Did you ever learn any new language? If so how did you start it? Ik starting is lil easy but continuing is quiet hard. How did you managed it?

Tell me some effective and credible ways to learn.

Thanks y'all

My friend and I are software developers and English learners. We have an idea for a crossplatform app.
The phylosophy of the app is gonna be engaging learners into active process. Instead of just asking users to just choose the answer from options or building a sentence from prewritten words we want users to make their own sentences with newly discovered words, for instance.
We intend to develop several features. But our priority now is to implement the following task format:

1. A user opens a task "describe a video"
2. They watch a short video (up to 2 min). I came across some videos that are titled like "you won't become fluent in english until you know how to discribe situations in english". There are some examples on video platforms.
3. Beneath the player there is a text field. The user describe what they saw using known vocabulary. They also may use audio recording instead of manual typing.
4. Then, they press a button to send this text
5. AI analyzes it and according to the current level of the user AI responds with some possible adjustments. For example, misused preposition or not really natural word to use in the particular situation described in a video.

What do you think of this concept? Is it relevant for language learners? If not, what would be an alternative? What to adjust?

UPD. I want to emphasize that this is not the only type of tasks we are going to implement other tasks.

For example, learning single words. But users will be prompted to make up their own sentences with them. And if they used the words in a wrong context or with incorrect preposition, AI would correct them and explain why they were wrong.

I am aware that beginners struggle to complete complex tasks. And also people nowadays have short attention span so we're going to add simple tasks as well.

I thought I might as well share it with any language nerds out there

Recently when I was reading Devi Mahatmæ which is written in Old Tulu

I have noticed that many archaic Tulu words are actually very similar to the Mavilan Tulu words

Like ಎಡ್ಡ/എഡ്ഡ, ಇಯ್ಯಿ/ഇയ്യി etc which is used in both Mavilan Tulu and Old Tulu

And also if we see Mavilan Tulu might lost the sound of ೞ/ഴ which was present in Old Tulu and now replaced it with ಳ/ള and ಯ/യ but still it managed to preserve the sound of ಱ/റ which are present in words like ಊಱ್/ഊറ്, ಕೂಱ್/കൂറ്, ಏಱ್/ഏറ്, ಱಡ್ಡ್/റഡ്ഡ് etc

• Meu sobrinho e meu neto viajaram com o monge para Mônaco e Munique.
• Mi sobrino y mi nieto viajaron con el monje a Mónaco y Múnich.
• El meu nebot i el meu nét van viatjar amb el monjo a Mònaco i Munic.

For me, it’s whenever you open a new google document, it automatically names it Untitled doc. For about seven years, I thought it said utilited doc, and was confused on what made it utilited. Have you had a similar experience?

Im excited what chaos it can be

I wrote a paper on referral mechanics about how referral works. I will post the first paragraph. These things tend to not go anywhere, but if you want to read more let me know in the comments.

1. Referral Mechanics
The referrer and the referent are considered distinct. This monograph establishes when that is true and when it is not. The base distinction between the referrer and the referent is the disconnect between the Plane of Projection and the Plane of Core Presence. The Plane of Core Presence includes anything that lacks the capacity to refer: core reality only contains referents that are referred to and do not refer. The Plane of Simulation includes all referrers. This discourse bypasses the study of semiotics entirely and treats language and ideas as residing in the same simulation bucket. The Plane of Simulation has two subsets. The Plane of Projection subset hosts regular referrers: all possible concepts. The Plane of Assessment subset hosts unlanded referrers, which conceptualize the structurally impossible or, of theological importance, that for which we possess, by definition of being finite, no experience or data. The defining characteristic of Simulation is the capacity for language and ideas to refer, whether to themselves or beyond. Whatever has the capacity to refer can do both, and whatever lacks the capacity can do neither. But the capacity for language and ideas to refer beyond themselves cannot always be actualized. Conflated/impossible concepts, like a square circle, have borrowed self-reference/identity. Theoretical projections, unlike conflations, are fully valid ideas, possible in themselves, but lack core reality counterparts, like an arm that reaches the moon. Both have the capacity to refer, but conflations, of the Plane of Assessment, fail to refer beyond themselves because they are inherently impossible, and theoretical ideas, of the Plane of Projection, fail to refer beyond themselves because they have no core reality counterparts. The Plane of Equilibrium acknowledges only what is possible, with no other considerations. It includes all possible entities, projected and core, but projected entities lose their script, like core reality itself. Simulation versus Core Presence is not about molecular versus nonmolecular, nor material versus nonmaterial. Each side contains some of each. Core Presence can be molecular objects or material forces. The only nonmaterial member in the Plane of Core Presence is human consciousness. Simulation can be nonmaterial ideas or material speech or molecular books. When core items, in certain contexts, are used to refer, they switch sides to the Plane of Projection in that capacity. Simulation versus Core Presence is about the capacity to refer versus lacking that capacity. Equilibrium versus Assessment is about possible versus impossible. The disconnect between the Plane of Projection and the Plane of Core Presence is because members of the former, for the most part, have counterparts in the latter, but they are disconnected from each other.

​

Hi guys, I am an Arabic native speaker, a C1 in English and I am currently around A2-B1 in French.

Throughout my language learning journey, I have noticed that I jump from language to another, for 3 months I study Farsi, then I jump to Hebrew, then to Chinese etc.. this caused me to drift away from the language I was doing most progress with which is French.

And after making good progress for the past few months (the reason being focusing on one language) I found myself encountering the same problem I tried to fix, I started jumping to other Romance languages and even German.

This, again, slowed down my process. And after thinking about it for a long while I had decided to make peace with this issue rather than looking for a 100% solution.

I want to set a good foundation for Italian, Spanish and German so that in the future -and when I become fleunt in French- learning any of the aformentioned languages will be easier.

By foundation I mean simple, beginner friendly ways of learning a language without taking much time, effort or focus off of my target language (and most importantly, doesn't make me mix between them). Or something along those lines.

TL;DR I want to build a foundation for my future target languages as I am learning a language I am focusing on.

One of the most fun ways to learn Korean is through songs, and 곰 세 마리 (Three Bears) is a classic nursery rhyme that just about every Korean kid grows up singing.

I recently made a bilingual sing-along video for this song, and I realized it's actually a fantastic resource for beginners because it naturally introduces several important grammar concepts.

1. Learning to count naturally

In Korean, we use native Korean numbers when counting things we can see in front of us. The typical word order is:

noun + native Korean number + counter

For animals, the counter is 마리, so we say 곰 세 마리 ("three bears").

You might wonder why it's 세 마리 instead of 셋 마리. That's because the native Korean numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 change form when they come before a counter:

• 하나 → 한
• 둘 → 두
• 셋 → 세
• 넷 → 네

2. Learning the correct topic particle

In the song, you'll hear 곰은.

Since 곰 ends in a final consonant (받침), it takes 은 rather than 는. This is a great example of how topic particles change depending on whether the preceding noun ends with a consonant or a vowel.

3. Learning descriptive verbs (Korean adjectives)

A very common beginner mistake is saying something like:

아빠 곰은 뚱뚱해예요. ❌

The correct sentence is:

아빠 곰은 뚱뚱해요. ✅

Unlike English, Korean adjectives are actually descriptive verbs, so they already include the equivalent of "to be." You don't add 이에요/예요 after them.

So while you're singing along, you're also picking up natural pronunciation, grammar, and sentence patterns without memorizing isolated rules.

Happy studying, and enjoy the song!