Post by Chrysi Cat Post by ***@gmail.com Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 17:22:50 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke Post by Oğuz Post by ***@gmail.com
I noticed the introduction for Christopher John Lonsdale (born 18
November 1958), a New Zealand psychologist, linguist and educator
You noticed what in there? Or, did you notice that there was an
introduction? Are you sure you know what "to notice" means?
Post by ***@gmail.com
The wikipedia told me that Chris Lonsdale theorized the role of
comprehensible input works and physiological training for the
acquisition process of any language into the timespan of some months.
And furthermore, I also found the speech titled with "Learn Any
Language in 6 Months" presented by Chris Lonsdale on youtube, see
http://youtu.be/ih3l7l_Mz6Q for detailed info.
Sounds like BS.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Any hints/experiences/comments about this theory will be highly appreciated.
I think the Army Language Schools of WWII did something like that
but the learning times were not all 6 months. As I remember 6 months
for Serbo-Croatian but a year for Chinese.
I imagine the schools are still with us but GOK what they do today.
My high school friend joined the army after graduation in 1956. He
was sent to the Army language school in Monterey, California to learn
Russian. He was there six months, and then spent the remainder of his
two-year obligation in Turkey translating Russian radio broadcasts.
I think the above present participle phrase can be rewording into the
translating Russian radio broadcasts = which is translating Russian radio broadcasts
No. No. Good effing GOD/DESS no, you are not right.
FAR fewer phrases need to begin with a proposition than you believe
In this case "translating Russian radio broadcasts" is a gerund. It is
the action the friend was primarily involved in for the remaining
eighteen months of his enlistment. It is POSSIBLE that BrE would require
a comma after "in Turkey" (and a corresponding pause if read aloud); AmE
This one actually incensed me so much that I left off a further
clarification. Even if it COULD take a preposition--this is REALLY not a
case of "needing" one, and it's not just unnecessary but actively
wrong--"which IS" is ridiculously bad in this case.
Tense is EVERYTHING in most even semi-standard dialects of English. Even
AAVE and Southern colloquial English have a full past/present
delineation; it's just that different verbs are used.
As far as I know there is not a single dialect of English where a
solitary "is" is EVER the proper conjugation for an event that took
place entirely in the past.
Post by Chrysi Cat Post by ***@gmail.com
In its original form without my rephrasing, it can be regarded as the
gerund apposition of *obligation*.
Am I right?
Post by Tony Cooper
Each transmission was translated by two Russian-speakers and the
transcripts compared by a third person.
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!