speak high school French' [basically nothing].

Tempodivalse:

Well, that's how I learned Esperanto, more or less. I checked out a few 1920s grammar books, found a reputable dictionary, and got to work deciphering real-world Esperanto texts (Vikipedio etc.)

As Robbkvasnak said, this is just learning to read and translate texts (which is perhaps not the biggest handicap in Esperanto) and this is a different way of using a language than speaking.

Tempodivalse:You also need lots of free time, which is the real sticking point for a lot of people. It's easier to just plug Pimsleur into your car stereo for 30 minutes a day.

I think it's more or less proven that long sessions of dry language learning is not productive in proportion to the effort.

Tempodivalse:But I'm convinced that the "old-fashioned method" remains effective. It exposes you to more grammar and vocabulary as soon as possible. And if the target language is Esperanto, it will be much less daunting due to its extreme regularity, meaning you can confidently generalise what you see.

Since the 19th century there has been a gradual progression to make language learning more productive and less painful - at least in the beginning. Esperanto itself sort of demonstrates that simplification is a better way of easing people into second language learning.

As Robbkvasnak said, this is just learning to read and translate texts (which is perhaps not the biggest handicap in Esperanto) and this is a different way of using a language than speaking.

Right, I didn't say old-style learning was a panacea. Unfortunately, there is no method which will teach you how to speak the language naturally and spontaneously, aside from actual immersion. Not Duolingo, not even Pimsleur. East Asian students often study English for 8+ years in an academic setting, and emerge unable to comprehensibly utter a full sentence, due to their isolation from a broadly English-speaking language environment.

For more phonetic languages like Greek or Italian, though (and particularly Esperanto), the transition from the written to the spoken is not so difficult - it's just a matter of associating the phonemes with their written equivalents. But I wouldn't suggest trying this with some language with radically different pronunciations than one's own (e.g. Vietnamese), or with no correlation between spelling and pronunciation (e.g. Danish, English).

Since the 19th century there has been a gradual progression to make language learning more productive and less painful - at least in the beginning. Esperanto itself sort of demonstrates that simplification is a better way of easing people into second language learning.

In my experience, many old grammars/instructional materials are very helpful and straightforward, provided you are well-educated in grammatical concepts at the outset. This has become a big caveat, though: many college students need to be reminded what sundry things like participles and voices are, even in advanced coursework. Duolingo and Pimsleur aren't going to take you far if you can't grasp those things.

I think that's what it boils down to - language learning has to be made easier today because most people (even the well-educated) have never really been taught grammar and are overwhelmed when it is thrown at them.

Probably not worth a reply in case it disappears into room 101.

robbkvasnak:The method cited is known in the field as 'grammar translation'.

I don't think Dowling's method is a grammar translation method. It's really just memorizing the most common declensions and conjugations (a difficult and important part, but nowhere near all of Latin grammar) and then studying Latin by reading Hans Orberg's Lingua Latina, which uses a method called contextual induction.

Lingua Latina is written entirely in Latin. It begins with easy-to-understand sentences such as Roma in Italia est. There are pictures to help you understand. As I understand it, the goal is to understand what you read; not to translate it to your own language.

So actually, there's pretty much no translation in Dowling's method.

The equivalent method for Esperanto would probably be to learn all the (2) cases and how to put nouns and adjectives in the accusative case. Then learn the different verb endings for the infinitive, past tense, present tense, etc. Maybe throw in the affixes for plurals, and the endings for nouns, adjectives and adverbs. Finally, start learning the language by reading a book written entirely in Esperanto such as Universala Esperanto Metodo (http://esperanto-edmonton.wikidot.com/download:u-e...).

Bruso:learn all the grammar first, then focus on vocabulary.

Does anyone know of anyone who learned Esperanto this way? Would you recommend it to Harlow's "committed individual"?

I'm learning Esperanto this way right now. I started with a few public domain grammar books and memorized the grammar along with the most common helper words such as conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns, the 'correlatives' table, etc.

Now I'm starting to work through the exercises in the fundamento so I can get more practice and pick up more vocabulary.

I just feel like I get more bang for my buck this way. You use grammar and words such as to, with, and from in every sentence, but how often do you use words such as ship, button, or elephant? Once you have the grammar down, you can just plug in other nouns and verbs as you learn them.

Tempodivalse:
I think that's what it boils down to - language learning has to be made easier today because most people (even the well-educated) have never really been taught grammar and are overwhelmed when it is thrown at them.

This may (sadly) be true.

Bruso:Does anyone know of anyone who learned Esperanto this way? Would you recommend it to Harlow's "committed individual"?

I did.

eshapard:

Tempodivalse:
I think that's what it boils down to - language learning has to be made easier today because most people (even the well-educated) have never really been taught grammar and are overwhelmed when it is thrown at them.

This may (sadly) be true.

We have all been taught grammar in school.

I think we are an ADD generation that can't focus on anything because we are used to a highly stimulating environment.

Grammar just can't capture someone's interest these days. We need to come up with new, exciting ways of learning.

It's not that we're an especially ADD generation now. We've had generations of school kids (and adults) fidgeting in their chairs and yawning because learning things takes work.

Nothing can be learned without some work and you have to reach a point where you're stimulated enough to want to put in the work without it feeling like too much work. Unfortunately that itself requires pushing yourself over an uncomfortable set of obstacles in order to properly begin.

The late 20th and 21st century culture keeps on telling us that you can get so many things with minimal effort. See slogans like: '[add skill acquisition] in 10 days' etc. We've now come to think that if it feels like work we are doing it wrong and there must be a way to 'work smarter, not harder', cue all the patented special methods for learning things in a week.

It's not particularly new, but because so much is freely available now we get the idea that all it takes to learn something is to sign up for it, and so there is more signing up to multiple commitments than there is committed learning.