Grammar while speaking

Ask specific questions about your target languages. Beginner questions welcome!
User avatar
aokoye
Black Belt - 1st Dan
Posts: 1818
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 6:14 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Languages: English (N), German (~C1), French (Intermediate), Japanese (N4), Swedish (beginner), Dutch (A2)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=19262
x 3309
Contact:

Re: Grammar while speaking

Postby aokoye » Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:49 am

Cainntear wrote:
neofight78 wrote:
aokoye wrote:Is it creating sentences that target the grammar I need to work on?


Yes, memorise sentences that illustrate the grammar points you want to perfect. Get used to repeating them out loud. Apply the same process to all your corrections.

I don't think that's what he was asking.

I think aokoye's talking about practicing making up different sentences, to practice the rule in different contexts, which I believe is pretty important. Repeating the same example sentence over and over again risks learning the sentence as a fixed phrase rather than learning the underlying grammar.

Exactly. You're spot on Cainntear - learning fixed phrases isn't useful to me at this point in the game - at least not with German (outside of idioms of course). Learning fixed phrases when I was figuring out how to navigate France as a tourist was useful because I could do a "fill in the blank" sort of thing, but that's not what I'm looking for with German.

My goal is to internalize grammar topics that I have issues with so I can spontaneously come up with sentences that correctly use said grammar.
0 x
Prefered gender pronouns: Masculine

User avatar
neofight78
Blue Belt
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:02 pm
Location: Novosibirsk, Russia
Languages: English (N), Russian (B2+), Spanish (A0)
Language Log: viewtopic.php?t=833
x 1232

Re: Grammar while speaking

Postby neofight78 » Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:23 am

aokoye wrote:My goal is to internalize grammar topics that I have issues with so I can spontaneously come up with sentences that correctly use said grammar.


Guys, I think you may have missed my point. The aim of the memorisation is not to know a stock of set phrases (although sometimes that also can be handy), the aim is to internalise the grammar through the memorisation process.

People like to talk about chunking on this forum, and this is exactly what one needs here. You present you brain with a bunch of stuff to learn, and it straightaway starts searching for patterns i.e. chunks, that reduce the complexity of what's being learned. This is what gives you the automaticity in the production of grammar.

Incidentally, I first came across this idea a long time ago in my chess playing days. There too people gave the advice of memorising the games of masters. Why? Not because you were going to repeat the same moves in one of you own games (you opponent is unlikely to cooperate in that!), but because the process of memorising stimulates the creation of chunks which are useful in your own games.

It works great for me and I know over people have found that approach helpful too. Maybe you don't want to try it, or may be it won't work for you, but I think it's worth consideration.

Cainntear wrote:Repeating the same example sentence over and over again risks learning the sentence as a fixed phrase rather than learning the underlying grammar.


It also runs this risk of learning and automatising the underling grammar. It works for me at least.
5 x

User avatar
Voytek
Green Belt
Posts: 407
Joined: Fri May 13, 2016 3:36 pm
Location: Chiang Rai (Thailand)
Languages: polski (N)
English(C2)
español(C2)
svenska (C1)
日本語 (A1)
ภาษาไทย (dabbling)
x 346

Re: Grammar while speaking

Postby Voytek » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:29 pm

Or you can write German and send your texts here and ask native speaker for help in correcting them.

http://lang-8.com/
0 x
Exposure to Swedish-RL-building stage: 30 / 300
Exposure to Spanish-RL-final stage: 300 / 1500

Cainntear
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3468
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Scotland
Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc
x 8661
Contact:

Re: Grammar while speaking

Postby Cainntear » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:38 pm

neofight78 wrote:Guys, I think you may have missed my point.

Nope -- we fundamentally disagree with it.

First up, memorisation is a very different process from internalisation.

The aim of the memorisation is not to know a stock of set phrases (although sometimes that also can be handy), the aim is to internalise the grammar through the memorisation process.
...
It works great for me and I know over people have found that approach helpful too. Maybe you don't want to try it, or may be it won't work for you, but I think it's worth consideration.

But aokoye already said that he has tried it, and he used it the way I would: an example used as a proxy for (or a supplement to) a rule, which can then (like a rule) be manipulated consciously to create a meaningful utterance. But that's not internalisation -- it's the step before. It is only through applying the rule that it can be internalised, and while memorising the rule means it's available to us when we want to apply it, it remains a step that occurs before internalisation, and it's not strictly a necessary one -- Michel Thomas (love him or loathe him) was extremely successful in teaching grammar without the use of model sentences.

People like to talk about chunking on this forum, and this is exactly what one needs here. You present you brain with a bunch of stuff to learn, and it straightaway starts searching for patterns i.e. chunks, that reduce the complexity of what's being learned. This is what gives you the automaticity in the production of grammar.

But that cuts both ways. A "chunk" is a series of words/word-forms that frequently co-occur. If you see one sentence too often, then all the words in that sentence co-occur, and the brain may see the whole things as a chunk, or may produce erroneous boundaries in the chunk.

In order for chunking to occur properly, the chunk must be encountered in numerous widely-varying examples -- the brain needs to see all the other bits changing to notice which bits don't change.

People proposing learning by SRSing multiple sentences do like to use things like the lexical approach to justify their ideas, but every single research-based movement to learning by exposure specifically calls for diversity in presented material... and there is a good reason for that.

Incidentally, I first came across this idea a long time ago in my chess playing days. There too people gave the advice of memorising the games of masters. Why? Not because you were going to repeat the same moves in one of you own games (you opponent is unlikely to cooperate in that!), but because the process of memorising stimulates the creation of chunks which are useful in your own games.

Did you learn this way before you were a reasonably competent player? I suspect that by the time you got to the point where you started memorising games you would have already been able to beat me very quickly. I don't believe that you learned how bishops work from memorising games. I don't believe you learned en passant from observing in occur in games.

Instead, I assume you had a reasonable command of the "grammar" and "vocabulary" of the game, and were able to move pieces without consciously reminding yourself "bishops move in diagonal lines, rooks move in straight lines". i.e. Fluent use of grammar.

Cainntear wrote:Repeating the same example sentence over and over again risks learning the sentence as a fixed phrase rather than learning the underlying grammar.


It also runs this risk of learning and automatising the underling grammar. It works for me at least.

Risks are things to be avoided.

I personally believe what you have described is only a tiny part of what you do, that there is some process you undertake that lets you extract meaningful data from these examples. But if you can't tell us what that is, we can't replicate it.

Consider the number of self-help gurus (in language learning and elsewhere) who give vague, incomplete advice and when a customer or review says it doesn't work say "You didn't do it right!" If you can follow their advice to the letter and fail, then the advice isn't complete.

Now obviously you're not making any money off it, so I'm not having a go at you, but all of us here should be striving to improve our advice to others. If nothing else, because we haven't printed books with our advice, we don't have to worry about losing face when we change our minds.
2 x

User avatar
neofight78
Blue Belt
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:02 pm
Location: Novosibirsk, Russia
Languages: English (N), Russian (B2+), Spanish (A0)
Language Log: viewtopic.php?t=833
x 1232

Re: Grammar while speaking

Postby neofight78 » Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Cainntear wrote:But aokoye already said that he has tried it


I'm not sure he has from what he has said. But if so, and if it didn't work, then that's ok. I firmly believe different things work for different people. I'm very reluctant to deny other people's experiences.

Cainntear wrote:First up, memorisation is a very different process from internalisation.


I don't agree, and I think it's a false distinction. I'm not suggesting that an example should be manipulated as a proxy for a rule. So your objection doesn't really apply, and I don't think you guys having been doing what I've been doing.

Cainntear wrote:But that cuts both ways. A "chunk" is a series of words/word-forms that frequently co-occur. If you see one sentence too often, then all the words in that sentence co-occur, and the brain may see the whole things as a chunk, or may produce erroneous boundaries in the chunk.


A whole sentence can be a chunk, what's wrong with that? The use of multiple sentences prevents the production of erroneous boundaries.

Cainntear wrote:People proposing learning by SRSing multiple sentences do like to use things like the lexical approach to justify their ideas, but every single research-based movement to learning by exposure specifically calls for diversity in presented material... and there is a good reason for that.


Where is the absence of diversity in what I've suggested? How much diversity is needed for the average grammar rule? I suspect not all that much.

Cainntear wrote:I don't believe that you learned how bishops work from memorising games.


Neither do I. The chunks I'm talking about are tactical patterns, pawn structures, typical plans etc.

Cainntear wrote:Risks are things to be avoided.


No we make decisions with incomplete information all the time. Risks should not (cannot) be avoided but rather the odds of outcomes and their cost and rewards should be properly be evaluated. If someone has a problem they want to fix, or just looking for a way forward, it may well make sense to try out a few different approaches and see what works for them.

Cainntear wrote:I personally believe what you have described is only a tiny part of what you do, that there is some process you undertake that lets you extract meaningful data from these examples. But if you can't tell us what that is, we can't replicate it.


In fairness, I didn't describe my process in full. So here it is:

1. Read new grammar rule, understand it.
2. Create a bunch of example sentences, usually from exercises in a textbook but not always. If later on I feel I'm not getting traction then I add more examples. 5 or 10 is often enough.
3. Create L1->L2 flashcards from these sentences with audio, always answer the card out loud.
4. In the beginning I'm thinking about the rule a lot, in the end the sentences come automatically.

As an ongoing process I create the same kind of cards with any corrections I get, thereby ironing out any particular problems with certain rules/situations.

I use Anki but this could easily be tweaked to use some other kind of review/memorisation process.

I certainly know that other people have used sentence memorisation to help with Russian cases when other approaches failed. So I certainly don't think that memorisation can be dismissed. Although I don't claim it works for all, or is the best way. It's just an option on the table.
Last edited by neofight78 on Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
3 x

DaveBee
Blue Belt
Posts: 952
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 8:49 pm
Location: UK
Languages: English (native). French (studying).
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=7466
x 1386

Re: Grammar while speaking

Postby DaveBee » Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:54 pm

neofight78 wrote:Guys, I think you may have missed my point. The aim of the memorisation is not to know a stock of set phrases (although sometimes that also can be handy), the aim is to internalise the grammar through the memorisation process.

People like to talk about chunking on this forum, and this is exactly what one needs here. You present you brain with a bunch of stuff to learn, and it straightaway starts searching for patterns i.e. chunks, that reduce the complexity of what's being learned. This is what gives you the automaticity in the production of grammar.

Incidentally, I first came across this idea a long time ago in my chess playing days. There too people gave the advice of memorising the games of masters. Why? Not because you were going to repeat the same moves in one of you own games (you opponent is unlikely to cooperate in that!), but because the process of memorising stimulates the creation of chunks which are useful in your own games.
Reineke linked to a study where muslims who'd memorised chunks of the Koran, had a better sense of correct grammar in a sample arabic sentence, than a group who'd studied arabic in class.
3 x

Cainntear
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3468
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Scotland
Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc
x 8661
Contact:

Re: Grammar while speaking

Postby Cainntear » Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:49 am

neofight78 wrote:
Cainntear wrote:But that cuts both ways. A "chunk" is a series of words/word-forms that frequently co-occur. If you see one sentence too often, then all the words in that sentence co-occur, and the brain may see the whole things as a chunk, or may produce erroneous boundaries in the chunk.


A whole sentence can be a chunk, what's wrong with that? The use of multiple sentences prevents the production of erroneous boundaries.

Yes, a whole sentence can be a chunk. But if it is not a chunk, it shouldn't be learned as one. "I know what you mean." is a chunk, but "Can you tell me what time of year blueberries ripen?" isn't.

Cainntear wrote:I don't believe that you learned how bishops work from memorising games.


Neither do I. The chunks I'm talking about are tactical patterns, pawn structures, typical plans etc.

And aokoye was talking about grammar, not structuring discourse (which would be more analogous to strategies etc).

Cainntear wrote:Risks are things to be avoided.


No we make decisions with incomplete information all the time. Risks should not (cannot) be avoided but rather the odds of outcomes and their cost and rewards should be properly be evaluated. If someone has a problem they want to fix, or just looking for a way forward, it may well make sense to try out a few different approaches and see what works for them.

Strategies can be proposed which eliminate or reduce certain risks. With physical risks, we train people to deal with high-risk situations before putting them in them. E.G. You don't just say "the quickest way from Nepal to Tibet is that way", and send someone over Mount Everest without checking they have the equipment and expertise to cross the mountain.

In language, all too often teaching and learning strategies are presented that offer many dead-ends that set learners up to fail, because they don't know how to avoid the dead-ends.

The worst of these is when the most effective strategy required to complete the immediate task doesn't do anything to develop the target skill. For example, the easiest way to deal with a tricky flashcard is to memorise it -- to treat it like a chunk and stop thinking about rules and variation.

So the important thing in your technique is almost definitely this:
If later on I feel I'm not getting traction then I add more examples.
...and yet you hid it in the middle of a line, in the middle of the process.

This is a very good point and deserves both bold and italics, because this is the only way to stop your brain simply memorising the difficult examples -- increase the variety, so that memorisation is not an option.

And notice my choice of words -- what you're doing is not memorisation, and when you describe it as such, you're encouraging people to do something different from what you do.

Where is the absence of diversity in what I've suggested? How much diversity is needed for the average grammar rule? I suspect not all that much.


2. Create a bunch of example sentences, usually from exercises in a textbook but not always. If later on I feel I'm not getting traction then I add more examples. 5 or 10 is often enough.

I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I really don't think any of the researchers proposing learning by example would put such a low number on it.

4. In the beginning I'm thinking about the rule a lot, in the end the sentences come automatically.

This is something of a "magic step" -- it's a crucial part of your process and you can't describe it, so we can't replicate it.

DaveBee wrote:Reineke linked to a study where muslims who'd memorised chunks of the Koran, had a better sense of correct grammar in a sample arabic sentence, than a group who'd studied arabic in class.

Careful with that word "chunks", because in your context it doesn't mean the same thing as the technical term we've been using it above. A "chunk" is a unit of language that is frequently reused in its entirety. Chunks include things like phrasal verbs ("get up", "look up" (a phone number, word etc) etc) fixed phrases ("when all is said and done", "at the end of the day" etc) and the like.

While there may be chunks within passages of scripture (both in the sense of phrases that were already chunks in the language at the time of writing and phrases that later became chunks through repeated quoting), arbitrary passages of scripture do not count as "chunks" in themselves.

I'm not sure what your argument is though -- are you trying to support neofight78 or argue against him?
0 x

DaveBee
Blue Belt
Posts: 952
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 8:49 pm
Location: UK
Languages: English (native). French (studying).
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=7466
x 1386

Re: Grammar while speaking

Postby DaveBee » Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:05 am

Cainntear wrote:I'm not sure what your argument is though -- are you trying to support neofight78 or argue against him?
Support!
neofight78 wrote:Guys, I think you may have missed my point. The aim of the memorisation is not to know a stock of set phrases (although sometimes that also can be handy), the aim is to internalise the grammar through the memorisation process.


I've not read this whole thread, but neofight's post reminded me of Reineke's.
2 x

User avatar
neofight78
Blue Belt
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:02 pm
Location: Novosibirsk, Russia
Languages: English (N), Russian (B2+), Spanish (A0)
Language Log: viewtopic.php?t=833
x 1232

Re: Grammar while speaking

Postby neofight78 » Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:54 am

Cainntear wrote:Yes, a whole sentence can be a chunk. But if it is not a chunk, it shouldn't be learned as one. "I know what you mean." is a chunk, but "Can you tell me what time of year blueberries ripen?" isn't.


If someone has memorised that sentence then it is de facto a chunk. A lot of conversation is in fact scripted, and there are plenty of sentences that you would deny being chunks that I frequently reuse because they are relevant for me, not because they live in some list of collocations that someone has compiled from a generic corpus.

Cainntear wrote:And aokoye was talking about grammar, not structuring discourse (which would be more analogous to strategies etc).


No it wouldn't be equivalent, I have made no attempts to equate aspects of chess with aspects of language. Rather I have mentioned another sphere where chunking occurs and the technique of memorisation can be used to facilitate it.

Cainntear wrote:In language, all too often teaching and learning strategies are presented that offer many dead-ends that set learners up to fail, because they don't know how to avoid the dead-ends.


That's not a problem with the strategies, that's a problem of people not being willing to experiment and try new ideas. It's a failure to risk trying something new outside of what you know. It's also a problem of people being dogmatic when giving advice to others.

Cainntear wrote:The worst of these is when the most effective strategy required to complete the immediate task doesn't do anything to develop the target skill. For example, the easiest way to deal with a tricky flashcard is to memorise it -- to treat it like a chunk and stop thinking about rules and variation.


Nope, it works great for me and for others. Doesn't work for you? Fine don't use it. There's no need to exclude the possibility that it can work for other people.

Cainntear wrote:...this is the only way to stop your brain simply memorising the difficult examples -- increase the variety, so that memorisation is not an option.


Nope, all cards end up memorised.

Cainntear wrote:And notice my choice of words -- what you're doing is not memorisation, and when you describe it as such, you're encouraging people to do something different from what you do.


Yes it is memorisation.

Cainntear wrote:This is something of a "magic step" -- it's a crucial part of your process and you can't describe it, so we can't replicate it.


Nothing magical, read and understand the rule as in step 1. When you start to memorise you'll start using the rule to help your memorisation.

Cainntear wrote:Careful with that word "chunks", because in your context it doesn't mean the same thing as the technical term we've been using it above. A "chunk" is a unit of language that is frequently reused in its entirety. Chunks include things like phrasal verbs ("get up", "look up" (a phone number, word etc) etc) fixed phrases ("when all is said and done", "at the end of the day" etc) and the like.


I reject that definition of chunk. You've chosen to define it very narrowly, there are chunks in chess but there are no phrasal verbs or fixed phrases to be found there. Chunk is any detailed information that the brain has learned to treat as one unit.

Cainntear wrote:While there may be chunks within passages of scripture (both in the sense of phrases that were already chunks in the language at the time of writing and phrases that later became chunks through repeated quoting), arbitrary passages of scripture do not count as "chunks" in themselves.


This doesn't address the fact that there is evidence that memorisation helps with language learning. This is in addition to my own experience which you seem so keen to negate rather than reevaluating what you believe.
2 x

Cainntear
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3468
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:04 am
Location: Scotland
Languages: English(N)
Advanced: French,Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Intermediate: Italian, Catalan, Corsican
Basic: Welsh
Dabbling: Polish, Russian etc
x 8661
Contact:

Re: Grammar while speaking

Postby Cainntear » Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:42 pm

neofight78 wrote:
Cainntear wrote:Yes, a whole sentence can be a chunk. But if it is not a chunk, it shouldn't be learned as one. "I know what you mean." is a chunk, but "Can you tell me what time of year blueberries ripen?" isn't.


If someone has memorised that sentence then it is de facto a chunk. A lot of conversation is in fact scripted, and there are plenty of sentences that you would deny being chunks that I frequently reuse because they are relevant for me, not because they live in some list of collocations that someone has compiled from a generic corpus.

Well yes, we all have things that are chunks in our personal idiolect of our native language. But that's because, as you say, they are personally relevant. They aren't just sentences that we happened to learn early on when we were new speakers.

No it wouldn't be equivalent, I have made no attempts to equate aspects of chess with aspects of language. Rather I have mentioned another sphere where chunking occurs and the technique of memorisation can be used to facilitate it.

Except that in chess, the memorisation of moves is facilitated by already knowing the grammar. An expert chess player is only better than a novice at memorising board layouts when they're possible -- i.e. the rules aid the memorisation, not the other way round.

So you're talking about something that is quite simply a different thing from learning a language.

Cainntear wrote:In language, all too often teaching and learning strategies are presented that offer many dead-ends that set learners up to fail, because they don't know how to avoid the dead-ends.


That's not a problem with the strategies, that's a problem of people not being willing to experiment and try new ideas. It's a failure to risk trying something new outside of what you know. It's also a problem of people being dogmatic when giving advice to others.

No it's not. There are plenty of people who are willing to try, and then they fail. The only "dogma" I have is that no learner should be set up to fail, and no learner should be blamed for "not doing it right" when the teaching and/or advice proves insufficient.

Cainntear wrote:The worst of these is when the most effective strategy required to complete the immediate task doesn't do anything to develop the target skill. For example, the easiest way to deal with a tricky flashcard is to memorise it -- to treat it like a chunk and stop thinking about rules and variation.


Nope, it works great for me and for others. Doesn't work for you? Fine don't use it. There's no need to exclude the possibility that it can work for other people.

I don't exclude the possibility it can work for other people. However, playing the lottery works for some people, but it would be ridiculous to suggest it as a viable strategy for making a living. Memorisation fails for far too many people to be something to recommend. Even Khatzumoto, as he eventually had to accept that the number of his subscribers who told him it didn't work was proof that his method wasn't complete.

Cainntear wrote:And notice my choice of words -- what you're doing is not memorisation, and when you describe it as such, you're encouraging people to do something different from what you do.


Yes it is memorisation.

You may be doing memorisation, but the important part isn't the memorisation.

Cainntear wrote:This is something of a "magic step" -- it's a crucial part of your process and you can't describe it, so we can't replicate it.


Nothing magical, read and understand the rule as in step 1. When you start to memorise you'll start using the rule to help your memorisation.

Still magical. There's nothing in your description at all that tells me what it means to "think about" grammar when you're working with memorised examples. It is irreproducible.

Cainntear wrote:Careful with that word "chunks", because in your context it doesn't mean the same thing as the technical term we've been using it above. A "chunk" is a unit of language that is frequently reused in its entirety. Chunks include things like phrasal verbs ("get up", "look up" (a phone number, word etc) etc) fixed phrases ("when all is said and done", "at the end of the day" etc) and the like.


I reject that definition of chunk. You've chosen to define it very narrowly, there are chunks in chess but there are no phrasal verbs or fixed phrases to be found there. Chunk is any detailed information that the brain has learned to treat as one unit.

"include things like". That was examples for the benefit of DaveBee who didn't seem to be familiar with the term.

This doesn't address the fact that there is evidence that memorisation helps with language learning. This is in addition to my own experience which you seem so keen to negate rather than reevaluating what you believe.

I have reevaluated what I believe -- your point about adding extra examples for difficult rules suddenly makes flashcards seem much more useful as a strategy, and in future, my main contribution into discussions about flashcards will be to advise people to add more examples of a problematic language point, rather than simply repeating the same card more often, as it seems a much more productive strategy.

I am not denying your experience, what I'm denying is your perception of it.

What I reject is the notion of looking simply at the superficial activity and saying "it works for some". If it works for some but not for others, that typically means that what everyone is doing under the surface is different. That's what I mean about a "magic step" in your routine. There is something you do inside your head that makes the learning stick, but there's nothing in the process that forces another learner to do the same thing, or even points them towards it, really.

If you go into a school language class, there will be 20 or 30 kids all doing exactly what the teacher asked them to... superficially. Some will be doing more in their heads, and the only way you'll know is later on, when they are getting good marks and the others aren't. And the ones who get good marks are almost always doing something the teacher never told them to do.

Just because we're not in a classroom doesn't mean the same thing doesn't apply here -- your advice works for people who happen to do the important missing step without prompting.


What I'm really interested in is going beyond the superficial differences in our learning and finding the things that all of us, as successful learners, do the same.

Superficial differences like memorisation of sentences, verb tables etc aren't where we actually "learn" the language -- they're all just ways of keeping the language available to us up until the point when we actually do learn it.

In other words, I want to find out what that magic step is, so that it's science, not magic.
0 x


Return to “Practical Questions and Advice”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AvidLearner# and 2 guests