We Debated the Biggest Myths in Language Learning

So, some one criteria is that it should have a standardized writing system for it to be a fully-fledged language. According to whom? That is, some linguists believe that. Shanghai is a language. Shanghai, i.e., you know, but to me, they're different languages. They're sufficiently different. Uh, all. But is that based on, is that based on just hearing them, mutual intelligibility or lack thereof? It's a bit gray though, because what is the, like, it's a sliding scale of intelligibility? It is. So, so when do we draw the line, like, this is a language? Now, people get pretty divided whenever the topic language learning comes up. So, that's why I brought on Steve Kaufman. He is a polyglot and the co-founder of Link, the sponsor of today's video. Steve is someone who has spent decades learning foreign languages and thinking about what works best. We went through a series of topics in language learning and linguistics that tend to garner some pretty strong opinions. And trust me, we did not mince words with our opinions. So, buckle up. Here we go.

So, I brought you here today, Steve, to do something just like a little bit different. Um, basically, we're going to go through a series of topics that can garner strong opinions in the language learning and linguistics communities. And so what we're going to do is I'm just going to say, you know, a statement, and then we're both going to say whether we, you know, agree, disagree. The one who has, you know, a stronger opinion can go first, and then, you know, we'll just have like a little bit of a conversation after that. Is that okay? Sure. Okay. So, let's start with uh our first statement. Any adult can learn a second language to native-like fluency.

Yeah. I, I'm going to disagree. So, I'm going to say I slightly disagree. Um, so less, less than the disagree you said. So, if you, you seem like you have a strong opinion on this, maybe you can go first. The vast, well, to a level, a native level, like I have heard people speak foreign languages extremely well, say English, and they think they sound like a native. There's always something that gives them up, gives them away, rather. So, I think it's highly unrealistic for most people to think they can achieve a native level. I just think it's, it's, it's a valid goal to achieve for. You know, I'd like to play golf like Tiger Woods. I'm highly unlikely to do that. Not like impossible. Actually, about that. Do you think it actually might be kind of detrimental to strive to sound like a native, you know, in the way that it, if it's impossible, uh, physiologically or, you know, um, the, the vocabulary just can't be met? My goal is to be like, I don't know, like Tiger Woods. Is that detrimental to the learner? You think?

No. Well, I think it's a good thing to strive for, but you have to recognize that the native speaker, when we learn languages, we are basically becoming familiar with patterns. We're creating these webs of connections in our brain. And the native speaker who has heard since childhood, you know, thousands of hours, has read millions of words, like the enormous amount of input. There is no way that the, the adult who starts into learning at age 20 will ever consume as much of the language as the native speaker. So they will never be quite as good, but they can get very, very close. You're saying it, it's the number of hours that is the difference between a native speaker and a learner? Because if it's number of hours, maybe you know, that could be imp, like that could be uh filled up over time. Like, let's say a native speaker spoke is only 18 years old, right? And they can't have had that many hours. Then someone who's uh 18 and then is starting to learn their language and then they learn it until the age of 80, right? It's possible that the 80-year-old in those, what, like 80 minus 18, what is that, 62 years might have had more input hours compared to the 18-year-old native speaker. So in terms of hours, you know, I just want to challenge you on that. Right. Maybe, maybe if, if the native speaker is a hermit or something. But native speaker. So there are a number of issues. First of all, when we are very, very young, our brains are more flexible. So when a person is born, they conceivably could learn to speak any language. The brain is not yet, you know, hardened, coalesced around any particular language. So there is that period until maybe we're 12, I don't know, there's varying degrees of, some people say 16, 17, where the brain is very malleable, very flexible. The objective is to be completely mistaken for a native. You can be better than the native in vocabulary, you can be better than the native in choice of words, in eloquence, in any number of things. But to be mistaken for a native, like not just for two minutes, but for 30 minutes, very difficult. That's all. Okay. So that, that justifies your disagree on that, right? Yeah. Even though you think it's slightly, you know, maybe one-tenth of a tenth of a percent of people might, you know, get close. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. Okay. Okay. So, I think we mostly agree on this one. So, we can move forward to the next one. Okay. The second question, uh, speaking early is overrated in language learning. So, speaking early is not is overrated. Yes. For me, I would say I, I disagree. I don't think it's overrated. So, I think here we have some point of uh disagreement here. Okay. Yes. Uh. In order to have a meaningful conversation with people, you have to have some vocabulary. You have to have a certain level of comprehension. Otherwise, you're saying the same thing over and over again. My name is, or other simple sentences. So, no, I strongly believe that the focus should be on getting the language in you, and then when you want to speak, when you are ready to speak, or when you have the opportunity to speak, go for it and don't feel inhibited. Okay. So I heard what you said, Steve. I'm going to push back on that a little bit. What if I put it this way? You know, like, would you say it's a waste or not helpful to go to the gym even though you didn't, didn't get trained in, you know, weightlifting or the specific ways to stretch your muscles or, uh, do you think it's a waste to go to the gym? Because I, I kind of see it as, as similar, right? Because I think the mouth is a muscle. I think we agree that practicing speaking in the, you know, the sounds of a language, uh, it really helps train the muscles to get there because, as we know, you know, different languages have different mouth positions that they prefer. And another thing is that we mentioned, you mentioned that children, you know, they have their, their brains are more flexible, and part of it is actually they're, they're not afraid of speaking. But as an adult, we have the inhibition. Wouldn't you agree that the longer we wait to speak in a language we're learning, the more kind of inhibited that we're going to be, you know, further down the line, maybe three or four months after we start, then we want to start speaking, and it actually becomes more difficult because we haven't been training ourselves to do it from an earlier stage?

So, two points. So, one, uh, is it a waste of time to go to the gym? No, you go to the gym, you train, you're weak at first, let's say, if you haven't been doing anything, and you gradually get stronger. Uh, however, uh, in order to produce a language, you have to have the language in you. So, engaging with the language is because when you understand the language, the way the brain works, you're layering networks, webs of networks, to much like a large language model, you're able to predict the next word. And as you've developed that ability to anticipate and to plan, then you start to be able to make utterances in the language. And I think the idea of training your muscles, I mean, I can pronounce 20 languages quite well. I have never been aware of having to do different things with my muscles. I, I really don't think that's what determines how well we pronounce. What determines how well we pronounce is more how well we hear. And if we hear the sounds correctly, the brain will find a way to produce them. It's not that you're training your mouth in certain, you know, physical things. I, I don't agree with that. So, no, this, this is an area I disagree. I mean, it's, it's physically it's true that, you know, uh, not every, every language has the same sounds, right? Some sounds in different languages exist but don't exist in others. So for those ones, you actually do have to train your mouth to uh, be positioned in that way that produces that sound. Um, I don't agree with that. Yeah, I totally disagree with that. There are certain sounds in certain languages that are particularly difficult for people who aren't used to that language. So, the other point you raised about people are inhibited. Of course, they're inhibited. I am more inhibited if I don't understand what the person is saying. If I have very few words. So I feel much more confident using the language once I have a certain number of words in me that I understand, level of comprehension, enough hours. Okay, I'll push back on that then. Yeah. So what would that be then? Like the number you said you, you want to have a certain amount of hours or certain amount of words in you? So do you have a, uh, you know, a kind of rough estimate for what that would be before someone should start producing, speaking that language? Yeah. So if I look at my own experience at Link, learning say Farsi or Arabic or or Czech, uh, because we measure the number of words I know, passive vocabulary, if I have 3,000, 4,000 words of passive vocabulary, which, and each form of the word is counted as a separate word, but when I have that level, then I feel I could engage with an online tutor and I will be able to say something, I will be able to understand something of what they say. Okay, that's, that's a very, uh, you know, concrete way of thinking about it. You know, once I reach this level, then I can, I should, I should talk to someone for real. So that's, that's good advice for language learners, for sure. All right. Okay. So let's move on to the next one. Um, this one I think would be a little bit of a, a little bit of a disagreement here. So, AI is a good substitute for practicing with native speakers. And so I'm just going to jump in here and I'm going to say, I, I slightly agree on this one, and you can give me your opinion, Steve.

Well, it's hard for me because I haven't used it very much. We do have that ability at Link, and I have engaged with the AI and say I finished an interview and it was about Lebanon, and I'll ask a question and, uh, it'll answer something. And so for me, it's all more content. It's, it's more input. I do it to generate input. I'm not interested in having a conversation with AI. Um, but is your answer disagree or what is your answer on this one? AI is a good substitute for not, uh, speakers. Not a substitute. So, you would be, you'd be a disagree on this one. Yeah. Okay. So, uh, I would say I'm going to go first because I think I feel a bit strong about this one. Um, I think, uh, AI has still pretty much kind of like a bad rep, has a bad rep out there. Um, but I think that the technology has improved to a point, at least in 2026, that it's very much possible to have meaningful conversations with AI, like they're kind of like language tutors. There's a, a lot of apps out there that, you know, that actually do a pretty decent job of, um, kind of simulating what an actual native speaker would say. And so, I'll just give you a personal example, like, uh, when I was learning Korean, like over 10 years ago, I, I had to like go out of my way to find, uh, language exchange partners. It was hard back then. Um, I had to drive to meet these people. We had to make our schedules work. And, you know, the most we could do is a few hours a week maximum, right? And I've used some of these AI, um, kind of language tutors, and I could speak to them all day, you know? And another thing is that, um, there is less inhibition because you're not speaking to a real person. You, you have a little bit more kind of boldness to, to try out different things to say instead of being afraid of sounding stupid for saying something wrong. So, I'm actually a, a big supporter of, uh, using AI to help you practice.

Well, you know what? I, I agree with you. Actually, I was just thinking about it as you're speaking. Like, I'm not afraid to speak to a real-life person, and I prefer to have an authentic conversation. But in the few times that I've engaged with AI on a subject, the AI is much more knowledgeable than any human. Like, so I enjoy meeting with my tutor because I want to show the tutor what I've done. I enjoy that personal connection with the tutor. But as you say, we have to schedule it. Uh, you know, there are sometimes changes to the schedule. Whatever the AI, if, if I had an interview, say I did, like, say I'm talking about the history of Persia or something, that the AI knows so much about the subject that I can have fascinating, and I can learn lots. Um, yeah. So, I guess we're in agreement on that. And, uh, I think it's great that people can learn knowledge from AI, which is, uh, you're right. Uh, AI is smarter than any one person, any one person that I know. So. Right. Okay. All right. Next question. Um, some languages are inherently easier to learn than others. And I have a very strong opinion on this. So, I'm going to go first. I'm going to say I strongly disagree.

All right. So I agree some languages are easier than others. Well, I, I strongly disagree with that. And I, I really do feel that the more languages you, you know, you learn, learn about, the more you realize that every language has difficulties, uh, you know, difficult aspects of them. I, I think the thing people don't recognize is that they're usually kind of hidden in different areas. So, so for me, since I'm a native, uh, Mandarin speaker, whenever someone is trying to learn Mandarin, they always say, "Oh, no. The tones are so difficult. The characters are so difficult to learn." Um, but for me, like those, that's like, like, you know, like walking. It's like breathing air, you know, those things are not difficult at all. But then when I try to learn French, like I mentioned, you, or any kind of, you know, language with gendered nouns, for example, uh, I can't wrap my brain around that. So I think for me, I think every language has complexity, but it's just kind of in different places. Every, every person who, you know, are born and they're learning their native language, no matter which one it is, I think it's equally hard for, for the baby. Yeah. That's my opinion.

Okay. Well, it depends what you mean by inherently. Like, every baby, any baby can learn any language. Uh, some languages take longer to learn for the baby. Yeah. Which ones would you say? Well, one of the issues is because learning the language includes learning to read, and some languages are more, are less transparent, more opaque. So the, if you look at Spanish or Turkish, there's a one-to-one relationship between the writing system and what you hear. In Danish and English, that's not the case. And so there, it takes a little bit longer for Danish and English kids to learn to spell, for example. So those are some inherent differences. Uh, and the other consideration, of course, is what your native language is. So the more the language you're learning is similar in structure and in vocabulary and in writing system to languages you already know, the easier it becomes. So it's, there's relative difficulty based on languages you speak. And, and in terms of absolute terms, I mean, it's more difficult to learn an alphabet system than to learn Chinese characters because you got 26 letters in the alphabet. You got so many characters to learn. So the, some languages are in terms of difficulty different, and that means that some must be objectively more difficult than others.

Oh, I disagree though. I, I really do think that the, the difficulties are, are spread out, um, evenly for, you know, the major world languages out there. I really do believe that, um, the difficulties are different, but they're spread out evenly. But if the difficulties are different, they can't be equal. Therefore, they're not equally difficult. Some are easier than others. I wouldn't agree with that. No. I, I, I think that, uh, if a, if a language has survived, you know, thousands of years, it has changed and evolved over time. For example, I did a, a video recently on tonogenesis. So, basically, how languages develop tone. So, I don't know if you know this, but, uh, old Chinese used to have a lot more consonants. We had voiced sounds at the beginning of of syllables. We had like s and even h at the end of our syllables, but they weakened over time. And because we couldn't keep the differences based on the consonant differences, they turned into tones. So, you see, I think a lot of it is like, you know, in English or other, um, European languages, there's a lot more consonant clusters. So those are more difficult for, let's say, an, an Asian person to pronounce. But then, you know, a European might find the tones in many Asian languages difficult to pronounce. So I think that because of language change and evolve over time, they kind of even out in terms of difficulty across grammar, pronunciation, syntax, just, you know, over time. That's, that's my opinion.

Yeah, languages evolve over time. Uh, generally, they evolve in the direction of simplicity. So they evolve, but I see no, I have not seen any evidence that they all evolve in a direction of becoming equally difficult. No, it can evolve. When I say equally difficult, then I could also say that they're all equally simple. Then, you know, I, I do know that, um, languages are evolving towards being more simple, but I think it's more of like a cycle, actually. Um, languages get more simple, and they get more complex, and get more simple. So, that, that's something we see, uh, in, in the, uh, in the history of linguistics. But, but yes, um, okay, let's move on. Um, uh, language influences how we think about the world. And so this would be related to kind of linguistic determinism. Uh, maybe a software version. In those terms. Oh, sorry. I will say only because of what we learn through the language. In other words, we learn about the history and the culture, and we have a different appreciation of different countries and different cultures. But the language itself, speaking that language, doesn't change my way of thinking. No. Oh. So you, you disagree with this one? Yeah. Okay. Um, I also, um, I also disagree, but I would say like a, like a slight disagree. Steve, are you aware of, um, like the different studies about, um, you know, are you aware about that the Russian blue study? The which study? The Russian blue study? No. So there is a study, um, a, uh, a psychologist did, and basically she was looking at the fact that Russian, in Russian, there are two words for blue, but no word for blue itself. There's a word for dark blue and a word for light blue. And so when a Russian person wants to say something is blue, they have to first decide in their mind, is it a light blue or is it a dark blue? And then they can produce that sound, produce that word, right? And so this psychologist found this really interesting. So that she did a study where she had, you know, native Russian speakers and, um, native speakers of other languages that didn't have this, this, uh, dichotomy in their blue system, to look at blue, light blue colors, and dark blue colors, like on a range. Um, and she found that the Russian speakers, they were able to differentiate light blue and dark blue more quickly than non-Russian speakers. So she was saying, saying that, you know, the language, the fact that you have to categorically decide if a blue is light or dark every time you try to say the word, it might have had an effect on the way that their brain processes color. How do you feel about, uh, the results of that study?

Well, it's certainly true that every language has some unique expressions, words, vocabulary items where to try to translate that word into another word, other language, the boundaries are different. So you, you, you end up, you acquire a new concept that doesn't exist in some of the other languages. And I can mention, you know, any number of examples of that. The blue is just one example. So you are adding to your, you know, range of concepts that you have, not just colors, it could be any kind of a concept, it could be an emotional concept, particularly when it comes to emotion, different languages have different terms. But it doesn't change how I think, it just gives me another. I think too that if we speak other languages, we end up being more articulate in our own languages because we're exposed to more vocabulary, different ways of structuring things. So it enriches our ability to use language. But it doesn't change how I think about the world. If that makes sense. But do you think it might agree that it might change your subconscious slightly? No, it just changes the language that I use. It changes. Yeah. Okay. It changes, not I wouldn't call it the subconscious. No. Well, with the blue example, if, if someone has to figure out if it's a light blue or dark blue before even saying the word or even thinking of the word, then wouldn't that have changed their kind of color perception slightly? Maybe. I never think about that. So, whatever. Sure. Yeah. So, so there are, uh, I think, uh, linguistic determinism is a very interesting idea. Uh, I wouldn't say I, I totally agree with it. You know, that the language kind of tells you how to think or it really strongly influences how you think. But I think the studies that have been done are have been quite kind of persuasive in, in, in toward that category. Um, there's another thing that's interesting that since you speak Mandarin, Steve, that, um, we, in, in Chinese, the words we have for time are very different. We, our time words are actually vertical instead of left-right. I'll just give you an example. So like in Chinese, the word for previous, like previous week, for example, would be, and then the word for next week would be. So actually, psychologists have studied this. They've studied this, and they've they've seen that Chinese people, when they, they perceive kind of like, um, vertical directions more differently than, um, non-Chinese speakers. So I, I just found that very fascinating. So that's why my answer is, uh, slightly disagree and not a hard disagree. Okay. Yeah. All right. Okay. So let's move on. Um, okay. Uh, a language is a dialect with, uh, an army and a navy. So this one, I think, uh, is a bit of a tricky one. Uh, I'm going to say slightly agree.

I disagree. Depends. I disagree. Yeah. I think this is a, is a, depends how you interpret it. Literally speaking, that's not true. However, if the point is that there is no objective division between a dialect and a language, then that's true. But there are countless languages that have no anth throughout history that do not have an army or a navy. Okay. Well, what are some of those languages would you say? Well, I mean, look at all the empires. The Ottoman Empire, they had all kinds of different languages there, and that was one army and one navy. I mean, throughout history, the empires, their soldiers have been of various different ethnicities. Uh, you know, Finland was a part of Sweden for 500 years, and they were part, very much a big part of the Swedish army. Um, you know, when you say that, yeah. When you say that, um, in modern times, then it's, it's quite kind of differentiated then. So, for example, you know, like Hindi and Urdu, um, have that, those two languages are very similar, um, highly mutually intelligible between speakers of the two languages, but because they kind of represent two different countries, like India and Pakistan, um, and they have different writing systems in those, uh, countries as well, that they're considered are completely different languages, even though they are highly mutually intelligible. So I think what usually people go by when they say, "Oh, they're two different languages." Is that because they're not mutually intelligible. I think that that kind of definition tends to be a little bit gray, right? Because what is the level of intelligibility between a dialect and a language, right? So I think I think we're a bit in agreement on that, aren't we? Uh, so first of all, Pakistan, how many languages in Pakistan? I don't know, but a lot. So, do they all have an army and a navy? No. I think so. For Pakistan, the official language is Urdu, and then in India, they have many different, uh, kind of official languages, and English and, um, Hindi are, are a few of them. Yeah. Yeah. But in Pakistan, you have Pashto. Mhm. You have Punjabi, you have Urdu. They don't all have an army and a navy. Just to stay with Pakistan, since you mentioned Pakistan. Uh, you know, what about Catalan? They don't have an army and a navy. What about the Basque language? They don't have an army and a navy. Right. So some people would argue that in Catalan is more of a dialect than a language then. Why would they argue that? Well, because, based on what? Because, because a language, uh, depending on your definition, a language is, um, you know, a language system with a standardized writing system is, you know, it is implemented throughout the whole country. So, then let me ask you, is Catalan a dialect of French or a dialect of Spanish? Well, personally, I, I'm not that familiar with Catalan. So, Catalan is closer to French than it is to Spanish. Okay. There was a time when Catalan had an army and a navy, but they don't now. And if you ask the Catalans, so yeah. No, I, I think I hear that all the time. I think it's arbitrary. So we can deter, linguists can argue about it, but it's not dependent on an army and a navy in my opinion. Although some person came up with this witticism, but, uh, you know, no, I, I don't see that. I think I think the point of it is to show that, you know, there are always going to be regional varieties in any, any country that, you know, considers itself a country with an army and a navy. But the thing is, is that a lot of, I would say Catalan has a writing system, but a lot of dialects, um, don't necessarily have a standardized kind of grammar, standardized writing system. You know, they have, it's, it's kind of more of an oral tradition. So I think that also plays into it too. That's not true. That's not true. I mean, a lot of dialects in China, for example, um, they actually can't really be written down. Um, there are a lot of varieties in Chinese in China, and, um, there's a lot of debate on this, you know, whether the different varieties in China are, are dialects or, or languages, right? And I think there are, there's definitely different criteria. You know, so, some, one criteria is that it should have a standardized writing system for it to be a fully-fledged language. According to whom? That is, that is, I mean, that is one, some linguists believe that. So, you know, different linguists have. It's arbitrary, that's my point. It's arbitrary. What tends to happen is in Europe, for example, most countries use the Latin alphabet, but typically as you go from Germany to Holland, and the dialects spoken there start to sound closer to the next country. The same with Italy moving into France. So there are variations on these in these languages. They cross boundaries in some cases. But you can always pick out an example like Chinese. Like personally, if you ask me, Shanghai is a language. Shanghai, i.e., you know, like the various similar sounding to me because I don't speak those languages, but to me, they're different languages. They're sufficiently different. Uh, although, but is that based on, is that based on just hearing them? Mutual intelligibility or lack thereof? I think mutual intelligibility is a big factor. So, Cantonese is from what Mandarin speakers tell me, they find it difficult to understand. So it's not mutually intelligible. Whereas if you go to the former Yugoslavia, if you go to Croatia and Serbia, Bosnia, to most people, it's the same language, but for political reasons, they choose to say it's not the same language. But intelligibility is a big factor. So, but it's arbitrary. Yeah. It's, it's a bit, it's a bit gray though, because what is the, like, it's a sliding scale of intelligibility? It is. So, so when do we draw the line, like, this is a language? Now, it, there's 50% in, uh, mutual unintelligibility. It's, it's a language. So, I, I think a little bit tricky. I don't know if you take Persian, which I'm studying now. So, Iran, they speak Iranian, they speak Farsi, Persian, I call it, they call it Persian. In Afghanistan, you have Dari, which is also Persian, and you have Pashto, which is spoken in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. When you go to Tajikistan, I gather the language is a little different. Plus, it's written in the Cyrillic alphabet. So, there are all these different factors. It's fun to talk about, but it's not a matter of an army and a navy. Okay. So, you think that it's just like a funny, quirky thing someone came up with. It's quirky. It's a part of how languages develop and how they evolve over time geographically, and different people move and move into one area, and some languages are replaced by other languages or are influenced by other languages. As is again, if we take the case of, of Latin in Europe, which evolved into Spanish and French and Italian and stuff. Things change. But, but going back to the Chinese example, to me, Cantonese, and I'm more familiar with Cantonese than I am with Shanghai, it's a language. To me, it's a language. It's written more or less the same way. Uh, it's funny, it's a bit like Arabic, you know, Levantine Arabic, sort of the, the regional variations of Arabic versus Standard Arabic. So, as with Chinese, if you are, if it's a formal conversation about economics and politics and philosophy, there, there's very little difference. The vocabulary is essentially the same in the Arabic, like Levantine, Egyptian, and Standard Arabic. But once you're talking about day-to-day conversation, there's far greater difference because things evolve more when people are using them all the time in their daily lives. And so at some point, if someone says, you know, Levantine Arabic is a separate language, they can make that case. Okay. So, but do you think there is like a, a strong, you know, difference between calling something a language or dialect, you know, kind of implications? I think that the, it's a bit like your identity. If you are a speaker of language X, and if all the speakers of language X want that language to be recognized as a language, then it's a language, even if some other people don't want to recognize it. So, if all the Cantonese speakers said, we are a language, to my mind, it's a language. It's not for other people to say, no, no, yours is not a language, you're just a dialect. No, that's for the speakers of that language. It's like identity. Okay. Yeah. I think we're in agreement there. So, I mean, you clearly know much more about global languages and dialects than I do. So, it's really good to hear, um, you know, your, your insights on these. Okay. Well, I think we, we, we covered a lot of, a lot of different material today, Steve. Yeah. Well, the objective was to get us into some discussion where we were on different sides of the issue. So, I think we did that. So, that was good. I, I just wanted to, you know, give you, Okay. Go ahead. Some time if you, if you wanted to say anything to the people watching. Is there anything you wanted to say to them? Oh, okay. So, uh, to me, particularly throughout my life, language learning has been a big part of my life. It's very enriching. It's very rewarding. It helps us learn more about the world because if we only have one language and we got one education system, then wherever we are, we have a very limited view of the world. And when you start learning languages, you start to become aware of different histories, different cultures, different ways of looking at things. So, it's extremely enriching, very satisfying. And, uh, so it's a great thing to do. And I presume people who follow your channel are interested in languages. So, uh, you know, I encourage them to continue. Great. Thank you, Steve. Thank you for coming on. Yeah. Thank you so much. Okay. Bye.