Re: Any research putting c above ada?

[afn03257@freenet2.afn.org (Daniel P Hudson)]

adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) wrote:
>afn03257@freenet2.afn.org (Daniel P Hudson) writes:
> >amd001@its.maynick.com.au (Andrew Dunstan) wrote:
> >Well, can you pick up things in say Korean or Vietnamese right now?
> >So then are you not thinking about things at an appropriate level?

>Sorry, but this analogy doesn't fly.  You just can't compare human
>languages to computer languages, for a number of reasons:

>(1) Human language is not learned by studying it in a classroom and
>    poring over the concepts behind it.  Human language is learned
>    from hearing it from the time one is born (possibly before) and
>    learning to imitate it. 

I learned Spanish in a classroom, don't remember any of it because 
I don't use it, but then again I don't remember any of my Pascal
teachings either. BTE, if you didn't really learn English in a 
classroom you would not know it either, you MIGHT be able to speak
it well enough to communicate, but you would not be using the
English language as it is defined. Programming and spoken/written 
languages are learned as rules[grammar] and words [vocabulary]
and then applying those rules in usage of the words.

"I do be here but be gone later" is 100% English, and also the way 
many poeple talk, but it is not properly used English which would be
"I am here now, but I will be gone later".

>(2) Experts have been finding out that there is "preprogrammed
>    software" in our brains that enables us to learn to understand and
>    speak human languages.  (Newsweek's current special issue on child
>    care has a fascinating article about this.)  You can't say the
>    same about computer languages.

No, experts have determined there is a center of out brain which 
learns speech paterns [syllables], after infancy you have the ability 
to produce all sounds, but soon [age 3-5] you limit yourself to what your 
parents use [what you hear]. However, that location is NOT responcible 
for the mental imaging of of words we develop, nor it is responcible for 
spelling, grammar, or using the words to form a sentence. If you don't 
talk to your child [or someone else] it will never speak, just as deaf 
children who actually never limit the syllable usage don't learn to 
speak, I'm referring to people *born* deaf, BTW.

>(3) There seem to be neurological barriers to picking up new languages
>    easily after a certain age.  I've heard it said a number of times
>    that if you want your child to be multilingual, you should start
>    using the second language before such-and-such an age (six?),

Age one, but that's only true for languages which use sylables we do 
not use, it is not true for ALL langauges.

The analogy holds true because you will not gain a "GOOD" understanding
of another spoker/written language unless you "USE" it a lot.

Spanish is not hard for Americans to learn, and when I used to visit
Miami, I used it quite well. Now I don't know anyone who speaks it,
nor do I visit Miami, so I have forgotten most of it. The same holds 
true for Programming languages. I used to know Pascal, but have not 
used it in Ooh, 5 years I suppose, thus I couldn't debug a Pascal src 
file to save my life right now. Before I continue, I did not learn 
Spanish until my Jr. high school year which was age, 16 I believe.

Learning a language does not even necessaruly involve proper 
pronounciation, just listen to a Brittish and an American talk
for a while, you'll hear 15 variations of the same word eventually.

The mere fact that you think you could pick up any language because
you understand theory is just wrong. You could use any langauge,
with a reference manual handy, but you, nor I, could go pick up, 
let's say, Occam [something few people are familair with] and just 
start coding like we could in the languages we use from day to day 
unless it was a very small language, maybe a scripting language 
like MSDOS BATCH or something.