3 ms·
To make sure we're on the same page, at the level you describe, were you able to confidently watch YouTube videos on non-fiction topics like documentaries and g
by silverpepsi 3y ago
To make sure we're on the same page, at the level you describe, were you able to confidently watch YouTube videos on non-fiction topics like documentaries and generally always understand? Or for example dramas? Just checking because being able to produce language without matching listening skills to understand everything they say back is a kind of popular YouTube fake polyglot thing these days sadly, and listening is the most unfakeable skill of them all. No technique on earth can shortcut building the robust neural connections needed to instantaneous interpret unmodified native speech.
- watwut 3y agoDocumentaries yes, those are the easiest content to watch. Youtube did not existed and in general getting your hands on videos was hard. I was able to communicate with French tho. We traveled there and everyone lived in host family for over a week. There was no issue communicating with French, whether adults or peers. Most books were unpleasant to read, but I generally understood most of the normal ones. It just took too much effort and there were some paragraphs I did not understood here or there. Also, movies are much harder to understand then real people. I did not had any issue conversing with Americans for literally years and still can't understand movies fully. Maybe if you learn from movies entirely and watch them all the time it is different, but if the goal is actual communication it is not necessary benchmark. The issue here is that you or many people put absurdly high requirements as a benchmark for "knowing language" or "knowing enough to be useful" for the sake of an argument. Like dramas - they use weird vocabulary, phrasing and sentence structure. You can literally discuss philosophy in a language and still not understand that.