galaxyrocker wrote:Picaboo wrote:Etymological knowledge is neither necessary nor sufficient for [url]acquiring[/url]vocabulary. It's on par with mnemonics or anything else that provides hooks, meaning and context to a word. It is somewhat effective to get the word in and out of memory early on, but you really only truly acquire a word by seeing/hearing it in many different contexts, and possibly, using it in many.
Research on this that's not Krashen?
You're pushing that a bit far, particularly given...
I've definitely found etymology to help me in acquiring vocabulary,
...that you've just talked about "acquiring" vocabulary in a way that Krashen would have belittled as "learning" with his own unsupported distinction between acquisition and learning.
There is a self-evident fact that most natives learn their vocabulary just fine without knowing their cognates. Even Latinate medical terminology in English is learned as pattern-based jargon, without necessarily referring back to Latin explicitly. How many psychiatrists think of their job title as being Latin? Neurologists? Physiotherapists? Podiatrists?
Have you got any allergies? Is the etymology of the word "allergy" necessary to get help, or to provide help?
especially when I already knew a related language and could relate it to cognates or similar etymological things in the other language.
Your "especially" implies that it's helpful even if you don't know a related language. Is it?
I have learned Spanish having learned French and Italian, and knowing cognates was a great help, but if I didn't speak French, would French words help or be a waste of time?
See, the thing is that there's a notion of a "source" language being correct, and I've deliberately not mentioned the common source language (Latin) because I don't speak it.
Learning something only to identify the cognates doesn't seem a useful way to spend time.
I think learning vocabulary through ways you find interesting does more than anything else.
Has anyone said any different?
As far as I can see, the discussion has not been about whether Arguelles's way of learning words works for him, but whether it's a necessary precondition for learning, as he reportedly claims.
I don't see what you're arguing against here.