Which is better for literature: French, or German?

Why not learn both?

They are pretty useful languages.

>Italian
>Simple

Not wanting to be campanilistic, but Italian isn't easy. Russian, German and probably all Asian languages are harder, that's for sure, but Italian isn't a language you can become fluent in four years - unless you practice it daily for a couple hours or more.

By the way, what is the exact definition of fluency? I see the term thrown around very often and it appears to mean something different each time.

My definition of fluency is when you understand everything grammatically about the language pretty much perfectly.

I think it's a better metric for fluency than being able to pronounce everything perfectly, because if it's your second or third language you're going to have an accent anyway.

>Italian isn't easy
are you american? italian is really simple to learn when you´re from central europe, since it´s pretty close to latin. four years should be more than enough be get pretty decent in it

Four years is actually a pretty long time, Italian and Portuguese are relatively easy and you already knew a romance language. Imagine how much time it would take you to learn Russian, Japanese or Arabic at that speed.

I'm Italian. That's why I said I didn't want to be campanilistic.

Let me clarify: my definition of fluency is the ability to unconsciously follow a language's grammar when speaking and writing, "feeling the rhytm" if you want, coupled with a vocabulary the size of a native speaker's. That's being fluent, and very few people manage it - it's above a C2 level or its equivalent.

Talking from personal experience, I can tell you that people who come to Italy and stay, even for five+ years, usually aren't fluent - but that goes for virtually anybody anywhere.

Though I'll give you that you can get pretty decent in four years time, felt a bit stung in my linguistic pride before.

France by far. Some huge names like Balzac, Flaubert, Proust, Hugo, Rabelais... and lots of lesser-known, incredible writers. From the late 19th century to the 1960's there are many gems you've probably never heard about. Also, amazing poets (Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Mallarmé, Corbière, Ronsard, du Bellay, Rutebeuf, Villon, Verlaine, Saint-John Perse...).

>people who come to Italy and stay, even for five+ years, usually aren't fluent - but that goes for virtually anybody anywhere
that´s saying more about those people than about a language. if you actually want to live in a country because you like it there, you will speak the language on a daily basis, listen to the country´s tv/ radio programs and stop using your old language on a daily basis. sure, you´ll probably never lose your accent when you immigrate as an adult. but when you aren´t fluent after a few years of living in a country, it´s your fault. let me guess, you´re talking about all those refugees who aren´t fluent after years in the country? we have those in my country, too. they shouldn´t be allowed to stay here

Well, I was thinking about an English woman who runs a private English language school, has been here for about 18 years and still sounds weirdly artificial in her day to day conversations - not due to her accent, I'll stress.

Shit mate, we're being a bit judgemental today aren't we? Not everyone has it in them to actually become fluent in a given language, no matter the time spent in another country. Yes, you can do your best to learn it but there's an innate quality to it, as for your ability to use your native language.

Not him, but very few people manage to sound completely native in a second language though, so I don't get the fuss.

As long as you understand everything people are saying and you can make yourself understood, there's no reason to not call someone fluent.

Well yeah, of course. I wasn't trying to invalidate other people's linguistic achievements. To tell the truth, I'm just a bit pissed off at people using the word fluency as a catch all term to mean anything from "I sometimes watch Netflix series in English with subtitles on" to "I can critique McCarthy's transliteration of rural American vernacular and the result would be academically lauded", especially when it comes to curricula and the likes, because you know they're overselling their skills more often than not.

I'm just salty, in the end, and I wish for an update of language certifications and standards in the Western world soon, especially regarding English.

Not disagreeing with anything here tbqh.

If you understand how to study a language well (i.e., you have studied a language before and know what you're doing), 4 years would be an excessive amount of time to study Italian. And if you immersed yourself fully for a few months, it would be much faster. It's probably one of the simplest languages to learn.

>As long as you understand everything people are saying
Harder than you probably think tho. In some ways it's not meaningful either since nobody is going to understand everything all the time.

>let me guess, you´re talking about all those refugees who aren´t fluent after years in the country?
I would imagine he's talking about British ex pats if anything.

>In some ways it's not meaningful either since nobody is going to understand everything all the time.

Yeah you're right, just like your post.

ESLs always overcompensate on this. You're right, it isn't you who has trouble with English, it's the native English speaker on the other end.

There's maybe an argument for having an ability to derive meaning from context but that starts at a relatively low level of language ability. I think for most people it's a question of "can you derive meaning from imperfect communication?" Can you finish someone else's sentences for them, can you understand a half muttered sentence, pick out voices in a crowd, decipher informal language, even talking to someone on an actual phone is much much harder than most expect. Then there's knowing how people happen to write in that language (the kind of literary devices employed can vary significantly and what is par for the course in say English is beyond jarring in French, never mind idioms and so on). Many people seem to be doing the "I want to be fluent so I'll define fluent to be something easier" not just ITT but in general

I think my definition was pretty decent tbqh If you don't think fluency starts with an absolutely stellar knowledge of a language's grammar, I think you're sincerely mistaken.

Fluency =! Fluent
Part of being fluent is fluency, but fluency can just mean ease in use and not entail being fluent.

Now you're just being a pedantic idiot arguing semantics.

>If you don't think fluency starts with an absolutely stellar knowledge of a language's grammar
It's all part of a process tho. You have to spend some time getting to know grammar to the degree it's not even thought about for sure but you also have to be comfortable away from what's in grammar books but also exists in the language. I would say there's even an argument for making native mistakes: if an ESL confuses they're, their and there sometimes in writing that can also be part of fluency.

But grammar really ought to come at the A and B levels in CEFR (although I am aware that testing is perhaps not enforcing this sort of thing a lot of the time) and what I'm talking about should be more about higher levels. I don't think if you can't get an idea of what someone's saying from imperfect language then you shouldn't be C2, and many consider that sort of thing to be implied in the framework. But again not often enforced, for a lot of speaking exams for example the dialogue is the slow "I'm talking to a foreigner" type of language.

I always start with grammar extensively when I'm trying to learn a new language.

I won't even try to speak it, unless I know a decent amount of the general rules of tense and case(if it has a case system).

Because I know by experience that it's embarrassing as hell using wrong cases and tense when you are trying to talk to someone who is a native speaker of a language.

This, really

I started learning german in 5th grade, so naturally I like it more.

The only good option is to learn both.

of speaking third world languages? no.