This is quite certainly intentional.

While the double negative used as an intensified negative is considered ungrammatical in "standard" English, it is very common in many English dialects, particularly those associated with lower socioeconomic class levels (see my answer to a similar question in ELU).

Song lyrics are typically written in conversational English, not formal English, so non-standard and ungrammatical constructions are more the rule than the exception.

Ungrammatical lyrics are often more memorable, and can seem more immediate, intimate and powerful.

Compare "

Ain't

No Mountain High Enough," "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet," and "I Don't Wanna Hurt

No More," for similar examples.

It's also worth noting that the standard English usage of the double negative to mean a positive is rare, because it is confusing, and therefore avoided by most careful speakers.

musicfans.stackexchange.com/users/92/Chris Sunami supports Monica

I've been unable to find any comments directly from Roger Waters (writer of the music and lyrics of the song) on the meaning of those lines.

Looking at the lyrics on Genius.com , the annotation for the first line says that if you read it as a double negative, it could mean two different things

"We do need education"—A call for education

"We don't need this type of education"—A stab at the education

the children are getting Personally, I'd be inclined to disagree with this assessment.

I've always thought that it was just slang for "We don't need education", for a few reasons.

First, if you remember the second time they sing through the verse, it's just a bunch of kids singing it; "we don't need no" is absolutely something a school age working class kid with a Cockney accent in England in the 70s might say instead of

"we need no"

or "we don't need".

Second, either potential meaning of the double negative doesn't really make sense for the second line.

"We need thoughts control"?

"We don't need this type of thoughts control"?

Neither of those make sense, at least to me.

And if the second line is not a double negative, then why would the first one be?

Furthermore, do children need "dark sarcasm in the classroom"?

I don't think so either.

Third, the whole song is a rebellion against the school, and when "Another Brick In the Wall" plays in

The Wall film , Pink has a day dream of the children chanting "we don't need no education", destroying the school building with sledgehammers and crowbars, setting it on fire, and dragging the teachers out kicking and screaming.

To me, this doesn't say "we need education" or "we need a different type of education", it says "we don't need education at all".

I don't know if the call for alternative education is even something a kid of that age would think of; school is the way that it is and Pink hates it.

For some reason, I was thinking about education while making a songand Pink Floyd song came to my mind.

Try to sing: We do need an education It doesn't sound as good as.

We don't need no education

is packs a punch and is more provocative Sometimes when you make a song, the melody doesn't fit the words and sometimes the words don't fit the melody, so you have to rearrange and find words to fit the melody or make a compromise.

That's why a song can be want you want to hear or not what you want to hear.

And we DO need an education.

Otherwise we will be left behind those who chose to get an education.

P.S.

Very interesting thoughts

you came up with by the way

, I'm just another "besserwisser"

'We dont need no...' is commonly used in London for 'we don't need any'.

its simple.

Note that the lyric is not 'we don't need no learning'.

The point is that an inner city London school in the 70s was often not about learning but about 'schooling'

Maybe it's just omitted punctuation in the lyrics readable form (we don't need, no, education /

we don't need -no!- thought control), as emphasazing the negative statement.

That also makes sense rhythmically

Anyone who's lived in London where they speak Cockney, as in this song, knows very well that "we don't need no" means we don't need any.

I grew up there, so seeing all these questions and analysis is actually quite funny.

No Londoner would ever ask this question.

Question: The famous Pink Floyd Song  Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2)  uses double negative in the chorus:   We  don't need no  education     We  dont need no  thought control    ...   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ZmKbe5oG4  Using double negation in the above lyrics implies that we need both education and thought control.  Is this some mistake they made when writing the lyrics (since this is a really common mistake that a lot of people actually make) or did Pink Floyd used these phrases willingly?

Is the double negative in 'we don't need no education' intentional?

This is intentional, and is a common way of saying "we don't need any…" among Cockney speakers in London.

The use of London and Cockney slang in the song conferms the intentional use of the double negative.


I have a couple of guesses, though I'm not sure if any of them are correct since a little more detail might be necessary to answer the question with confidence.

"Let It Shine" by Santana "

Let It Shine" by Al Green "

Let It Shine" by The Hochers

Take That : " Let it Shine " ??

It's in a minor key, has a strong beat, and while it isn't exactly 70's disco, it has some of that same sound.

And it repeats "let it shine" over and over. "

So come on

See the light on your face

Let it shine Just let it shine

Let it shine."

Perhaps it's "Age of Aquarius" by The 5th Dimension:

The latter half of the song, they repeat "Let the sunshine; let the sunshine in; the sunshine in..."

Turn On Your Lovelight has the same refrain..

Not sure I would expect it in a yoga class, but hey, you never can tell ;-)

I guess it is not this song, but by your description, "Stayin' alive" and "Another one bites the dust", this might seem the song:

"Shine a little love", from Electric Light Orchestra (ELO).

It has a disco tempo and chorus, as in "Stayin' Alive", also high pitched harmonies as in "Stayin' Alive", and a clear bass line, as in "Another one bites the dust".

It begins somehow slow.

However, I don't see it being played in a yoga class.

Question: I heard a song in yoga class that I enjoyed very much but never had a chance to ask what is was. It's in f minor and has a strong beat. The tempo, key, and feel is quite reminiscent of "Staying Alive" and "Another one Bites the Dust". The words "let it shine" are repeated multiple times consecutively, in several locations. Could anybody name the song? Thanks :)

Name of song with lyrics "let it shine"

Santana, Al Green, The Hoochers and Take That all have songs called "Let it Shine".

Different songs all called '' Let it Shine'' made by different artists and Bands

The song '' Let it Shine'' by different artists and bands: Santana, Al Green, The Hochers, Take That


Carpets absorb the sound and doesn't allow it to bounce/reflect off of surface.

This is done to make sure there is no reverb effect in the studio or the auditorium.

Otherwise, the music would sound more like noise with all that sound reflecting off of the hard and uncovered surface.

Practically, it offers a few things: For drummers : A place to keep your drums in relatively one place.

The louder the drummer, the worse they move and shimmy around.

Having a carpet/thick rug the feet can dig into helps with this movement.

For other performers : I always appreciated a rug underneath me as a guitarist (or any performer, really) because it softened the blow to my feet of standing for hours at a time in (relatively) one place.

Sound Absorption.

It does help with reflection and bass response, as noted in other answers.

Aesthetically, it offers something much more important:

Everybody does it .

Country, Blues, Rock, Jazz, Metal.

I've seen it nearly at every show where it's appropriate.

Kinda like "Check 1, 2.

Check.

Check." to test out the mics.

Greg Lake, of Emerson Lake and Palmer, had a carpet onstage to compensate for his fairly simple bass rig.

Emerson and Palmer had far more complex rigs, so Lake's carpet was his own ostentatious touch onstage.

I imagine this has been copied elsewhere.

More practically a carpet will reduce footstep noise from telegraphing up microphone stands.

If you use effect pedals and try to press them with your foot, sometimes they tend to slip away from their position.

Using a carpent prevents them from doing so.

A carpet gives you a non slippery surface to put your stuff on.

I think there's a good reason for that: ground issues.

Prevents electrocution if something fails.

With a carpet making a layer, your feet never really touch and connects with the ground.

Probably this came from a time when equipment had more problems with ground.

But with security, even today, it's never enough.

You and your pedals are in a protective layer.

You need to understand and read more, because, for example, there was a time I was playing bass guitar in a poor place without ground (illegal, house without license to be built), off course, an illegal electrical installation, and when I touch the wall...

I felt the current flowing.

Was not big deal...

but it could be bad.

So, rubber shoes are ok, never touch anything, wall etc.

Carefull with the mics, make sure about ground in the equipment.

But there are many reasons above, like protect the equipment from touching a bad floor, reverb issues, cleaning issues and others also wich

I'm not sure, but I won't discard.

Stay safe!

Lots of musicians used them so that they would have the same surface at every tour stop, there are some pretty gnarly venue floors out on the road which ends up wearing down on feet.

Especially with all the hallucinogens present in the 60s and 70s

it was probably really comforting having the same surface everywhere you played.

Question: I oftenly see rock or metal bands playing on carpets while performing on stage or on studio.  It's nice to see, but is there a reason for these carpets? Is it for a better sound?  For an example,  here's Foo Fighters live on studio ON carpets.

Why do musicians play on carpets?

Carpets absorb sound and provide a non-slip surface to put your stuff on that is also soft and more resistant in case of an electrical fault. Many musicians would bring one on tour to ensure a suitable surface everywhere they went.

The reasons as of why bands use carpets during live performances are to insure sound absorption, to prevent slipping and electrocution. However, it is also thought to be a way to ensure having the same surface at every venue.

Carpets are used to prevent electrocution

To ensure they have the same surface to play on, musicians use carpets at venues.


No-one needs them.

It's man's proclivity for pigeon-holing, which in recent years - & given so little movement in popular music in the past couple of decades - has seen rise to finer & finer delineations between genres that really anyone could just lump in together.

If it continues, we'll end up with just one pigeon per hole, rendering the entire exercise more obviously pointless than it is at present.

BTW, this question is entirely opinion-based, but I just thought I'd get my opinion in first

The sub-genres exist because someone wanted them to exist.

This is really a specific case of a much more general question of why people put things in categories in the first place.

It's a deeply rooted human trait, with applications far beyond just music theory.

We have genres because we like to be able to capture complex things in a small number of words.

When we are told "Hey, you should go listen to band XYZ," actually taking the time to go listen to them can be very, well, time consuming.

If we value our time, we want to get some sense of what we're about to get into, so we ask "what genre of music do they play?"

We can then file the recommendation to listen to the band alongside that one or two word genre, permitting us to prioritize.

I'm not about to waste my time listening to some new orchestral piece when my house is noisy.

I'll save that for when the house is quiet and I can appreciate it properly.

Likewise, the latest thrash metal is probably not what I should listen to right before my wife and I go off for a romantic dinner.

The raw number of categories we create is a side effect of this process.

Some people feel their music is too "out there" to fit into an existing genre, so they seek to define their own new genre.

Other times it works the opposite way: someone wants to call their work as part of a genre, but the music snobs refuse to let them.

We also see more genres form when people want different types of categorization.

To pick a trivial example, if I like music with a fast tempo rather than slow, and you like music with a full orchestra rather than just a few instruments, neither one of our categorizations is complete.

We need something more, like "fast orchestral music," and thus a new genre is born.

Genres live and die constantly.

They're fickle things which float on the backs of our own obsessions with categorization.

The reason there are so many subgenres of music is because there are so many people out there actively keeping those sub-genres alive.

An interesting comparason can be made in the movie industry.

Netflix famously handed out the "Netflix Prize" to anyone who could use their 5-star ratings as input to help predict what movies to recommend.

BellKor, the winning algorithm, identified movies on 50 distinct dimensions.

That's not genres... its dimensions.

Each "genre" of movie was identified by a string of 50 numbers!

Trivially, if there were only two valid values on each dimension, that would qualify as 1,125,899,906,842,624 sub-genres! Woof!

There are two main reasons: Marketing, it helps music find an audience.

Self-organization, it helps like-minded musicians create a virtualcommunity they can contextualize themselves against.

musicfans.stackexchange.com/users/92/Chris Sunami supports Monica

It's probably true that no individual will 'need' a thousand or more subgenre labels.

Any given individual probably talks about, searches for, and thinks in terms of, a far more limited number of genres.

However, the number of labels 'out there' is the superset of all labels that have gained more than a certain amount of cultural currency - simplistically speaking, it's all labels that are used by anyone .

You may not use or need most of them, but for most of the ones you don't use, there's a group of people who do.

Of course the whole idea of genre labelling has a great many deficiencies.

In some spheres of activity, they've actually started to fall out of use - e.g. computer databases can now group similar music by direct measures of sonic similarity, rather than relying on a textual label.

However, people like to talk, and haven't yet come up with a nice concise way to answer the question: "

what kind of music do you like?"

without using genre labels.

As long as that's the case, the number of labels will only continue to grow! Remember that a genre label potentially needs to condense down a great number of characteristics to a single, memorable, descriptive name, so given the number of axes of variation possible, there's clearly potential for a lot of different genre names to be generated.

Because music is mushy mushy feely feely while computers and systems are rigid and strict.

This goes far beyond computers though.

Any system where we try to categorize a thing as only one category, gets messy.

Computers just allow us to do this with music in a more wide spread manor.

For example, Is an Insect, Ant, Fire Ant, and probably more.

Going the other way,

It's an insect, but it's not an Ant.

In the same way Rock Music Rock Music Rock Music Rock Music Rock Music You need something more.

Maybe you really like the first example, but your not in the mood for the last.

So how do you filter those down.

Question: I am quite aware that there are more than a thousand subgenres for music. So what is the use for them?  Who needs them and why?

What's the purpose of having so many subgenres of music?

There is no need, they exist because someone wanted them to exist.

Subgenres are not needed and exist because someone wanted them to exist.

Subgenres exist because someone wanted them to exist


The first answer I can think of is Iron Maiden's Iron Maiden in the album Iron Maiden in 1980

so after Black Sabbath in 1970.

Bad Company did the same on their 1974 eponymous album.

Can’t think of any others at the moment.... ...

After looking through my music a second time, I found a few ‘almosts’:

Gentle Giant has a song just called Giant on their 1970 eponymous album, and The Monkees put the theme to their TV show of the same name on their 1966 eponymous album, which may or may not ‘count’ depending on sensibilities.

One such example is Motörhead (though the song title is sometimes written without an Umlaut.)

I know of Valkeat , a folk metal band from Finland.

They released their debut album, named Valkeat , in 2017 and one of the songs in this album is called Valkeat .

You know the three obvious ones: Bad Company , Black Sabbath , Iron Maiden

I've been at this question for a long time.

I often ask it around parties, camp fires, or when people look bored.

Another four I know of because I own the vinyl albums: 1 - Autosalvage - from NYC Around 1966 (hard record to find too!) 2 - Lucifer's Friend - German band from around 1970, whose members are also involved with another outfit/ project called Electric Food.

Which is also around 1970.

These guys would tour, record, and "Be" with these bands all at the same time.

Talk about commitment!

What a workload.

3 - Universe - A British band from Wales in 1970.

These guys used to be called Spoonfull in the '60s.

An original vinyl record of this band goes for about $1000.

Hell, even the repressed vinyl I bought cost over $100. 4 - Sea Train - was the aftermath of the blues project.

Most of my research is off the vinyl album covers and liner notes with the record.

And to fill in some of the blanks,

used Discogs, but only for the corrections and a few dates.

Also in 1970 Dutch prog band Focus released their debut studio album 'In and Out of Focus' (earlier released as 'Focus Plays Focus'), the first and last tracks of which were instrumental and vocal versions of a track called 'Focus'.

(They later had umpteen albums with 'Focus' in the title somewhere plus a single and an album called 'Hocus Pocus'.)

Sometimes is the middle that is different.

Popular once upon a time famous album

The First of a Million Kisses by Fairground Attraction features the track Fairground Attraction .

Question: The band  Black Sabbath 's first album is called  Black Sabbath  and was released in 1970. The leading track on that album is also called "Black Sabbath." Does anybody know of any other manifestation of this phenomenon?    Are there other examples of bands, whose name appears as both the  title of one of their albums and as a song within that album?

Bands With Eponymous Album and Song

Iron Maiden, Bad Company and Valkeat did the same thing.

Iron and  Maiden - ''Iron Maiden'' (1980), Bad Company - Bad Company (1974) and Valkeat - '' Valkeat'' are all examples of bands whose name appears as both the title of one of their songs whilst simultaneously being the name of their album.

Iron Maiden's 1980's Album ''Iron Maiden''

Valkeat named their album and a song within the album Valkeat


Duolingo has a fully hatched course in its incubator program , in which new languages are added to Duolingo.

The course in Hebrew is now in public beta.

Go on and give it a try!

I've tried the Hebrew version of Word Fireworks .

It costs $2 and available from the App Store, Google Play, and Amazon.

It's definitely a beginner app and probably best for picking up the writing system.

The app involves tracing Hebrew characters with your finger so you can communicate with aliens using pyrotechnics.

The app appears to be only available for languages that have writing systems very different from English (also Japanese, Chinese, and Korean).

To add to the other resources mentioned here, I know of a Beginner Hebrew app and the Hebrew Locker app , both for Android.

Both apps work primarily on the basic Hebrew vocabulary and help you learn the commonly used Hebrew words and phrases from scratch and at your own pace.

I just found Free WordPower that seems similar to Duolingo.

It has assessment built in.

For learning the alphabet, I have found the Android app "Write it!

Hebrew" by Jernung to be especially helpful.

It allows you to trace the letters and you can set up your own custom tests (or ask to be tested on the entire alphabet).

On the downside, it does not offer any assistance with Hebrew cursive, but learning the basic block forms is a huge step up in making it to cursive.

I have no affiliation with the app author.

The best free Hebrew site that I have found and like to use is Teach Me Hebrew .

In addition, Learn Hebrew Pod has many free lessons.

There's an app called HelloTalk that I highly recommend.

It works like a typical language exchange, so someone would work with you in Hebrew in exchange for you working with them in another language you know well.

Question: I am looking for an app or website for learning basic/beginner Hebrew. Since it's a less common language, Duolingo and other common programs do not have a Hebrew version. I'm looking for a free program with built in review and assessment.  This isn't a Google question. I have done many searches and not found any high quality programs that meets these simple criteria.

Are there any free apps or web sites for learning Hebrew?

Free WordPower is similar to Duolinguo and Teach Me Hebrew is a free Hebrew learning site, or you can try the alphabet app Write It or the language app HelloTalk.

WordPower and Teach Me Hebrew are free language sites for learning Hebrew. However, if you are looking for an app Write it and HelloTalk are both good options.

Write it and HelloTalk are language learning apps for learning Hebrew


Do YouTube Videos count?

Evildea 's YouTube channel is largely spoken in Esperanto and subtitled in Esperanto and English.

Most of the sub-title work is done through the Amara.org site ( example ).

LoyalBooks also has four Esperanto audiobooks: Dr. Esperanto's International Language, Introduction and Complete Grammar (original book that introduced Esperanto), Esperanto Self-Taught with Phonetic Pronunciation

(Esperanto grammar book),

La Aventuroj de Alicio en Mirlando (Alice in Wonderland translated into Esperanto), and Fabeloj (short stories translated into Esperanto).

English translations aren't included, but a quick search for them on the Internet will suffice to find them.

I don't know if this is enough for you, but Librivox has a few recording in Esperanto that are public domain.

The Esperanto transcript can be found under "Links" in the sidebar by clicking on "Online text" or clicking "Etext" under the "Source" header.

Most of the non-language learning recordings are books or documents that have English counterparts freely available online in public domain.

Here is a link to the Tatoeba Project that will show you community-contributed Esperanto sentences with audio and English translations: https://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/search?query=&from=epo&to=eng&orphans=no&unapproved=no&user=&tags=&has_audio=yes&trans_filter=limit&trans_to=eng&trans_link=&trans_user=&trans_orphan=&trans_unapproved=&trans_has_audio=&sort=words That will show you the shortest sentences first, but you can change the options by using the right-hand side of the page.

Click on the loudspeaker icon to hear the audio for a sentence.

Amara has more than 300 videos in English with transcript in Esperanto.

Here is the direct link: Amara On Demand .

As Chad Walstrom said, I recommend to look for the videos of Evildea, since they cover everyday use of Esperanto, and a huge lot has transcripts.

Something I've used for Japanese is RhinoSpike .

I think the most popular way is to submit text in the target language and request an audio recording of the text.

You can also request transcriptions of video or audio of the target language.

Some video and audio resources you might like.

First there's Farbskatol' which I don't think is active now

but the archive is online.

There's also Chinese Radio International in Esperanto online.

Audio recordings usually have transcriptions in Esperanto.

I can only add two links at the moment but look for interviews.

They're short and you will be treated to a mix of speakers, genders and accents.

Question: Do you know about any Esperanto audio recordings with English translation?  By audio recordings I do not mean language lessons. I would like something more like audio versions of journal/magazine articles or books. If there is nothing with English translations, it would be enough to have the content of the audio transcribed in Esperanto. The recordings do not have to be too long.

Do Esperanto audio recordings with English translations exist?

Evildea 's YouTube channel is largely spoken in Esperanto and subtitled in Esperanto and English. The Tatoeba Project has community-contributed Esperanto sentences with audio and English translations, Librivox has some recordings in Esperanto and Amara has more than 300 videos in English with a transcription in Esperanto.

Both Evildea' s YouTube channel and The Tatobea Project provide Eperando audio with English translation, Librivox provides recordings in Esperanto and Amara provides videos in English with Esperanto transcript.

Evildea's YouTube channel is spoken in Esperanto and has both English and Esperanto subtitles. The Tatoeba Project provides community - contributed Esperanto sentences with English translation.

Librivox provides a few recordings in Esperanto


What you need to do is find native speakers (or other people with a near-native level of English) and engage in conversations with them.

To make this more concrete: You can look for a so-called " tandem partner ", i.e. someone who knows English well and who is interested in learning your language.

You can then meet regularly and speak in English for some time and then speak in your tandem partner's target language.

There are several ways to find tandem partners, for example, pin walls in libraries or universities

(this is rather common in Germany) or dedicated websites.

If the task of having random conversations seems too daunting, you could try the " FORCE Cycle ", a technique/strategy formulated by the Canadian linguist Keith Swayne.

See the five blog posts starting at

http://fivearrows.ca/wp/2012/04/28/the-force-cycle-phase-1/ (the blog posts have embedded YouTube videos).

The strategy comes down to choosing a specific topic and preparing for a conversation on that topic (finding vocabulary, phrases etc.), so the conversation itself becomes easier and you can directly apply what you have prepared.

(This is the best type of advice for oral skills I have ever seen, even after reading half a dozen books about language learning.)

There are also a number of websites that can help you get in touch with native speakers, such as Polyglot Club , Go Speaky , italki and LingQ.com .

Such services are not always free.

You may also try the shadowing technique described by the polyglot Alexander Arguelles (check YouTube and Arguelles' website ), but this technique helps more with improving pronunciation than with oral skills.

Good luck!

As the people above have said, the best thing to do to improve your speaking skills is to find people around you or on the Internet with whom to speak.

In another discussion, I have given a link to a Discord multilingual vocal server (like TeamSpeak) where it's possible to find a number of diverse language rooms : Ling & Lang: https://discordapp.com/invite/DUCVm

In France we have a famous youtuber named "Linguisticae" who has his own Discord server which works like "Ling & Lang" : Linguisticae: https://discordapp.com/invite/YkMzzuN Verbling is also a good solution for communicating vocally and visually through its webconference service

(it's for free but you will have to create an account): https://www.verbling.com/community Good websites to get in touch with a lot of people : Polyglot Club: http://polyglotclub.com/ GoSpeaky: https://www.gospeaky.com/

From the time you start creating a network of fellow speakers everything becomes easier.

And don't forget that the best thing for speaking a lot with people is if you share the same interests; for example video games :D

In my personal experience I can tell you that it is difficult to learn a language.

In my case I'm not English and my native language is Spanish

but I have improved a lot with practice, practice and practice.

Use your imagination, be creative and have fun with English.

How to speak fluent?

Well, that's not easy but not impossible.

Try speaking with others, people who is learning English too, friends, etc.

Is like everyone says, practice every day but just be creative and the most important thing is, have fun with the language!

As @Manuel said you have to practice a lot.

Speak to other persons who are learning English.

Speak with native speakers too.

If you are on your own use your imagination.

You said you watch a lot of movies and novels.

Imagine a scene that differs from the original novel.

Play the roles of all characters and speak the dialogs to yourself.

Best to do this when you are alone.

If imagining scenes is difficult for you, try repeating scenes you saw in a movie or novel.

However using your imagination helps you to a greater extent.

It has no limits and it can help you more if you can imagine and practice real life scenarios.

For example, imagine a meeting with your business clients and talk to yourself in the language you are learning to speak.

It gives you confidence in real life too.

I think the cause is clearly lack of practice.

As for tips, if one has social anxieties or really doesn't have someone to practice with, speaking to oneself helps a lot.

I know because it worked for me with English.

As teenager, I did have 4 years of English courses on a private school and then years working with computers/programming languages, reading a lot of literature and comics, watching movies and listening songs, but speaking to no one.

Try to have all your inner conversations in English; when you're angry or joyful with yourself and have something to shout, in English; having that fictional dialogues with someone else (as rehersal before talking to them; or as "I should have answered that" after talking with them), in English; and so forth.

Try to speak it loudly as much as possible but having the conversation only in thoughts is ok too.

We don't want friends, family, neighbours, hearing us talking in weird tongues with some imaginary speaking partner - gesprekspartner :)

And then, difficult to pronounce words or sentences, those deserve special treatment: repeat them aloud till it hurts!

When the time comes and you really have to interact with other folks in English, things will flow smoothly.

Question: This is my problem:  If an Englishman is speaking, I can understand him well.  I've read many English novels and stories,  I can understand English movies without subtitles, and when I need subtitles, I only activate English subtitles, not those in my native language.  But I have problems with speaking!  I can't speak English fluently..    How can I improve my speaking skills?   What is the cause of this problem?  Can you tell me some tips?

Able to understand conversation but not speak

You should try to find other English speakers online and locally, whether learners or native speakers.

Constant speaking practice will help you improve your English, and talking to a near-native english speaker or a Native English speaker is the best option.

The best thing to do is to spesk with a Near-native speaker or better,  a Native English speaker.

Constant speaking practice with people around you, friends or other prople learning English will help you improve


Telegram is a messaging application that allows you to send voice recordings.

There is an active community of Esperanto speakers in Telegram, and they can correct your pronunciation if you ask them too.

It is also a great place to ask people for a real-time conversation.

For this, you can use programs such as Skype , Google Hangouts , appear.in and Discord .

Many programs exist and some of them do not require to download something or to create an account.

There seems to be an Esperanto group in Second Life that meet regularly and use the program's voice chat for conversations.

Esperantujo en Dua Vivo

languagelearning.stackexchange.com/users/911/Robin van der Vliet

You can buy spoken lessons with several Esperanto tutors with italki: Find a Teacher.

You might also want to take the leap with a face-to-face event.

I just found out about the Paralela Universo event through the " Language Stuff " vlog on Youtube.

It looks to be open to beginners who haven't had the opportunity yet to talk with someone else.

It would take a little courage to leap in as an organizer for an Esperanto event.

I was considering organizing one myself because I didn't see one in my area until I went to the map.

I'm not usually so bold

but what's the worst that could have happened?

Although the event started out for North America, there is nothing preventing you from starting one in your own country.

There are events on the map for Mexico and Cuba!

It's a leap...

I know

but you might be surprised at the interest generated in your area.

You would also rack up a lot of coolness points. :)

If you've finished the Duolingo course (or equivalent), I'd highly recommend trying the new course Ekparolu .

It's a free course which consists of 10 lessons on the topics you choose.

You tell them what you want to practice talking about

and they'll match you with a tutor who will help you speak on that topic for a half hour!

I used to use a site called Fluent in three Months .

It practically teaches you how to use a language and speak it properly, and encourages you to upload a video of yourself (set challenges)

so you can get feedback on your pronunciation and speech.

Very helpful website, you should check it out.

I know an esperanto server on Discord " Ling & Lang " which propose an esperanto room : Discord.

On telegramo.org you can see various links for group chats about Esperanto on Telegram .

Some of them are audio-conversation groups.

You can find tutors or Esperanto language exchange partners at Langademy.

They have a video chat room for Esperanto.

There are some useful links here .

Among others: Chatrooms / Voice chat /r

/esperanto

Discord server - A place where you can chat with other Esperanto speakers (via voice & text). 'Skajpanoj' Facebook group for finding Skype contacts.

Here's a list of contacts (you can add your details here ) telegramo.org - chat with other esperantists

Question: There are already a number of resources online to help learners improve their Esperanto reading, writing and aural comprehension, such as Duolingo, but I want to increase my confidence in  speaking  Esperanto.  Can anyone recommend any online resources that will allow me to converse in real-time with other Esperanto speakers and/or learners?

Are there any online resources for practicing spoken Esperanto?

There are active communities of Esperanto speakers on Telegram (links are listed on telegramo.org), Second Life, Discord (Ling & Lang), or Facebook (Skajpano group for finding Skype contacts). You can also buy lessons on Find a Teacher, find tutors or Esperanto  language exchange partners at Langademy and take courses on Ekparolu and Fluent in Three Months.

You can converse with Native Esperanto speakers through various apps and sites. You can find Esperanto tutors on italki and Langademy for free or paid and online courses like Ekparolu or fluent are reccomended.

Groups on Telegram, SecondLife, Discord, Facebook and Skype give you the possibilty to speak with Native Esperanto speakers that can correct your pronunciation

You can learn Esperanto through online courses like Ekparolu or fluent


If my interpretation of your question as " except for English, what other languages are most often used for communication between people of different nations so that the language used for communication is foreign for all parties ", then the answer is the following:

In many areas of the world there are other so-called "auxiliary languages" that are used for communication, trade, negotiation between people of different nations: Russian is still spoken in many countries of the former Soviet Union and their neighbors, as well as around the globe for there are many migrants with Russian roots everywhere.

As a native speaker of Russian

I used it freely in Ukraine, Poland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, but also on daily basis in Germany and US.

French is the second language in many countries in Africa, in Canada etc.

It was the first language that was widely adopted for international use ( lingua franca ) and used like language of international post etc.

It is still in use as primary language in Olympic Committee and other international organizations (UNO).

Mandarin Chineese is used a lot in China to level the ground between different dialects and language learners.

Last, but not least, Esperanto is a the most successful planed language (=constructed language) that was used by many millions of people during its peak and still in use by thousands of people around the globe.

Please check Wikipedia's List of languages by number of native speakers .

Mandarin is the biggest language, as expected, followed by Spanish, English (which we exclude for this question), Hindi, Arabic, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, ...

You should not make too many assumptions about the foreign language skills of native speakers of big languages.

When you are in a big tourist location in China, you will always find someone who knows (some) English, but once you move off the beaten track, it is better to know Chinese.

If Chinese looks too daunting, then Spanish and Portuguese are good choices.

However, is the number of speakers your main motivation for choosing a foreign language?

You should also consider the countries you would like to travel to or the cultures with which you would like to interact.

See also The #1 Key Element to Choosing a Language to Learn , which discusses several things that can motivate you to pick up a foreign language.

Based on this wikipedia page , I would say your best shot would be to pick a language based on which country has the smallest number of English speakers, then figure out what the most popular websites/messaging apps in those countries are.

For example, this website claims that the most popular messaging app in Russia is WhatsApp.

I don't know much about WhatsApp, but assuming it's similar to apps such as kik and telegram, it'll have specific groups that you can join, and I'm sure you'll be able to find one with Russian speakers who know no English.

I'd use the same list that Christophe Strobbe referenced, but with a few corrections.

As he stated, the top 10 most spoken languages in the world (excluding English), ordered by native speakers, are Mandarin, Spanish, Hindi, Arabic, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, Japanese, Punjabi, and German.

It isn't necessary to learn all of these languages to be able to communicate with their native speakers

; keep in mind, this list is based on the number of native speakers only.

Many people who speak one of these languages speak another as well, meaning it isn't necessary to learn all of these.

For one, after several hundred years of British colonialism in India and Bangladesh, the teaching of English in schools is emphasized, and thus most Indians or Bangladeshis born within the last 60 years are fully fluent in English, if not at least mostly literate.

Because of this, Hindi, Punjabi, and Bengali really aren't vital to know; you can communicate with most, if not all, Hindi, Punjabi, and Bengali speakers with just English.

In a nutshell, the answer to the question What are the most common languages among people who DON'T speak English? is the first list I provided.

However, if you want to make a better decision and choose langauages whose group of speakers will not overlap with each other, you should go with this better revised list:Mandarin, Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Russian, Japanese, and German.

The easiest to learn out of this list for an English speaker would be Spanish, Portuguese, and German.

I'd suggest looking at list of L1+L2 speakers combined ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers ).

Top five would be Mandarin Chinese English Hindustani Spanish Arabic Considering that English and Spanish are pretty close to each other, learning both instead of learning one or other would be a pretty simple first step.

Portuguese would be another somewhat near language to learn, even though it's not commonly used L2 language.

Portuguese is mostly worth learning if you intend to interact with native speakers.

French is another language that has pretty massive L2 speaker population and it's pretty close to English and Spanish, too.

Selecting between Mandarin Chinese, Hindustani and Arabic depends on who would you like to interact with.

None of those languages are near each other so learning one of those does not make learning another one easier.

I would assume that most speakers of Mandarin Chinese, Hindustani and Arabic, that know at least one another language, will speak English.

Im Spanish,

Its spoken in south america, central america, some islands of the pacific (filipinas for example) and Spain of course (my country, its in Europe)

, this is a advantage over chinese because you can know different cultures and countries.

About the ratio between native speakers who speak English, I go with Flimzy.

I think the majority of Mandarin speakers don't speak English.

But unless you find yourself in rural China, you won't ever encounter those people, either.

The absolute number of language speakers is usually a very poor metric for the usefulness of the language.

Flimzy♦ Aug 9 at 13:31 Spanish may have more non english speakers with internet access.

Question: My aim in language learning is to communicate with the most people.  I want to learn a new language and thought to learn Mandarin Chinese, because it's the most common language. But I figured if a lot of people who speak Mandarin already speak English then it would be better to learn the most common language among people who don't speak English. I suspect it's still Mandarin, but I just wanted to make sure. So, what are the most common languages among non-Anglophones?

What are the most common languages among people who DON'T speak English?

The most commonly spoken languages in order are Mandarin, Spanish, English,, Hindi, Arabic, Portuguese, Bengali and Russian.

The most common languages among non- Anglophones are Mandrin, Spanish, Hindi, Arabic, Portuguese, Bengali and Russian

The most common languages among non- Anglophones are Mandrin, Spanish, Hidi, Arabic, Portuguese, Bengali and Russian


It is a form of language immersion , so yes it will most likely improve learning.

Passive hearing, a fine demonstration of the decreased channel width of a non-native's perception.

Another factor: language courses that have a story (like lernu.net) instead of small situational sketches seem to give better results.

(Practical experience only.)

Too much in-depth stories might be contraproductive though.

So the movies must be of appropriate level and subject.

I'm not a linguist, and can't cite any studies, but in my experience, watching movies in the target language (Spanish in my case) does help, because you hear it being used in context, like in real life.

So if there are unfamiliar words you can often figure them out from context.

It also gives you listening practice; you get used to hearing it spoken at a normal rate (not slowed down, like in a lot of things meant for learners).

And it pairs visual input with audio input, which helps hold one's attention; if I had just the audio without the video I would quickly become bored.

If you are familiar with the movie in your native language, that gives additional clues for comprehension, although they can sometimes be misleading, as I discovered watching the Spanish version of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", evidently they prioritized the rhyme over literal translation, which is understandable.

So watching movies has a lot of the same benefits as immersion, though it lacks the direct interaction and the practice speaking it yourself.

Movies also teach you the face and gestures that go with the words and sentences.

Seeing them will help you understand and imitating them will help you being understood in the language.

languagelearning.stackexchange.com/users/911/Robin van der Vliet

Speaking from experience only: It definitely helps when I'm in the process of learning a new language as long as it's not too long or overwhelming--

it might help you get a more native-sounding accent as well if that's what you would prefer.

Turning on the subtitles in the same language (ex.

enabling French subtitles while watching a movie where the spoken language is mostly French etc etc) might also help you learn how to pronounce and/or

spell some of the trickier words.

For sure, not.

Watching movies in English is an awesome way of improving your English – especially your English speaking and listening skills.

Personally, I was watching cartoons in English, after I began to watch my favorite movies.

Here is the list I would recommend you to watch:“(500) Days of Summer”

“The Break-up” "Forrest Gump"“The Hangover”“The Social Network”

“The Hunger Games”

In my opinion, if your level is too weak in a language, watching movies, even with subtitles, will be bad for your learning.

The gap between your skills and the movie's level is too important to allow you understanding comfortably what is said.

The best method is (according to me) to practice with real people because you have the same context which is repeated each day.

A movie has a script which contains complexe words and expressions.

These dialogs are adapted for an informed public, in particular to the native speakers.

We need to live a language to integrate it durably.

Question: I doubt that films will help people who are watching in a language that they are entirely foreign to or are already adept in, but if someone already knows a language but is not adept will watching movies in those languages improve their language abilities?

Does watching movies improve language skills?

It is a form of language immersion with language spoken in context, so it will be helpful as long as the level is easy enough for the learner to understand.

Watch film in the language you are trying to learn  will most likely help you learn the language but if you level of that specific language is low it most probably won't help improve your language skills

Being a form of language immersion it will most likely help you learn the language.

From personal experience, learning a language by watching films does help seeing as you get used to listening to words used in everyday conversation.

Learning a language watching films won't improve your language skills if you are not familiar with that specific language.


Below are a few websites where you should be able to learn European Spanish: Learn Spanish: Basic Spanish for English Speakers : a 16-week course on edX (a MOOC platform) that requires four hours of study per week.

The content was developed by the Universitat Politècnica de Valencia.

Spanish for Beginners : a program of six four-week courses developed by the Open University and hosted on FutureLearn (a British MOOC platform).

The Instituto Cervantes' Aula Virtual de Español (AVE) .

If any other online courses pop up, I'll add them to the list on my website .

There are podcasts for learning Spanish at different levels (beginner, intermediate, advanced) at Notes in Spanish .

They are done by a couple, Ben and Marina; Marina is a native speaker from Madrid, and Ben is actually English but has been speaking Spanish for years (but sometimes Marina has to correct his grammar).

They are helpful for listening practice, and there are transcripts/worksheets available if you go premium.

The podcasts don't seem to be still produced, but the ones that have been are there available for listening

(note that the forum frequently mentioned in the podcasts has been closed).

Assimil has good self-learning courses that teach European Spanish: Spanish with Ease (note that some people say that earlier editions of Assimil courses were better than later ones )

Using Spanish (advanced level course; out of print, but possible to find online/second-hand) Supermemo courses teach European Spanish: Spanish 1.

¡No hay problema!

Spanish 2.

¡No hay problema!

Spanish 3.

¡No hay problema!

Supermemo also provides a very large set of vocabulary and grammar flashcards, which can be repeated using spaced repetition in the Supermemo app: Español Extremo 1 Español Extremo 2 Español Extremo 3 Español Extremo 4 Español: Modismos Español: Gramática Español: Régimen Español: Verbos irregulares All these Supermemo courses/flashcards can be used online (see the links above) or bought from the Supermemo app (for Android/iOS).

Unfortunately there is no such thing as "Latin American Spanish".

Spanish from Argentina differs a lot from the Spanish they use in Mexico, and both have just as many differences with the Spanish from Cuba or Colombia.

It's a strange simplification that is quite inaccurate.

Spanish from Spain also has different varieties, just like in UK you have Scotts, Welsh, Cockney folks, etc.

speaking differently.

You probably need NORMATIVE SPANISH (correct general one without local interferences or local slang)

The best book for normative Spanish is one called "A Good Spanish Book!"

by University Academic Editions, written by a professor of Spanish, from Spain, with a PhD. We are using it in my university this year and it's wonderful for beginners.

It's first in the rankings as "the best book to learn Spanish for beginners":

https://www.librarything.com/list/11238/all/ Hope this helps!

For the current level of Spanish that you might have, I suppose that you are just starting, Duolingo will help you to learn vocabulary and some phrases.

You won't find much difference between the Spanish from Spain and the Latin American Spanish in the basic level.

Nevertheless, if your goal is to speak Spanish, Duolingo will not help you do that.

Most of the things that you learn in Duolingo are useless in the real life.

There are indeed some funny phrases like “The spider does not speak” or "Look!

A flying cow!"

Try to use it in real life with a native speaker, and please post the results.

Therefore if you need to learn Spanish for everyday life or studying, besides Duolingo, you need to take into account other resources.

Going to a classroom where you can practice with real people is so much better.

Otherwise there is a resource that I recommend which is Rocket Spanish (I'm not affiliated with them in any way) which is the closest thing to having a real language class because it gives you real world examples and useful cultural and language tips.

Try to prepare as best as you can, but believe me that you will learn the language out of need when you arrive at your destination.

Source: my real life experience learning french before coming to live in France.

I'm a native Spanish speaker.

Question: I am going to be studying in Spain starting next year.  The  Duolingo spanish course  has more of a focus on the Latin American version. I was wondering if anyone knows of a course/website which uses the variant of Spanish that is spoken in Spain, rather than in Latin America? It would help if I would be able to speak as the locals do and not seem too foreign.

Where to learn the Spain version of Spanish, rather than Latin American?

"Spanish with Ease" by Assimil is a good self-learning course, although the earlier editions are said to be better. Using Spanish is out of print, but can be found online and second hand. Supremo also has European Spanish courses. A good way to learn normative Spanish is also to read a good book.

Assimil provides a good self - learning courses in Peninsular Spanish and "A Good Spanish Book!" is the best book to learn Peninsular Spanish from.

Assimil provides a good self - learning courses in Peninsular Spanish. Spanish with Ease, Using Spanish and Supermemo courses are available.


Three hours/day for 3 years is over 3000 hours.

That is a LOT of time, so, YES, you can do it if you take the right approach.

You are already well past the beginner stage.

But of course you will have to put in a lot of work to achieve your goal.

Find a tv series or movie that you really love and are willing to watch many times.

Your tv/movie viewing must be active and not passive .

For example, when you encounter a word or phrase that you don't understand, rewind many times and try to understand.

Look up words in a dictionary.

Add new phrases to your flashcard deck so that you can review and not forget.

Apply these principles to anything you listen to.

Get a speaking partner, because this forces you to listen and then immediately respond to what you heard.

Practice speaking/listening as much as you can (every day is best).

Consider starting with easier material at first without immediately trying to understand CNN or complicated topics.

Prioritize active listening activities over passive listening activities.

I am not sure about "anything/everything", but after 3 years of watching CNN, you will be able to understand standard American accent.

You might still have issues with other American accents (southern, black american vernacular, etc), and non-american accents (some accents in UK are hard even for native speakers)

especially if person has a strong said accent.

Years ago, I started with watching CNN (live TV so no pause/rewind), second hour was mostly a repeat of previous news

so I was able to catch up what I missed first time around.

CNN uses "neutral" American accent.

But when I switched to NBC/Tom Brokaw (yes I date myself), I needed to adjust to his accent, which was more southern (not as neutral).

Also, I found that some of my friends who learned English by mostly listening, have hard time to spell correctly and use proper term (cell vs sell, buy vs bye, break vs brake, etc)

so you may want to dedicate some of that time to reading .

I would suggest to start with articles in simple English with audio, like graded readers or Voice of America

"Learn English" articles with video/audio (which are excellent: they use limited vocabulary - most common 1500 words - and explain the few new words).

Listen first (without reading) to focus on listening comprehension, read later to confirm your understanding and learn the proper spelling.

And check also BBC Learning English , also many hours of audio of different (British) accent, also worth to adjust to.

languagelearning.stackexchange.com/users/695/Peter M. - stands for Monica

Definitively.

And maybe even in a shorter time.

But you will have to push your limits.

If you just listen to get a general idea about the material, you can watch and watch and your level won't improve.

Indeed, some people live for years in a foreign country and have a language proficiency at the A-level (in the EU framework, that is, the lowest).

Search for material with subtitles.

Watch first without reading, then try to understand every single word.

Then, look up in the subtitles what they were saying to confirm whether you were right.

Don't focus too much on TV.

On TV you have the images to help you understand the language and movies often don't have much dialogue in them.

The audio is also processed, and spoken by actors with excellent diction.

Go for talk radio instead.

You will be exposed to lots of accents, thick dialogues that resemble real life interactions.

I would say that with B1-B2 you are almost there.

In addition, reading and writing instead of only listening will improve your ability to understand spoken word.

Because it will expose you to a greater vocabulary and will make you think about how to express what you want, in a clear and concise way.

So divert some of that TV time to the witten word, books, blogs, newspapers.

Having said that, i think i learned a lot of english from listening to music and watching tv.

English class in school was just dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

That is a very good practice.

If at the same time you improve your understanding of grammar and syntax, and increase your breadth of vocabulary, you will be able, using the context, to understand almost everything.

However that does not mean you will hear almost everything.

To expound on the last point, as a non native speaker your brain, it is likely, cannot distinguish between sounds that are not in your native language.

And depending on your age and your natural talent, just listening to English will not be enough to make your brain aware of the different sounds.

So if you don't actively try to reprogram your brain to learn these sounds you will have to rely on context to understand what is being said.

For instance, some languages have only one S sound, and people from these countries will not be able to listen the difference between sea and she.

To learn the different sounds, you will have, first, to become aware of the different phonetics and practice listening to them.

One site that can be helpful for that is phonetics practice .

Also, I would recommend trying to find out what are the phonetic differences between your language and English.

I have done the same, and it is what pushed my listening ability a step beyond just listening to English can achieve.

Question: Can I understand 95 percent of CNN, talk shows, movies and anything? If I listen to English materials (podcasts and videos, …) for three years and I also listen to English materials for 3 hours every day. I am a between B1 and B2 in the  CEFRL scale  right now.

Can I understand 95 percent of CNN and talk show, movies, anything just in 3 years?

That is plenty of time to get to that level if you use the right approach.

Yes, it is possible to understand 95% of CNN and talkshows if you listen to English for three years for 3 hours every day.

If you take the correct  approach you will definitily achieve your goal.


There are a few ways to visit Antarctica.

Remember that nothing is ever guaranteed and it's quite possible with weather that you might not make it there.

Cruises: Larger cruises often will get you close but not to the land.

You'll have the comforts of cruising.

These big ships may be regulated soon.

Smaller ships will often let you get right onto land.

Costs start at least $5k (for the ultra cheap).

Tailored Expeditions: Many companies run specialty expeditions which let you visit Antarctica exactly how you want.

Prices are extremely high for this.

Airborne: You get to fly over Antarctica.

This is the more ecological way to see it but doesn't have the same experience as actually walking on it.

This is also the cheapest option.

Almost all tourist methods leave from Ushuia, in Argentina .

You could get work on a boat, book a cruise, or take a tour with GAP Adventures, among others.

However, there is almost NO cheap option.

However, if you're after a cheaper option and have some time to spare, arrive in November.

It's the start of the season and many of the boats aren't full.

As such, they often offer 50% off the prices of trips to Antarctica.

It's still expensive, but a massive saving!

November is also a good time to visit the area, with El Calafate

up north being a gateway to the glaciers, mountains and national parks.

Perito Moreno glacier has to be seen to be believed !

Work in Antarctica:

USA vacancies : Degree Requirements M.S. in Physics, Electrical Engineering, Computer Science or related field is required.

B.S. in Physics, Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or related field and substantial (equivalent to a masters degree)

experience will be considered.

Russian vacancies (from here ):

Meteorologist-aktinometrist Geophysicist - ionosphere expert, riometrist, magnetologist Aerologist and Radiolocator-technician System administrator, developer Specialist on environmental protection equipment Hydrologist Radio Engineer (modern radio communication expert) Surgeon or anesthesiologist Mechanic-technician

"Pisten bully Polar-300" driver, etc Electric and gas welder-driver Cook

Another approach you can take involves getting seasonal work as an unskilled laborer in support of one of the governments doing research there.

In particular I think Great Britain, the United States, Australia, and Russia have big Antarctic programs and thus employ a lot of civilians.

If you're looking for a job at one of the American stations, almost all hiring is done through Raytheon

I believe most of the most popular route is by cruise ship and the most common departure port is Ushuaia, Argentina .

Become a researcher in an Earth/Planetary Science department or in a lab that studies the physics of ice.

The department I'm in at Brown University does send expeditions to study the dry ice valleys in Antarctica (to study parallels with Martian climate).

Alternatively, do research on penguins (though there are not many penguin researchers in the world).

E.g. the University of Washington Polar Science Center

Question: A year ago I was reading some magazine, and found out that there is availability to get a trip to Antarctica. Unfortunately, there was no info about how I could get there. Do you know anything about it? Best way to get there, best route, maybe some feedback?

How can I visit Antarctica?

There are some speciality expeditons and cruises that you could take, often leaving from Ushuaia, Argentina. You could also try to find work on a boat or supporting one of the governments doing research there.

Tailored Expeditions, working on government research, booking a cruise or taking a GAP adventures tour are different way to get to visit Antartica.The most common means of transport is a cruise ship and the most popular departure port is in  Ushuaia, Argentina .

Many companies organize Tailored Expeditions in a way that you can visit Antartica the way you want to.

You can get to Antartica by getting seasonal work as an unskilled laborer for government reasearch, you can book a cruise or even take a tour with GAP adventures.

To get to Antartica the most common means of transport is a cruise ship and the most popular departure port is in  Ushuaia, Argentina .


My personal experience has been that it's best to get a SIM card for each country I travel in.

Local providers almost always have the best deals, and buying SIM cards is relatively inexpensive.

Especially in Asian countries (where I have more travel experience)

you can easily pick up SIM cards at shopping kiosks almost anywhere, and the rates are really very cheap compared to where I live (New Zealand).

Data roaming from international providers is also very expensive; as an example with my New Zealand cellphone provider in China I would pay $US25+ a megabyte, whereas buying a local SIM card it cost me $US8 for 250 megabytes.

It depends on what countries you are travelling to.

If the country uses GSM, in most cases the best plan is to make sure you have an unlocked GSM phone, and purchase a pay-as-you-go SIM card in the country you are going to.

If you Google for "International SIM" you will see that there are tons of websites selling pay-as-you-go SIMs, and in many countries, they are easy to purchase on arrival at the airport if you know exactly what you're looking for.

A possible option is a global sim card, like those from GoSim .

They work in nearly every country.

Another sneakier method, depending on what you need the data for and how fast it needs to be, is a 3G Kindle.

It has free data to download books on Amazon's Whispernet in almost every country in the world, and has a basic experimental web browser on it.

With a bit of effort, I've managed to get GMail, Google Maps, GTalk and more running on it - Facebook and Twitter even mostly work.

I guess you might be in the UK based on the networks you listed?

For within Europe, Vodafone are currently pretty good.

Vodafone Passport means it's a single charge to answer/make a call, the rest is at the UK rate.

If you're on a £40+/month plan, they'll give you 25mb/day/country of data for free, and 10 free texts a day

When I go outside of Europe, I just pick up a PAYG sim card, sling it in a spare phone and use that.

Generally works out much much cheaper, and gives you a local number so people can call you easily from the country you're in.

While fairly slow to use, the Kindle 3G web browser works well enough for email and some browsing, and the 3G SIM is contract free and works throughout most of the World .

Bar the cost of purchase

it makes it free to use the internet for a lot of travelling.

My own best way to avoid data roaming fees when travelling is simply NOT to bring a cell phone abroad.

Making a phone call is easy from anywhere without a cell phone and internet connections are provided in many places in cybercafés.

Moreover, this is one object that you won't get stolen if it stays at home.

Best rates are generally had if you buy a local SIM.

Alternatively talk to your friends via a Skype account over the internet.

If you just want to make calls then there are a number of voice over IP providers besides Skype.

If you want to receive calls buying a SIM locally is cheapest.

It's not an all-countries-proof method but if you're from the UK you could get a Three sim card, they have a Feel At Home system that allows you to use your plan in other countries*.

At the time of writing ( updated on April 2017 ):

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Channel Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, United States.

There are quite a few pocket hotspots which have global or multi country data plans at much lower price points than roaming.

I have a Glocalme U2, I have heard good things about the Pokefi which seems to be cheaper but covers a lot fewer countries.

Also, the Glocalme U2 allows for -- but does not require -- a local SIM.

Similar devices include the Skyroam and the Keepgo

but I know nothing of those but seem to be much more expensive than either the Glocalme U2 or the Pokefi.

These are data only solutions but the question was about data in the first place, second VoIP is your friend if you need to make phone calls.

Question: I'm looking for data plans I can use while touring different countries within a region without having to worry about being eaten by roaming fees. If such plans exist at all, I suppose mostly big telecommunication providers like Vodafone or T-Mobile will offer them.

What are the best ways to avoid data roaming fees when travelling abroad?

You can use a global SIM card, the Kindle 3G web browser or a pocket hotspot with global or multi-country data plans, but you can get the best rates by using an unlocked GSM phone and purchasing a local SIM card in your destination country.

Purchasing an unlocked GSM phone and a local or global sim card are the best ways to avoid data roaming fees abroad. TheKindle  3G browser is a good option even if it's speed is fairly slow. Pocket hotspots have data plans thathave a lower cost than regular data roaming fees.

Buying a local or a global sim card is the best way to avoid data roaming fees while travelling. If you're travelling to a country that uses GSM,  it is best to have an unlocked GSM phone.

Throughout most the world the Kindle 3G browser is a good option even if it's speed is fairly slow

A few poket hotspots have global or multi country data plans at a lower price than regular data roaming fees.


When using a regular taxi make sure it's with a reputable company or you agree upon the rate upfront.

In a lot of countries taxis will take every opportunity to rip off tourists.

You'll generally not have this problem with private car services.

Private car services are also generally more comfortable and easier to have little stops or detours along the way.

This completely depends on the city and situation.

I've only used a private car service once, in Lima, Peru, as the taxi drivers are notorious for ripoffs and theft.

When I arrived at the hostel I was staying at, there were two people staying there who had all of their belongings stolen by their taxi driver at knifepoint.

An Australian tourist was also recently shot by her taxi driver in Lima after refusing to hand over her belongings.

In retrospect it seems like that was $20USD well spent, but I wouldn't bother paying it in places that didn't have a reputation.

Taxis aren't run by the government everywhere.

For example, here in the Czech Republic the government recognizes two types: taxi and yellow taxi (the main difference being that yellow ones can use taxi stands and special lanes) - but both are private cars by your definition.

It is not possible to answer the question in a way that applies globally because there are different conditions in different countries.

My experience is that a normal taxi is always cheaper.

The only advantage of a private car service is that the cost is fixed unlike a taxi where the price on the meter (if there is one) can vary depending on the route, how long it takes or how much the driver feels like charging.

There is also the possibility of getting ripped off by a taxi driver.

Also, the private car services tend to have newer cars and in my experience the drivers can be a little less "crazy".

Finally, I've found that in some cities that the only taxis that are possible to call by phone are private taxis and that regular taxis can only be hailed on the street.

I travelled to Peru with an organised Tour.

We had a guide who accompanied us for the duration of the Tour.

On the final day, when I wanted to get a cab from Lima to the airport, I could have paid an official taxi for about $30.

However, my guide knew someone who can drive us to the airport for about $10 to $15 cheaper.

If someone you trust is providing a private car, you can feel safe to take that instead.

It really depends on your comfort level before you accept a private car from someone.

In some countries, there are regulated and non-regulated 'taxi' services.

It so happen that those are generally in countries that are less secure.

In those place, absolutely take the regulated ones!

Question: When planning a trip I've seen people say private cars are scams and other people say they can be better than city taxi's because you know how much it will cost ahead of time. Are there any other advantages that a private car may have over a city taxi? Are there any other disadvantages other than the cost? Do city taxis have hidden costs that a traveler should be aware of (such as "running the meter" while waiting for a rider)?

Are there advantages to using private car service over taxis from the airport?

As a rule, private car services are always more expensive, but they do offer a fixed price regardless of the traffic and route taken.

Regular Taxis are cheaper. The advantage of a private car is that the price is fixed.

From personal experience regular Taxis are cheaper and the only  advantage of a private car is that the price is fixed.


If you're willing to visit filming locations on your own, the LOTR Location Guidebook is nice.

Often, local tour operators will cover the filming locations nearby or even offer specific half-day or day tours to more remote/harder to reach places.

If there's anything LOTR-related to see in the area, there will always be someone more than willing to show it to you.

I've only been to a couple of different places, but Hobbiton was pretty cool

and I'd definitely recommend it.

You can also take a tour of the Weta studios in Wellington.

It's really neat, and best of all

it's free.

Good luck!

If you're into hiking (or tramping as we call it down here) I can heartily recommend getting off the road and into our backcountry.

You'll be rewarded with majestic scenery while taking in Lord of the Rings locations at the same time.

The country has a series of premier "great walks" which are detailed on the Department of Conservation website .

For example, the Tongariro Crossing is widely considered to be New Zealand's best one day walk and will take you through Mordor, crossing between Mt Tongariro and Mt Ngauruhoe (Mt Doom).

The Routeburn track isn't a LOTR location but walking

it certainly feels like you're in the movie and the Dart River Valley before the track starts was the scene for Isengard.

The track crosses the Southern Alps

and I found it absolutely breathtaking.

While these walks aren't tours there are companies that take guided walks although there's nothing stopping you from doing it on your own.

Just be well prepared as our weather (particularly in Alpine areas)

can change and become dangerous very quickly.

Also, a great resource is Tourism New Zealand's website .

If you search that site for "Lord of the Rings" you'll find quite a few tour operators that visit film locations.

There are a few actually, but the most well known is Lord of the Rings Tours , aptly named.

While Hobbiton is cool to see the shire area, the locations in the South Island are by far the more spectacular, especially in the area around Queenstown.

This new CnnGo article goes indepth into the new tours and options available to the Lord of the Rings traveller in New Zealand.

From visiting Hobbiton (Matamata), Mordor (Tongariro National Park), Rivendell (Wellywood), The Misty Mountains (The Remarkables) and more, they also include the following links and contacts: Embassy Theatre , 10 Kent Terrace, Wellington, +64 4 384 7657 Flat Earth , (tours of film locations around Wellington), +64 4 472 9635 Hobbiton Movie Set & Farm Tours , 501 Buckland Road, Hinuera, Matamata, +64 7 888 1505 Howard’s Mountain Lodge , Caroll Street, National Park Village, +64 7 892 2827 Nomad Safaris (tours of film locations around Queenstown), +64 3 442 6699 Weta Cave , corner of Camperdown Road and Weka Street, Miramar, Wellington,

+64 4 380 9361 Also see: Lord Of The Rings Location Guidebook -- Extended Edition by Ian Brodie, Harpercollins, 2011 Tourism New Zealand New Zealand Department of Conservation (including national park brochures, maps and free cell phone apps)

On Trip Advisor I think the highest rated in is Twizel, largest location in NZ and is Gondor.

You can find out more at Lord of the Rings Tour different from the above mentioned site.

I'm late to the party but for anyone reading this later: Driving to Matamata from Auckland is fairly quick (approx 2 hours) and finding the Information Centre is an easy way to visit Hobbiton.

There are brochures and helpful staff in the centre that will ensure you get to try the Hobbit beer and buy a replica ring :).

Related website: http://www.matamatanz.co.nz/Things-to-Do/Hobbiton-Movie-Set-Tour

I think you can go to Glenorchy where most of the war scenes in lord of the ring are photoed

Question: Are there any tours in New Zealand based on places where the Lord of the Rings films were made?

"Lord of the Rings" Tours in New Zealand

There are a few, and the best known is called Lord of the Rings Tours.

'The Lords of The Rings Tours'' is the best known Lord of the Rings tour in New Zealand.

The most well know Lord of The Rings tour in New Zealand are ''The Lord of The Rings Tours''


Honestly, I would stick with couchsurfing.

I hate to sound like the news and say craig's list can be dangerous, but I know some people that have had bad experiences... really bad experiences.

I would say stick with a site that validates users.

If you don't mind working, you can always go with somethign like WWOOF .

Also, working in a hostel is usually a pretty good gig.

Free place to live and some cash.

Typically you can easily find work at one by just walking in and asking.

CouchSurfing is the best choice.

Also there is http://hospitalityclub.org , but it is going to stagnation from year to year, and http://bewelcome.org .

Try it all, and you'll get the variant to stay.

Couchsurfing and Hospitality Club are the most common, for sure.

However you can also consider bar work - in some countries (eg England) it often includes accommodation.

Similarly, working in a hostel often scores you a free bed as well.

And sometimes just chatting to friendly locals may work in your favour.

You can try http://www.airbnb.com/ .

I have used the site to figure out accommodation for some of my travels and have found it pretty useful.

The downside, you cannot book an accommodation right away.

You need to communicate with the owners and see what works for you.

This would mean you start your search pretty early.

Sometimes you could be interested in sleep in your arrival airport so you can save the money for the first night in a new place.

There is a page that will help you to decide if one or other airport is more convenient to sleep there: Sleep in Airports .

NOTE:

It could sound crazy, but I've sleept a lot of times in different airports and if you have no problems to sleep with some noise, that's a good option if your flight departs too early or you arrive too late to your destination.

You can try the subreddits of individual cities, and ask to crash over .

I've had far better experiences off of Reddit than off of Couchsurfing, perhaps because people often "stalk" my Reddit posts before offering me their couch, which means that they're often more interested in me.

Couch Surfing sounds good, but if you like luxury, there is a luxury version of couch surfing: house sitting.

I know two websites that offer house sitting: Houses

it world and Care Taker .

The idea is the owners offer free accommodations in luxury or holiday houses and you clean and guard their homes.

The only problem is that for subscribe to these sites you have to pay a small fee.

Also you can exchange your home, like Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet in the film "The holidays".

That's an option ideal for families due

you will save a lot of money and you have not to work.

The problem is you have to be very confident with your guest.

Use ExchangeMouse to find homes to exchange among 60+ home exchange clubs.

Results vary heavily depending of your location and destination as interest needs to be mutual, tough there are sites offering points based exchanges to get beyond this requirement too.

As a host for both Helpx and WWOOF, I ask that anyone using those services do not treat them as free.

It can cost dearly to host someone, especially in a remote area where they have to be fetched and then returned to some mode of transportation.

There are lots of opportunity for fantastic experiences, for both the host and the volunteer.

There is nothing worse than having someone waste my time and energy by taking advantage of the situation, and behaving as though it is a vacation.

Only use those services if you have the intention and integrity to be productive and self responsible.

It is NOT a babysitting service...

it is a job and has basic commitment levels to fulfill.

House-sitting is an option for longer-term stays, and a really good way to experience a place more as a “local” than a tourist.

I found

MindMyHouse a good place to start to find opportunities.

Question: I want to travel abroad cheaply and I would prefer to find some place to stay through a person or website, rather than book a hotel or hostel. There is  couchsurfing.com , which I know about.  Can you recommend other resources where I can find free accommodation?

Is there a list of free accommodation resources?

WWOOF is an option if you don't mind working, and you could try house-sitting or home exchange (e.g. ExchangeMouse). Sometimes you can be offered a place to stay by online friends.

WOOF offers free accomodation in exchange you have to work whist You can save money and time Sleeping in your airort of arrival. However, Reddit offers free accomodation and the possibilty to get to know your host  prior your stay, House-sitting provides luxurious accomodation and the ''local'' experience and ExchangeMouse provdies free accomodation through house exchange.

WOOF offers free accommodation in exchange you have to work.

Sleeping in your airport of arrival is free, you don't have to work and you also save time.

Reddit offers free accomodation and also provides the possibility to get to know your Host prior your stay through their Reddit page.

If you are looking for luxurious an non - tourist like accomodation House-sitting is the best option.


So the answer is: yes, you can , if you really want to.

In practice, though, it makes made little sense.

The Maldives are explicitly set up to discourage independent travellers.

The only places you can go without a permit are the capital Male, which is pint-sized and notably lacking in all the things that make the Maldives great (white sand beaches, clear water, gorgeous coral, overwater bungalows etc); and the resort islands, which are for guests only.

For travelling anywhere else, you need an "Inter Atoll Travel Permit" (IATP), which is normally only issued if you have an invitation from somebody living on an outer island.

This means an independent traveller is effectively limited to doing one of two things: Fly to Male and stay only there.

Unless you're there for business, this hardly seems worth the expense.

Fly to Male and pay the rack rate directly at a resort island to stay there.

This is almost certainly more expensive than a package that combines the two.

2018 update :

Things have changed considerably since this answer was written.

IATPs have been abolished, so you're now free to travel about on your own, and guesthouses and small hotels have sprung up in response.

Here's a random blog entry with some pointers.

We went to the Maldives from Sweden this summer.

I checked out prices of regular flights and it was more expensive to just fly in then to buy a package from a tour operator so when it comes to the Maldives I would say that tour operators is the cheap option.

However - if you are nearby anyway (India?)

it may be different.

The only way to fly there cheaper is to string separate flights together.

I.e. from Australia

it's possible to get there for just over £500 GBP return by flying: Melbourne→Malaysia •

Malaysia→Sri Lanka •

Sri Lanka→Male.

Obviously, this is going to be a headache, and the you have the hotel costs.

I'm sure the answer above is on the money.

So to speak.

Condor fly to Malé from Frankfurt (am Main) and has pretty decent rates.

So if you fly from Europe, then it's cheaper to get there than on most packages I've seen in catalogues.

Still, I would also like to ask the for your experience what to do next, when I get there.

I planned my trip to Sri Lanka without agencies.

I found tickets with Condor Airlines with 1 stop in the Maldives.

I have never been before at the Maldives, so I decided to stop for 5 days in Malé.

So I have 5 days to explore Maldives as an independent traveler.

I can tell you, that there is no problem for you to plan your trip to Maldives without agency, but it depends from "What you're really wanting from your trip?

" If you want to stay at Malé - it will cost for you not a big money.

But be patient!

Any your movement in the Maldives will cost for you huge of money.

For example: One way trip from Malé to the nearest island will cost for you $500 minimum (for 1 person).

So I recommend to plan this trip by yourself if only Maldives is not your final destination.

But if you need to relax, I think it will be better to get tour package.

If you need more information, You can read an article at my blog Real Truth About Maldives Capital (Malé) .

If this information will useful for you, please leave a comment!

Question: Organizing your travel without agents is almost always cheaper and more fun.But does that also apply for Maldives? Can I just travel to the Maldives? Do you have some tips or experiences to report?

Can you go to the Maldives without assistance of a travel agency?

You can go without a travel agency if you really want to, but you will need to string separate flights together to make it cheaper.

it is possibile to travel to the Maldive without going though a travel agency and  If you take an indirect flight it will be cheaper.

You can travel to the Maldives without a travel agency but your flight will only be cheaper if it is indirect.


The short answer is no, as has been said.

There are a few bus lines popping up.

You can check them out at http://gotobus.com and http://cashuttlebus.com .

They typically take you between SF/LA and LA/LV and that's about it.

Sorry, but no.

There are parts of the western states you can get to and from via train, but they're a small percentage of the whole area.

If your goal was to, for instance, just get around the SF Bay Area, then the combination of BART, Muni, CalTrain , etc. would be sufficient.

But given that "the Western US" is about half the country (depending on where you draw the line), you're not going to find any one thing that applies to all of it.

Megabus does serve California and Nevada now (since 2012).

It looks like they have service along

the I-5 (San Francisco to Los Angeles), I-80 (San Francisco - Sacramento - Reno - Sparks) and I-15

(Los Angeles to Las Vegas) corridors.

When I traveled the east coast USA, the Chinatown bus was the budget way to travel.

It was (apparently) cheaper than Greyhound, at the cost of a little luxury (although after taking a Greyhound bus I'm not sure there were many luxuries to lose).

The Chinatown buses run from Chinatown in one city to Chinatown in another.

These were mainly an East coast thing, but they are spreading more and more to the West coast.

I've never actually been on one myself

(I got suckered into riding a greyhound), so I can't speak to their comfort and such.

these might be of use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown_bus_lines - wiki article http://www.chinatown-bus.org/ - Chinatown bus page

I had to travel to Barstow, California on the Greyhound route between Los Angeles and Las Vegas a few times last winter

and I noticed a few other bus lines running that route.

It may be an anomaly, but it couln't hurt to research this and see of those bus lines have other routes.

There are many scheduled intercity bus companies in the Western US.

They include: ACN ADN Amtrak Thruway bus BoltBus Cabin CoachRun EPLA Limo FlixBus Fronteras

del Norte Hoang Express Intercalifornias Lux Bus America Los Paisanos Megabus Mexicoach TAP Royal

Tufesa Quick Shuttle On Busbud you can search and compare many of these and read user reviews to get a better idea of the quality of service.

(Full disclosure: I work there.)

Question: A few years ago, I used to ride Greyhound for short trips, but I remember them being crammed and sometimes smelly. In the Midwest, I've learned of and used Megabus, which has seats like an airplane, outlets to plug things in, lights, air, and much more space. The best part: if I buy them early enough, I can get a several-hour trip for $10! Sadly, Megabus is not on the west coast. Is there anything at par with it over there?

Are there any good, cheap bus companies to use for traveling around the western United States?

Companies that could offer intercity services in the Western US include ACN, ADN, Amtrak, Thruway bus,  BoltBus, Cabin, CoachRun, EPLA Limo, FlixBus, Megabus and Fronteras.

Even though Megabus started work in the states of California and Nevada in 2012, this is not widespread information. However, There are many interciy bus companies like  FlixBus, CoachRun,CAN, CAN Amtrak Thruwau bus, BoltBus and Cabin that work within Western U.S

There is no equivalent to Megabus in Western U.S.

Megabus started  travelling to  the states of California and Nevada in 2012

Intercity bus companies like FlixBus, CoachRun,CAN, CAN Amtrak Thruwau bus, BoltBus and Cabin work within Western U.S


There is single point to cross border between Georgia and Russia: Verchniy Lars .

It is open for the cars since March 1, 2010.

Note that you have to get the Georgian and Russian visas to cross the border.

You can't cross the Georgian border from South Ossetia or Abkhazia territories !

It is criminal in the Georgia , and you can get problems there.

Update:

According to this information , all you need to cross the border, is: If your country has an agreement with Georgia about no-visa crossing (such as Ukraine, Armenia, and so on), you simply must follow the rules of border-crossing of Russia and Georgia (see it on the official sites)

If your need visa to visit the Georgia, and you have it, and you follow the rules of crossing the borders - you will have no problems.

you can't get visa right at border in Verchniy Lars .

You can get it at all the others official borders of Georgia, but not there.

I think, this can be cause of problems for some peoples.

Also, there is a stats from various sites that there were some non-Russians and non-Georgians who cross the border.

I have an updated answer to this question as of today the 12th of April 2012.

A Polish traveller at my hostel in Tbilisi tells me that foreigners from various countries are now being allowed to cross the Georgia/Russia border in both directions at Verchniy Lars.

Apparently a Russian law or rule or regulation was recently repealed and there had not been a restriction on this border crossing at the Georgian side.

I'll try to include a link if I can find one.

I just met a friend yesterday who came back from a journey to Georgia.

He wanted also to cross the border to Russia but it wasn't possible.

They told him it is only allowed for Russian and Georgian citizens.

Don't know if they told him wrong facts, but afaik the border is closed.

It's illegal (although you CAN get from Georgia to Abkhazia and you CAN get from Abkhazia to Russia, but you'll almost certainly be arrested if you try to re-enter Georgia having entered from Abkhazia from Russia, although from the experience of friends going Georgia-Abkhazia-Georgia is doable and seemingly tacitly approved by both Georgian and Abkhaz authorities).

However, you CAN exit Georgia via Sarpi into Turkey (only a few hours' bus journey - maybe 4-5 IIRC) and then take the boat from Trabzon in Turkey to Sochi in Russia.

There is an account as of July 2016 from an Australian blogger, Nick of Pineapple Explorer , and his Ukranian friend crossing at Verkhniy Lars in a Georgian car, with photos to back it up.

It reportedly took them 12 hours to cross (waiting in line from 4am to 4pm) in high-season.

Question: I know the one border between the Republic of Georgia and Russia that is not in a rebel province was officially opened in the last couple of years... but reports are conflicting as to whether people not from ex CIS countries can cross.  So can somebody please confirm one way or another, is the border between Georgia and Russia open for travellers?

Is the border between Georgia and Russia open to citizens of other countries?

There were restrictions in the past, but travellers from various countries are now being allowed to cross in both directions at Verchniy Lars.

It has been considered illegal  to cross the border even though nowdays, visitors from various countries are  being allowed to cross the boarder from both sides. However, it has recently been said that there had never been a restriction on crossing the border from Georgia.

Nowdays, forrigners from various counries are now being alowed t cross the boarder from both sides. However, it has recently ben said that there had never been a restriction on crossing the boarder from Georgia.

Crossing and visiting the border between Georgia and Russia is Illegal for travellers but it is possibile.


Casual thieves will try to defeat the ignition/steering lock and either ride off with it or ramp it onto the back of a pickup.

Professional thieves will bring a couple of bars of rebar and a buddy or three, pick up your ride and haul it into a truck.

Prefer covered/underground/garaged parking over uncovered/lot/street parking.

If fewer people can see your motorcycle, fewer people will be tempted to make off with it.

Most thefts occur between 11 PM and 6 AM when there aren't too many people around; a well-lit, high-visibility parking lot won't deter a seasoned criminal if there's nobody around to see him.

If you can, also park between obstructions, in low-clearance areas... anywhere it would be difficult to maneuver a pickup or truck to load the bike into it.

However, be careful not to park in front of access doors, in striped zones (e.g., next to handicap spaces) and near machinery.

Granted, your bike will be perfectly safe in the impound lot....

Friend is currently riding from London to Mongolia.

His method (he's in Uzbekistan at present) has been to find hostels / hotels with secured off street parking, meaning he can not only put his own locks on, but it isn't accessible to opportunistic thieves who pass by.

So far, so good!

I spent eight months traveling from Arizona to Argentina on a 2001 KLR 650r.

I used a 15 foot Python cable lock to secure my gear (helmet, jacket, etc) to my bike but to also loop it through the wheels and connect it to a permanent structure.

I never had problems finding a place to park my bike.

I always found a way to get it off the street for the evening.

Ride your bike up steps into hostels or hotels.

The less developed areas you travel through, the more inclined people will be to let you do it.

Greatest tip for securing a bike is to have a "crappy" bike or make it look like it's not valuable.

Keep it dirty and keep it in a public place.

Last word, the world is a safer place than you might think.

Have a great time.

Easiest and cheapest in my opion: Buy a couple bike locks Put them around each wheel.

If someone really wants to steal your bike they will (even if it's in your hotel room), this should deter most people.

I went on a 5,000km bike ride around western europe, and used disc locks, and a chain(ish) to lock our 2 bikes together.

Off street parking is good as well, prevents anyone from seeing it from the road.

I didn't find anywhere that would let you bring a motorbike into the room.

The OP doens't mention which country, or the size/type of the Motorcycle.

I've been all over North America on a Honda Valkyrie Interstate - which is a pretty big bike -

and I've never had a problem with security.

The usual things I've done at night have been: put the bike where the front desk can see it, up on the sidewalk near the front entrance, in the parking lot

In all cases I generally put it under a cover, which keeps the elements off and deters casual snooping.

YMMV for other countries, but in North America I wouldn't be too paranoid about securing a big bike.

Presumably, your question is about USA?

If so, put a bike cover on it and park it

right by the reception area and ask them to be on the look out.

That's really all you need.

Anything more is paranoia.

A good motorcycle lock that can't be easily cut with bolt cutters in less than 30 seconds is very expensive and impractical because of the weight and bulk.

A crappy lock might make you feel better, but it's pretty much useless.

Bikes are simply too easy to steal.

If more than one bike is involved, chain the two bikes together.

It doesnt avoid the problem but it eliminates the options of lifting the bike onto a truck.

Question: I'm mostly thinking in terms of theft prevention.  I have heard solutions from, "Keep her chained in the parking lot," all the way up to, "Get a ground floor hotel room and ride/push the bike inside the room."  What measures can one take to keep a motorcycle safe during a road trip?

What measures can one take to keep a motorcycle safe during a road trip?

Park your bike on the sidewalk outside hotels and hostels where the front desk can see it, and make sure it is properly locked. Use a bike that is not too attractive to criminals.

Riding your bike up your hostel's stairs, parking it it near to the entrance where it is visibile to the front desk or putting pad locks on each wheel are a few security measures you can take to prevent your bike from gettting stolen whilst you are on a road trip. However, it is advised to use a motorbike that isn't of value when going on a road trip.

Riding your motorbike up hotel and hotel stairs or parking it near the front entrace where it is visible to the front desk are ways to prevent your bikegetting stolen.

Going on a road trip with a motrbike that is not of value will prevent it from being stolen.

The cheapest option is  to put locks on the wheels to prevent your motorbike form being stolen. If you are tevelling with more than one bike chaining them together is an ulterior option.