luke wrote:Anyone, meaning all in the set who can read a piano reduction with any degree of accuracy and any level of facility? Anyone who has some ability has as much ability as everyone else?
More or less yes. A piano score is not a doddle. However the real point is that the orchestral score is what represents the orchestral performance. Those with 'some' ability probably won't be having a crack at the bigger score, it would mean learning more of the general language. Not running a comparison with anything.
luke wrote:That's why the translation should be faithful and literary. Ideas in one language are translatable to another.
It doesn't matter if it's the best translation ever made in the history of mankind, it is another language with another structure and character. If you want to learn to read a long Greek novel, get good at reading Greek first in steps, then read a long Greek novel. Perhaps one you've read in English. The two never need meet in any other way.
luke wrote:What are these ideas transmitted with?
Different, sometimes mutually unintelligible, languages. Decipherable at the output/reception end by people who understand them.
luke wrote:You can imagine how the quality of the translation might make a difference though, right?
A difference to the person reading that translation only. Transmitting the same idea well doesn't necessarily mean more closely aligning with the structure of the original language.
luke wrote:Can you think of a parallel text as a bridge for the gap between the two languages?
Yes of course, as a side-by-side text translation if that's what someone is looking for. That's different than having a mismatching text/audio though. Can't see any point in that.
luke wrote:If they can't, they can't listen-read.
Why should they be able to? Can you listen to the current book you're reading in Inuit from having read it in Spanish?
luke wrote:Listen-reading is built around that mysterious notion of "acquisition".
That's true, yet you don't need to acquire your native language alongside or fool about with some book of it while listening to the audio of a book you are learning. Your native language is already present in your head, solidly fixed-in. You;ll refer back to it automatically because it's a tool you've mastered. So listening-reading to a target language book is it! That's the one. L1 book to orient you (then set fire to this or put it back on the shelf because you don't no longer need it) and get on the L2. That's listening-reading.
Aya with sentence simplification for clarification wrote:READ the translation a split second before the matching text in the recording reaches your brain and simultaneously attach that meaning to what you're hearing.
Matching written texts? Why? That's not how language acquisition works. This is the bit I think is complete quackery. I'm sure the person is a marvellous person with the best intentions, but it's just some utterance.
luke wrote:If Juan, Vlad and Pierre can't read the text well enough, with enough extra mental bandwidth to be aware that the audio narration is expressing the exact same ideas in the language they want to learn AND mentally link their mental representation of what's happening RIGHT NOW in the text to what they're hearing RIGHT NOW, and keep that "what I'm hearing and what I'm reading are THE SAME" going, they aren't listening-reading.
Now that's interesting. Yet why? Why not listen to L1 and then immediately L2? Why not listen L1 audio and read L2 text. It's just random stuff passed off as a system. Shotgun approach. I don't know why people so strenuously want to take a really good thing like reading books and following the audio, which is a really excellent way of getting input, and add all this sorcery rubbish around it.
Shall we all agree to just leave it, because I doubt there'll be an agreement on this? And it's getting long and silly. This thread can just carry on with people reporting their breakthroughs.