Poor Curriculum Design
I am struggling to understand learning this language despite knowing this language to some extent. There is no introduction of script but sound is introduced. But then questions come up about matching script to the sound. Too many assumptions that learners know the linguistic notations of how sound is reproduced with the English equivalent of sounds. No clarity on whether I am introduced to vowels or consonants. Neither sounds nor scripts are clear. I will admit this has only taken me eons back in learning this language. Very disappointed.
SriramRaja8 I stopped doing the HIndi course because I found it so frustrating. In fact, the English attempts to represent the Hindi script- ca, ja, etc are simply awful attempts to write the sound in English. I kept levelling up without learning anything. Exercises just became guesswork.
The Greek, Arabic and Japanese courses all do a far better job of teaching the script. They should look at them and learn. They would be better not using any attempt to write the sound in English letters than to choose English spellings that have no relation to the sounds. I suggest that they need a native English speaker as part of the English-Hindi course to help teach the script.
I have no idea whether the course is better later on, but I think this will be a major reason people stop persevering with this course. This is one of only two courses that I felt was a complete waste of time.
Ask duolingo. If I can answer that I would not start this thread. Perhaps the delivery of what is delivered to people is different. All I can say is that this is not experience of learning a language. Someone needs to take a further look. The forum is not the place to discuss. Set up time to discuss.
Hello GoWiP, It was those lessons that I found so poor, and the real problem was the English transliteration, which I felt didn't bear any resemblance to many of the sounds.
English is my native tongue, I've taught it, too, and I'm used to the efforts of language courses in trying to convey a new script or sound, and many of them do use English letters. I just feel that this course doesn't do that well. You know, if for example you had a sound like the ch in cheese, and it was transliterated, (if that's a word) as gh, that wouldn't be a good match- not a helpful one. That's not an actual example from the course, I just made it up, but it's that kind of thing.
Better to simply match the sound to the Hindi script than put an attempt to write the sound with English letters that doesn't have any resemblance to the English letters- or use the International Phonemic Alphabet, or something.
Bear in mind that I was motivated to learn it, but had no prior knowledge of any Hindi. However, the same applies to Arabic and Japanese, and I found those courses taught the script more effectively- but that's just my opinion :)
Hi woozlification, I think that's just due to the reality of Hindi. It has 40+ core letters, so there're bound to be unfortunate transcriptions when putting them in an alphabet with just 26. That said, I didn't have any issue with it. I also found when checking other Hindi-learning sites that the one used here is widely used AND way less confusing than the 1 other system I encountered.
Maybe the worst offender for you is that 'ca' (च) is pronounced sort of like the first part of chalk, and you might have preferred it to be transliterated as 'cha', but that is not possible as there is also 'cha' (छ) which is the first part of chalk + an 'h' sound between the ch of chalk and the a.
The rest is pretty much as you'd expect. Well, considering that they have 2 t's and you thus need a difference (they used a lower dot below the t here for the retroflex variant).
So, I do not know what you found problematic, but if I were you I'd give it another go because it really seems to be solved (I don't know when you tried it) or it is just a problem for a very short time (I never even see the transliterations anymore as they're no longer needed when you know the Devanagari script).