I love your site, it's wonderful, I also love to learn languages, maybe one day can I go to Berlin and be friends via Couchsurfing .

There is an excellent resource from Google called Googles, you only take a picture with your cellphone and Google will search for it. So, it's ideal when you don't know the name of something in the language you are learning.

Also Googles translates short texts using OCR if your cellphone uses Android.

I speak natively Spanish and speak English, Esperanto and I'm learning German and Latin.

Even abstract concepts can sometimes lead to interesting and informative image searches – try searching for the word “temptation” and see what you get! Sometimes there is a problem when double meanings are in play, but that can be an interesting lesson too.

Google marks its images based on tags people add to images on their websites and perhaps title words when an image is included in the body of some text. It’s not 100% perfect (it is automated after all), but I still think that 95% perfect does a pretty good job at showing you what the word means

Google marks its images based on tags people add to images on their websites and perhaps title words when an image is included in the body of some text. It’s not 100% perfect (it is automated after all), but I still think that 95% perfect does a pretty good job at showing you what the word means

Do you have any idea how to picturize those words which even the mighty google is in trouble with?

Do you have any idea how to picturize those words which even the mighty google is in trouble with?

Yes, “car” is a only a label for a concept, but why is that a bad thing?

I’d argue that being a label for a concept makes it all the more useful. When I’m looking at a photograph of a Ford Escort, I’m not looking at a concept: I’m looking at a particular thing. It is a car, but it is more specifically a Ford and more specifically an Escort. It is a car, but it is more specifically a saloon and more specifically (again) a Ford Escort. It is a car, but it is more generally an internal combustion road vehicle and more generally a vehicle.

Any photograph represents a single instance of a very broad hierarchical topography of concepts.

But the word “car” is a picture of the concept itself — when we say “car”, it opens up the full spectrum of possibilities: F1, rally, 4×4, SUV, saloon, hatchback, estate, coupé, sportster, people carrier.

In short, the native word is the only “picture” we have of the concept and therefore the best tool for associating the new word with the concept.

Yes, “car” is a only a label for a concept, but why is that a bad thing?

I’d argue that being a label for a concept makes it all the more useful. When I’m looking at a photograph of a Ford Escort, I’m not looking at a concept: I’m looking at a particular thing. It is a car, but it is more specifically a Ford and more specifically an Escort. It is a car, but it is more specifically a saloon and more specifically (again) a Ford Escort. It is a car, but it is more generally an internal combustion road vehicle and more generally a vehicle.

Any photograph represents a single instance of a very broad hierarchical topography of concepts.

But the word “car” is a picture of the concept itself — when we say “car”, it opens up the full spectrum of possibilities: F1, rally, 4×4, SUV, saloon, hatchback, estate, coupé, sportster, people carrier.

In short, the native word is the only “picture” we have of the concept and therefore the best tool for associating the new word with the concept.

Now, how do you manage that???

That would be a real trick.

Now, how do you manage that???

That would be a real trick.