I think you're a good counter-example for what you claim. You knew the basics before -- how much was this "basics"? Couldn't it be at least four years of foreign language classes in school?

Second, you were 17. Third, you were fully immersed in the country of native speakers, probably spending all the time in language learning. Fourth, you say you were evaluated to be very talented for learning languages, do you know where you were at this curve (were you in the top 1% or so)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

Fifth, which exactly diploma did you get then? If you were accepted to the French university, I believe you passed B2 and not C1.

Please do be more precise, I'd really like to know the truth.

What did I claim? I claimed that it was possible for someone to learn a language fluently in 4-5 months, because I did so. To be honest, your demanding tone is a little off-putting, particularly when you're asking personnel questions about my life and schooling. However, in the interest of science, I'll try to answer the questions:

1. The "basic". No, in the US, it's pretty rare to have four years of language training by age 17. I had two years of French before I left, but it was very basic French, on par with the way languages are taught in France. Not, for example, at the level at which languages are taught in Germany or Sweden. I knew the fundamentals of French grammar, but I could speak only very basic phrases when I first arrived in France. I could not carry on a basic conversation in French before my departure.

2. Yes, I was 17. I mentioned that.

3. Yes, I was immersed; I mentioned that as a mitigating factor.

4. Yes, I was in the top 1% of language learners according to aptitude tests. But my whole point in writing the post was to say that learning a language fluently in 4-5 months was possible (because I had done so), not that it had actually happened to the person in question. It may or may not have. But I tend to believe him.

5. What does a diploma have to do with this? In fact, I did not go to a French university, because I wanted to go to an American university.

Seeing the responses of some of you makes me understand a little better why some of the developers I've interviewed and worked with who have strong math/CS backgrounds are so surprised that I'm not able to immediately understand some complex algorithm. We all have different aptitudes, and just because something seems difficult for you, does not mean it is so for another person. I know some of you with strong math and CS training and aptitude are much quicker at understanding algorithms that I am (although I'm pretty quick at picking up PL syntax thanks to my natural language aptitude). I can totally accept that. Why is it so hard to believe that someone who has worked as a professional, ATA-certified translator would be quicker, even much quicker, at learning natural languages than others? If you think an average person could learn this material in a year, don't you think it's possible that a motivated individual with an aptitude for languages could do so in half that time? Isn't it possible that the blog author might be such a person?

Let me summarize: you've had two years of French as a foreign language before you came to France, you are a top 1% language learner, you've spent all your five months in France just learning language and you haven't taken any formal exam which would prove that you've actually reached a C1 level and not B1 or B2. In short, you didn't show that it's possible reaching C1 in five months from zero knowledge even for a top 1% person. Thank you.

(As a top 1% language learner you must have reached A2 only "by osmosis" in two years of French as a foreign language, before you came to France, then reaching B2 (again being top 1%) in five months there is fully realistic.)

Pardon me, but are you by chance familiar with the French word for "shower"?

Could you leave while the grown-ups talk? There are cookies in the kitchen.

When strangers ask you for specific information about claims that you make, they're not trying to insult your trustworthiness. They don't know you, so you start from a place where there's no reason to trust you at all. They're searching for a reason to believe you if you look at it in a positive way.

I agree with the parents that doubt the veracity of these claims. There is so much more to a language than just vocabulary and grammar that I can't imagine anybody picking up on their own in 4-5 months. For example, in Japanese, there are many levels of formality that affect the vocabulary you select as well as the way you say something. And it's not just a matter of using one level with a particular person, how formal you are is very dynamic, and can change back and forth in the same conversation. Also, it's pretty much impossible to reach a native level productiveness of giseigo and giongo (different types of mimetic words) without being born and raised there.

However, if you're a language maven, then I can see how you can obtain high fluency in a short amount of time (although even the mavens I came across had issue with giseigo/giongo production, figure that out). But don't assume the same technique a maven uses will apply to your everyday person. I've studied Japanese for going on 14 years now (8 of those years being intense study: masters program, study abroad) and the more that I learn the more that I realize that I don't know.

Japanese is notoriously hard to master. It's probably not very revealing to use your experiences with Japanese as a benchmark when the blog author is talking about his experiences with French, a language very close to English, particularly in vocabulary (for obvious historical reasons).

You would have a point if the post author didn't also claim to be having the same success with Russian (also rated notoriously hard to master for english speakers). The tone of the article also implies that the same technique can be applied to any language.

That said, I still doubt actual fluency is obtainable for non-mavens even in the romance languages. In my experience, all early learners have a naive view of their own ability, no matter what the target language is.

He mentions right at the start it took longer with Russian.

RTFA.

The US Foreign Service Institute makes estimates for language difficulties for native English speakers, and they seem to be spot on in terms of comparative difficulty—Russian seems to be taking twice as long as French did for me, and they estimate languages like Chinese to take twice as long as Russian.

Agree on the Japanese point. The way you build sentences is just TOO different. You can definitely learn Japanese and speak it as a "gaijin" (meaning using european-style sentences with Japanese words) but speaking Japanese like a Japanese takes tremendous efforts and a serious re-wiring of your own brain as to how you approach language.

I'd seriously doubt if anyone can claim they can learn Japanese to a high level of fluency in a matter of months or even a few years.

"Agree on the Japanese point. The way you build sentences is just TOO different. You can definitely learn Japanese and speak it as a "gaijin" (meaning using european-style sentences with Japanese words) but speaking Japanese like a Japanese takes tremendous efforts and a serious re-wiring of your own brain as to how you approach language."

I don't agree with this. The way you have to 're-wire' your brain isn't too different from what you do while learning a programming language.

The difficult part of Japanese would be all that vocabulary and all those funny symbols and combinations of symbols.

As a Korean learner, vocabulary is a mountain that I make great progress in scaling, yet my progress seems insignificant compared to the size of the mountain.

No, the difficult part of japanese is not about vocabulary or funny symbols. I have a JLPT level 2 certification in Japanese and at this stage, the wording and kanjis is just about memory and practice. What's harder is to learn expressions, idioms, how to use them and how to understand them in different contexts. What you are saying is just like : "as long as you know words and alphabet, then you know the language". There's no way it is that simple.

And human languages are way more complicated and contrived than programming languages. I don't think you can make a reasonable argument to support that it's the same thing.

> What's harder is to learn expressions, idioms, how to use them and how to understand them in different contexts.

Well, that's hard too. But knowing all the words involved makes it a whole lot easier.

I haven't had much success with SRS for Korean vocab. There are so many words that are just too similiar to each other.

> human languages are way more complicated and contrived than programming languages. I don't think you can make a reasonable argument to support that it's the same thing.

I don't claim it's the same thing; I'm just making a comparison. Something like switching from SVO to SOV order isn't particularly difficult for the average programmer. Idiomatic expressions with irregular grammar are going to be problematic, granted.

> I haven't had much success with SRS for Korean vocab. There are so many words that are just too similiar to each other.

Are you studying words in isolation or in context? The latter approach makes things much easier.

The SRS words were mostly in isolation. I agree now that studying in context does make it easier, but in that case how is an SRS useful?

Why do you feel that the SRS's utility is determined by whether the words are in context or not? In fact, the people over at AJATT[0] have recommended using sentences and never using individual words. You want to practice in the types of situations you're actually going to encounter the language in. And in almost all cases, you'll encounter Korean (and any other spoken language) in the form of whole sentences, or at least phrases.

0: http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/

As an example in the US, we had a co-worker who was from Cyprus but lived in the US for 5 years to get a BS and MS degree. He knew English before coming to the US and spoke fluent English, but would be lost when we talked about US popular culture. Before then I hadn't really realized how often people made allusion to old TV shows, 15 year old politics, childhood books, etc.

It doesn't cost me to believe that (if you are good and dedicate a lot of time to it) you can get to B1 or B2 in 4-5 months. C1 is a completely different story though. I work for an international organization and people around here are naturally predisposed to learn new languages. It's amazing to see how much you can learn from native speakers, however C1 would require many more hours of interaction than 5 months can provide.

Why don't you ask some of the people you work with who are naturally good at languages if they've ever learned a language to a C1 level in 5 months? I imagine some of them will not only confirm that they learned a language to a level equivalent to C1 in that amount of time, but some may also tell you that they learned a language to C2-level fluency in around that amount of time.

We obviously have different ideas what C1 and C2 are. I'm sorry, I know only what exams look like here in this German speaking country for the purpose of obtaining B2 in order to get the right to study and I know how much harder C1 is (as much that a lot of native speakers not trained to write organized texts wouldn't pass it without targeted preparations), and it matches the specification I've linked, see the top post.

Can you please specify your reference for that what you consider a "C1" level? Also please note that once we relax the starting conditions, allowing two years of preparations and avoiding a formal C1 exam, we can't really call it "C1 in five months."

I believe you that you sounded awesome, I believe you you've received a lot of praise for your ability, we just don't agree if that was a C1 as defined.

If it really matters to you, you see my real name. Get in touch with me, and I'll put you in touch with university professors from Europe who will vouch for my progress in the language. But only if you promise to come back on here with your real name (like I'm using mine) and admit you were wrong.

Otherwise, I'm sorry we've both lost this amount of time arguing past each other, when you've clearly made up your mind that no one can learn a language fluently in 5 months, to and even beyond the C1 level as described in the standards posted (the CEFR had not yet been adopted when I was in school).

PS -- And to be clear, I'm not unique, or particularly unusual in my abilities. I've known many other language learners who have learned a language fluently in under 6 months. In fact, most of my translator and interpreter colleagues probably can learn a language in about that amount of time.

PPS -- I'm offline to play with my kids. Good luck.

You admitted you haven't learned French in five months but in at least two years and five months and you're a top 1%. I never doubted you progressed and the results were really good.

You never wrote clearly, have you passed any exam immediately after these five months in France? If so, how was it categorized then?