--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 9, 2005, at 11:29 AM, authfriend wrote:
How odd, you seem to have deleted what I went on
to say, which made it clear I wasn't questioning
the accepted scientific fact.
It wasn't clear to me.
Well, let's have another look, shall we? (Since
you snipped it again.)
----------------
The "subtle confusion" LBS refers to isn't necessarily
in conflict with the principle that the younger the
better in terms of second-language acquisition. The
purported confusion may be on an entirely different
level than that of facility in a second language.
It isn't impossible that the optimal situation, in
MMY's view, is a sort of trade-off between acquiring
second-language facility and avoiding the subtle
confusion. In other words, an older child may still
be able to learn a second language well enough to
become reasonably fluent in it at a point when learning
it may no longer cause the subtle confusion.
Or maybe not. But obviously we don't know enough, on
the basis of LBS's account, to say either way.
----------------
Where in what I wrote do you see any suggestion
that I was questioning accepted scientific fact?
I repeat: I think you just *assumed*, in a knee-jerk
fashion, that I would question established scientific
fact because you have me erroneously pegged as a
"true believer" (or just hope you can convince others
to think I am).
And therefore you didn't pay much attention to the
rest of what I said. If you had, you'd have seen
that I was actually accepting as a given that
children learn languages more easily the younger
they are. (One hint: that's why I referred to it
as a "principle" rather than a "theory.")
Despite repeated accusations of having some hidden agenda in the
quoting of your email messages, there exists no such agenda, other
than in your own consciousness.
Oh, goodness, it's not just *my* "email messages" (I
assume you mean posts to FFL and alt.m.t) by any means.
You even snip portions of your own earlier posts when
they might conflict with or detract from whatever you're
saying in your current post. In any case, the snipping
is always in your own interest.
I'm quite willing to believe, however, that the
agenda may not be conscious. I suspect it's just
become second nature, and you do it without even
thinking about it.
That out of the way, do you have any relevant comment
on what I suggested, i.e., that we don't know enough
about what MMY means to come to the conclusion, as you
did, that he isn't to be trusted with children's
education?
