A lot of people have trouble with languages, and think they're too difficult for them. They aren't easy to learn, but I think everyone has it within them to learn another language.
If you're able, going to a foreign country and immersing yourself in the language is the best method, I've come to learn. If you're really determined and able, go abroad.
But this isn't the only way to go about it, and for most people learning a language isn't that pressing a need. I thought I'd share what I've found out for those that want to learn without needing to travel.
Right now I'm learning Italian before I travel to Italy for vacation (its easier for me, as its very close to Spanish and French). I'm using a program called Pimsleur. I highly recommend this. I've done some research and it seems to be one of the better ones, and is also fairly easy to find on the internet.
It was originally a series of audio cassettes, but I just downloaded it (stole it) from the internet and put the MP3 files on my iPod. You're supposed to do one half hour lesson each day. You don't need to read anything while doing it, so you can do it while washing dishes or doing laundry, etc.
Words are explained to you, and you repeat after a native instructors voice. They make it easy to master the pronunciation. As you learn a few things, the instructor asks you how to say certain words and phrases. You are gradually given new vocabulary, and start having conversations with the native speakers on the recording. Because you have to say everything out loud first before it is corrected, you remember things very well. The program doesn't really allow you to forget anything, because you're constantly using the words, whereas you quickly forget things from a vocabulary list.
Their focus is on oral, not written, but oral is the most important part of a language, at least at first. You can pick up reading using another program once you know how to pronounce things, but otherwise it may just screw you up, because you can develop anglicized pronunciation.
We'll see how the results are when I get to Italy, but I think I'll be able to communicate fairly well. And the emphasis on pronunciation is very important. How you speak in a foreign language is crucial. Think of all the people you've met with lousy English accents, and how people react to that. I'd say the pimsleur course is useful even if someone wanted to improve pronunciation of a language they already know a bit of, such as French. You just have to make sure to repeat carefully, and always speak out loud.
The other excellent resource I have found is here. Someone has made available old courses used to train diplomats in the American foreign service. This also uses voice recordings of native speakers. The courses have a good reputation, and I believe they're quite effective, though I haven't used them yet myself (the italian audio recordings are missing). Best of all, they're free and easy to download available.
Anyway, both of these programs teach language in a structured way that encourages good pronunciation and rhythm. If you're interested in learning another language, or improving your French, they're an excellent starting point.
If you truly are interesting in learning a language, all you have to do is find 25-30 minutes each day. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the progress that you can make with these programs.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Manifestation
Today was a day of strikes and protests in France, even in my sleepy little town. People are annoyed about a variety of things: The crisis, job losses, government cuts to education and health care, money for banks and not for ordinary people, etc. Unions called for unity and a national day of rage.
Here I'd say 200 or 300 people showed up, including about 20 of my high school students. There probably would have been more, but today was unusually cold for the region, (-2?). The big protest here is that the surgical ward of the local hospital is being moved to a nearby town, for cost cutting. However, the surgical ward at the new hospital is already overcrowded. Though this was the main issue, people spoke of the others as well.
It ended with a march down the main street, and almost all of the local shops closed for two hours in sympathy. People carried signs and shouted slogans.
About 1000 people had turned up for a similar protest on Saturday. This is impressive because the town only has 8000 people. As far as I can remember, we don't do this sort of thing in Canada. It's particularly rare for our high school students to organize, march and strike (dude....we can strike?!) but commonplace here.
Here I'd say 200 or 300 people showed up, including about 20 of my high school students. There probably would have been more, but today was unusually cold for the region, (-2?). The big protest here is that the surgical ward of the local hospital is being moved to a nearby town, for cost cutting. However, the surgical ward at the new hospital is already overcrowded. Though this was the main issue, people spoke of the others as well.
It ended with a march down the main street, and almost all of the local shops closed for two hours in sympathy. People carried signs and shouted slogans.
About 1000 people had turned up for a similar protest on Saturday. This is impressive because the town only has 8000 people. As far as I can remember, we don't do this sort of thing in Canada. It's particularly rare for our high school students to organize, march and strike (dude....we can strike?!) but commonplace here.
Why we are hated
For christ's sake. During the Gaza war, 40 Palestinians were killed outside of a school, instead of inside.
Headline: "Account of Israeli attack doesn't hold up to scrutiny"
Obviously, this changes everything. Their families must be relieved. After all:
"While the killing of 43 civilians on the street may itself be grounds for investigation, it falls short of the act of shooting into a schoolyard crowded with refuge-seekers."
Keep this in mind the next time you plan to go on a murderous rampage inside a school. Killing the same people in a different way, outside of the school, may result in a lesser punishment, or no punishment at all.
Outside the confines of the school grounds, the humanity leaves their bodies, and they don't die the same deaths we do.
To be clear, accurate information is good to have. Nice to know the deaths happened outside the school, not inside. But the article presents this information as if it somehow demonstrates that the 43 people didn't really die. That the tears and screams of their families and friends are non-existent.
"we are pleased to inform you that all proper procedures and regulations were followed in the slaying of your loved ones. We hope this will allay any concerns you may have had as to the efficacy and justice of our actions.
Have a nice day."
Headline: "Account of Israeli attack doesn't hold up to scrutiny"
Obviously, this changes everything. Their families must be relieved. After all:
"While the killing of 43 civilians on the street may itself be grounds for investigation, it falls short of the act of shooting into a schoolyard crowded with refuge-seekers."
Keep this in mind the next time you plan to go on a murderous rampage inside a school. Killing the same people in a different way, outside of the school, may result in a lesser punishment, or no punishment at all.
Outside the confines of the school grounds, the humanity leaves their bodies, and they don't die the same deaths we do.
To be clear, accurate information is good to have. Nice to know the deaths happened outside the school, not inside. But the article presents this information as if it somehow demonstrates that the 43 people didn't really die. That the tears and screams of their families and friends are non-existent.
"we are pleased to inform you that all proper procedures and regulations were followed in the slaying of your loved ones. We hope this will allay any concerns you may have had as to the efficacy and justice of our actions.
Have a nice day."
Thursday, January 22, 2009
misnomer
I was reading at a visitor's pamphlet for Toronto (I may go to law school there next year), and I noticed that in the little Italy section, it said something to the effect that: "It exemplifies La Dolce Vita"
I found that funny, having just seen the movie. The Italian phrase literally means "the easy life" or "the sweet life", but the movie itself was a condemnation and mockery of the meaningless, ridiculous lives lived by the upper class shown in the film. La Dolce Vita was not a lifestyle to be emulated nor envied.
Expressions change with the times I guess. Take the phrase "The Ugly American" Nowadays people refer to that as something that they shouldn't be, and its taken to mean a loud, blustering idiot of a Yankee who travels abroad, doesn't speak the language or learn any of the customs and has a magical ability to offend people everywhere he goes. I've heard American tourists say "I don't want to be the ugly American".
The expression comes from a book about Indochina and foreign aid of the same name. But, in the book, the Ugly American is a kindly engineer who listened to the local people, learned their customs and helped them according to their needs. He was a positive example contrasted to the other blithering idiots that America sent abroad in the diplomatic service.
So a tourist should want to be the ugly American. But I'll admit its not a very glamorous name to aspire to. Perhaps they could model themselves after the Quiet American, also about Vietnam? It has a better ring to it.
Unfortunately, he was a terrorist.
I'm not sure I had a point to this post.
I found that funny, having just seen the movie. The Italian phrase literally means "the easy life" or "the sweet life", but the movie itself was a condemnation and mockery of the meaningless, ridiculous lives lived by the upper class shown in the film. La Dolce Vita was not a lifestyle to be emulated nor envied.
Expressions change with the times I guess. Take the phrase "The Ugly American" Nowadays people refer to that as something that they shouldn't be, and its taken to mean a loud, blustering idiot of a Yankee who travels abroad, doesn't speak the language or learn any of the customs and has a magical ability to offend people everywhere he goes. I've heard American tourists say "I don't want to be the ugly American".
The expression comes from a book about Indochina and foreign aid of the same name. But, in the book, the Ugly American is a kindly engineer who listened to the local people, learned their customs and helped them according to their needs. He was a positive example contrasted to the other blithering idiots that America sent abroad in the diplomatic service.
So a tourist should want to be the ugly American. But I'll admit its not a very glamorous name to aspire to. Perhaps they could model themselves after the Quiet American, also about Vietnam? It has a better ring to it.
Unfortunately, he was a terrorist.
I'm not sure I had a point to this post.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
powerful article on the gaza war
This article says pretty much everything that I wanted to say on the Gaza war, and more. It is written by Uri Avnery, an Israeli peace activist.
Take a look. It is pretty strong. If you disagree with any of it, try and figure out why you think its wrong.
http://counterpunch.org/avnery01122009.html
Take a look. It is pretty strong. If you disagree with any of it, try and figure out why you think its wrong.
http://counterpunch.org/avnery01122009.html
Monday, January 12, 2009
stuff white people like
Do anyone read that blog? It's eerily accurate. It's a satirical blog written by a white guy from Toronto who now lives in the states. It describes things that white, liberal, educated people from North America do or like, pretending to be an advice guide for non-white people who want to befriend white people.
Not to say that I act exactly like that site says people like me do....but its reasonably close. The weird part is, I thought I had learned to like some of those things independently, without influence from the larger culture as a whole.
Take this article, about taking a year off.
I'm doing that. Heck, I did both the things described. I worked with a development agency in a foreign country last year. Now I'm teaching English in another one. I might even backpack at the end. I write about it, including right now. And I feel a vague disdain for tourists of which I of course am one when I travel as well. If it were possible to make a living by writing a book about my experiences, I would do that instead of working. I did haggle while in Cuba, though I really didn't need to. And I am applying to law schools, and mentioned these things in the application essay. In fact, there's barely any of that post that doesn't describe me in some way.
Creepy.
Not to say that I act exactly like that site says people like me do....but its reasonably close. The weird part is, I thought I had learned to like some of those things independently, without influence from the larger culture as a whole.
Take this article, about taking a year off.
I'm doing that. Heck, I did both the things described. I worked with a development agency in a foreign country last year. Now I'm teaching English in another one. I might even backpack at the end. I write about it, including right now. And I feel a vague disdain for tourists of which I of course am one when I travel as well. If it were possible to make a living by writing a book about my experiences, I would do that instead of working. I did haggle while in Cuba, though I really didn't need to. And I am applying to law schools, and mentioned these things in the application essay. In fact, there's barely any of that post that doesn't describe me in some way.
Creepy.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
media bias
Since I've been in France, I've been reading Le Monde for my daily news. Its the equivalent of the New York Times or the Globe and Mail. I've found that its much, much better. The coverage is more in depth, and context is provided.
On some issues, I've noticed a substantial difference in coverage between the French press and the North American press. Take the recent Gaza war for example.
I read this in an article yesterday:
"Selon Amos Harel, correspondant militaire du quotidien israélien Ha'aretz, l'emploi d'une puissance de feu très lourde est le produit d'un choix délibéré de l'état-major. "A la suite du traumatisme de la guerre du Liban, en 2006, l'armée a réalisé que de fortes pertes saperaient le soutien populaire dont bénéficie la guerre et limiterait sa capacité à atteindre ses objectifs. Par conséquent, elle a décidé d'employer des tactiques agressives pour sauvegarder la vie de ses soldats." Cette option est d'autant plus facile à mettre en oeuvre que la presse étrangère, absente de Gaza, ne peut pas en décrire les ravages. "Quand nous soupçonnons qu'un combattant palestinien se cache dans une maison, nous tirons un missile, puis deux obus de tank et enfin un bulldozer abat les murs. Cela fait des dégâts, mais nous évitons des pertes", explique un officier cité par le Ha'aretz."
For those who don't read French, this is someone from the Israeli army describing their targeting tactics. They suffered losses in the Lebanese war, and to avoid a repeat they have decided to employed heavy, indiscriminate fire. This option has been made easier by the lack of foreign press in Gaza. Says the officer: "If we suspect that a Palestinian fighter is hiding in a house, we first fire a missile, the two tanks rounds, and then finally bulldoze the house. It causes damages, but this way we avoid losses".
Then this morning I looked at the New York Times:
"Israeli officials said that they were examining all the allegations, that they did not aim at civilians and that they were not certain that the source of fire that killed and wounded the United Nations drivers was Israeli."
"We do our utmost to avoid hitting civilians, and many times we don’t fire because we see civilians nearby,” said Maj. Avital Leibovich, chief army spokeswoman for the foreign media. "
Night and Day.
On some issues, I've noticed a substantial difference in coverage between the French press and the North American press. Take the recent Gaza war for example.
I read this in an article yesterday:
"Selon Amos Harel, correspondant militaire du quotidien israélien Ha'aretz, l'emploi d'une puissance de feu très lourde est le produit d'un choix délibéré de l'état-major. "A la suite du traumatisme de la guerre du Liban, en 2006, l'armée a réalisé que de fortes pertes saperaient le soutien populaire dont bénéficie la guerre et limiterait sa capacité à atteindre ses objectifs. Par conséquent, elle a décidé d'employer des tactiques agressives pour sauvegarder la vie de ses soldats." Cette option est d'autant plus facile à mettre en oeuvre que la presse étrangère, absente de Gaza, ne peut pas en décrire les ravages. "Quand nous soupçonnons qu'un combattant palestinien se cache dans une maison, nous tirons un missile, puis deux obus de tank et enfin un bulldozer abat les murs. Cela fait des dégâts, mais nous évitons des pertes", explique un officier cité par le Ha'aretz."
For those who don't read French, this is someone from the Israeli army describing their targeting tactics. They suffered losses in the Lebanese war, and to avoid a repeat they have decided to employed heavy, indiscriminate fire. This option has been made easier by the lack of foreign press in Gaza. Says the officer: "If we suspect that a Palestinian fighter is hiding in a house, we first fire a missile, the two tanks rounds, and then finally bulldoze the house. It causes damages, but this way we avoid losses".
Then this morning I looked at the New York Times:
"Israeli officials said that they were examining all the allegations, that they did not aim at civilians and that they were not certain that the source of fire that killed and wounded the United Nations drivers was Israeli."
"We do our utmost to avoid hitting civilians, and many times we don’t fire because we see civilians nearby,” said Maj. Avital Leibovich, chief army spokeswoman for the foreign media. "
Night and Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)