What does 'en' in French mean in English ?

[Chancer]

"Couldn't say "aqua" like the Spanish do"

 

But they dont say that do they?

 

Agua is one of the very few words that I recall, I passed through Aguascalientes on my way to Macchu Picchu after an intensive course in Spanish, mostly forgotten now.

 

Except on Saturday nights I have been watching 2 seasons of the best TV drama I have ever seen, made in Spain and called "Sequierés" (probably some accents missing) - "I know who you are" absolutely rivetting, sub-titled in English and 2 hours at a time all the Spanish vocab and grammar is slowly coming back.

 

I'd love for my next work avoidance scheme to be in a Spanish speaking country.

[Chancer]

French people are always saying to me "Oh but French is much harder to learn than English dont you think?"

 

I reply why ask me? its not as if I were Spanish and had chosen between learning either English or French and its not a competition either, it is what it is.

[BritinBretagne]

There are 26 letters in the English alphabet but 44 individual sounds or phonemes. If that was not complicated enough there are consonant digraph where specific pairs of letters eg br and sh combine to make specific sounds. British children are taught phonics as a part of their reading but that is not enough as many English words are not phonetic and most readers use very few phonetic clues once they become more fluent. Reading in English is a combination of many things, phonics, word recognition (graphemes) and contextual clues all help. Choosing the correct pronunciation also needs some knowledge at times, bow of a ship, bow and arrow, I want to read that book, I read that book yesterday. Not easy. English speakers who learn another language like French have to forget so much of what they know instinctively, the phonics, digraphs et al don’t work as expected. For that reason it’s a good idea to listen to the spoken language via TV, radio and songs to link the sound of words to their written form. One thing that makes English reasonably straightforward for some people is that they are bombarded by the sound and patterns of it through popular music. Some languages like German are straightforward when it comes to pronunciation because it, unlike English, is phonetic and the vast majority of words can be sounded out phonetically once the individual letter sounds and common diagraphs are mastered. There are complications, however, church and cherry share the same spelling but are pronounced quite differently. Once you have learned to read and say words correctly in a second language the fun begins. Many languages including French and German give their nouns gender and the vocabulary has to be learnt to get anywhere. Then there are the little things like the conjugation of verbs, tenses, accents, sentence structure and syntax. Even when you’ve got a handle in that stuff jargon, slang and local variations appear to throw you off course. It’s not easy and is a process best attempted when young and immersed amongst others speaking the same way.

[alittlebitfrench]

The problem with all this is of course is that the British move to France and the first thing they do is install a 5m wide satellite dish to receive UK telly.

Not a good idea methinks. I don't watch UK telly but I can watch French telly and I am the worlds worst person in languages. Always have been and always will be. I had to retake 'English' a few times at school.

I have not learnt French I acquired it. Never read a book like 'learning French' or 'French for beginners'.

Can you learn French from a book ? No !! You have to acquire it. So turn off your UK telly and BBC radio 4.

[YCCMB]

I can't get French telly in my French house. Seriously. I can get snow. Luckily, it hasn't held me back. In fact, I can get more French telly on BBC4 and All4 than I've probably ever seen in France.

Unfortunately, as my long experience reaching French qnd English to adult learners has shown me, one size doesn't fit all.

Let's face it, when you learn your native language, it's by osmosis as much as anything. Adults want to know why, and how, and get all tangled up in the reason for something being the way it is. Like what is "en" in English, for example. ?

[idun]

ALBF, just like me then.

And about 15 years, maybe more of french tv exclusively, with the odd VO film late on a Friday night, old films often in black and white, but heyho, that was it!

And also my english is not great, and that is 'my' language.

I just went with it, got lots of things wrong, but learnt from it most of the time.

[Chancer]

I am proud to say that I hade exclusively French TV until a couple of years ago.

 

I am ashamed to say that since getting a sky box I almost never watch any French TV, I put on un village français last night but ended up just listening to the sound while at the computer.

[woolybanana]

Krashen developed a theory based on acquisition v learning; the former subconscious picking up of language whilst the latter is conscious.

So, a child dumped into a brand new foreign language speaking situation will listen a lot, internalize a grammar rule set and eventually start coming out with spoken language (all being well). This will be the spoken language it hears round about which has its own subset of rules and pronunciation.

The theory goes that as we get older, this language acquisition device dies off, or at least slows down, so we have to learn language through learning situations, such as language classes.

Not the best way to learn in my view, just as languages learned at school are often unsuccessful.

Plus, being older, we don't like being deskilled, which is what learning something new does, prticularly a language.

[alittlebitfrench]

That is very interesting Wooly.

I am convinced that you cannot learn the language that people use on a day to day basis with books. Language books don't teach you anything practical.

You have to acquire it. You can think you are fluent in French but in reality you are not. If you know what i mean. Innit.

I like watching the M6 programmes in the evening. I just can't watch UK telly. I have it....but I can't watch it. Nothing interests me.

I have Netflix though. Which is cool.

[idun]

We used to have LOUSY tv reception in France, truly awful, had two ariels and those thingys that are supposed to improve the signal and do a little.

And then we got UK tv and the picture and sound were in comparison a miracle, superb. Hard to watch a bad image/sound after that, so we bought a dish and everything for french tv and would you believe that we had a mountain in the way and could not get it. Just the wrong angle, no idea if there were other french tv satellites available and we gave up on it.

Now happily watch stuff on TV5 Monde on SKY 796, and try and have the news on each night at 19h30 GMT. I need the music of the french language and don't need to watch, am happy to listen.

[YCCMB]

Totally agree, Wooly. Adult learners want to be able to learn another language so they can have conversations just like they do in their mother tongue, and in my limited experience they find it hard to accept that they can only do so if they're prepared to try and do it using the acquired vocabulary of a six year old. Those who do manage to accept their limitations will progress and develop their skills in another language. Those who don't will struggle and probably give up.

Listening to a language, either on TV or radio, is helpful. Of course it is. It doesn't improve all the necessary skills, though, as language is made up of the four skills of speaking, listening,reading and writing. If you think about it, you can't really get by with any less than two of those, and if you do master two, you're still only halfway there.

I got pretty competent in French without ever having much access to French TV. When I first lived in France I had neither a TV or a radio, so it's helpful but by no means essential, nor an indispensable route to language fluency. I had to talk and listen to real people. That works surprisingly well.

[BritinBretagne]

I think you are missing the point about TV and radio. They are not essential to learning a new language but they are invaluable when it comes to linking vocabulary and pronunciation. They also help with syntax and sentence structure. Subtitles may help with understanding but the quality of them is inconsistent, many just give a précis of what was said to help viewers to follow the plot where others, like on Le Village Français, are written word for word.

Most people arriving in France are concerned with learning to speak French so to them speaking and listening are more important than reading and writing. In fact, in my case, reading becomes fairly straightforward and writing correctly remains the biggest challenge. I can read French texts as well as I can speak the language. I can read German texts better than I can speak the language and because I have the basics in German I can read quite a bit in Dutch without actually being able to speak more than a few words.

Language is complex and having to use it and listening to it being spoken in context is a great way to acquire it. Of course lessons will reinforce the basic skills but they are limited in isolation. For most people the goal is communication not the ability to speak like a native.

[YCCMB]

Don't really think I am missing the point. Having studied French for 50 years and taught it (and English) for 15 after having a series of jobs where I used French on a daily basis, I've seen and heard pretty much the full gamut of how people learn to communicate. Using TV and radio is certainly great, but in isolation it can only take you so far. You've got to be able to remember and replicate what you have learned, and understand the register and context of the language. Listening isn't participative. You might develop a great passive vocabulary but unless you are able to speak and convert that into an active vocabulary it's not necessarily helpful.

Some people learn by doing, but not all. Some people actually prefer a teacher, or a textbook, because that's their preferred learning method. Some people have to work very hard to progress, others find it all falls into place quite easily.

The point I'm making (not the point I'm supposed to be missing) is that no two people are the same.

I have asked the question on many occasions of my students (of English) and no more than a handful of the hundreds I've taught have ever made the switch to watching UK TV. They come to England, and they watch TV from their own country in their own language, either via a satellite dish or online. For the most part, they also socialise with people from their own country. For some, it inhibits their progress in English, for others it makes not a scrap of difference.

[BritinBretagne]

You’ve obviously made your mind up. However for others learning the language it’s certainly worth doing. Lots of positive reasons no negative. What’s to lose?

I’m reasonably good on both the theory and practise of learning too, languages included.

[mint]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]Don't really think I am missing the point. Having studied French for 50 years and taught it (and English) for 15 after having a series of jobs where I used French on a daily basis, I've seen and heard pretty much the full gamut of how people learn to communicate. Using TV and radio is certainly great, but in isolation it can only take you so far. You've got to be able to remember and replicate what you have learned, and understand the register and context of the language. Listening isn't participative. You might develop a great passive vocabulary but unless you are able to speak and convert that into an active vocabulary it's not necessarily helpful.

Some people learn by doing, but not all. Some people actually prefer a teacher, or a textbook, because that's their preferred learning method. Some people have to work very hard to progress, others find it all falls into place quite easily.

The point I'm making (not the point I'm supposed to be missing) is that no two people are the same.

I have asked the question on many occasions of my students (of English) and no more than a handful of the hundreds I've taught have ever made the switch to watching UK TV. They come to England, and they watch TV from their own country in their own language, either via a satellite dish or online. For the most part, they also socialise with people from their own country. For some, it inhibits their progress in English, for others it makes not a scrap of difference.[/quote]

Can't fault anything you have said here, Betty.

I watch UK TV and TBH, if I was learning English from just doing that, I'd be completely bogged down and bewildered by now.  I know I have ONLY been out of the UK for 10 years (not counting a 10-day visit 9 years ago) but, when I watch news, current affairs and discussion programmes, I often find it difficult to fully understand what is being said[:-))]

It's absolutely NOT the case to say that learning from books slow you down.  Au contraire, there is nothing like a book (well, maybe a book PLUS a good teacher!) to teach you grammar.  On a personal note, Betty, I am s-l-o-w-l-y working through that Intermediary Grammar book you recommended to me.  I do every so often promise myself I will work consciously through it but there are always more exciting things to learn than grammar[:$]

[BritinBretagne]

Who has suggested that anyone should try to learn a foreign language by watching TV? The suggestion came after one poster had pointed out how he couldn’t read or say words phonetically because when he did the words sounded wrong. Listening to the spoken language as often as possible can act as a useful link between seeing a word written down and understanding how it is spoken. For others who want more the same approach would prove invaluable when it comes to choice of vocabulary and sentence structure.

[woolybanana]

Agreed BinB.

But what we forget is that we each have different learning styles, depending on personality, cognitive processes and previous learning experience. These may improve or impede are learning.

Some people are happy to learn by involvement, others want a structured approach and the support of a class and teacher, others want grammar, grammar, grammar.

Some of my last batches of students at ULg, were addicted to grammar and claimed thy cold not learn without it. Strangely these were usually students in the Arts faculties. I put it down to their not being risk takers. However, those in the Science and related fields were, it seemed, much more willing to push out their little boats and see what happened.

Needless to say, those in the latter faculties were much better speakers of the language, on average.

(I am aware that I am simplifying complex issues here but don't wanna spend all day writing as there are free pallets to be had to make composters an' I wanna grab my share!)

[BritinBretagne]

Believe me I know all about the different needs for individuals and differentiation in learning situations.

[Chancer]

And I think its fair to say that anyone lacking or denied any one of them whether it be by circumstances or choice will be disadvantaged.

 

Someone who chooses to avoid grammar, text books and formal Learning because "its not for them" is very unlikely to be have the ability or confidence to compose a written communication and will be disadvantaged, at the very least reliant on a partner to do it for them.

 

I took an intensive Spanish course where once you had paid your money and signed the papers English (or your native tongue) was never spoken again even if you had a heart attack, all the teaching aids were pictures and word cards produced for toddlers, it was very very powerfull learning coupled with living with a host family that would lose their contract if they ever spoke or replied to you anything but Spanish.

We did learn conjugation on the blackboard of basic verbs, dont think we even covered any verb groups, there were no text books or grammar books at that beginner level, we had to learn the old standby "I am going" + verb infinitif for the future tense to pass our exams.

 

Any further studies to the next level would have involved some serious grammar learning and written exercises, when I meet people who speak French and say "but not from books" their French sounds like my Spanish did when I could still use it.

[alittlebitfrench]

In between doing a bit of carrelaging (that is a French word by the way) today I was reading on another forum about someone telling everyone (who probably could not give a sh*it) that they have a home in Brittany ( en Bretagne as Chancer would say) and within 100 METRES of their house there are 4 other British couples/families who own property !!!!! What they live in a cul de sac in Brittany ??

Must be a bit awkward no ??? You open your front door in France in the morning to be welcomed by, hello, hi darling, alwight mate. Did you see strictly come dancing last night ? You could imagine them all washing their cars on their drive ways on a Sunday.

So I was thinking is learning French really that important for most British moving to France?

I am quite happy to stick with my French M6 in the evening. LOL. I could not be dealing with all that.

[andyh4]

ALBF

Well I cannot speak for most Brits - just this one, and yes speaking and reading French is essential. There are a few other Brits around but they are all second home owners. No Brits here from October to May.

I do agree that you cannot learn a language from a book and at the same time have to tell you that we are both wrong. It is (apparently) possible but maybe rather rare and very specific.

Some years ago when we had to sign the compromis de vente, OH did not trust my ability to translate the document and so asked a friend, whose husband was a friend of an official translator if he could translate a couple of important sections. (My translation proved to be pretty good and certainly good enough.) But in discussing the document with him, he told of a colleague who was an official Russian to German translator. He was self taught. Had no idea of how the individual characters were pronounced. Could not therefore speak single word. But was nevertheless able to translate (to an official and accredited level) written documents.

The strange thing is that if he could apply himself to understand what each hieroglyph sounded like, he would have been able to speak very well since Russian (like many Slavic languages) is phonetic.

[EuroTrash]

Yes, certain types of translation can be done like that - it's how they programme machine translation tools after all, googletranslate and deepl and suchlike, and machines do a pretty good job of translating contracts and suchlike documents where it is simply a matter of having a good database of words and phrases and replacing each term by its equivalent in the target language. A good linguist can do it, their brain is the database; it's a bit like code-cracking.

However that's not quite the same as having a competent working knowledge of the language that allows you to communicate feelings as well as facts and will get you through a variety of day to day situations where sentences aren't always carefully and precisely constructed and there are more nuances to be picked up on. That's where the human brain comes in, because translation becomes a 3 way process - absorb, process, re-express - and that's where the human brain has the edge over CAT tools so far, because they can't process the meaning, all they can do is translate words. I don't know if Russian has puns and wordplay but many languages do, and without knowing what the language sounds like, you won't be much good at translating marketing material, for instance, where creativity and wordplay is important and you need "le mot juste" to create a reaction in people. I think you can only get this "feel" for language by hearing it spoken around you.

[mint]

AND reading, ET!  All sorts of materials, tin labels to grand literature!  How else can you acquire a half decent vocabulary nevermind good sentence structure and clear communication?

As you know from elsewhere, ET, I am a fan of Fred Vargas.  How else could I have readily learnt all those swear words and expressions bordering on the vulgar and rude other than from Adamsberg and Danglard?[:D]

[EuroTrash]

Absolutely right Mint!

Oui ou merde?

(I got that one from Fred V - I often think it but I don't think I've ever dared say it yet!)

[EuroTrash]

Well I never - I didn't know the forum did that.

OUI OU M.E.R.D.E is what I meant.