Tobberoth wrote:

Why in Japanese? Because as you can see, a direct translations of the words became a perfect japanese sentence! This is common in almost all basic korean sentences. Since I can make japanese sentences perfectly, I can start doing creative output right away with korean.

I was just going to say..ahaha, but Tobberoth beat me to it!

When I visited Korea last summer, I picked up a book that taught students Japanese. I'm actually more fluent in English but because I'm Korean by blood, I don't really notice the grammatical changes when I talk in Korean. So for a person like myself, learning Japanese have been a lot easier transition than, say, someone learning from English.

I'm trying to pick up my native language once again. The book I bought in Korea has been a great resource for me to study both Korean and Japanese simultaneously. It's actually more FUN for me, lol.

So, yes. I don't see why you can't study two languages at once. And just a quick advice for people learning Japanese through Korean, it's true the grammatical structures are quite similar but be careful of the pronounciation. I found American character display more closely with Japanese than Korean characters. The spoken language, I mean.

Does that make sense? lol.

Last edited by youngin (2008 September 22, 10:28 pm)

leosmith wrote:

Tobberoth wrote:

You don't learn a language faster just because you learn it in your mother tongue

I never said you do. Please read my last post again - it's only one sentence;)

Tobberoth wrote:

you just have the potential to get a bit farther, IF your second language is that much weaker.

You continue to pretend I said it's never a good idea to learn a 3rd language with a 2nd. As I mentioned before, this appears to based on the first few words of my first post in this thread. Please read my first post in its entirety.

Your one sentence was that the combined progress would be better if you use English. How can "combined progress" refer to anything other than the speed it takes you to learn? Progressing in language studies is just how fast you learn it. If you and I study the same languages for 1 year and I'm better, that means I've made better progress IE I learned it faster. I don't really see what you mean with combined though, what progress can you possibly make in your mother tongue?

Your first post is irrelevant at this point, my reply was directly to your reply of my post. Whether you say it's a good idea to learn in a second language or not in an earlier post makes little sense if you say the combined progress is better if you learn in your first language in a later post. I have to choose one post to go with, I go with the latest one.

leosmith wrote:

Tobberoth wrote:

I don't really see what you mean with combined though

I meant L2 & L3, of course.

Tobberoth wrote:

Your first post is irrelevant at this point, my reply was directly to your reply of my post.

I have to apologize - it wasn't the first post, it was the second:

leosmith wrote:

ashman63 wrote:

One thing Khatzumoto recommends if you are much stronger in one language than the other is learning your 3rd language by using your 2nd language (instead of your native language).

Maybe ok for you and Khatzumoto, but IMO, bad advice in general, unless you are near native, or there is some pressing reason to do this (such as lack of learning material in one's native language). Generally, it's more efficient to study languages separately using one's native language. The additional practice in your second language will not make up for the lack of progress in total.

This post is required reading to make sense of our discussion. Now that you understand I meant L2 & L3, I hope it all makes sense to you, and you might realize that you jumped to the wrong conclusion when you said "you're wrong".

I don't see how that post changes anything. Your whole point is that you make more progress in learning a language if you learn it using your native tongue, which is why you think it's smarter to study two languages using your native tongue than studying 1 language using english and the other language using the second language. This is where I think you're wrong, I don't think progress in L3 will be faster by learning it in your mother tongue, not if your L2 is strong enough. And I'm not talking near native here.

Tobberoth wrote:

Your whole point is that you make more progress in learning a language if you learn it using your native tongue

Almost. You once again ignored the exceptions that I listed. Ok, I'll play your way:)

Tobberoth wrote:

This is where I think you're wrong, I don't think progress in L3 will be faster by learning it in your mother tongue

Tobberoth you're wrong. If you're just a beginner in Japanese, you shouldn't use it to learn Chinese. And even if your really good at Japanese, I don't think you should use it to learn French;)

leosmith wrote:

Tobberoth wrote:

Your whole point is that you make more progress in learning a language if you learn it using your native tongue

Almost. You once again ignored the exceptions that I listed. Ok, I'll play your way:)

Tobberoth wrote:

This is where I think you're wrong, I don't think progress in L3 will be faster by learning it in your mother tongue

Tobberoth you're wrong. If you're just a beginner in Japanese, you shouldn't use it to learn Chinese. And even if your really good at Japanese, I don't think you should use it to learn French;)

No one said you should use beginner Japanese to learn Chinese. You however said one needs to be close native level for it to be an exception, intermediate Japanese sure isn't close to native level, but it's easily enough to learn a new language. While I personally wouldn't use Japanese to learn a European language except possibly Finnish (since I already know several European languages) I don't see it as a hindrance, it's just a bonus to use similar languages to learn a new language, which is why I feel it's much smarter to use Japanese to learn Korean. I would probably use my L2 to learn French (my L2 being English), just like I used my L2 to learn Japanese, simply because it's more similar, not because I'm better at English than at Japanese.

leosmith wrote:

You stated that it's better to use L2 to learn L3. I ignored the rest of your post, as you did mine:)

The difference of course being that what I ignored from your posts really didn't matter since you still said the combined progress would be better if you used English. None of your previously named exceptions mattered in this case. I didn't ever say that it's better to use L2 to use L3, so you didn't just ignore everything I said in this topic, you also made up your own idea

leosmith wrote:

Not at all. It's never easy to learn a new language. And it's rarely easier to learn one with a weak 2nd language than a strong 1st one IMO.

Depends on what you mean by easy. If you mean that something taking a lot of time is hard, then you're right. If you mean it's somehow complicated, then you're wrong. Everyone who wants to learn a language and has the time and motivation to do it, can. It's not like you need a masters degree in thinking to learn a language.

Besides, no one said it was easier. All I said was, it isn't harder. In some cases, it IS easier, like when studying Korean using Japanese.

leosmith wrote:

In your situation, totally agree, as I did before.

Then why do you agree in my case? I'm not near native in Japanese like you said one had to be. I AM near native in English. Shouldn't I use English instead of Japanese then, by your logic?

leosmith wrote:

Sounds like the right decision for you. But the debate would be between English and Swedish, rather than English and Japanese, right?

Right, but I've only studied a language in Swedish once, and that was Spanish. Since then I've always used English to learn languages, and seeing from my nonexistant ability to speak Spanish, it's safe to say I think English is a better language to learn other languages in.

This are the reasons:
1. Easier to find resources. You covered this in your exceptions though.
2. Easier to find help. Probably part of the above reason so never mind.
3. One has better grammatical knowledge of a second language than a first one. This is simply true. If you ask me why one says something in a special way in Swedish, there's no way I can explain that to you, I have no idea myself. But if you ask my the difference between who and whom in English, I can tell you what makes them different. When learning a new language, being able to relate the grammatical points like this is a huge advantage, which you can't possibly get while learning in your L1. That's my main point for saying that if you're at intermediate level or above in an L2 or L3 and have no imediate reason to use your native tongue (If I wanted to learn Danish, I would use Swedish no matter what) use your most fitting secondary language.