= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
polymathwannabe comments on Open Thread, January 4-10, 2016 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (430)
In theory I agree. Experimentally, trying to teach her that other toys are connected to different sounds, e.g. that the black-and-white cow is "moo", didn't produce any reaction so far. And I believe she doesn't understand the meaning of the word "not" yet, so I can't explain that some things are "not meow".
I guess this problem will fix itself later... that some day she will start also repeating the sounds for other animals. (But I am not sure what is the official sound for turtle.)
Then teach her to say turtle. Likewise for other animals; a cat is not a meow.
Yes, as soon as she learns to speak polysyllabic words (which in my language also include "cat").
My first word was "daddy" (papi in Spanish). It should be possible to start with regular words.
Edited to add: I just looked up "turtle" in Slovak. I can't believe how much of a jerk I was in my previous comment.
I'm not convinced that using different names is a really helpful idea. It requires an extra transition later on. Well no real harm done. But I wonder about the principle behind that: Dropping complexity because it is hard? I agree that child directed speech is different. It is simpler. But it isn't wrong. Couldn't you have said "the cat meows" or "this toy meows" or even "it meows"? That would have placed the verb in the right place in a simple sentence. The baby can now validly repeat the sound/word.