Vilmart,
Click on the Member List link.
Then click on the heading Last Access.
This will show you who has been on recently.

Vilmart,
Click on the Member List link.
Then click on the heading Last Access.
This will show you who has been on recently.

I read that "Chinese" is the hardest, "Russian" the second hardest. I don't remember my source. (I'm assuming that means the classes of oriental pictographic and Slavic using the Cyrillic alphabet as categories rather than specific languages.)

David, through my wife's constant pressure, I speak and understand a tiny bit of "kitchen talk" Russian. Typing is not so bad for me when I had the layout in front of me. I touch-type Dvorak, so I can't use the Russian Qwerty keyboard. What I can't stand is all the word ending rules cases and gender requirements - along with a memory that does not like to recall names. My wife pointed out to me that "Stranger in a Strange Land" translated into Russian is half again as big.

"Stranger in a Strange Land" English

Russian

"Neznakometz na strannoi zemle" Transliterated.

ne - no, not, (un)
znakom - familiar (according to my wife)
etz - the ending makes it apply to a person, different ending for things.

na - in

strannoi - strange (adjective ending)

zemle - land (earth, dirt - not "Earth")
My wife, a Russian native with an advance degree in Russian language and literature, tells me that "zemle" in Russian does not have the English connotation of "other lands" or "other country".

So the translation is literally
Unfamiliar (person) in strange land.

It loses the alliteration in English, as well as the special connation of "land".

Well, my wife is far from an expert in English, so something can be lost in the translation there, too.

Vilmart,

Korzybksi considered it important to learn his system and apply it. That is a very different thing than his system being important in education or as an educational tool. General semantics would possible be classified as more of a self-improvement tool that works across-the-board for all symbolic processing through the devices of consciousness of abstracting, learning not to make falacious inferences, being aware of assumptions, being prepared for them to be wrong, and specific tools for using English - the extensional devices. As such this applies to "all" symbolic learning, and you will find much about that in the general semantics sites. But to learn a specific language? I do not believe general semantics has anything specific to say about the process of acquiring a new language, let alone, any particular language - other than the general system itself. You are asking a question that is not about "learning general semantics" - which is what this particular discussion list is about. Perhaps if you searched for a discussion group which has the purpose of lerning Sweedish, or even learning a second language, you would be better served there.

I think you have brought your question to the wrong place.

David and Nora,
You have both illustrated my point. General semantics deals with a level of abstraction that applies to multiple languages, their differences, translation, the fact that they map stuff differently, etc. While it can talk, as Whorf did, about how different language "cut up the world" in different ways, this is not specific to any one language, let alone to Swedish. Almost any priciple of general semantict or practice you can apply to one language you can apply to another.

What general semantics does say to Vilmar is get yourself a native speaker, of whatever language you want to learn, as a tutor, (and you can apply that to Swedish in particular).

When I was first in the Navy, on board my first ship, after graduating from MM-A school, I met individuals in the Forward Engine room who fit the following situations.

Graduated with honors, applied the information very well. Can be trusted with the machinery.
Graduated with honors, but was unable to apply the information at all. Could not be trusted with the machinery.
Barely passed school, or did not go, but was a whiz with the machinery. Could do everything, but could not explain it.
And finally,
Flunked out, could not remember much, and could not be trusted alone with the machinery.

I surmise that "connectivity" or lack thereof can apply in general semantics.

Can/can't remember verbal details; can/can't talk. Can/can't recall muscle memory; can/can't do.

What formative experiences did these people have as youngsters that enabled/prevented the formations of neural connections that allowed various combinations of verbal and motor skill acquisition and use? And are there perhaps any hereditory (genetic, prenatal-environment, etc.,) that limited or enhanced the potential for cognitive and motor skills acquisition and deployment?