raharney Wrote:

TsugiAshi Wrote:

fabriciocarraro Wrote:As I've mentioned before, as well as in HTLAL, the "haters" are always the same

I agree that the criticism is intense, but consider the following for a moment, maybe even contemplate it:

If you had three months to learn a language and you dedicated roughly 6-9 hours a day to studying it, with your knowledge of language learning (whatever level it's at or isn't at), would you feel comfortable telling someone else who is fluent in the language, and would you feel comfortable telling someone who is actually fluent in multiple languages (one who spent years on each language), that you're fluent in the language that you had 3 months to learn?

And to expand on that, would you feel comfortable expressing how you're fluent in the hypothetical language by actually speaking the language to express yourself?

Ehr, yeh, WTF not. What's with the constant obsession with credentials and qualifications the "haters" here have. ("I have a degree in blah blah blah so don't tell me blah blah blah"). Life is too bloody short to wait around for the credentials Brahmin to anoint you as being worthy enough to speak for yourself.

I'm not talking about credentials, I'm talking about the concept of fluency itself for everyone who agrees that one can become fluent in 3 months. I know that fluency is a subjective definition, but it isn't actually that subjective.

So basically I'm trying to get an idea from people who agree that you can achieve fluency in 3 months -- as you seem to imply is possible (alongside a couple others) -- about whether or not under a hypothetical situation that you yourself would admit to being fluent in a language after only 3 months.

Basically seeing how someone measures their own concept of fluency and what they know about language learning with the notion that you can achieve something relative to that in 3 months of dedicated study.

If people say that yes, they would, then their opinion on what fluency is is probably in line with the Fluent in 3 Months progression, but if they say they wouldn't, then maybe they'll get an idea about why people are critical of the notion that you can achieve fluency in 3 months and that maybe fluency isn't actually just basic conversational get-around.

There is an interesting interview of Benny by Peter Galante. He talks a fair bit about what he means by fluent etc. To my ears he comes across as a good guy. BTW looking at his site he is a huge fan of Remembering the Kanji.


http://m.japanesepod101.com/2014/03/09/n...nny-lewis/

TsugiAshi Wrote:I'm not talking about credentials, I'm talking about the concept of fluency itself for everyone who agrees that one can become fluent in 3 months. I know that fluency is a subjective definition, but it isn't actually that subjective.

So basically I'm trying to get an idea from people who agree that you can achieve fluency in 3 months -- as you seem to imply is possible (alongside a couple others) -- about whether or not under a hypothetical situation that you yourself would admit to being fluent in a language after only 3 months.

Basically seeing how someone measures their own concept of fluency and what they know about language learning with the notion that you can achieve something relative to that in 3 months of dedicated study.

If people say that yes, they would, then their opinion on what fluency is is probably in line with the Fluent in 3 Months progression, but if they say they wouldn't, then maybe they'll get an idea about why people are critical of the notion that you can achieve fluency in 3 months and that maybe fluency isn't actually just basic conversational get-around.

OK, you are talking about fluency not credentials. And I get your point that someone who equates fluency with near-native ability will see the three-months claim as a lie. But the problem here would be that person's definition of "fluency," the fact that it is not the way fluency really works, except in Hollywood movies (C.F. Man Friday at the end of the BW version of Robinson Crusoe speaking with a perfect BBC accent).

But I do think for the others here, the "haters", this is a question of credentials, a question of who's in and who's out of the Japanese speaker club. Snobbery masking status-anxiety.

raharney Wrote:Snobbery masking status-anxiety ... Take out your Foucault books and start pondering that one comrade ... As is the anti-Benny vitriol from the "polyglot community" which is an explicit sociological demonstration of how a given discursive community engages in aggressive self-policing...

Deploying Foucault on the internet to criticize the 'credential-driven power structure of the language learning community' while simultaneously coming off as a massive try-hard looking for recognition that you've read a couple books by a crazy Frenchmen (your own little set of credentials, it seems) ... amazing.

Look, like it or not, language acquisition is about credentials, because fluency in a language is a credential in itself. It's not as easy to demonstrate as a degree or certificate, but it is nevertheless measurable and demonstrable. You have things like the JLPT, but we don't even need to talk about tests for fear of riling your Foucaultian senses. Fluency, for all its subjective components, is pretty simple: either you can skillfully use the language or you can't. To give a concrete example, I think a fair test would be whether or not one could move to a country where their target language is used, set up a life there, and go about business as normal.

Did Benny achieve this level of fluency in 3 months? Could anybody?

raharney Wrote:

TsugiAshi Wrote:I'm not talking about credentials, I'm talking about the concept of fluency itself for everyone who agrees that one can become fluent in 3 months. I know that fluency is a subjective definition, but it isn't actually that subjective.

So basically I'm trying to get an idea from people who agree that you can achieve fluency in 3 months -- as you seem to imply is possible (alongside a couple others) -- about whether or not under a hypothetical situation that you yourself would admit to being fluent in a language after only 3 months.

Basically seeing how someone measures their own concept of fluency and what they know about language learning with the notion that you can achieve something relative to that in 3 months of dedicated study.

If people say that yes, they would, then their opinion on what fluency is is probably in line with the Fluent in 3 Months progression, but if they say they wouldn't, then maybe they'll get an idea about why people are critical of the notion that you can achieve fluency in 3 months and that maybe fluency isn't actually just basic conversational get-around.

OK, you are talking about fluency not credentials. And I get your point that someone who equates fluency with near-native ability will see the three-months claim as a lie. But the problem here would be that person's definition of "fluency," the fact that it is not the way fluency really works, except in Hollywood movies (C.F. Man Friday at the end of the BW version of Robinson Crusoe speaking with a perfect BBC accent).

But I do think for the others here, the "haters", this is a question of credentials, a question of who's in and who's out of the Japanese speaker club. Snobbery masking status-anxiety.

I'm not even talking about near-native ability in all regards when I think of fluency. I'm personally flexible with how I view and define the concept of fluency, so the definition I'm referring to is lenient. But it's not going to bend over backwards to accommodate someone who thinks that having the basic ability to be able to order a drink and ask for directions in a foreign language is fluency.

I have an idea of how I personally think fluency works, as many do. At its base foundation I think it's being able to watch a basic movie in a language and follow it while being able to understand it and enjoy it. The same applies to a basic TV show, too.

That way, even if a person can't speak very well, isn't literate, can't write the language or express themselves very well in the language for one reason or another (as many native speakers of a language aren't able to do), they can at least understand the language to a great extent.

And being able to understand the language to a great extent is what I'd consider being fluent.

But heck, even listening exposure takes a bit longer than 3 months to achieve to a fluent level. So that's one reason why I'm personally skeptical of the thought of achieving fluency in such a short amount of time.

(It's difficult to phrase what I'm trying to phrase because I'm not interested in people bringing up the blind, deaf, any technicalities, etc into the equation as a means to throw off my point by saying that the deaf can't hear movies, etc.)

raharney Wrote:But I do think for the others here, the "haters", this is a question of credentials, a question of who's in and who's out of the Japanese speaker club. Snobbery masking status-anxiety.

What would you say people are anxious about? That if someone succeeds in being able to speak passable Japanese "too fast" would diminish the prestige attached to learning a language heretofore regarded as difficult? Or that the introduction of different methods and definitions for terms like "fluency" reduces the claims of authority of those in the in-group?

Also, on these forums various techniques for learning have been debated here, and many language learning websites, such as Benny, are based not just on a method, but also on the testimony and personality of the site creators. How would you propose one engage in a reasonable critique of these sites that can make a judgment about the validity of the claims and methods, that does not turn into what you view as a conflict over status and identity?

afterglowefx Wrote:

raharney Wrote:Snobbery masking status-anxiety ... Take out your Foucault books and start pondering that one comrade ... As is the anti-Benny vitriol from the "polyglot community" which is an explicit sociological demonstration of how a given discursive community engages in aggressive self-policing...

Deploying Foucault on the internet to criticize the 'credential-driven power structure of the language learning community' while simultaneously coming off as a massive try-hard looking for recognition that you've read a couple books by a crazy Frenchmen (your own little set of credentials, it seems) ... amazing.

Look, like it or not, language acquisition is about credentials, because fluency in a language is a credential in itself. It's not as easy to demonstrate as a degree or certificate, but it is nevertheless measurable and demonstrable. You have things like the JLPT, but we don't even need to talk about tests for fear of riling your Foucaultian senses. Fluency, for all its subjective components, is pretty simple: either you can skillfully use the language or you can't. To give a concrete example, I think a fair test would be whether or not one could move to a country where their target language is used, set up a life there, and go about business as normal.

Did Benny achieve this level of fluency in 3 months? Could anybody?

Lol, he actually does that. He learned a language in 3 months and moved to the country to live for a period of time (I think he's still there), conducting his business as usual there, too. He seems to be a very mobile and global person.

I believe he actually did achieve that level of fluency in 3 months. But then again, he's self-employed it seems, so it doesn't necessarily fit the formula for fluency that you were specifically talking about.

It's not too far-fetched to claim that in 3 months you can learn a fair bit about a language if you don't do anything but study it. Assimil books, for example, are studied in that time and do enable you to ask for directions, introduce yourself, perform everyday tasks and, if you manage to get the vocabulary, have simple conversations. But the TED talk approach to language learning (or rather to the "language learning market") is a bit sad, and I think it's indicative of bigger problems.

By the way, raharney: power structures involve actual power - which these days usually means something related to class relationships in some way. Maybe to some ideological mechanism that is fundamental to the way things are ordered in a given society. Using Foucault to talk about a "Japanese-speaker club" strikes me as watering down the importance of the issues brought up by social theories. I think the same about using Friday from Robinson Crusoe here. And also about talking about personal anxiety in this context. If, for example, the workplace is organised so that your boss can abuse you, the least important thing is whether he feels insecure or whether he gets satisfaction from it, but the fact that you're a worker and he isn't.

TsugiAshi Wrote:Lol, he actually does that. He learned a language in 3 months and moved to the country to live for a period of time (I think he's still there), conducting his business as usual there, too. He seems to be a very mobile and global person.

I believe he actually did achieve that level of fluency in 3 months. But then again, he's self-employed it seems, so it doesn't necessarily fit the formula for fluency that you were specifically talking about.

That language certainly wasn't Japanese. Maybe it's possible in a closely related language. I think the US State Department only gives diplomats about three months of intense training for languages like Spanish, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure that what they output at that school is fluency, either. I'm not a linguist, don't ask me.

What I mean by business as usual is not as simple as you're making it out to be: I get by fine in Japan and I have the linguistic level of a 5 year old with a speech impediment. I can order food and sign a new phone contract and go to the garage to get my car fixed and have a conversation about whatever. I'm not even close to what I'd call fluent.

Business as usual for me means doing everything I could do in my home country here, relatively problem free. It means expressing what I want to express, it means understanding the responses I get (nuance and all), it means that there should be no discernible difference between my ability to live and work in either language.

Being self-employed and ordering a drink once in a while doesn't really fit the bill, I could do that on week two.

TsugiAshi Wrote:At its base foundation I think [fluency is] being able to watch a basic movie in a language and follow it while being able to understand it and enjoy it. The same applies to a basic TV show, too.

That completely leaves aside the question of output, which is quite literally half of fluency and can't be so readily set aside. Maybe your goal is understanding only, but that doesn't change the fact that fluency entails proficiency in a language, language consists in communication, and communication is by definition a two-way street.

poblequadrat Wrote:By the way, raharney: power structures involve actual power - which these days usually means something related to class relationships in some way. Maybe to some ideological mechanism that is fundamental to the way things are ordered in a given society. Using Foucault to talk about a "Japanese-speaker club" strikes me as watering down the importance of the issues brought up by social theories. I think the same about using Friday from Robinson Crusoe here. And also about talking about personal anxiety in this context. If, for example, the workplace is organised so that your boss can abuse you, the least important thing is whether he feels insecure or whether he gets satisfaction from it, but the fact that you're a worker and he isn't.

Hello poblequadrat. I was using Foucault as shorthand for the now common idea that discursive communities will have their own self-protection mechanisms that often seem immune to alternate knowledge forms regardless of the empirical merits of those alternate forms, and I was using it in the context of a metaphor about the medical profession talking to snakeskin oilmen and herbalists. As for watering down social theory, if I am interpreting you correctly, I think you are engaging in a bit of "whataboutery" here, as in, why use social theory to talk about Benny when we should be talking about class oppression. I don't see why talking about one thing should imply a watering-down of the other. If I worry about the issue of building a local park for kids in my neighborhood it does not imply that I am indifferent to the issue of global starvation. I am simply discussing one issue and not another at a given time.

afterglowefx Wrote:Deploying Foucault on the internet to criticize the 'credential-driven power structure of the language learning community' while simultaneously coming off as a massive try-hard looking for recognition that you've read a couple books by a crazy Frenchmen (your own little set of credentials, it seems) ... amazing.

You are confusing someone using a word for someone claiming credentials. If I use the word "airplane" it does not mean I am claiming to be a pilot. I would never claim to be Michel Foucault, unless I was suffering from seriously disturbing hallucinations.

Fluency depends on output training, it's a physical ability with a background of comprehension, which depends on language competency.

You don't need many words, nor much grammar to somehow get your point across, and the result might be horrible language, but it can also be fluid in a sense that you don't ever stop to think, but just utter what you have to say.

That's exactly the thing here, again, for the X-thousandth time. Language competency is not the same as fluency, and being fluent doesn't mean you're good.

In an ideal setting, ones skills are balanced, and fluency comes gradually while obtaining competency, but the reality of things makes a bit more complicated. People get competent through working on it every day and fluent in bursts of progress, followed by phases where they can barely string together a sentence, are exhausted after a certain time of speaking, which then gets better "in waves", until you can do everything you can do in your mother tongue in most cases.

To be 100% competent 100% of the time is something even natives struggle with. You can see that only in real life, when people refer to things as "stuff" or "that thingy" or stop mid-sentence to rephrase or start over, which happens so fast, you don't usually think much of. But it does happen.

What distracts a native's ear more than that is a thick accent and long pauses where the speaker tries to reach for words. And even for that there are tricks available, like fillers. And thinking while automatically using fillers is also something that has to be trained and is a purely physical activity.

Of course you first have to learn something to then use it, but you will learn much more than you'll ever use yourself anyways. People make a much too big fuss about the whole issue.

Note that this reply has nothing to do with Benny.

raharney Wrote:

afterglowefx Wrote:Deploying Foucault on the internet to criticize the 'credential-driven power structure of the language learning community' while simultaneously coming off as a massive try-hard looking for recognition that you've read a couple books by a crazy Frenchmen (your own little set of credentials, it seems) ... amazing.

You are confusing someone using a word for someone claiming credentials. If I use the word "airplane" it does not mean I am claiming to be a pilot. I would never claim to be Michel Foucault, unless I was suffering from seriously disturbing hallucinations.

If you weren't so quibbling I think you'd understand people better.

You've repeatedly in this thread attempted to establish yourself as somebody whose read in a certain field, and in so doing you seem to be trying to claim the credential of "educated" or some such other title. But you're using discourse a great many people aren't familiar with, you're using it out of context, and the way you're using it (like a club) smacks of self-congratulation. It's embarrassing.

A nuanced description of fluency, andikaze, and I agree that quality is actually rather unimportant to fluency. I have a Japanese friend currently living in the US who updates his facebook about 10 times a day. His grammar is horrible, his vocabulary is sub-par, and his accent is intense. But he doesn't give a damn. He talks all day every day in English, he works as a waiter in California, and despite every other sentence out of his mouth being riddled with errors, I'd have no problem describing him as fluent. He goes about his daily life, does what he needs to do, says what he needs to say, and all in his target language (as I outlined earlier). He didn't get there in anything even close to approaching three months, though.

raharney Wrote:

poblequadrat Wrote:By the way, raharney: power structures involve actual power - which these days usually means something related to class relationships in some way. Maybe to some ideological mechanism that is fundamental to the way things are ordered in a given society. Using Foucault to talk about a "Japanese-speaker club" strikes me as watering down the importance of the issues brought up by social theories. I think the same about using Friday from Robinson Crusoe here. And also about talking about personal anxiety in this context. If, for example, the workplace is organised so that your boss can abuse you, the least important thing is whether he feels insecure or whether he gets satisfaction from it, but the fact that you're a worker and he isn't.

Hello poblequadrat. I was using Foucault as shorthand for the now common idea that discursive communities will have their own self-protection mechanisms that often seem immune to alternate knowledge forms regardless of the empirical merits of those alternate forms, and I was using it in the context of a metaphor about the medical profession talking to snakeskin oilmen and herbalists. As for watering down social theory, if I am interpreting you correctly, I think you are engaging in a bit of "whataboutery" here, as in, why use social theory to talk about Benny when we should be talking about class oppression. I don't see why talking about one thing should imply a watering-down of the other. If I worry about the issue of building a local park for kids in my neighborhood it does not imply that I am indifferent to the issue of global starvation. I am simply discussing one issue and not another at a given time.

What I mean is that there are no power relations whatsoever in this aspect of language learning; what there is is irrelevant. No class, no power (and here you'll detect I don't really like Foucault very much). We could talk about how languages are taught at school, about different curricula, about the role languages play when looking for a job, about how people feel the need to learn a language. But that's a discussion about state apparatuses, not about Japanese learning communities.

If you intend to take this to the field of Internet sociology, you'd have to begin by arguing why you're examining one community: what makes it different, which role does it play and where does it play it. Considering "Internet webpages about learning Japanese" as a meaningful structure is petty. Even then, which social role does the exclusion of Benny play? What social role does Reviewing the Kanji itself play? What structure is the RTK apparatus reproducing?

Besides, any structure, of any kind, consists because of a limit. Limits always exclude something. What they exclude and how they do it can be a matter of scrutiny, but it doesn't automatically equal repression. Claiming that just anything works is having no opinion. It should also be noted that removing all polemical intent/all division is a repressive strategy of power (it's commonplace in European politics: politics becomes a bunch of opinions everyone has to respect, thus destroying any possibility of doing anything because the rules of consensus would be broken. note how a certain supposedly left-wing antiproductivism ties in with this: "politics isn't about the production of a new situation but about communication/interpretation/inclusion/the other", etc.)

afterglowefx Wrote:

raharney Wrote:

afterglowefx Wrote:Deploying Foucault on the internet to criticize the 'credential-driven power structure of the language learning community' while simultaneously coming off as a massive try-hard looking for recognition that you've read a couple books by a crazy Frenchmen (your own little set of credentials, it seems) ... amazing.

You are confusing someone using a word for someone claiming credentials. If I use the word "airplane" it does not mean I am claiming to be a pilot. I would never claim to be Michel Foucault, unless I was suffering from seriously disturbing hallucinations.

If you weren't so quibbling I think you'd understand people better.

You've repeatedly in this thread attempted to establish yourself as somebody whose read in a certain field, and in so doing you seem to be trying to claim the credential of "educated" or some such other title. But you're using discourse a great many people aren't familiar with, you're using it out of context, and the way you're using it (like a club) smacks of self-congratulation. It's embarrassing.

Again, I state, I am not claiming any credentials. The words I use are the words I use, nothing more. I am defending Benny against people who are claiming credentials and who feel seriously upset about Benny's lack of credentials.

poblequadrat Wrote:

raharney Wrote:

poblequadrat Wrote:By the way, raharney: power structures involve actual power - which these days usually means something related to class relationships in some way. Maybe to some ideological mechanism that is fundamental to the way things are ordered in a given society. Using Foucault to talk about a "Japanese-speaker club" strikes me as watering down the importance of the issues brought up by social theories. I think the same about using Friday from Robinson Crusoe here. And also about talking about personal anxiety in this context. If, for example, the workplace is organised so that your boss can abuse you, the least important thing is whether he feels insecure or whether he gets satisfaction from it, but the fact that you're a worker and he isn't.

Hello poblequadrat. I was using Foucault as shorthand for the now common idea that discursive communities will have their own self-protection mechanisms that often seem immune to alternate knowledge forms regardless of the empirical merits of those alternate forms, and I was using it in the context of a metaphor about the medical profession talking to snakeskin oilmen and herbalists. As for watering down social theory, if I am interpreting you correctly, I think you are engaging in a bit of "whataboutery" here, as in, why use social theory to talk about Benny when we should be talking about class oppression. I don't see why talking about one thing should imply a watering-down of the other. If I worry about the issue of building a local park for kids in my neighborhood it does not imply that I am indifferent to the issue of global starvation. I am simply discussing one issue and not another at a given time.

What I mean is that there are no power relations whatsoever in this aspect of language learning; what there is is irrelevant. No class, no power (and here you'll detect I don't really like Foucault very much). We could talk about how languages are taught at school, about different curricula, about the role languages play when looking for a job, about how people feel the need to learn a language. But that's a discussion about state apparatuses, not about Japanese learning communities.

If you intend to take this to the field of Internet sociology, you'd have to begin by arguing why you're examining one community: what makes it different, which role does it play and where does it play it. Considering "Internet webpages about learning Japanese" as a meaningful structure is petty. Even then, which social role does the exclusion of Benny play? What social role does Reviewing the Kanji itself play? What structure is the RTK apparatus reproducing?

Besides, any structure, of any kind, consists because of a limit. Limits always exclude something. What they exclude and how they do it can be a matter of scrutiny, but it doesn't automatically equal repression. Claiming that just anything works is having no opinion. It should also be noted that removing all polemical intent/all division is a repressive strategy of power (it's commonplace in European politics: politics becomes a bunch of opinions everyone has to respect, thus destroying any possibility of doing anything because the rules of consensus would be broken. note how a certain supposedly left-wing antiproductivism ties in with this: "politics isn't about the production of a new situation but about communication/interpretation/inclusion/the other", etc.)

Foucault has his problems, I agree, but so do theories that engage in descriptions that are a bit too broad and a bit too mechanical, such as (Althusserian?) state apparatuses talk. Between the big social groups there are myriads of little ones, with their own relative autonomy, that need to be considered. Perhaps.

Well, I do agree that society is multiple after all. Have you read Foucault's text "The Mesh of Power"? It's on the subject of the multiplicity of power, but it's also Foucault at his most Marxist. Very good, I return to it often.

poblequadrat Wrote:Well, I do agree that society is multiple after all. Have you read Foucault's text "The Mesh of Power"? It's on the subject of the multiplicity of power, but it's also Foucault at his most Marxist. Very good, I return to it often.

Haven't read it. Thanks. I'll check it out.

afterglowefx Wrote:

TsugiAshi Wrote:Lol, he actually does that. He learned a language in 3 months and moved to the country to live for a period of time (I think he's still there), conducting his business as usual there, too. He seems to be a very mobile and global person.

I believe he actually did achieve that level of fluency in 3 months. But then again, he's self-employed it seems, so it doesn't necessarily fit the formula for fluency that you were specifically talking about.

That language certainly wasn't Japanese. Maybe it's possible in a closely related language. I think the US State Department only gives diplomats about three months of intense training for languages like Spanish, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure that what they output at that school is fluency, either. I'm not a linguist, don't ask me.

What I mean by business as usual is not as simple as you're making it out to be: I get by fine in Japan and I have the linguistic level of a 5 year old with a speech impediment. I can order food and sign a new phone contract and go to the garage to get my car fixed and have a conversation about whatever. I'm not even close to what I'd call fluent.

Business as usual for me means doing everything I could do in my home country here, relatively problem free. It means expressing what I want to express, it means understanding the responses I get (nuance and all), it means that there should be no discernible difference between my ability to live and work in either language.

Being self-employed and ordering a drink once in a while doesn't really fit the bill, I could do that on week two.

TsugiAshi Wrote:At its base foundation I think [fluency is] being able to watch a basic movie in a language and follow it while being able to understand it and enjoy it. The same applies to a basic TV show, too.

That completely leaves aside the question of output, which is quite literally half of fluency and can't be so readily set aside. Maybe your goal is understanding only, but that doesn't change the fact that fluency entails proficiency in a language, language consists in communication, and communication is by definition a two-way street.

I don't disagree with you in regards to what fluency entails. I was only speaking on the concept of being lenient when others take the definition of fluency and emphasize how the definition itself is subjective in order to make it fit a very, very, very loose interpretation of fluency.

I also agree that output is important when it comes to fluency. When I mentioned what I considered to be a lenient base foundation for fluency, however, I was factoring in people who are deaf, mute, illiterate, have horrible speech problems, anxiety or whatever in their own native language where their output might be close to abyssal, but at the same time they possess a solid understanding of the language, which is essentially what would be required to enjoy the average TV show or movie like one would in their own language.

All of the elements are there. They just can't verbalize what they want to express all that well. Kind of what you mentioned in a post above about your Japanese friend in Cali.

I don't really have a response to your reply about business as usual and all that since I basically knew what you were talking about. I just thought it was funny that the guy actually achieved in some capacity everything you mentioned before you elaborated on it. I was just pointing it out to be lighthearted.

But yeah, I think it was either Spanish or Espinoza.

He sure if fluent in a sense... but the way he's butchering pronunciation makes me cringe.

afterglowefx Wrote:That language certainly wasn't Japanese. Maybe it's possible in a closely related language.

Not really that close, it was Arabic.

i would never claim to reach a decent level in japanese in 3 month.
but if i had, well, how could i get out of that mess ?

1. call in sick ? (next best thing to 'my dog ate it')
2. bring in the diversion, new focus, the unexpected (something i might actually start to make money from)
3. never show any weakness
4. announce i'll take a year long vacation (so i can better catch up)

looks to me like japanese broke the fluent in 3 month challenge. Well at least that sounds amusing to me. I guess we'll never know.

I for one quite like Benny.

There I said it.

Just because it takes us so long to learn Japanese, we shouldn't let it upset us that he can learn Spanish or German so quickly when studying full time.

NightSky Wrote:I for one quite like Benny.

There I said it.

Just because it takes us so long to learn Japanese, we shouldn't let it upset us that he can learn Spanish or German so quickly when studying full time.

The problem isn't whether or not he can. The problem is he tries, fails, but pretends he's "fluent" (his definition of what fluency entails). Then he makes a bunch of money off of claiming to know how to become fluent quickly. If he wasn't making money because of this then I doubt most people would have a problem.