3 ms·

So, the tl;dr is that this guy discovered that using a dictionary is a good way of learning words in a different language. In more detail, there's an assertion

So, the tl;dr is that this guy discovered that using a dictionary is a good way of learning words in a different language. In more detail, there's an assertion and a proposed solution - and nothing to even remotely back up the assertion? Show me a page of Harry Potter in Spanish translated in this manner - I somewhat doubt it will make much sense.

ajuc 15y ago
That method of learning foreign language was adviced by David Snopek. American that learned Polish that way in 1 year (and speaks fluently - this is very hard for non-native Polish speakers, most people have problems with producing correct sentences at all after one year). His post about this: http://www.linguatrek.com/blog/2010/12/harry-potter-the-book-that-taught-me-polish http://www.linguatrek.com/blog/2010/12/harry-potter-the-book... You can guess surprisingly big part of a book basing just on the context and a few words you already know. That's how kids learn their native language. It's a good method, it worked for many people (including me:)) and I don't understand why are you arguing it isn't.
- mseebach 15y ago
  I'm not arguing it's a bad way to learn a language, although I can't see how it will help you pronounce, but that's a different discussion. Quite the opposite, I'm in deep agreement with the article's assertion that focussing on grammar is counter-productive. 20 common nouns, 20 common verbs, "please" and "thank you", and you're actually able to have a basic conversation. I'm saying that this guy starts off OK, then goes on to devise some code to do that, then declares success apparently without running the code and reasoning about the output. He says that 50 words are 50% - but his script stops at 20? And of those, he lists ten, which are, as others have pointed out, grammar artefacts and stopwords - completely without consequence to getting to read the book in question.

ajuc 15y ago

That method of learning foreign language was adviced by David Snopek. American that learned Polish that way in 1 year (and speaks fluently - this is very hard for non-native Polish speakers, most people have problems with producing correct sentences at all after one year). His post about this: http://www.linguatrek.com/blog/2010/12/harry-potter-the-book-that-taught-me-polish http://www.linguatrek.com/blog/2010/12/harry-potter-the-book... You can guess surprisingly big part of a book basing just on the context and a few words you already know. That's how kids learn their native language. It's a good method, it worked for many people (including me:)) and I don't understand why are you arguing it isn't.

mseebach 15y ago
I'm not arguing it's a bad way to learn a language, although I can't see how it will help you pronounce, but that's a different discussion. Quite the opposite, I'm in deep agreement with the article's assertion that focussing on grammar is counter-productive. 20 common nouns, 20 common verbs, "please" and "thank you", and you're actually able to have a basic conversation. I'm saying that this guy starts off OK, then goes on to devise some code to do that, then declares success apparently without running the code and reasoning about the output. He says that 50 words are 50% - but his script stops at 20? And of those, he lists ten, which are, as others have pointed out, grammar artefacts and stopwords - completely without consequence to getting to read the book in question.