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.)
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.
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?