From: Olga Bourlin (fauxever@sprynet.com)
Date: Wed May 15 2002 - 23:20:12 MDT
From: "Dossy" <dossy@panoptic.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
> On 2002.05.15, Olga Bourlin <fauxever@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >mj From: "Dossy" <dossy@panoptic.com>
> > To: <extropians@extropy.org>
> > Cc: "J. W. Harris" <index@cox.net>
>
> > > > What age should I start teaching my son a second language?
> > >
> > > Birth. Totally serious. The sooner you start, the sooner they'll
> > > learn it. There is no such thing as too early.
> >
> > Buy why?
>
> Because it's easier to learn languages at a young age than it is
> as an adult.
No argument there - of course it is. But that still doesn't answer my
question - "But why?" So a child learns a new language. Then what? The
language doesn't "stay" without a lot of high maintenance (and a language
will be forgotten faster than it took to learn it in the first place).
While learning a new language for a child is effortless - keeping that
language alive (when there is no practical reason for it, or if the language
is not heard often) is very time consuming and difficult to sustain. Is the
time and effort required to keep a language alive worth it? Apparently not,
from the looks of things - more and more languages are dying out.
Furthermore, these days, one can get around in the world very well knowing
just English. But in case one runs into a language problem somewhere, good
technology is already here to help us ask the natives those all important
questions: "Where is the restroom?" and the like. Pack some translating
technology in your duffel bag, and you'll be all set ...
Olga
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:07 MST