# Is English a good first foreign language?



## Jana337

Imagine you want your child to master at least two foreign languages (let's assume for the sake of the argument that English is not your mother tongue). Would you start with English?

Why I ask: I've read an interesting opinion in a German source. It says that learning English first actually prevents you from mastering a second language. The English grammar is very easy (at least at the beginning), and people often give up other languages after a couple of lessons because they lack the patience you need for some complicated grammar structures like conjunctive in Romance languages, not to speak about the many traps of Goethe's language.

Jana


----------



## Focalist

jz337 said:
			
		

> Imagine you want your child to master at least two foreign languages (let's assume for the sake of the argument that English is not your mother tongue). Would you start with English?
> 
> Why I ask: I've read an interesting opinion in a German source. It says that learning English first actually prevents you from mastering a second language. The English grammar is very easy (at least at the beginning), and people often give up other languages after a couple of lessons because they lack the patience you need for some complicated grammar structures like conjunctive in Romance languages, not to speak about the many traps of Goethe's language.
> 
> Jana


Yes, Jana, I would start with English: 

1. Because its *surface* morphological simplicity means that the learner can quite rapidly come to "speak English badly"! (and nevertheless be understood 90% of the time: English-speakers do not, in general, throw up the walls of artificial incomprehension so often erected by, for example, French-speakers in the face of learners of their language); and

2. Pragmatically, because of the utility of English in today's world (that is not to say that it will continue into tomorrow's world!).

I say this, let me also say, despite my bitter regret at the ravages caused amongst other speech communities of the "British" Isles by imperialist English.

F

PS: If it is available online, please let us know the URL of that German source as soon as you reach your "WR majority" (of 30 posts).


----------



## janossyd

If you have learned English, it will be easy to learn other languages....


----------



## Edwin

Focalist said:
			
		

> PS: If it is available online, please let us know the URL of that German source as soon as you reach your "WR majority" (of 30 posts).



Alternatively you could experiment with a few phrases and/or key words until you find a combination that will cause google to uniquely point to your site.  Then post what you came up with.

I see no harm in this since the link would not be given.  (I think the prohibition is probably just to keep down the volumn of salesmen that many newsgroups suffer.)


----------



## sergio11

Jana, even those who tell you not to learn English try to learn it first.  You may learn a million other languages, but none will have the usefulness of English, except, of course, the local language of the country in which you live. Everybody tries to learn english because English is a very rich and fascinating language, it is relatively easy to learn, you can find books on every subject, especially textbooks, and above all else, it has the most exciting crossword puzzles!


----------



## lsp

jz337 said:
			
		

> Imagine you want your child to master at least two foreign languages (let's assume for the sake of the argument that English is not your mother tongue). Would you start with English?
> 
> Why I ask: I've read an interesting opinion in a German source. It says that learning English first actually prevents you from mastering a second language. The English grammar is very easy (at least at the beginning), and people often give up other languages after a couple of lessons because they lack the patience you need for some complicated grammar structures like conjunctive in Romance languages, not to speak about the many traps of Goethe's language.
> 
> Jana


If the English grammar is comparatively easy, then is it safe to assume the student's first language is more difficult, and so s/he might have the benefit of already being able to understand the complex structures you said could not be learned from English? 

Even without that, the universality of English is a fact, liked or not, and therefore it is an asset to have some command of it.


----------



## abc

Would I start with English?  Yes, if only English were available at that time, but I would really like to give my child the opportunity to start learning several languages as soon as possible and before puberty.



> Why I ask: I've read an interesting opinion in a German source. It says that learning English first actually prevents you from mastering a second language. The English grammar is very easy (at least at the beginning), and people often give up other languages after a couple of lessons because they lack the patience you need for some complicated grammar structures like conjunctive in Romance languages, not to speak about the many traps of Goethe's language.



Interesting information.  I would really like to see the scientific data gathered by this authoritative source.


----------



## basurero

Yes learn English simply because of all the foreign languages your child learns English will probably be of most use to them. They should start from an early age in order to gain the best fluency they can. English will allow them to communicate with people from all corners of the globe and these days it is becoming more and more essential to have good english in order to get a good job. But then don't stop at just English because the more languages you speak the more opportunities you will have.


----------



## Jana337

I am sorry but I am not able to provide you with a link at the moment. The source was a text at an exam that I took some time ago. It has not stopped lingering in my mind though I am not convinced that the conclusions were correct.
I am trying to google it but all efforts have turned out to be futile so far.

Jana


----------



## Jana337

Thank you for your opinions but some of you missed the point in my opinion. I did not mean to cast doubts on the usefulness of English in the contemporary world. Sure it is the best first foreign language for all non-natives (first in this context means the one that you know better than other languages). I want to know whether it is also the best one to start with (e. g. Focalist adressed this point).

I myself started with German - an obvious choice in the gloomy late 1980s because there was a part of Germany on the wrong side of the iron curtain. English was of little use unless you (or your parents) were unbeatable optimists. I am not unhappy with my parents' decision. However, I am not able to decipher just how much it enhanced my capacity for learning other languages.

I must comment on lsp's remark (_If the English grammar is comparatively easy, then is it safe to assume the student's first language is more difficult, and so s/he might have the benefit of already being able to understand the complex structures you said could not be learned from English?_). This is not a valid argument in my humble opinion. You cannot compare your mother tongue to other languages that you acquire at a later age. Even people who are absolutely hopeless at learning languages master their own (the spoken part at least) one however complex its grammar is.

Jana


----------



## Ralf

I simply can't imagine that learning one's 'first foreign language' may affect one's determination of learning 'any other' later, no matter if it's English or what language ever. I started with Russian (but unfortunately forgot most of it over the past years) and 'switched' to English only much later. I dont't think my progress in English based on the fact that Russian is more difficult to learn, which could be assumed to be the reverse conclusion from the study you've refered to
	

	
	
		
		

		
			











.

But joking aside, I think this study offers a theory but no serious evidence. The patterns of learning different languages are rather similar. However, the older the learner gets the more difficult it is to learn another language. But this has nothing to do whether the 'first foreign' language had been English. My wife started with Russian, too, and took up English and Czech simultaneously - and still speaks all of them quite acceptably. What really matters is, starting at all and as soon as possible.

Cheers.


----------



## Jana337

Thank you, Ralf.

To make it clear once again, I am not really comfortable with the conclusions of the article I mentioned. I just wanted to collect some opinions from people who obviously love languages, otherwise they would not participate in this forum.

The text implied that - given the easiness with which you can communicate in basic English and, perhaps more importantly, the simple grammar structures sufficient for speaking English on a lower-intermediate level - children may be put off from learning languages like German where the grammar is tough from the very beginning.

My best regards to your Czech speaking wife

Jana


----------



## Ralf

Well, this might be true. Nevertheless it is still my opinion that this article must not be generalized. I think that's more a question of individual aptitude. Those children may have more difficulties learning languages than understanding mathematics or physics. But this will be different with (or better for??) children with a 'normal lingusitic talent'. (I can't think of anything better to put it more precisely. I hope you'll understand what I mean.)

Kind regards.


----------



## Jana337

Sure I do This is my attitude as well, more or less.
Have a nice day,

Jana


----------



## Silvia

jz337, I have studied both English and German, along with other foreign languages, but I started with English first. I agree with the basic idea of that article you read, starting with English makes any other language look more difficult. That's just my opinion, of course. And I guess this is even more true if you start learning English at a very young age.

Focalist, I'm sorry to give you the bad news, but having experienced a stay in Great Britain, I can tell you people are not willing to understand what you're saying soon after they understand you're not English. Or maybe it was like that with Italians only, I'm not sure. This has happened to other people from my country, with whom I had the chance to discuss about it. Result: I'm afraid the English are not known for their politeness when it comes to help a foreigner make himself understood. I don't want to generalize, but in other countries they try to help even with gestures, unlike in Britain where this is not suitable or who knows. I guess it's just a matter of culture.


----------



## Artrella

Well, I began with English and I realized it is easy because it is an "economical" language as compared to German or Romance Languages.
However, I took up German last year (and I am not a girl) and found it easy as well.  I don't think that learning English first of all would prevent you from understanding other languages.  It depends on which is your native language.
If it is Spanish (my case), a rich language, learning German would not be difficult.  I find German similar to Spanish, more than German to English.
Now I'm trying Italian, and of course, as it is similar to Spanish it's not difficult for me.

So I think it depends on what language is your native one.

My kids are learning two languages apart from Spanish, they are learning German and English.  And they have no problems with that.

This is my opinion, in spite of Jana´s question.  I think she was asking for some other answer.


----------



## Sev

silviap said:
			
		

> Focalist, I'm sorry to give you the bad news, but having experienced a stay in Great Britain, I can tell you people are not willing to understand what you're saying soon after they understand you're not English. Or maybe it was like that with Italians only, I'm not sure. This has happened to other people from my country, with whom I had the chance to discuss about it. Result: I'm afraid the English are not known for their politeness when it comes to help a foreigner make himself understood. I don't want to generalize, but in other countries they try to help even with gestures, unlike in Britain where this is not suitable or who knows. I guess it's just a matter of culture.


 
I do not not agree. I went to Great Britain, and found people very kind to me, trying to understand what I was desperately trying to say, or repeating things when it was too hard for me. Maybe because I'm french   !!!

Then I have to add that the contrary is annoying me : for many english-speakers (not all, of course), they don't do any efforts to speak the foreign language when they go abroad. And it's getting on my nerves when someone english comes to me in France and starts speaking english without trying to say "Bonjour" at least....


----------



## Artrella

I think to learn English is a good starting point because you get your mind (your grammar categories) used to a foreign language, and as English is an easy one, then you can learn any other language.  Because you have the idea of a foreign language. You can identify principles and parameters and compare them to your mother tongue.  Then when you learn to identify those principles and parameters, you can compare English to other languages, and find differences (parameters) and similarities (principles) and this is the benefit of learning an easy language first and then pass on to the "difficult" ones.
I hope I made myself clear...  


I've never been to Great Britain, but here in BA there are lots of foreigners, and they are nice to me. Maybe because I am studying in a school that is full of foreigners that love learning Spanish. I teach them and they teach me.  Fortunately, when I went abroad (to the States ) they were kind and tried to help.

I agree with Sev, the English speakers don't do any effort in trying to speak, at least some words when they go abroad.  It has to be* YOU * who speak English.  And that bothers me too!! But all the same, they are nice to me...


----------



## Focalist

Sev said:
			
		

> Then I have to add that the contrary is annoying me : for many english-speakers (not all, of course), they don't do any efforts to speak the foreign language when they go abroad. And it's getting on my nerves when someone english comes to me in France and starts speaking english without trying to say "Bonjour" at least....


That IS true, Sev. "Many, but not all", as you say, but nevertheless I've observed that kind of behaviour too often myself. They are the kind of people who are selfish and culturally blind in any case: it's just an extension of their general arrogance. Such people exist everywhere, but the current status of English emboldens a certain kind of English-speaker to act in that way. I dare say that in the 18th-19th centuries you were likely to come across a similar proportion of French-speakers barging their way around Europe addressing all and sundry in French and demanding to be understood.

Silvia, I'm sorry if you had unfortunate experiences in GB, but I would say that you were unlucky. One thing, though: do remember that there are three nationalities in GB (four in the UK), and that the English are only one of these. 

And there is a small minority of the English who react equally unhelpfully to other English-speakers too (whether fellow Britons or not), as soon as they realize they are not English. Helpfully, members of this minority usually readily identify themselves by being drunk and waving St George's Cross flags...

F


----------



## Lancel0t

My first foreign language is English and it serves as my basis for grammar and it really helps me a lot specially when learning other languages like spanish. So IMHO it is yes.


----------



## Whodunit

Hey Jana,
since I'm a native German speaker, it's unnecessary to learn a difficult language, but if you're an English(wo)man or French(wo)man, it could be more necessary to learn a harder language like the native one.

I'll give an example: I've been taught English at the age of 12 (very late), French at 14 and Latin at 15. I'd prefer to teach your child Latin or German first - if possible - because these are the two basic ones of Romance (Latin, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian) and Teutonic (German, English, Netherlandish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic) that are predominating in Europe. And a few years later, the child can learn all of the listed languages because they'll be easy though.

And if you're living like Jana (native Baltic speaker), it can be necessary to learn Baltic ones first and then Teutonic ones (because of English) simultaneously with Romance languages (because of Spanish and French).

And I can propose another one: If your child shall become a linguistic genius, you would've to teach him/her the hardest languages - as far as you know them - e.g. Jana, you can teach him/her German and English simultaneously; or even better Arabic and English.

In Germany, it's unusual to learn many languages, but many people do it, that's why I can understand your article. The German do generally not love language-studying, because most of them don't want to have got a degree abroad and in another language.


----------



## Jana337

It is completely irrelevant for the discussion but I have no children

BTW I did not fully get your point from the third paragraph - you seem to imply that I am a Baltic speaker?? I am definitely not. Neither do I know what exactly constitutes one... Do you mean languages like Lithuanian and Latvian or the Scandinavian ones?

Jana


----------



## Whodunit

Yes, you're right - already modified - you're a native Slavic speaker. I want to list all European languages and its origin, though:
Teutonic:
-  German
-  Dutch
-  English
-  Norwegian
-  Swedish
-  Icelandic
-  Danish
-  Frisian
-  _Faroese_
Romance languages:
-  Italian
-  French
-  Spanish
-  Portuguese
-  Rumanian
-  Catalan
-  Corsican
-  Sardinian
-  Rhaeto-Romance (Eastern Switzerland)
-  Moldavian
-  Galician
-  Provençale language
-  Friaulian
-  Letzeburgish
-  Galician
Greek language:
-  Greek
Celtic languages:
-  Welsh
-  Irish
-  Gaelic
-  Breton
Slavic languages:
-  *Czech*
-  Polish
-  Serbian (Serbo-Croatian)
-  Bulgarian
-  Macedonian
-  Ukrainian
-  Byelorussian
-  Russian
-  Sorbian
-  Croatian
-  Slovene
-  Slovak
-  Kashubian
Baltic languages:
-  Lithuanian
-  Latvian
Albanian language:
-  Albanian
Finno-Hungarian languages:
-  Finnish
-  Lappish
-  Hungarian
-  Nenzic (North-western Siberia)
-  Estonian
-  Karelian
Turkish languages (Altaic):
-  Turkish
-  some Asian ones
THE HUGE EXCEPTION
-  Basque


----------



## Danielle

jz337 said:
			
		

> Imagine you want your child to master at least two foreign languages (let's assume for the sake of the argument that English is not your mother tongue). Would you start with English?
> 
> Why I ask: I've read an interesting opinion in a German source. It says that learning English first actually prevents you from mastering a second language. The English grammar is very easy (at least at the beginning), and people often give up other languages after a couple of lessons because they lack the patience you need for some complicated grammar structures like conjunctive in Romance languages, not to speak about the many traps of Goethe's language.
> 
> Jana


 
HI  I would have to say yes. And this forum is a great proof of that, with english, you can reach a lot of people, all over the world  and that is just Good !


----------



## Edwin

whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, you're right - already modified - you're a native Slavic speaker. I want to list all European languages and its origin, though:
> Teutonic:
> -  German
> -  Dutch
> -  English
> -  Norwegian
> -  Swedish
> -  Icelandic
> Romance languages:
> -  Italian
> -  French
> -  Spanish
> -  Portuguese
> -  Rumanian
> -  Catalan
> -  Corsican
> -  Sardinian
> -  Rhaeto-Romance (Eastern Switzerland)
> -  Faroese
> -  Moldavian
> Greek language:
> -  Greek
> Celtic languages:
> -  Welsh
> -  Irish
> -  Gaelic
> -  Breton
> Slavic languages:
> -  *Czech*
> -  Polish
> -  Serbian (Serbo-Croatian)
> -  Bulgarian
> -  Macedonian
> -  Ukrainian
> -  Byelorussian
> -  Russian
> -  Sorbian
> Baltic languages:
> -  Lithuanian
> -  Latvian
> Albanian language:
> -  Albanian
> Finno-Hungarian languages:
> -  Finnish
> -  Lappish
> -  Hungarian
> -  Nenzic (North-western Siberia)
> Turkish languages (Altaic):
> -  Turkish
> -  some Asian ones




What happened to Basque?


----------



## lsp

jz337 said:
			
		

> I must comment on lsp's remark (_If the English grammar is comparatively easy, then is it safe to assume the student's first language (NOT English, obviously) is more difficult, and so s/he might have the benefit of already being able to understand the complex structures you said could not be learned from English?_). This is not a valid argument in my humble opinion. You cannot compare your mother tongue to other languages that you acquire at a later age. Even people who are absolutely hopeless at learning languages master their own (the spoken part at least) one however complex its grammar is.
> 
> Jana


I seem to be having trouble making myself understood. If one doesn't speak English, which you say is easy, then possibly this person would have a mothertongue already more difficult in construction. That will help him or her understand similarly difficult constructions in other foreign languages s/he wants to learn. English won't help, but it won't impair that person's ability when they move on from English as a second language to something else as a third.


----------



## lsp

artrella said:
			
		

> I agree with Sev, the English speakers don't do any effort in trying to speak, at least some words when they go abroad. It has to be YOU who speak English. And that bothers me too!! But all the same, they are nice to me...


Present company excepted, of course. Right? This forum proves there are some Americans who don't belong in this sweeping generalization.

One thing, if I may, to explain this. I have seen Americans become impatient overseas, I don't deny it. But we have many people who can't easily afford the time or money it takes to travel far enough to ever need a foreign language. If some of you travel 6 hours you can be in 3 or 4 countries hearing twice that many languages. Here, in 6 hours, I'm still in New York State. Some of those folks save their whole lives for one trip abroad. We don't have many foreign radio stations, or original language movies, so our orientation towards learning other languages is different.


----------



## The Liberal Media

> One thing, if I may, to explain this. I have seen Americans become impatient overseas, I don't deny it. But we have many people who can't easily afford the time or money it takes to travel far enough to ever need a foreign language. If some of you travel 6 hours you can be in 3 or 4 countries hearing twice that many languages. Here, in 6 hours, I'm still in New York State. Some of those folks save their whole lives for one trip abroad. We don't have many foreign radio stations, or original language movies, so our orientation towards learning other languages is different.



*Quoted for emphasis*



			
				Focalist said:
			
		

> 1. Because its *surface* morphological simplicity means that the learner can quite rapidly come to "speak English badly"! (and nevertheless be understood 90% of the time: English-speakers do not, in general, throw up the walls of artificial incomprehension so often erected by, for example, French-speakers in the face of learners of their language);



I think that this is the most definite reason behind explaining why English is, indeed, worth learning, or at least worth trying, _especially_ here in the States. With the broad, though sometimes not-so-broad, regional differences in speech that exist here, we tend to extrapolate meaning in order to compensate for both regional dialects and foreign "shortcomings" in the language, as no one in America really speaks English "correctly" to begin with. The English subjunctive and rules of prepositions are easily ignored, while fragmentation, circumlocution, verb conjugation and verb tenses overall can easily be overlooked. It may be a difficult language to finalize, but it's simplistic enough to start.


----------



## sergio11

I agree with the posts of Artrella and Liberal Media. But let me add my own bit, which will probably generate another heated debate:

The main reason why people learning English don't want to learn other languages is not ease or difficulty, but perceived need.  Once people learn English, they don't feel the need to learn any other language, because the English language is so rich and so fascinating, that takes up their whole life to savor and enjoy its wonders.  Besides, if you are a student or a professional, most of the time you find more in the way of textbooks and reference materials in English than in any other language. 

Can a person who has learned English first learn other languages? I think the answer is categorically and unconditionally yes! English does not close your mind.  The reason why most English speaking people don't learn other languages is that they don't need them, or they need them only for a very short time. A two weeks' vacation is not worth the effort of learning a new language if the next vacation is going to be in another country with a different language.  

I understand the fact that there are other peoples living in the planet and there are many other languages besides English.  However, you have to realize, that all those other peoples today communicate with each other in English, just as in the Nineteenth Century and before did so in French. What is significant is that this is not something anyone imposed on them, but they chose to do so.  No one is forcing them to learn English: they want to.  Scientific conferences are usually in English. Technical magazines are usually in English.  Most of the Internet is in English.  When people from different countries communicate with each other in forums or instant messaging, they do it in English.  That is the reason why people learn English and then stop.  Not because English damages their brain cells.  If it did, you would not have Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Princeton, Yale, etc.  Not at all.  Do not be afraid of English.  English is a good thing.


----------



## Ralf

Dobré jitro, Jana.

I had to think a lot about this (unknown) article or better the question you've brought up from it. Perhaps I was wrong in my last post when I pointed out that my knowledge of Russian didn't influence my progress in learning English. May be it did, without me being aware of it at all. Because once having learnt a foreign language it might be most likely for the learner to have (more or less unconsciously) 'internalized' the patterns of understanding the 'construction' of a language and to have activated the parts of the brain needed to 'store (foreign) words in'. I think this can undoubtedly facilitate the process of learning another language. The more so, when the 'first foreign language' is (assumed to be) more difficult to learn.

Thus the basic idea behind the study mentioned isn't too bad: having learnt a 'more difficult' language will help to make the process of learning any other (less difficult) more effective. But I still don't think that English as 'first foreign language' will inevitably put off learners (neither infant nor adult) from learning any other, can be infered as a reverse conclusion.

Na shledanou. (unfortunately my wife isn't in presently, so I can't ask her for a more colloquial regard 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## Whodunit

Edwin said:
			
		

> What happened to Basque?



I've intenionally forgotten it because the origin of Basque is unknown. It's neither one of the listed ones, nor one of another continent's language origin. And Basque is only spoken in the nort of Spain and in the southwest of France. It's called "single language". If you can propose an origin of it, it'll be appreciated.


----------



## Edwin

whodunit said:
			
		

> I've intenionally forgotten it because the origin of Basque is unknown. It's neither one of the listed ones, nor one of another continent's language origin. And Basque is only spoken in the nort of Spain and in the southwest of France. It's called "single language". If you can propose an origin of it, it'll be appreciated.



The Basque are like God. They have no orgin and have always been there. All the more reason to mention them.


----------



## abc

sergio11 said:
			
		

> I agree with the posts of Artrella and Liberal Media. But let me add my own bit, which will probably generate another heated debate:
> 
> The main reason why people learning English don't want to learn other languages is not ease or difficulty, but perceived need. Once people learn English, they don't feel the need to learn any other language, because the English language is so rich and so fascinating, that takes up their whole life to savor and enjoy its wonders. Besides, if you are a student or a professional, most of the time you find more in the way of textbooks and reference materials in English than in any other language.
> 
> Can a person who has learned English first learn other languages? I think the answer is categorically and unconditionally yes! English does not close your mind. The reason why most English speaking people don't learn other languages is that they don't need them, or they need them only for a very short time. A two weeks' vacation is not worth the effort of learning a new language if the next vacation is going to be in another country with a different language.
> 
> I understand the fact that there are other peoples living in the planet and there are many other languages besides English. However, you have to realize, that all those other peoples today communicate with each other in English, just as in the Nineteenth Century and before did so in French. What is significant is that this is not something anyone imposed on them, but they chose to do so. No one is forcing them to learn English: they want to. Scientific conferences are usually in English. Technical magazines are usually in English. Most of the Internet is in English. When people from different countries communicate with each other in forums or instant messaging, they do it in English. That is the reason why people learn English and then stop. Not because English damages their brain cells. If it did, you would not have Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Princeton, Yale, etc. Not at all. Do not be afraid of English. English is a good thing.


 
Well said! 

Btw, Old English is very sexy!  Well, at least when it is sung and read!


----------



## Whodunit

Edwin said:
			
		

> The Basque are like God. They have no orgin and have always been there. All the more reason to mention them.



Already changed.


----------



## vesna

Whodunit, there's one of the European languages missing in your list - SLOVENIAN


----------



## Jana337

BTW Slovak is missing, too! I haven't noticed before.

Jana


----------



## Whodunit

I corrected my list, and now you can see all missed ones underlined.


----------



## vesna

With reference to what Sev wrote, in my experience the French are very intolerant with learners of French. Whenever I call to France, I always start with bonjour and try to speak French, but their common response is this French 'quick talk' that drives me crazy. They don't even try to speak slowly, although they can clearly hear that I'm no French speaker. Exceptions always exist and occasionally we can communicate quite well, me using English with some French words and they trying to use English and in the end explaining it to me in slow French. 
My first time in France, I was only seventeen, I wanted to buy a train ticket and kindly asked the man there if he spoke English. He just said 'pas du tout' and it was really frustrating. 
Is it to much effort trying to be nice and help a person?


----------



## Sev

vesna said:
			
		

> With reference to what Sev wrote, in my experience the French are very intolerant with learners of French. Whenever I call to France, I always start with bonjour and try to speak French, but their common response is this French 'quick talk' that drives me crazy. They don't even try to speak slowly, although they can clearly hear that I'm no French speaker. Exceptions always exist and occasionally we can communicate quite well, me using English with some French words and they trying to use English and in the end explaining it to me in slow French.
> My first time in France, I was only seventeen, I wanted to buy a train ticket and kindly asked the man there if he spoke English. He just said 'pas du tout' and it was really frustrating.
> Is it to much effort trying to be nice and help a person?


 
I'm sorry about your bad french experiences  ... Of course I didn't want to say that if a person does not speak french, he/she can't come to France ! I only wanted to say that there are many arrogant english speakers who DON'T want to make an effort (once again, not all of course). But if I meet someone who has difficulties, I will of course do my best to help, in every language I know.
Are there other people who have the same kind of experience than Vesna ?


----------



## Focalist

A couple more European languages for the Germanic* part of your list, whodunit:

Faroese 
and 
Frisian (English's closest relative)

F

_* better title that "Teutonic"_


----------



## lsp

Sev said:
			
		

> I'm sorry about your bad french experiences  ... Of course I didn't want to say that if a person does not speak french, he/she can't come to France ! I only wanted to say that there are many arrogant english speakers who DON'T want to make an effort (once again, not all of course). But if I meet someone who has difficulties, I will of course do my best to help, in every language I know.
> Are there other people who have the same kind of experience than Vesna ?


'fraid so. People told me to expect it, and I thought it was the most ridiculous thing to say. It was my first big trip overseas and I was deliriously excited to see Paris. Who would be mean to me, I was spending my life's savings at that point to visit their wonderfully unique city! I had nothing but eager enthusiasm, so I dismissed this grotesque generalization. Yet my first experiences were terrible, in the hotel and then in the first few restaurants. I had barely said "jus d'orange" and my waitress acted like my accent (which is pretty good, I have to tell you) actually caused physical pain to her ears. Luckily 2 brothers from Kenya who spoke French heard how much trouble my friend and I were having an adopted us. In fact that's how I ended up going to Italy for my next vacation; the only place we had NO difficulty was in an Italian restaurant. And in those days I spoke as much Italian as French - about 3 words.

Still, as much as many of my friends have told similar tales of visiting Paris (that's what you always hear in these conversations - "It's not the French, it's the Parisians. It's so different if you go farther outside the city."), I still find this generalization about the French intolerance just as uncomfortable as the one about all the arrogant Americans.


----------



## The Liberal Media

I actually didn't really have any such encounters in my one trip to Paris, with the exception of one small altercation at Napoleon's Tomb. All of the Parisians whom I encountered were either incredibly friendly, or expectantly non-interactive. Overall, my Paris experience was overwhelmingly positive.


----------



## Leopold

IMHO, probably the most important thing for someone to learn foreign languages is to have a good knowledge of their mother tongue. If you understand the processes of your own language and are able to compare it with another language (which I think is one of the best ways to 're-learn' your mother tongue) everything will be easy afterwards. In my experience, however, the people I find most good at languages are Slavic-mother tongued speakers. But I don't know why. The only reason I could think of is the hard pronounciation and grammar they have. (Note how natural they sound!, I burn with envy ). 
So, I think the mother tongue is the keystone of foreing languages learning (a good knowledge of it, not necessarily a technical one). Currently, I think, English is a very isolated language. If you're French, or Spanish, learning neolatin languages will be, relatively, easy. But English does not have so close relatives... unless you want to learn Frisone, which would be very respectable.
Anyway, I think learning a difficult language at an early age is, prospectively, better than learning an easy one.
The problem is, which languages are easy and which ones are difficult? I don't think that's an easy question. 

However, I'm afraid of the forecoming Chinese invasion... start drawing ideograms guys!

L.

L.


----------



## Sev

lsp said:
			
		

> Still, as much as many of my friends have told similar tales of visiting Paris (that's what you always hear in these conversations - "It's not the French, it's the Parisians. It's so different if you go farther outside the city."), I still find this generalization about the French intolerance just as uncomfortable as the one about all the arrogant Americans.


 
Interesting to have opinions of people visiting France but what a shame for us !! Well, as you said generalization is not correct, for american arrogance or french intolerance, but there are behaviour that you find more common in a country than in another... I have to say that the experiences you told are most of the time in hotels or restaurants, and what about other people ? Do you think it's the same ?
What you say about Paris is what many people living in "Province" think (I'm living in "Province" too, but I don't like this word, it's as if the 2 million "Parisiens" were more important than the 59 other millions in France!!! ), but now I don't know if it's true....



			
				Leopold said:
			
		

> IMHO


 
By the way, what does IMHO stands for ? "In My H....Opinion" or something like that ?


----------



## Jana337

Sev said:
			
		

> By the way, what does IMHO stands for ? "In My H....Opinion" or something like that ?



Humble.

Jana


----------



## vesna

Leopold, It might be true that people coming from the Slavic languages are good in other languages because of the hard grammar. In my opinion, there's another important thing - small nations usually speak foreign languages better. There are only 2 million Slovenes and there are not many people here who wouldn't be able to speak at least English. That's why the tourists coming to Slovenia rarely have problems in communication.


----------



## Benjy

just like to throw in mon grain de sel as an english man who's lived in france. 

*there* are people who will stop and be nice or whatever but there are an awful lot of people who will just sblock you out when you try and talk to them in french. but i find its usually people in retail who do that. maybe its cos they're stressed at work ( dont get why, they dont spend more than 35 hours a week there  i kid i kid) some of the coolest people i know are french and i hope to go back this summer and see them  one incedent that sticks out in my mind about the whole retail thing.. i remeber this american at a train station (who spoke pretty decent french i hasten to add) asking for a reciept. the women au guichet just kept on giving him this blank look, and in the end the guy behind leaned over his shoulder and said to the sncf lady "WOULD YOU PLEASE JUST GIVE A RECEIPT" it made me laugh anyways. heh but again in a train station i remeber seeing this old british lady trying to book a train.. the guy was really struggling to understand her so i thought i'd try and be helpful and went over to offer my services, and instead got an ear bending from the lady in the most broken french ever =[ but i have to say the MOST annoying thing that would happen is when id try and ask for directions and i'd get them back in english.. but totally incomprehensible. what do you do then? :s


----------



## Jana337

> In my experience, however, the people I find most good at languages are Slavic-mother tongued speakers.



I wonder where this impression comes from 
Personally, I would pick Scandinavians as the best language learners in Europe.
Outside Europe Mongolians are incredibly efficient at picking languages.

Jana


----------



## DDT

lsp said:
			
		

> 'fraid so. People told me to expect it, and I thought it was the most ridiculous thing to say. It was my first big trip overseas and I was deliriously excited to see Paris. Who would be mean to me, I was spending my life's savings at that point to visit their wonderfully unique city! I had nothing but eager enthusiasm, so I dismissed this grotesque generalization. Yet my first experiences were terrible, in the hotel and then in the first few restaurants. I had barely said "jus d'orange" and my waitress acted like my accent (which is pretty good, I have to tell you) actually caused physical pain to her ears. Luckily 2 brothers from Kenya who spoke French heard how much trouble my friend and I were having an adopted us. In fact that's how I ended up going to Italy for my next vacation; the only place we had NO difficulty was in an Italian restaurant. And in those days I spoke as much Italian as French - about 3 words.
> 
> Still, as much as many of my friends have told similar tales of visiting Paris (that's what you always hear in these conversations - "It's not the French, it's the Parisians. It's so different if you go farther outside the city."), I still find this generalization about the French intolerance just as uncomfortable as the one about all the arrogant Americans.



I am delighted to read about the fact Italians often transmit such a friendly image...
I quoted your post, but this mean to be a general answer.
I'd like to point out everyone's attention on two things.
1. I am an Italian man, currently living in France. When I arrived in Paris I almost couldn't speak any French. But I happened to bump into rude people - I mean people pretending not to understand or unwilling to help because of my French mistakes - very seldom. Indeed. On the contrary, most French people did correct me and helped me to improve to a level which nowadays allows me to write French for professional aims.
And everytime I found such impolite people I realized other French natives were as bothered by such an attitude as I was. Let me please remember Paris is a cultural venue and most people do take care of other cultures in there. Negative experiences? Well, if I have to be sincere, I can understand - I don't mean justifying it - a certain degree of bother when you're living in the most visited city all over the world...and this bother can easily lead to rude reactions, I guess.
But some years in Paris also taught me there exist 2 different parallel Paris: the tourist one and the everyday one. Up to my personal experience the 2 Paris happen to melt very rarely. So that as soon as you or some of your friends (or of mine, some of my best Italian friends passing by had the same problem) claim that's Parisian (or French) people, I normally answer that theirs is a very limited experience and any generalization is normally wrong. I might have been very lucky, what is a truth is that I feel home here and I never felt scorn or the need to be integrated - I consider I was welcomed, from the beginning.
Unfortunately I cannot state the same about London, perhaps it's a matter of cultural differences... I did experience some sort of explicit racism towards no-Brit people, as well as I found very good friends I am still in contact with...once again, I consider generalization is not good. Both ways. For - and I'm coming to point number 2 - everything depends on people's nature. Their native language, race, religion, political orientation, whatever MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO ME!
2. We Italians are told to be friendly and kind...as an Italian I adore Tuscany and I already happened to pass several times by Florence. I don't like prejudice so that I didn't want to believe those preventing me. Yet I have repeatedly been very bad treated in Florence because of the fact I don't have the right accent - theirs, as I have been explained. Am I generalizing? Not at all, I also found very kind and friendly people in Florence. I'm just talking about it because I do mean underlining that everything is up to the individual.

And after this long off-topic post, I'd like to add that I agree about the fact that English do allow to meet lots of different cultures and exchange views with people from all over the world, as in these forums. 

DDT


----------



## ABSURDO

I am completely agree with Silviap and SEV. British people, in general, dont make any efforts trying to understand foreign speakers and even they are travelling around the world speaking only english. they dont care about other languages. In Spain, the most part of people have a lot of problems trying to learn any other language, spanish despite its rich vocabulary and complex grammar, avoid us correct pronuncionation because it have only few sounds


----------



## Benjy

ABSURDO said:
			
		

> I am completely agree with Silviap and SEV. British people, in general, dont make any efforts trying to understand foreign speakers and even they are travelling around the world speaking only english. they dont care about other languages. In Spain, the most part of people have a lot of problems trying to learn any other language, spanish despite its rich vocabulary and complex grammar, avoid us correct pronuncionation because it have only few sounds



lol.. i think you might benifit from reading ddts post.


----------



## lsp

DDT said:
			
		

> I am delighted to read about the fact Italians often transmit such a friendly image...
> I quoted your post, but this mean to be a general answer.
> I'd like to point out everyone's attention on two things.
> 1. I am an Italian man, currently living in France. When I arrived in Paris I almost couldn't speak any French. But I happened to bump into rude people - I mean people pretending not to understand or unwilling to help because of my French mistakes - very seldom. ....


I was told by the friends I mentioned (Indians from Kenya educated in England and fluent in French, interestingly enough) that the famous french attitude was always worst with Americans, they explained, because of the preconceived notion that we would not speak at all or what we would be able to say would butcher the sound of the language of which they are so proud (and I'm sure that part is true. I still can't believe my own horrible American accent in Italian when I hear it on tape - and it is so authentic sounding inside my head!).

But Romans have as many Americans traipsing through their city as the Parisiens, but are famous for their linguistic tolerance. I can't begin to tell you how common it is to hear people say to friends going for the first time, "Well, you will not have nearly the problems getting around in Rome because they are so forgiving for your language - they just love it when Americans make the effort." I found that to be very true on my first visits.


----------



## Whodunit

jz337 said:
			
		

> I wonder where this impression comes from
> Personally, I would pick Scandinavians as the best language learners in Europe.
> Outside Europe Mongolians are incredibly efficient at picking languages.
> 
> Jana



Yes, I also think so.


----------



## black_cat713

jz337 said:
			
		

> Imagine you want your child to master at least two foreign languages (let's assume for the sake of the argument that English is not your mother tongue). Would you start with English?
> 
> Why I ask: I've read an interesting opinion in a German source. It says that learning English first actually prevents you from mastering a second language. The English grammar is very easy (at least at the beginning), and people often give up other languages after a couple of lessons because they lack the patience you need for some complicated grammar structures like conjunctive in Romance languages, not to speak about the many traps of Goethe's language.
> 
> Jana


 
Yes. Although grammar rules are confusing and there are exceptions to every rule; then again there is in just about every language. So i would say.... Yes.


----------



## mahaz

Yes I would also like to Start with English because its a common language and after learning English one becomes able to communicate with almost every person, regardless of other's native language.


----------



## JazzByChas

sergio11 said:
			
		

> Jana, even those who tell you not to learn English try to learn it first. You may learn a million other languages, but none will have the usefulness of English, except, of course, the local language of the country in which you live. Everybody tries to learn english because English is a very rich and fascinating language, it is relatively easy to learn, you can find books on every subject, especially textbooks, and above all else, it has the most exciting crossword puzzles!


 
Well, Sergio, I must admit that this is very interesting coming from someone who grew up in Argentina, and speaks Spanish as well as English.  English is only a rich and fascinating language, IMHO, because it is a polyglot language, which is to say, it comes from every other language in the world, practically.

Now, as for crossword puzzles, I have never tried one in another language, but I happen to like them.  And if you want a challenge there, try the New York Times crossword puzzle...it is one of the hardest I have come across.  (I suppose I could practice at it, however...  )


----------



## Vanda

I was 12 when I was "presented" to both languages, English and French, in high
school. I had no problem that time learning both. I mean I was as good at English as I was at French (let's not forget it was elementary level of both).
When I left high school I could speak and read intermediate English and
read and understand advanced French (well, Portuguese and French are related,
thus the higher level I could master in French that time). 
What happened after that it was what I could or had the opportunity to do with both languages. In my case, continued studying English and French was kept
in a drawer to use in case of emergency: travel, books, movies...


----------



## irisheyes0583

Ralf said:
			
		

> *I simply can't imagine that learning one's 'first foreign language' may affect one's determination of learning 'any other' later, no matter if it's English or what language ever.*


 
Interestingly enough, it absolutely _can_ affect one's further learning! I don't know how many are familiar with Esperanto (a linguistic & syntactically simple, man-made language designed with the hopes of being a worldwide "second language"), but according to studies, "There is evidence that learning Esperanto before another foreign language improves one's ability to learn that language, so much so that it takes less time to learn both than it would to learn just the second." (from Wikipedia.com)

Interesting, huh?


----------



## JazzByChas

I will say, for the sake of argument, that any language that you want to make your first foreign tongue is good as long as you have mastered the grammar of your own language very well.  Grammar is the hardest part of any language, with the vocabulary and vernacular, second.


----------



## Outsider

irisheyes0583 said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, it absolutely _can_ affect one's further learning! I don't know how many are familiar with Esperanto (a linguistic & syntactically simple, man-made language designed with the hopes of being a worldwide "second language"), but according to studies, "There is evidence that learning Esperanto before another foreign language improves one's ability to learn that language, so much so that it takes less time to learn both than it would to learn just the second." (from Wikipedia.com)
> 
> Interesting, huh?


And yet, where Esperanto has exceptionally regular grammar and spelling, English is very irregular...


----------



## nikvin

Well, some say that English may be the HARDEST language to learn!, partly I suppose because of the incredible amount of differrent sounds that a letter or group of letters can have. The grammar , is seemingly simple at first but more complex the further one delves. 
One one the BIG problems for English speakers (uk)with respect to the learning of foreign languages, is that very little grammar ( if any indeed) is actually taught, consequently when they come to attempt a foreign language, they are starting from scratch. In fact I often now, have to explain, (to otherwise well-educated people) what a noun is, what a verb is and so on ..............
My first language was technically English, but at the age of 3 , my father´s work took him to France (Toulouse and then Paris) for 11 yrs, so all my basic education was in French. On returning to the UK, I could speak English (very badly, and with a strong French accent) but could neither read or write it. Within 3 yrs, I took an A/O level in the use of English, which concentrated far more on grammar and useage, and got the highest mark in the school. 
Obviously, being British, did give me a strong incentive to learn the language, but I believe that the overall strong grounding in French grammar, made this a lot easier.
I did also whilst at the Lycee study Russian for 2 years, and loved it and did well ( better than many of my classmates for were of Russian emigre families and who spoke it at home). I took and passed German, and (no affront intended ) hated it. Spanish however I loved.

One of the other problems faced in the UK is that the overall standard of language tuition is abysmal. Teachers who make horrendous mistakes and speak it appallingly badly, but generally believing themselves to be fluent and to have great accents!

Problems experienced in France by English language speakers are often due to this Anglo/french hate thing going back centuries. There seems to be nothing better (to some) than blaming the other nation for some of the problems, and there are several expressions (little used these days) that show this : 
french letter / capote anglaise, to take french leave / filer a l´anglaise. 


Prpblems experienced in the UK by the Argentinians ....well when did you visit??
They won´t forget the war that quickly, even though most had no idea, where the Falklands are!! In fact, I heard several people asking "what are the argies doing in Scotland"

Here in Spain(Andalucía) I hear numerous people commenting on the rudeness, unfriendliness etc of the locals. Those however, who have bothered to at least try to learn some Spanish, even if it´s only ¡Hola! and por favor to start with ,tend to say the opposite, as to how friendly and helpful the Spaniards are, and their experiences are greatly different, are their lives here far more fulfilling from their willingness to learn something of the local language, culture and history.

sorry to be so long winded!!
i also appreciate that some of the posts I have commented upon, were made quite some time ago, but I only discovered this fantastic site a few days ago, and as I read through as many of the threads as I can, I find things to comment on, albeit some quite old!

Apologies!


----------



## antt

Starting with English does get you impatient =X


----------



## sergio11

nikvin said:
			
		

> One of the other problems faced in the UK is that the overall standard of language tuition is abysmal. Teachers who make horrendous mistakes and speak it appallingly badly, but generally believing themselves to be fluent and to have great accents!


Nikvin, in every language and in every country, language teachers think their accent is the greatest, no matter where they are from and how badly they speak. 


			
				nikvin said:
			
		

> Problems experienced in the UK by the Argentinians ....well when did you visit??
> They won´t forget the war that quickly, even though most had no idea, where the Falklands are!! In fact, I heard several people asking "what are the argies doing in Scotland"


Most Argentinians had nothing to do with the war. It was a maneuver of the military to divert public attention from the problems facing the government. The only contact many had with it was that their children were sent as soldiers and died in a meaningless and useless war. None of those kids wanted to go. They were all drafted. Argentina does not have paid soldiers like other countries have; only their ranks are paid, not the soldiers. So they were all forced to go against their wills. Besides, nobody there (or here) knows the issues surrounding the war, so, blaming the "Argies" for the war is not fair either. The "Argies" were victims of their bad government and thrown into that stupid war as much as any Englishman that eventually got involved with it.



			
				nikvin said:
			
		

> Apologies!


There is no reason to apologize, Nikvin. Your posting was very interesting. I enjoyed reading it.

Saludos


----------



## KingSix

lsp said:
			
		

> "Well, you will not have nearly the problems getting around in Rome because they are so forgiving for your language - they just love it when Americans make the effort." I found that to be very true on my first visits.


 
Try speeking a bit Greek when you are on vacation in Greece, especially with the elderly, they will be delighted.



			
				Jana337 said:
			
		

> Imagine you want your child to master at least two foreign languages (let's assume for the sake of the argument that English is not your mother tongue). Would you start with English?


 
Hmm, if you already knew which languages you wanted your child to learn it depends.  If you your child to learn German then English would be probably a better choiche then e.g. Spanish for a first foreign language.
A closer related first language would give more benefit for the second because the grammer and the vocabulary are somewhat similar.
Ofcourse this is just my point of view..


----------



## luis masci

Although it’s truth the English grammar is simple compared with other languages, its illogical pronunciation does it will be balanced.
I think the unique inconvenient learning a foreigner language would be try to get two of them so similar at the same time or try to get one of them without to get a good assimilation of the first one. 
I’ve heard people complaining because two languages had done confusion in his/her mind.
I have to leave Italian because I’m still learning Portuguese and I was fearing I’d finish speaking “portulian”. These two languages  are pretty similar each other.
​


----------



## BasedowLives

luis masci said:
			
		

> Although it’s truth the English grammar is simple compared with other languages, its illogical pronunciation does it will be balanced.
> I think the unique inconvenient learning a foreigner language would be try to get two of them so similar at the same time or try to get one of them without to get a good assimilation of the first one.
> I’ve heard people complaining because two languages had done confusion in his/her mind.
> I have to leave Italian because I’m still learning Portuguese and I was fearing I’d finish speaking “portulian”. These two languages are pretty similar each other.
> ​


espero que no te molesten mis sugerencias.

Although it's true that English grammar is simple compared with other languages, its illogical pronunciation cancels that element out.  I think the only inconvenience of learning foreign languages comes when learning multiple (similar) languages at the same time without getting a grasp of the first one.  I've heard people complaining about confusion from 2 languages when talking in those foreign languages.  I have to stop italian because I'm still learning portuguese and i was afraid I'd end up speaking "portulian".  These two languages are pretty similar to each other.


----------



## Brioche

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, you're right - already modified - you're a native Slavic speaker. I want to list all European languages and its origin, though:
> Teutonic:
> - German
> - Dutch
> - English
> - Norwegian
> - Swedish
> - Icelandic
> - Danish
> - Frisian
> - _Faroese_
> Romance languages:
> - Italian
> - French
> - Spanish
> - Portuguese
> - Rumanian
> - Catalan
> - Corsican
> - Sardinian
> - Rhaeto-Romance (Eastern Switzerland)
> - Moldavian
> - Galician
> - Provençale language
> - Friaulian
> - Letzeburgish
> - Galician
> Greek language:
> - Greek
> Celtic languages:
> - Welsh
> - Irish
> - Gaelic
> - Breton
> Slavic languages:
> - *Czech*
> - Polish
> - Serbian (Serbo-Croatian)
> - Bulgarian
> - Macedonian
> - Ukrainian
> - Byelorussian
> - Russian
> - Sorbian
> - Croatian
> - Slovene
> - Slovak
> - Kashubian
> Baltic languages:
> - Lithuanian
> - Latvian
> Albanian language:
> - Albanian
> Finno-Hungarian languages:
> - Finnish
> - Lappish
> - Hungarian
> - Nenzic (North-western Siberia)
> - Estonian
> - Karelian
> Turkish languages (Altaic):
> - Turkish
> - some Asian ones
> THE HUGE EXCEPTION
> - Basque


 
Letzeburgisch [_Lëtzebuergesch_] is a Mosel-Frankish dialect of German.
It is not a Romance Language.


----------



## Heba

If I want to choose the first language for someone to learn, that would be English. Why? because it is universal. 

I also think that English- unlike French- does not affect your pronounciation in a language you try to learn later. I have noticed that many people who start with French take the Frech accent to the languages they learn later.

English grammar is comparatively easy because of the long simplification process it has gone through.

Spanish has a lot in common with arabic (especially in vocabulary and the pronunciation of vowels). One of my friends also told me that it provides a good introduction to Italian since the two languages have alot in common (I do not know if this is true as I did not try Italian before). So, it is my second chice (for native arabic-speakers).


----------



## Vespasian

I think you can't say which language is better to begin with. The interest, motivation and environment of each child differs so much.

But I think you are on the safe side with English as a first foreign language. Why? Being the lingua franca and all that comes with it is just a very big advantage. And this outweighs the less complex grammar by far. With English it's very easy to see all the advantages that a second language can give you, so it's very hard to discourage someone with it. To answer the first question: Yes it's a good first foreign language, at least from a Swiss (German-speaking) point of view.

p.s. This might be of interest: http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=106&sid=6505299&cKey=1140964108000


----------



## Hakro

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Imagine you want your child to master at least two foreign languages (let's assume for the sake of the argument that English is not your mother tongue). Would you start with English?
> 
> Why I ask: I've read an interesting opinion in a German source. It says that learning English first actually prevents you from mastering a second language. The English grammar is very easy (at least at the beginning), and people often give up other languages after a couple of lessons because they lack the patience you need for some complicated grammar structures like conjunctive in Romance languages, not to speak about the many traps of Goethe's language.
> 
> Jana


 I would not and I also have advised my son not to start with English, because English is easy to learn later.

In school I studied French for eight years, Swedish for seven years, German for six years and English for three years. When I left school I spoke best English.

I have met many people who have started with English and they have had terrible difficulties with Romance languages that they have studied later - and in many cases they quit the more complicated languages. This confirms that the German source is right.

Of course learning English is a 'must' but not necessarily as the first foreign language.


----------



## Gustavoang

This thread has a lot to do with one I just posted: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=704552

Cheers.


----------

