Category talk:User en-4

message: Why’d you change my edits for grassfield high? You’re taking away from peoples accomplishments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:1F10:E100:71CE:5FC:C86F:82B5 (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

message: *For my part, I'd prefer "Native level" over "near-native." The use of "Near-native" without a further category suggests that non-native speakers of English are universally unable to achieve a level of proficiency with the tongue on par with a native. This is clearly not the case. My guess would be that Wikipedians would not confuse "Native level" with "Is a native speaker" - we should give them more credit. "Near-native" is in many cases, incorrect, as many non-native speakers of English are more adept with the language than natives. I think it should be changed back. - Hayter 11:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Near-native /  Native Level

message: Why is this at a higher level than 3, which is advanced? Isn't advanced better than near-native? I've listed myself as 3 and native... or am I misinterpreting 3 as being a university pursuit of english and journalism when it's more in a foreign learning context? Tyciol 07:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: * This is an old topic which has been bugging me for awhile. I like to classify myself as near-native writer, though not a near-native speaker, let alone native per se. So I think my rationale for categorizing myself as such might help clear the confusion a bit. Or I hope so at least...
* If you really talk and write at the native level, you don't mostly have to search for words or be reminded of them. You instinctively understand puns and native metaphors. Even if they go to cultural things and modes of thought no non-native ever had to witness or share in real life. Plus even friends of mine who've now lived more than a decade in the US, rarely shed *all* of their Finnish linguistic legacy. I certainly haven't, even if I worked in Finland for a decade plus in a workplace whose primary working language was English.
* As such, I wouldn't be comfortable placing myself at the native level. Because my language just isn't that good, yet, and doesn't come as naturally as it would come to a true native. I'm certainly *near*-native, in grammar, vocabulary, and even in my knowledge of idioms, based on multiple statistically well-founded tests. I've even repeatedly been painted as someone who "speaks beyond his years" in the far past.
* But I'm still just near-native as far as the English language -- my only second language, really -- goes. I believe it's not such a bad place to be, either. I mean, being near-native sometimes even means you can surpass a native in your linguistic proficiency. Sometimes it really can mean your spelling is better, or for example that as a native speaker of a language from another language family you can sometimes utilize the English language in ways natives wouldn't think of. All things I've done.
* But you can't really go into language without understanding and having lived the culture it's imbedded in. You can't really claim to be native till your linguistic reflexes go *well* beyond what a normal second-language speaker has to offer. You have to understand poetry, history, and whatnot, in order to do language right.
* I can't instinctively do that even in my favourite English, second language, no matter how much I try. So, I have to classify myself as not a native, but a near-native. Decoy (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Answer, of sorts