Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How do you measure up?

There is no reason why millions of people should learn two or three languages during the school years, when only a very small fraction will have the opportunity to use these languages in later life and then most of them will therefore forget those languages completely.
 
Yes, my Latin is rusty, but I trust you got the point.

I happen to think learning a second language, or three, is a good thing. That is one area where we Americans fail miserably. We should all at least try to learn conversational Spanish so we can communicate with the beaners when we order burritos at Taco Bell™.
 
Messenger said:
There is no reason why millions of people should learn two or three languages during the school years, when only a very small fraction will have the opportunity to use these languages in later life and then most of them will therefore forget those languages completely.
Click to expand...
To take an instance: Out of 100,000 students who learn French there are probably not 2,000 who will be in a position to make use of this accomplishment in later life, while 98,000 will never have a chance to utilize in practice what they have learned in youth. They have spent thousands of hours on a subject which will afterwards be without any value or importance to them. The argument that these matters form part of the general process of educating the mind is invalid. It would be sound if all these people were able to use this learning in after life. But, as the situation stands, 98,000 are tortured to no purpose and waste their valuable time, only for the sake of the 2,000 to whom the language will be of any use.
 
Gurk_MacGuintey said:
Yes, my Latin is rusty, but I trust you got the point.

I happen to think learning a second language, or three, is a good thing. That is one area where we Americans fail miserably. We should all at least try to learn conversational Spanish so we can communicate with the beaners when we order burritos at Taco Bell™.
Click to expand...
In the case of that language which I have chosen as an example it cannot be said that the learning of it educates the student in logical thinking or sharpens his mental acumen, as the learning of Latin, for instance, might be said to do. It would therefore be much better to teach young students only the general outline, or, better, the inner structure of such a language: that is to say, to allow them to discern the characteristic features of the language, or perhaps to make them acquainted with the rudiments of its grammar, its pronunciation, its syntax, style, etc. That would be sufficient for average students, because it would provide a clearer view of the whole and could be more easily remembered.
 
Lilith said:
So, do you know any languages Mess?
Click to expand...
A reform of particular importance is that which ought to take place in the present methods of teaching history. Scarcely any other people are made to study as much of history as the Germans, and scarcely any other people make such a bad use of their historical knowledge. If politics means history in the making, then our way of teaching history stands condemned by the way we have conducted our politics. But there would be no point in bewailing the lamentable results of our political conduct unless one is now determined to give our people a better political education. In 99 out of 100 cases the results of our present teaching of history are deplorable. Usually only a few dates, years of birth and names, remain in the memory, while a knowledge of the main and clearly defined lines of historical development is completely lacking. The essential features which are of real significance are not taught. It is left to the more or less bright intelligence of the individual to discover the inner motivating urge amid the mass of dates and chronological succession of events.
 
Messenger said:
In the case of that language which I have chosen as an example it cannot be said that the learning of it educates the student in logical thinking or sharpens his mental acumen, as the learning of Latin, for instance, might be said to do. It would therefore be much better to teach young students only the general outline, or, better, the inner structure of such a language: that is to say, to allow them to discern the characteristic features of the language, or perhaps to make them acquainted with the rudiments of its grammar, its pronunciation, its syntax, style, etc. That would be sufficient for average students, because it would provide a clearer view of the whole and could be more easily remembered.
Click to expand...

Good point. I had to study and learn Latin as part of my curriculum. Having studied Spanish years before stood me in good stead and allowed me to pick up the Latin much easier. Of course, it would have been much easier had it been the other way round and I learned Latin first then moved on to the modern romance languages. It also engendered an appreciation for the versatility and beauty of English, a language that I believe allows more precise communication than any other.
 
Gurk_MacGuintey said:
Good point. I had to study and learn Latin as part of my curriculum. Having studied Spanish years before stood me in good stead and allowed me to pick up the Latin much easier. Of course, it would have been much easier had it been the other way round and I learned Latin first then moved on to the modern romance languages. It also engendered an appreciation for the versatility and beauty of English, a language that I believe allows more precise communication than any other.
Click to expand...
I fully agree. English is one of the most versatile languages on the planet.

If you are in general agreement with what I posted, you might want to glance at this page here.
 
Messenger said:
In 99 out of 100 cases the results of our present teaching of history are deplorable. Usually only a few dates, years of birth and names, remain in the memory, while a knowledge of the main and clearly defined lines of historical development is completely lacking. The essential features which are of real significance are not taught. It is left to the more or less bright intelligence of the individual to discover the inner motivating urge amid the mass of dates and chronological succession of events.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree. You can make good points when you're not being a dick. The problem with the teaching of history in the US is the fact that academia has been infected with marxist bugs who lock out those interested in such scholarship who do not fit the ideological mold. Luckily for me I was at University when there were still a few old crusty conservatives teaching. But even so, I was told point blank by no less a personage than Stanley Fish that I shouldn't bother pursuing a career in academia due to my outspoken conservatism. This was in the early 80's - it's only gotten worse since then.
 
Listen, I'm in agreement with all this myself, but what I've posted is nothing more than text from Mein Kampf.
 
Messenger said:
I fully agree. English is one of the most versatile languages on the planet.

If you are in general agreement with what I posted, you might want to glance at this page here.
Click to expand...

Read it long ago. I am a capitalist and a libertarian and an AMERICAN. I despise all forms of collectivism.
 
Messenger said:
Listen, I'm in agreement with all this myself, but what I've posted is nothing more than text from Mein Kampf.
Click to expand...


Really? I don't remember that passage - but even so, the point is well made. Consider me trolled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top