Starting French

[pir]

I went through cognate lists I got from the web, noted the differences, and then classified them into groups. I'm sure Margarita Madrigal wasn't the only one who has figured those out, and there are likely lists on the web, but I wanted to do this myself because I learn more from puzzling things out. It was not hard, and I got to read a lot of French words I actually understood.

Cognate spelling shifts between English and French, endings only, no accents:

• a -> e (banana -> banane, antenna -> antenne, spatula -> spatule)
• ade = ade (parade, marmalade,
• al = al (local, diagonal, facial, fatal, canal, moral, verbal, municipal) -- careful, some -al change to -el instead
• al -> el (manual -> manuel, official -> officiel, sensual -> sensuel)
• ant = ant (restaurant, important, distant, vacant, vibrant)
• ary -> aire (vocabulary -> vocabulaire, anniversary -> anniversaire, dictionary -> dictionnaire)
• ble = ble (possible, probable, terrible, variable)
• ent = ent (client, excellent, absent, accent, accident) -- careful, some -ent change to -ant instead
• ent -> ant (absorbent -> absorbant, consistent -> consistant, persistent -> persistant)
• ce = ce (ambulance, arrogance, substance, intelligence, importance)
• ian -> ien (musician -> musicien, optician -> opticien, Italian -> italien, Canadian -> canadien)
• in = in (cousin, bulletin, assassin) -- this one's iffy, some -in become -ine as well
• ine = ine (machine, discipline, famine, marine, routine)
• ing -> ant (charming -> charmant, amusing -> amusant, insulting -> insultant)
• ion = ion (nation, conversation, invitation, religion, variation, transformation)
• ic -> ique (pacific -> pacifique, automatic -> automatique, fantastic -> fantastique)
• ical -> ique (classical -> classique, historical -> historique, typical ->typique)
• id -> ide (candid -> candide, avid -> avide, liquid -> liquide, humid -> humide)
• ide = ide (guide, homicide, suicide)
• ive -> if, ive = ive for feminine form (active -> actif / active, positive -> positif / positive)
• ist -> iste (artist -> artiste, optimist -> optimiste, pessimist -> pessimiste)
• or -> eur (actor -> acteur, instructor -> instructeur, doctor -> docteur)
• ory -> oire (history -> histoire, accessory -> accessoire, victory -> victoire)
• ous -> eux (joyous -> joyeux, furious -> furieux, ambitious -> ambitieux, nervous -> nerveux)
• sm -> sme (optimism -> optimisme, criticism -> criticisme, enthusiasm -> enthusiasme)
• ty -> té (activity -> activité, curiosity -> curiosité, integrity -> integrité)
• ude = ude (attitude, gratitude, latitude, longitude, solitude)
• ure = ure (nature, culture, cure, fracture, texture)
• y -> ie (battery -> batterie, copy -> copie, sympathy -> sympathie, parody -> parodie)

This is just a preliminary result; there are a few more that I'm pondering. There are also easy ways to derive French verbs from English ones. Now, this isn't quite as automatic as it might look, and not quite as transparent as in Spanish; there are a lot of words that add accents in French, and some change other spellings. But I find those relatively easy once you get to the point where you know what French should sound like. And we're talking about a huge vocabulary (I'm thinking ~3000 words for my current goals) that can be divvied up in ~30 categories, so I think it's worthwhile doing. After going through these for a while, and also listening to a lot of native audio, they start to come to you on their own, and I don't know that I'll ever even put them into Anki. Will probably only do that with the false cognates.

A lot of cognates in French are not even purely academic words because English has such a long history of borrowing straight from French instead of going mostly through Latin, so they will be especially handy for conversation. For the exercises I am picking mostly words like that; as you can see from the above examples, those are not rarefied words.

Somebody asked about this in my log as well, so I'll make up an exercise there and point you to it when it's done.

[tarvos]

I always wonder why people hoard methods. One is enough, two if one isn't doing the trick for you. It is way more important to focus on one method and do it properly than half-ass five.

[AlexTG]

I always wonder why people hoard methods. One is enough, two if one isn't doing the trick for you. It is way more important to focus on one method and do it properly than half-ass five.

I completely disagree. Half-assing is a great strategy. As long as your version of half-assing isn't stopping after the first few lessons. Each course will give you lots of extra input with which to develop a good feel for the language and build vocabulary. Note that this isn't the same as the people who use courses interminably, if you're half-assing then each course will take a fraction of the time it takes others to over-learn their courses, and you'll be able to move on to native materials just as soon (and more smoothly, since you've had more varied input. The overlearners will be better at output than you, but will struggle more with reading native novels for instance).

[Bylan]

I always wonder why people hoard methods. One is enough, two if one isn't doing the trick for you. It is way more important to focus on one method and do it properly than half-ass five.

I can only agree with your opinion to a point. Everybody learns differently, it's po-tay-to vs. po-taw-to. Your "one is enough" is far too little for someone else. Your "hoard" is another's collection. Your "half-ass" is another's variation. Your "not doing the trick for you" is completely and utterly subjective.

Yes, you can work one method in many variations and try to squeeze everything you can out of it until it is committed to memory. You can work the pages 'til they color with the acid of your fingers. This is tried and true and is totally fine. And if the method is of real quality, then this is highly encouraged and can have great results.

But you know tarvos, I learned my first foreign language through a class, while at the same time making friends with natives, and eventually moving to that country and living there, and taking more classes, and then later different classes, meeting new friends, and eating new foods, and meeting more friends, and traveling to new places. I found that I was exposed to the same themes over a multitude of contexts, and it was the fact that I could connect the language from one context to another that deepened the learning most for me. You could say I worked one slice of a language across many situations until it was properly learned.

I've learned two languages with this kind of philosophy - that exposure now will become reinforcement later, as long as I keep up the input at an appropriate level. I don't sweat the details too often, I try to intake the messages. I worry about refinement once I've had enough reinforcement to know well what's going on. Iguanamon is a proponent of the multi-track approach, which advocates a similar idea. Professor Arguelles, someone who talks about working an Assimil course for an entire year to get absolutely everything out of it, encourages the use of four, five, six methods for one single language, to work the idea of reinforcement.

And at the end of the day, the goal is to learn the language. That's what is important to me. I use five or six methods and may not fully complete any one of them, but the amalgamation of them creates a positive feedback loop of reinforcement that helps me arrive at my goal, in good time, in my opinion. It does the "trick" for me.

You're an experienced polyglot, I feel like you'd have a healthy amount of respect for that. Po-tay-to, po-taw-to, it's still the same vegetable. I cook it differently, and it tastes good to me.

[tarvos]

I always wonder why people hoard methods. One is enough, two if one isn't doing the trick for you. It is way more important to focus on one method and do it properly than half-ass five.

I completely disagree. Half-assing is a great strategy. As long as your version of half-assing isn't stopping after the first few lessons. Each course will give you lots of extra input with which to develop a good feel for the language and build vocabulary. Note that this isn't the same as the people who use courses interminably, if you're half-assing then each course will take a fraction of the time it takes others to over-learn their courses, and you'll be able to move on to native materials just as soon (and more smoothly, since you've had more varied input. The overlearners will be better at output than you, but will struggle more with reading native novels for instance).

There is a very big difference between half-assing and picking and choosing material (I do the latter too) but I really think that most textbook overlearning is overkill. If I had to work my way through five textbooks and see five versions of the same declension table, grammar rule or textbook I'd be out of there in a jiffy. Especially for French, since the real morphology is just verb tables for the most part (and e(s) for adjectives/nouns). If you get a good overview of what the morphology is, you don't need that many textbooks for grammar. Most textbooks focus on that sort of thing and they don't really have good texts. The reason Arguelles suggests Assimil is because their texts are actually useful.

Vocabulary, now there I agree you need repetition, in fact you need it to be the mother of all repetitions, but what you need is repetitions in different contexts and five different textbooks ain't gonna give you that much, given they are mostly going to cover the same topics. I've done the whole different textbooks approach for Russian and in the end I found it unnecessary. I should have used more native materials instead. If by half-ass you mean "skip what you don't need" it's another story, but 99% of times when we see plans like this here people use courses interminably. If the OP is smart enough to avoid that it's great, but then I didn't get from the OP's post that they were gonna skip half the material.

I get most of my input from native materials, which is a better place to meet vocabulary in context. And you can start with native material from almost day 1 imho.

[Bylan]

I always wonder why people hoard methods. One is enough, two if one isn't doing the trick for you. It is way more important to focus on one method and do it properly than half-ass five.

If by half-ass you mean "skip what you don't need" it's another story, but 99% of times when we see plans like this here people use courses interminably. If the OP is smart enough to avoid that it's great, but then I didn't get from the OP's post that they were gonna skip half the material.

Now wait a minute it, is it half-assing the methods or not being smart enough to skip what I don't need? Your point is unclear, and muddied in a thick layer of critical presumption and elitist condescension, neither of which is welcome.

[tarvos]

Half-assing is always bad no matter what you are doing.

I didn't get from your OP that you were going to be savvy about what you are taking from your textbooks. If you do so you will be fine. My point is that many newbies buy books and hoard, and then never get anywhere - we get lots of threads like that. That is what I am warning against. It's a common trap.

[Bylan]

Half-assing is always bad no matter what you are doing.

I didn't get from your OP that you were going to be savvy about what you are taking from your textbooks. If you do so you will be fine. My point is that many newbies buy books and hoard, and then never get anywhere - we get lots of threads like that. That is what I am warning against. It's a common trap.

Half-assing is always bad, I agree with this (though AlexTG makes a great point). So rather than half-assing your posts with indirect inferences and presumptions on my experience and savviness, why don't you ask some questions and offer some real advice? I am always open to everyone's perspective, especially when it's put forward in a constructive, well-thought manner.

Btw, my HTLAL account says I joined January 2010. Hardly a newb

[AlexTG]

Half-assing is always bad no matter what you are doing.

Half-assing is always bad, I agree with this

Back in university I realised something that taught me a very important life lesson: I got about the same marks for essays I'd half-assed as for essays I'd slaved over. Why? Well because I knew what I was talking about and that came through no matter how poorly written the essay was. After I realised this I began handing in first drafts, and I wrote the first drafts much faster than I had previously. But I continued to get good marks, which was the point of writing the essays.

Just because you're doing something doesn't mean you have to do it well. Doing things well takes time and concentration and often your time and concentration could be better spent.

[iguanamon]

...Just because you're doing something doesn't mean you have to do it well. Doing things well takes time and concentration and often your time and concentration could be better spent

.
I see this so many times with monolingual adult raw beginners (or those who have never self-learned a language before). They feel as if they must master every nuance, every scintillating detail in a course. "Ooooh, I'm starting to learn "X". I'm so excited. I've got Assimil 'New X with ease' and I'm going to enter everything into Anki." On the surface that does seem like a good idea to someone who has never learned a second language before. How could it not work?

I'm not a linguist or a second language acquisition expert. What I think happens is that the language becomes less of a way to communicate and morphs into more of a thing to be studied, to be memorized. In this way, the language becomes less of a way to communicate or a means of understanding, and becomes more like a "thing". It doesn't get internalized. It gets memorized.

The instructions to Pimsleur tell the user to master at least 80% of the dialog and then "move on". It says that if the learner doesn't master 80% to do the lesson over again until 80% is achieved. It also asks the learner not to use the pause button. This is so hard for some to do. The thing is, the course is trying to teach automaticity in speech and comprehension. The words will come up again, if you move on.

To some people this is anathema. Some people just don't move on. Some people won't move on because how can they move on when they haven't mastered everything! In my experience, an important part of language-learning is gathering momentum- building a snowball. The snowball may start off ugly and chunky with a lot of voids, but as it rolls downhill it gathers more snow and the voids get filled in along the way and eventually the snowball is nice and round and rolling very well gathering even more snow as it rolls. This is what "moving on" means. There is such a thing as good enough- good enough to move on. By moving on, the gaps and voids will be filled and the snowball will build.

I may be wrong, but I think this is part of what AlexTG is implying (in the context of language-learning).