Per your highly subjective definitions of "fluency", even some native speakers of a language are barred from the being "fluent", especially with your literacy point. For people who acquired another language as a second language, you are essentially telling all of them that they will never be considered fluent. In the first place, what is your objective by making this video? To discourage people in learning a language?
Eu considero fluente a pessoa capaz de expressar-se naturalmente em temas do cotidiano. A pessoa que tem dificuldades ou não sabe ler ou escrever chamamos de analfabeta (ILLITERATE).
Tá certo a sua avaliação, não tem nenhuma conexão entre fluência e conhecimento técnico da lingua... você inclusive pode se expressar todo errado, mas desde que haja uma comunicação (um entendimento mútuo do que se está falando/debatendo) já tá show... ninguém pega um texano falando todo errado e fala que o maluco não é fluente...
Eu discordo. Pra mim "fluente" passa literalmente a ideia de "fluidez", ou seja, a pessoa consegue se comunicar sem dificuldades sobre qualquer tema que não seja muito específico. Isso demora bastante tempo e não é necessário pra todo mundo. Conseguir se comunicar já é bom o bastante para muitos casos, mas eu não usaria a palavra "fluente".
I think it's enough that the people you talk to consider you fluent. I don't see how anything else would matter. It's also easy to figure out most technical terms in English as long as you have some non-zero knowledge of French and/or Latin. Efferent takes out, afferent takes to for example.
Ooh, that's an interesting take. Being fluent can't be defined by anyone except the person who you are talking to. Thanks for sharing, and I appreciate the fact that you checked out some of my other content :)
@@Lets_Learn_Languages In my experience there's also a huge variety between what speakers of different languages consider "good enough". In Danish you say "tak" without affrication on the T, you are detected as a non-native and the other person switches to English. In slavic languages you say something vaguely recogniseable like "khorosho den?" and they go "ах, ты говорищь свободно по русский, я никогда не буду говорить по английски с тобой". (I don't even know if that's correct, but most Russian speakers I meet seem to think I understand way more than I actually do.)
About the reading aspect, what about natives whose language never really got develop it's own writing system therefore when literacy programs or schools were introduced, the older generation got left out so they can't really read or write their own language but they understand it well. I guess this applies for example to African languages who got their writing systems from the Latin script brought by the colonialists.
I completly disagree with the pionts of having to be able to read and write. I think these are academic skills accquired through the academic process in life. You don't learn them as a child. Would you concider the vast majority of farmers in India who are really poor and who mostly can't read or write, to not be fluent in their own languages? I think you need some perspective on this. Also, learning a language through the traditional methods of memorization, is the wrong way of learning. You need to accquire a language from native speakers (or just one if you are out of resources) in order to learn. This is why I learned english, because I watched TV and english youtube. I understand everything everyone says and I can also accurately represent my thoughts with my english vocabulary. I might even have a bigger vocabulary in english than in my own mother tongue. But... I still don't speak perfectly. I still speak in certain ways, that only people that speak my mother tongue would do and I preffer to use sayings that basically only exist in my language, but directly translated to english. There might be even more things that give it away, but. I wholeheartedly think that "learning" a language should be done throuh accquisition. Basically not through output, but through input. Why? Because if you are new to a language. Then it's as if you are standing before a blank canvas. You have nothing. You need something. This is where the input comes. You need the puzzle first, before you can start putting the puzzle together. Listen. Listen. Listen. Listen and listen. there is a teaching method developed in the 1980's in the US, called TPRS - Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling. WIth a big emphasis on storyteling. There is a guy on youtube who is a language professor who uses this and has made many videos about the topic and I think he's right. I one hundred percent agree with the fact that the majority of your learning should be listening. Then reading too. But mostly listening. Why? Well, our brains are made this way. Think about why. Imagine a setting, 5000 years ago. A fully grown child, maybe 12 - 13 gets lost from their tribe and gets found by another tribe with a different language. How do you think that child would have survived, if it wasn't for the posession of natural accquisition of languages? This also explains why babies who cant even walk or talk, are able to learn a full language. Basically, talking and writing and reading are details upon which you might fine-tune later on, but it's not the point of learning a language. Chinese and Japanese are different and special cases. and on the chinese point, what do you say to a native chinese guy who didn't go to school and didn't learn to read? He is still as fluent as any other chinese... he just cant read or write. there are many people like that. Maybe not as much in Japan, but plenty in china. If we're talking about greek or russian? It's easy to learn those writing scripts, it doesn't take long at all. But that doesn't help much. It only helps when you have a fundamental understanding of the language already and only then are you able to start reading childrens novels. That is the nr. 1 way of accquiring new vocabulary. Why? because the words are put into their context without providing a long and detailed explanation. What you have to understand is that to be able to truely learn, to accquire the language, you must let your brain do it subconciously and it will solve the problem for you. For learning grammatical rules and functions of the language, read about TPRS. it is perfect for that and the man I was talking about, his channel is called "Poly-glot-a-lot"
Ive got them all down pat, and i can read perfectly, only thing is my adhd makes me slip up sometimes when im reading and i might have to go over the line again, its not that i cant read it, its just the fact my mind wonders sometimes and i loose my footing.
I've been learning Japanese for 3 years now and sometimes I read stuff and I realize how far I've come but then I also see how many words I don't know and realize I'm still far away from fluent. In the Japanese learning community I heard a joke about an editor of a learner's textbook and he learned the language for like 20 years but his wife still had 1 or 2 new words everyday and it annoyed him a lot and eventually he found out that she had a calendar with one difficult word per day in Japanese.
Unless you are a well educated college individual, most native speakers would not understand 99% of political commentary or pretty much any specialized field. This arbitrary designation would also make it near impossible for most children to be fluent, which is ridiculous on its face. I assume this is some sort of rage bait posting. Or I should I say, I hope. This kind of weird elitism and gatekeeping is not needed in language learning spaces of any kind.
By this description of fluency only people who would bee considered fluent are those who manage to get like C2 in CEFR tests. I've for example been studying English from grade one of primary school up until now and to go study abroad I am required to get C1 on CEFR test. I've consolidated with my teacher and he told me that average student should be able to do it. I've been having grades and knowledge of English which is above average thus I believe I'll do it easily but I wouldn't mark all of yours points that you made. I believe that knowledge needed to pass for example B1 test in CEFR are already able to have good conversations but I would still call them only conversationally fluent and people who pass C1 are highly proficient in language and would definitely consider them fluent.
Fluent is derived from Latin fluere, to flow. All it originally says is that someone speaks wihout hesitation. I would add to that that what this someone says must be consistent and understandable. That's all I would ask for in order to call someone fluent. What you describe can better be referred to as a highly proficient or near-native language level.
Being able to read/write well isn't a good measure, I've read a lot of essays by people I consider fluent, that struggle alot more when it comes to writing. You will see this alot with people that have picked up English as their second language, even though they speak it perfectly.
I agree this is fluent but it is extremely fluent as with languages like portuguese there is a lot of difference throughout each country and variability
Hit the line at 0:14 with ya chest 💪 Hire someone to hardcode subtitles. Your audience is gonna include a lot of non native English speakers, and subtitles skyrocket retention rates.
Just confirmed I'm fluent in english, based on a random american video on youtube, nice ! Why does americans think their language is hard? try portuguese my bro... im native Brazilian, and i speak english way better then my native tongue xD
I started watching the video on 2X and still understood Ben Shapiro reasonably well... So I guess I pass on that. (I have no Idea what "by the skin of my teeth" mean though. my Guess would be like a false promise since, you know, teeth don't have skin?)
Me realizing I’m not fluent in any language
Literacy isn’t a requirement for fluency. You wouldn’t say some illiterate hillbilly from the 19th century wasn’t fluent in English. 😄
...Nowdays texans are a good example of that...
Most people who ever lived didn't even know writing was possible. I guess most people who ever lived just weren't fluent in their native languages.
shit, im not fluent in my native language then
wow i don’t meet all criteria neither in native language nor in english.
Per your highly subjective definitions of "fluency", even some native speakers of a language are barred from the being "fluent", especially with your literacy point. For people who acquired another language as a second language, you are essentially telling all of them that they will never be considered fluent. In the first place, what is your objective by making this video? To discourage people in learning a language?
Eu considero fluente a pessoa capaz de expressar-se naturalmente em temas do cotidiano. A pessoa que tem dificuldades ou não sabe ler ou escrever chamamos de analfabeta (ILLITERATE).
Tá certo a sua avaliação, não tem nenhuma conexão entre fluência e conhecimento técnico da lingua... você inclusive pode se expressar todo errado, mas desde que haja uma comunicação (um entendimento mútuo do que se está falando/debatendo) já tá show... ninguém pega um texano falando todo errado e fala que o maluco não é fluente...
Eu discordo. Pra mim "fluente" passa literalmente a ideia de "fluidez", ou seja, a pessoa consegue se comunicar sem dificuldades sobre qualquer tema que não seja muito específico. Isso demora bastante tempo e não é necessário pra todo mundo. Conseguir se comunicar já é bom o bastante para muitos casos, mas eu não usaria a palavra "fluente".
I think it's enough that the people you talk to consider you fluent. I don't see how anything else would matter.
It's also easy to figure out most technical terms in English as long as you have some non-zero knowledge of French and/or Latin. Efferent takes out, afferent takes to for example.
Ooh, that's an interesting take. Being fluent can't be defined by anyone except the person who you are talking to. Thanks for sharing, and I appreciate the fact that you checked out some of my other content :)
@@Lets_Learn_Languages In my experience there's also a huge variety between what speakers of different languages consider "good enough". In Danish you say "tak" without affrication on the T, you are detected as a non-native and the other person switches to English. In slavic languages you say something vaguely recogniseable like "khorosho den?" and they go "ах, ты говорищь свободно по русский, я никогда не буду говорить по английски с тобой". (I don't even know if that's correct, but most Russian speakers I meet seem to think I understand way more than I actually do.)
There are countries in Africa where the majority of population is illiterate. By your definition, they are not fluent. Strange way to define fluency.
Sh-t, I’m not even fluent in English and I’m a native speaker!
About the reading aspect, what about natives whose language never really got develop it's own writing system therefore when literacy programs or schools were introduced, the older generation got left out so they can't really read or write their own language but they understand it well. I guess this applies for example to African languages who got their writing systems from the Latin script brought by the colonialists.
I completly disagree with the pionts of having to be able to read and write. I think these are academic skills accquired through the academic process in life. You don't learn them as a child.
Would you concider the vast majority of farmers in India who are really poor and who mostly can't read or write, to not be fluent in their own languages?
I think you need some perspective on this. Also, learning a language through the traditional methods of memorization, is the wrong way of learning. You need to accquire a language from native speakers (or just one if you are out of resources) in order to learn.
This is why I learned english, because I watched TV and english youtube. I understand everything everyone says and I can also accurately represent my thoughts with my english vocabulary.
I might even have a bigger vocabulary in english than in my own mother tongue. But... I still don't speak perfectly. I still speak in certain ways, that only people that speak my mother tongue would do and I preffer to use sayings that basically only exist in my language, but directly translated to english.
There might be even more things that give it away, but. I wholeheartedly think that "learning" a language should be done throuh accquisition. Basically not through output, but through input.
Why? Because if you are new to a language. Then it's as if you are standing before a blank canvas. You have nothing. You need something. This is where the input comes. You need the puzzle first, before you can start putting the puzzle together.
Listen. Listen. Listen. Listen and listen. there is a teaching method developed in the 1980's in the US, called TPRS - Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling. WIth a big emphasis on storyteling.
There is a guy on youtube who is a language professor who uses this and has made many videos about the topic and I think he's right. I one hundred percent agree with the fact that the majority of your learning should be listening. Then reading too. But mostly listening. Why?
Well, our brains are made this way. Think about why. Imagine a setting, 5000 years ago. A fully grown child, maybe 12 - 13 gets lost from their tribe and gets found by another tribe with a different language.
How do you think that child would have survived, if it wasn't for the posession of natural accquisition of languages? This also explains why babies who cant even walk or talk, are able to learn a full language.
Basically, talking and writing and reading are details upon which you might fine-tune later on, but it's not the point of learning a language. Chinese and Japanese are different and special cases.
and on the chinese point, what do you say to a native chinese guy who didn't go to school and didn't learn to read? He is still as fluent as any other chinese... he just cant read or write. there are many people like that. Maybe not as much in Japan, but plenty in china.
If we're talking about greek or russian? It's easy to learn those writing scripts, it doesn't take long at all. But that doesn't help much. It only helps when you have a fundamental understanding of the language already and only then are you able to start reading childrens novels. That is the nr. 1 way of accquiring new vocabulary.
Why? because the words are put into their context without providing a long and detailed explanation.
What you have to understand is that to be able to truely learn, to accquire the language, you must let your brain do it subconciously and it will solve the problem for you.
For learning grammatical rules and functions of the language, read about TPRS. it is perfect for that and the man I was talking about, his channel is called "Poly-glot-a-lot"
Ive got them all down pat, and i can read perfectly, only thing is my adhd makes me slip up sometimes when im reading and i might have to go over the line again, its not that i cant read it, its just the fact my mind wonders sometimes and i loose my footing.
I've been learning Japanese for 3 years now and sometimes I read stuff and I realize how far I've come but then I also see how many words I don't know and realize I'm still far away from fluent. In the Japanese learning community I heard a joke about an editor of a learner's textbook and he learned the language for like 20 years but his wife still had 1 or 2 new words everyday and it annoyed him a lot and eventually he found out that she had a calendar with one difficult word per day in Japanese.
Unless you are a well educated college individual, most native speakers would not understand 99% of political commentary or pretty much any specialized field. This arbitrary designation would also make it near impossible for most children to be fluent, which is ridiculous on its face. I assume this is some sort of rage bait posting. Or I should I say, I hope. This kind of weird elitism and gatekeeping is not needed in language learning spaces of any kind.
By this description of fluency only people who would bee considered fluent are those who manage to get like C2 in CEFR tests. I've for example been studying English from grade one of primary school up until now and to go study abroad I am required to get C1 on CEFR test. I've consolidated with my teacher and he told me that average student should be able to do it. I've been having grades and knowledge of English which is above average thus I believe I'll do it easily but I wouldn't mark all of yours points that you made. I believe that knowledge needed to pass for example B1 test in CEFR are already able to have good conversations but I would still call them only conversationally fluent and people who pass C1 are highly proficient in language and would definitely consider them fluent.
Fluent is derived from Latin fluere, to flow. All it originally says is that someone speaks wihout hesitation. I would add to that that what this someone says must be consistent and understandable. That's all I would ask for in order to call someone fluent.
What you describe can better be referred to as a highly proficient or near-native language level.
Today I learned if you have an auditory processing disorder or dyslexia you can't be fluid in a language, apparently.
Great video!! Love this channel!
Being able to read/write well isn't a good measure, I've read a lot of essays by people I consider fluent, that struggle alot more when it comes to writing. You will see this alot with people that have picked up English as their second language, even though they speak it perfectly.
I agree this is fluent but it is extremely fluent as with languages like portuguese there is a lot of difference throughout each country and variability
Im not fluent in a single language..?
Hit the line at 0:14 with ya chest 💪
Hire someone to hardcode subtitles. Your audience is gonna include a lot of non native English speakers, and subtitles skyrocket retention rates.
Just confirmed I'm fluent in english, based on a random american video on youtube, nice !
Why does americans think their language is hard? try portuguese my bro... im native Brazilian, and i speak english way better then my native tongue xD
Manooooo, eu sei sua idioma é loucoura. Conjucações dos verbos é impossivel para aprender eu juro
Yup, I'm fluent in English. Time for thr next one.
I started watching the video on 2X and still understood Ben Shapiro reasonably well... So I guess I pass on that. (I have no Idea what "by the skin of my teeth" mean though. my Guess would be like a false promise since, you know, teeth don't have skin?)
yes
bad take