Totally agree, the more senses involved, the easier it is to remember. When we first learned the word for cookie, we saw it with our eyes. It looked good. We felt it with our hands. We smelled the chocolate and the hot dough. We tasted it with our mouth, and then heard our mom say “cookie”. Doubtful you would ever forget it, especially because you had a reason remember that word: you wanted more.
Lessons should be like cookies.
That’s nice for concrete objects, but how can it cope with abstractions and concepts? How do you make “therefore” or “quarterly” or “unintended” (or things like ‘tense markers’) experiential? It seems like a quaint fuzzy new-age linguistic idea; but (more important) it misses the point of paradigms. In the strictest sense, no one “teaches” you any language — you teach yourself grammar by intuiting patterns and concepts. The best they can do to create an environment that is conducive to this. That’s where things like paradigms and substitution come in. The idea isn’t to memorize endless vocabulary in the vain hope of spitting it out later — but to compare and contrast the usages in order to draw linguistically meaningful conclusions. These conclusions are the building blocks of language acquisition.
I agree with much of what you say, but we’re talking somewhat at cross-purposes. First off, I didn’t suggest that the ‘concrete operational’ learning stage dominates into adulthood, though we do retain it to a lesser extent. Nor did I suggest that the same thing (touching, feeling) could be used to teach the type of abstract words you mentioned. Clearly it cannot.
My point, and French Allen’s point, is that humans learn language more efficiently though experiencing it than through vicarious explanations of it. There is plenty of empirical evidence to prove this point, so I’m not trying to rustle up some kind of new age theory. I do see a role for this concrete approach here on ChinesePod (which you wil see in the coming weeks) but rest assured, I share your skepticism. It wont’ be about kumbaya or the earth spirits.
Depending on what we mean by ‘paradigms’, I also truly believe in them. There could be little learning without them - the right ones. Again, however, my point was not to disparage the idea of paradigms by definition. How could we defend or deny ‘paradigms’ in the abstract? Surely it would depend on the paradigms in question. Lexical paradigms are more valuable, for example, than grammatical paradigms, but again we’d have to go into more detail to compare here.
Again, however, this was not what I was trying to say. My purpose was to point out the difference between message-centered communication and static grammatical patterrns that sit on a page (to which I referred, in context, as ‘paradigms’.) From the users perspective, these are different experiences.
I’ll write a bit more on experiential learning this week.
Somewhere recently, one of us was relating their class’s corruption of the standard textbook sentences to make them meaningful, or at least memorable. There was something I recall about teacher on the table with an alligator, for example. That is one way of dealing with an inappropriate compulsory textbook.
I can teach myself vocabulary till the cows come home, but I can’t teach myself grammar. I can go part of the way, but once I detect a usable pattern I want immediate confirmation, either by asking “oh is that how it works?” or by trying to apply it myself and getting correction when it’s wrong. It doesn’t mean grammar should be explained before experiencing it, but it does mean there needs to be a more knowledgeable person involved. I have several grammar books which I never study, but run to for (dis)confirmation when I have one of those aha moments. That’s not ideal, pretty unmotivating, but it’s all I have and better than being hit with it all up front. It is in that sense that I think grammar learning is critically important; it doesn’t mean the grammar lessons we had pushed onto us in school but it does require a helper.
I would be reasonably content, for example, if the only Chinese I knew was all of that required to read about historical Chinese knitting techniques. I’m not following that track (it’s unavailable) but if I were, for example, I’d still find plenty of abstractions and concepts came into knitspeak, including “therefore” and “quarterly”, and wouldn’t end up missing out on much. If I later became interested in, say, listening to Chinese IT lectures, the bulk of the learning would transfer. Similarly, I can study anything at all that’s mildly interesting, and get what I’ll need if ever I stumble across a knitting book. Isn’t that how it works?
As for experiential learning, that term makes me cringe. I hope there’s different kinds. I read a lot about it once, and thought it was a great. Then I attended two expensive courses that were delivered by a famous expert in that method. We spent a day bored silly and the whole day’s learning could be expressed in a single short sentence. Tell me it’s not all like that.
First of all I want to thank you becuase what other classroom does the teacher explain “the how” of how they want to teach us?
I do believe we learn more when somehow it sinks deeper into us. I wrote a while ago how I learned the tones for 火車站 and I was not at a train station. I was by a mountain river with my bike in Taiwan. A woman started talking to me in Chinese and I was doing ok in Chinese explaining how I ride my bike up here until she asked about my wife. And I thought I said we take the train from Hsinchu Train station. Everything was fine except kindly she explained with her finger that 火 was third tone as her finger went down and then rolled across the bottom and then upwards as she said hua. Now do you think I will ever forget how to say train station properly?
Equally, I remember the lesson you and Jenny gave where you introduced 為什麼 I will never forget that and it is something I use all the time. 為什麼? 為什麼? 為什麼? But 怎麼樣 inspite of many Cpod lessons has never got imbedded like 為什麼? So the point is how to make more expressions just go right to the brain cells?
This I beleive is the science of teaching. Is it only on an individual level that success occurs or is it possible to teach to all senses that taps many at once and how to do this ?
I think the basic problem with the comparison with how we learn when we are infants, and how we learn when we are adults, is that as infants we were fully immersed in the world we were trying to learn (of which language was a part); but as adults we can lack the immersion in the second language (assuming one is not living in China) and can lack the urgency (we can already communicate in our non-mandarin environment). Also infants are best considered as full-time learners; whereas adults generally have a day job, a night life, obligations to others etc…
For that reason, as adults, we need tricks and shortcuts. The shortcuts are having things explained that could otherwise take a while to learn through experience. The tricks are about rigging one’s environment to create opportunities for more experiencial learning (music, TV, etc…) which otherwise would not happen during the ordinary course of one’s day. ChinesePod managed to straddle both those categories, mixing some explanation with eavesdropping on someone else’s conversation.
My point is, that when the comparison is made with how infants learn, the approach that follows needs to take into account the radically different nature of the situation adult learners are in. If immersion and experience are being recommended, then unless I am given advice on how to achieve this, then I can only assume I am to be given free tickets to China, with accommodation, as part of the recommended package…
In my youth, on my old 32k BBC Micro, I had a text adventure game called “French on the run”, set in occupied france, in which you went through a number of multiple-choice scenarios, trying to pass yourself (a British operative) off as a native Frenchman. The game was not especially successful, but that is where I think the future lies: in online gaming whereby the language of the game is Mandarin, and in where earlier levels or tasks require simpler language than later ones.
I have some plans to create a game like this; but currently zero time to develop it. So feel free to steal the idea in the meantime… here’s the first level task: the first NPC you encounter wishes you to introduce yourself to them. The second task: this NPC would like a cup of green tea - you need to find the tea shop and ask the person at the counter for it, and pay for the tea. If you can’t find the tea shop, you can always ask for directions off one of the other players (so more practice, if non-mandarin is disallowed). Etc… to progress in the game, you immerse in the game and therefore the language.
I totally agree with the premise that experience is the key to language acquisition, and I am pretty sure, but not certain, that I know what you mean by “experience”. I looked for the book at my local book store to get a better idea of your meaning, but it was sold out - probably because because you blogged about it. Regardless of the exact definition, I can’t wait to hear what you have to say about how to make Chinesepod more experiential.
My theory is that adults learn languages more effectively by having multiple reinforcing events in a short space of time. For example, when I learn a word from my Chinese class and then I see it used on Chinesepod, this reinforcing event significantly improves my retention. Later, I am chatting online with a Chinese speaking friend and I find a way to work this word into the conversation. Now I have a lock on it. (Unfortunately it may take a few more experiences before I get the tones right.)
What makes these events effective is that they stimulate different parts of the brain and they happen before the information is forgotten. When in China, the reinforcing events might occur by chance, but those of us stuck in the other non-Chinese speaking countries need to go looking for them. An effective language program will repeat the words and patterns of the language in a variety of ways. And it will do this in a sequential manner to build on previous learnings and enhance retention.
This makes a great framework, but execution is also critical. And this is why Chinesepod is great, because you put the material into a relevant and interesting setting. And you follow it up with written text and exercises to create reinforcement events. But Chinesepod lacks the coherence between lessons that would support progressive improvement. I think there are ways to create better coherence without sacrificing the quality. But, until you can bridge this gap, Chinesepod will be most effective when used to augment other learning programs – like a class.
Love the French game. Oh so simple, but ever so cool. I agree that adults learn differently from children. For a start, we already know a word for cookie and door and window, so we already have a referrent for the concept, and don’t need the visual so much. On the other hand, there’s a lot to be said for the similar idea of having your input data in contextual (and thus experiential) form. In CPod lessons, we get to hear our new words and sentences in context and experience them, rather than just having ‘农业 means farmer, 将军 means general…’ type exposure.
I’ve got a few books at home which are purely experiental learning (no other instructions) for Hebrew and Gaedhelig. They just have the picture and the sentence, starting from ‘man’ and a picture of a man, then ‘woman’ and a picture of a woman to simple sentences, this is a man, this is a woman, then the man’s hat, the woman’s hat etc. It’s a good way of putting it all into context, and having you work it out. The disadvantage is that there’s no sound, so you already have to know the Hebrew alphabet or Gaedhelig spelling conventions to work it out. But it’s the perfect way to learn for someone like me, because I think of it out of the context of English, and I can extrapolate easily to other contexts. They’re called “Hebrew through Pictures” and “Gaelic the Fun Way” (I think, they’re at home…)
I’ll have to see about reading this book, but in the meantime, I’ve been looking over some research on adult vocabulary learning, and among the essays in it is a really interesting one, a case study by William Grabe and Fredericka L. Stoller called “Reading and Vocabulary Development in a Second Language” in the book Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition, and it had some great points that confirmed what I was seeing in my own progress. For one thing, it talks about genres of reading and conversation and the way that forms gaps in vocabulary and causes problems on tests, and part of its conclusion is that adults can indeed develop reading skills without formal class instruction or tons of grammar training. I think that the study is a self-assessment by one of the authors, Grabe, evaluating his progress through a journal and vocabulary tests in learning Portuguese. It has been very helpful reading, but it also is the kind of project Chinesepod can take part in. You have a bunch of us around to do out own informal case studies of ourselves to compare and raise points. I think so far this essay has been more helpful than reading much of the more objective research because I can compare what I’m doing to what he’s done and see if that worked for me or get ideas about how to make my course of study better.
I finally managed to get a copy of “Techniques for Teaching Vocabulary”. There is some inspiring stuff in this book about how to successfully teach vocabulary. There are several other books in the same “Techniques for” series.
The basic premise of the book is that second language vocabulary is hard for students to learn because “the students already have satisfactory words - in their own language”. And therefore is is the teachers challenge to create a sense of need for the word.
In her first activity she has the students draw lots of pictures of boys and girls on a paper. Then they take turns guessing how many are on each persons paper. “I think there are 4 girls on your page” .. “No, there are only 3″. In order to play the game the students need to use the new vocabulary words: “boy” and “girl”.
In another activity for learning verbs is to use new vocabulary in simple commands such as “touch the floor”, “go to the window”. Assuming there are no classroom management issues, this is a good way to get a little more oxygen to the brain at the same time. She says that “this activity is very much like what happens when one is learning one’s mother tongue.” because we hear many commands from our mother before we even speak our fist work. I liked the way the activity can be generalized and used by students in small groups: “raise your right hand”, “put your left hand on your head”, “Bend your knees”.
The book is filled with activities to stimulate your imagination or just copy for your own. But I think the idea of getting students engaged in games where they need the words to win helps to reinforce the vocabulary in an “experiential” way.
This book was publish in 1982, long before the market was flooded with educational software for kids. Today there are lots of programs available for kids in which they have to demonstrate their language (usually reading) skill in order to win. Many of her activities are interactive, but quite a few could inspire some good software.
She divides the book equally among elementary, intermediate and advanced students. In the intermediate section she stresses the importance of avoiding the native language. And she provides lots of suggestions and advice about how you do this without losing the majority of the class.
I haven’t read the advanced section yet, but I think these comments might give people more of an idea about what the author has in mind when she says “experience”.
I think Ken’s idea is: “Kids need experience, adults need Chinesepod”
To say I’m impressed is to grossly understate the issue. That is a highly intelligent summary that distills the book very well indeed. I hope to find time tomorrow to go into the ‘experience’ thing in more detail.This has really been an inspiration to me to see you to do all this.
Is there still no Chinese translation of nethack available? If not, I think it would be a fun project to translate it. Do you really think there’s much call for a Chinese netHack?
Totally agree, the more senses involved, the easier it is to remember. When we first learned the word for cookie, we saw it with our eyes. It looked good. We felt it with our hands. We smelled the chocolate and the hot dough. We tasted it with our mouth, and then heard our mom say “cookie”. Doubtful you would ever forget it, especially because you had a reason remember that word: you wanted more.
Lessons should be like cookies.
That’s nice for concrete objects, but how can it cope with abstractions and concepts? How do you make “therefore” or “quarterly” or “unintended” (or things like ‘tense markers’) experiential? It seems like a quaint fuzzy new-age linguistic idea; but (more important) it misses the point of paradigms. In the strictest sense, no one “teaches” you any language — you teach yourself grammar by intuiting patterns and concepts. The best they can do to create an environment that is conducive to this. That’s where things like paradigms and substitution come in. The idea isn’t to memorize endless vocabulary in the vain hope of spitting it out later — but to compare and contrast the usages in order to draw linguistically meaningful conclusions. These conclusions are the building blocks of language acquisition.
FDW,
I agree with much of what you say, but we’re talking somewhat at cross-purposes. First off, I didn’t suggest that the ‘concrete operational’ learning stage dominates into adulthood, though we do retain it to a lesser extent. Nor did I suggest that the same thing (touching, feeling) could be used to teach the type of abstract words you mentioned. Clearly it cannot.
My point, and French Allen’s point, is that humans learn language more efficiently though experiencing it than through vicarious explanations of it. There is plenty of empirical evidence to prove this point, so I’m not trying to rustle up some kind of new age theory. I do see a role for this concrete approach here on ChinesePod (which you wil see in the coming weeks) but rest assured, I share your skepticism. It wont’ be about kumbaya or the earth spirits.
Depending on what we mean by ‘paradigms’, I also truly believe in them. There could be little learning without them - the right ones. Again, however, my point was not to disparage the idea of paradigms by definition. How could we defend or deny ‘paradigms’ in the abstract? Surely it would depend on the paradigms in question. Lexical paradigms are more valuable, for example, than grammatical paradigms, but again we’d have to go into more detail to compare here.
Again, however, this was not what I was trying to say. My purpose was to point out the difference between message-centered communication and static grammatical patterrns that sit on a page (to which I referred, in context, as ‘paradigms’.) From the users perspective, these are different experiences.
I’ll write a bit more on experiential learning this week.
Ken Carroll
Somewhere recently, one of us was relating their class’s corruption of the standard textbook sentences to make them meaningful, or at least memorable. There was something I recall about teacher on the table with an alligator, for example. That is one way of dealing with an inappropriate compulsory textbook.
I can teach myself vocabulary till the cows come home, but I can’t teach myself grammar. I can go part of the way, but once I detect a usable pattern I want immediate confirmation, either by asking “oh is that how it works?” or by trying to apply it myself and getting correction when it’s wrong. It doesn’t mean grammar should be explained before experiencing it, but it does mean there needs to be a more knowledgeable person involved. I have several grammar books which I never study, but run to for (dis)confirmation when I have one of those aha moments. That’s not ideal, pretty unmotivating, but it’s all I have and better than being hit with it all up front. It is in that sense that I think grammar learning is critically important; it doesn’t mean the grammar lessons we had pushed onto us in school but it does require a helper.
I would be reasonably content, for example, if the only Chinese I knew was all of that required to read about historical Chinese knitting techniques. I’m not following that track (it’s unavailable) but if I were, for example, I’d still find plenty of abstractions and concepts came into knitspeak, including “therefore” and “quarterly”, and wouldn’t end up missing out on much. If I later became interested in, say, listening to Chinese IT lectures, the bulk of the learning would transfer. Similarly, I can study anything at all that’s mildly interesting, and get what I’ll need if ever I stumble across a knitting book. Isn’t that how it works?
As for experiential learning, that term makes me cringe. I hope there’s different kinds. I read a lot about it once, and thought it was a great. Then I attended two expensive courses that were delivered by a famous expert in that method. We spent a day bored silly and the whole day’s learning could be expressed in a single short sentence. Tell me it’s not all like that.
Aunty Sue,
I can assure you it’s not like your seminar! I do need to write about it this week. (This might explain FDW’s skepticism, too.)
Ken Carroll
Ken
First of all I want to thank you becuase what other classroom does the teacher explain “the how” of how they want to teach us?
I do believe we learn more when somehow it sinks deeper into us. I wrote a while ago how I learned the tones for 火車站 and I was not at a train station. I was by a mountain river with my bike in Taiwan. A woman started talking to me in Chinese and I was doing ok in Chinese explaining how I ride my bike up here until she asked about my wife. And I thought I said we take the train from Hsinchu Train station. Everything was fine except kindly she explained with her finger that 火 was third tone as her finger went down and then rolled across the bottom and then upwards as she said hua. Now do you think I will ever forget how to say train station properly?
Equally, I remember the lesson you and Jenny gave where you introduced 為什麼 I will never forget that and it is something I use all the time. 為什麼? 為什麼? 為什麼? But 怎麼樣 inspite of many Cpod lessons has never got imbedded like 為什麼? So the point is how to make more expressions just go right to the brain cells?
This I beleive is the science of teaching. Is it only on an individual level that success occurs or is it possible to teach to all senses that taps many at once and how to do this ?
Mike in Jubei
I think the basic problem with the comparison with how we learn when we are infants, and how we learn when we are adults, is that as infants we were fully immersed in the world we were trying to learn (of which language was a part); but as adults we can lack the immersion in the second language (assuming one is not living in China) and can lack the urgency (we can already communicate in our non-mandarin environment). Also infants are best considered as full-time learners; whereas adults generally have a day job, a night life, obligations to others etc…
For that reason, as adults, we need tricks and shortcuts. The shortcuts are having things explained that could otherwise take a while to learn through experience. The tricks are about rigging one’s environment to create opportunities for more experiencial learning (music, TV, etc…) which otherwise would not happen during the ordinary course of one’s day. ChinesePod managed to straddle both those categories, mixing some explanation with eavesdropping on someone else’s conversation.
My point is, that when the comparison is made with how infants learn, the approach that follows needs to take into account the radically different nature of the situation adult learners are in. If immersion and experience are being recommended, then unless I am given advice on how to achieve this, then I can only assume I am to be given free tickets to China, with accommodation, as part of the recommended package…
In my youth, on my old 32k BBC Micro, I had a text adventure game called “French on the run”, set in occupied france, in which you went through a number of multiple-choice scenarios, trying to pass yourself (a British operative) off as a native Frenchman. The game was not especially successful, but that is where I think the future lies: in online gaming whereby the language of the game is Mandarin, and in where earlier levels or tasks require simpler language than later ones.
I have some plans to create a game like this; but currently zero time to develop it. So feel free to steal the idea in the meantime… here’s the first level task: the first NPC you encounter wishes you to introduce yourself to them. The second task: this NPC would like a cup of green tea - you need to find the tea shop and ask the person at the counter for it, and pay for the tea. If you can’t find the tea shop, you can always ask for directions off one of the other players (so more practice, if non-mandarin is disallowed). Etc… to progress in the game, you immerse in the game and therefore the language.
What do you all think?
Ken,
I totally agree with the premise that experience is the key to language acquisition, and I am pretty sure, but not certain, that I know what you mean by “experience”. I looked for the book at my local book store to get a better idea of your meaning, but it was sold out - probably because because you blogged about it. Regardless of the exact definition, I can’t wait to hear what you have to say about how to make Chinesepod more experiential.
My theory is that adults learn languages more effectively by having multiple reinforcing events in a short space of time. For example, when I learn a word from my Chinese class and then I see it used on Chinesepod, this reinforcing event significantly improves my retention. Later, I am chatting online with a Chinese speaking friend and I find a way to work this word into the conversation. Now I have a lock on it. (Unfortunately it may take a few more experiences before I get the tones right.)
What makes these events effective is that they stimulate different parts of the brain and they happen before the information is forgotten. When in China, the reinforcing events might occur by chance, but those of us stuck in the other non-Chinese speaking countries need to go looking for them. An effective language program will repeat the words and patterns of the language in a variety of ways. And it will do this in a sequential manner to build on previous learnings and enhance retention.
This makes a great framework, but execution is also critical. And this is why Chinesepod is great, because you put the material into a relevant and interesting setting. And you follow it up with written text and exercises to create reinforcement events. But Chinesepod lacks the coherence between lessons that would support progressive improvement. I think there are ways to create better coherence without sacrificing the quality. But, until you can bridge this gap, Chinesepod will be most effective when used to augment other learning programs – like a class.
Carl,
I love this idea. It is brilliant. The possibities are endless.
Eric
Love the French game. Oh so simple, but ever so cool. I agree that adults learn differently from children. For a start, we already know a word for cookie and door and window, so we already have a referrent for the concept, and don’t need the visual so much. On the other hand, there’s a lot to be said for the similar idea of having your input data in contextual (and thus experiential) form. In CPod lessons, we get to hear our new words and sentences in context and experience them, rather than just having ‘农业 means farmer, 将军 means general…’ type exposure.
I’ve got a few books at home which are purely experiental learning (no other instructions) for Hebrew and Gaedhelig. They just have the picture and the sentence, starting from ‘man’ and a picture of a man, then ‘woman’ and a picture of a woman to simple sentences, this is a man, this is a woman, then the man’s hat, the woman’s hat etc. It’s a good way of putting it all into context, and having you work it out. The disadvantage is that there’s no sound, so you already have to know the Hebrew alphabet or Gaedhelig spelling conventions to work it out. But it’s the perfect way to learn for someone like me, because I think of it out of the context of English, and I can extrapolate easily to other contexts. They’re called “Hebrew through Pictures” and “Gaelic the Fun Way” (I think, they’re at home…)
What we need is a Chinese translation of nethack.
There’s a Japanese version, Sue. https://sourceforge.jp/projects/jnethack
I’ll have to see about reading this book, but in the meantime, I’ve been looking over some research on adult vocabulary learning, and among the essays in it is a really interesting one, a case study by William Grabe and Fredericka L. Stoller called “Reading and Vocabulary Development in a Second Language” in the book Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition, and it had some great points that confirmed what I was seeing in my own progress. For one thing, it talks about genres of reading and conversation and the way that forms gaps in vocabulary and causes problems on tests, and part of its conclusion is that adults can indeed develop reading skills without formal class instruction or tons of grammar training. I think that the study is a self-assessment by one of the authors, Grabe, evaluating his progress through a journal and vocabulary tests in learning Portuguese. It has been very helpful reading, but it also is the kind of project Chinesepod can take part in. You have a bunch of us around to do out own informal case studies of ourselves to compare and raise points. I think so far this essay has been more helpful than reading much of the more objective research because I can compare what I’m doing to what he’s done and see if that worked for me or get ideas about how to make my course of study better.
I finally managed to get a copy of “Techniques for Teaching Vocabulary”. There is some inspiring stuff in this book about how to successfully teach vocabulary. There are several other books in the same “Techniques for” series.
The basic premise of the book is that second language vocabulary is hard for students to learn because “the students already have satisfactory words - in their own language”. And therefore is is the teachers challenge to create a sense of need for the word.
In her first activity she has the students draw lots of pictures of boys and girls on a paper. Then they take turns guessing how many are on each persons paper. “I think there are 4 girls on your page” .. “No, there are only 3″. In order to play the game the students need to use the new vocabulary words: “boy” and “girl”.
In another activity for learning verbs is to use new vocabulary in simple commands such as “touch the floor”, “go to the window”. Assuming there are no classroom management issues, this is a good way to get a little more oxygen to the brain at the same time. She says that “this activity is very much like what happens when one is learning one’s mother tongue.” because we hear many commands from our mother before we even speak our fist work. I liked the way the activity can be generalized and used by students in small groups: “raise your right hand”, “put your left hand on your head”, “Bend your knees”.
The book is filled with activities to stimulate your imagination or just copy for your own. But I think the idea of getting students engaged in games where they need the words to win helps to reinforce the vocabulary in an “experiential” way.
This book was publish in 1982, long before the market was flooded with educational software for kids. Today there are lots of programs available for kids in which they have to demonstrate their language (usually reading) skill in order to win. Many of her activities are interactive, but quite a few could inspire some good software.
She divides the book equally among elementary, intermediate and advanced students. In the intermediate section she stresses the importance of avoiding the native language. And she provides lots of suggestions and advice about how you do this without losing the majority of the class.
I haven’t read the advanced section yet, but I think these comments might give people more of an idea about what the author has in mind when she says “experience”.
I think Ken’s idea is: “Kids need experience, adults need Chinesepod”
Eric,
To say I’m impressed is to grossly understate the issue. That is a highly intelligent summary that distills the book very well indeed. I hope to find time tomorrow to go into the ‘experience’ thing in more detail.This has really been an inspiration to me to see you to do all this.
Ken Carroll
Hello,
Is there still no Chinese translation of nethack available? If not, I think it would be a fun project to translate it. Do you really think there’s much call for a Chinese netHack?
Thanks!
瑞清 RuiQing