So, teaching baby to talk - is it better to be a bit thick?

[macneil]

They say you should talk around babies all the time, as well as to them, and that they'll pick it all up. I'm just wondering, you know, what with my exciting and varied vocabulary, am I just going to present too many words to the baby all at once, and would it be better if I were a bit thick and had a working vocabulary of only 60 or 70 words? Ought I to scale back? This is a very important and serious question, because I need her to beat my friend's baby when it comes to who talks first.

You might lose on first words but win on first sentences.

seriously macneil?

chill out

Lol at beating your friend[smile

Apparently it makes no difference how you speak to them so long as you do. Babies naturally seem to like high voices but its not important. In some countries mothers very rarely talk directly to their babies but instead sit them on the knee while they talk to other adults - their babies still learn to talk at the same rate as children over here

sing more songs

it's the repetition that does it

"seriously macneil? "

Well, not that seriously. But I would like to know what's best. I am slightly worried that I use too many different names for her and she'll never know which one is hers.

As for the high voice, I always said (pre-pregnancy) I'd never do that baby voice with my children, and I think I do it more nauseatingly than anyone I've ever met.

pmsl
Teach her only long words with at least 5 syllables...no point bothering with simple words. Also..you need to make sure she perfects a pompous tone to her voice.
That'll piss your friend off

But seriously...if you are hellbent of winning
it's songs...you needs songs
and speak in a sing-songy voice

And you need to make sure that when your friend's is saying 'doggie' 'cat' yours is saying 'rhinoceros' 'porcupine' 'Peruvian long-tailed hedge bat' etc.

rofl

seriously chill.

HOwever speaks first isn't really going to be affected by whether you use a vocab of 60-70 words or whether you use your full vocab.

It shouldn't be a competition.

The important part is talking to your baby and they'll speak in their own time.

I don't know any songs! The only one I sing is Nelly the Elephant when I'm waving a purple elephant at her. I tried to remember the tunes of nursery rhymes and couldn't remember either the tunes or, really, the rhymes. I need CBeebies, but am in Canada.

"because I need her to beat my friend's baby when it comes to who talks first." Oh FGS.

Trust me, you don't want to teach them to speak. DS1 learnt early, he's now 8 and hasn't stopped sodding well talking in all that time. DS2 learnt late but he also hasn't stopped since...

I don't think you're taking this seriously enough, Macneil - I think the stakes need to be higher.

What about having a bet on it for some high-value item, such as your car or house?

As for the many names you call her - don't worry. I don't think I was sure what my given name was until I went to school, such was the variety I was called at home - a family habit as we all still have about three each!

I am repeating this with my DDs which DH finds a bit baffling. His family didn't even shorten their names.

As for my actual name, people have been getting it wrong since I can remember (I am always Hilary for some reason !)

I didn't think of betting, but you're right - smugness may not be enough. But! If I formalise it, she'll know I'm trying to beat her, so will try harder and I might lose.

You're right about the dangers of letting her know it is a competition.
Can't you feed her false information (such as 'Latest research shows that the best way to teach your child to talk is to shut them in a room with no other human contact for 16 hours a day') to slow her down? You can pretend to have got it from some experienced and expert mums on the internet.

Ha ha! She told ME it was best to repeat their baby talk back to them, but now I think of it, that may be sabotage and lead to a baby that just says 'a-goo' for ever.

You see, I don't understand the regret at having taught them to talk, because I feel like as soon as she talks, the crying will stop, and I will be able to patiently explain why I'm doing what I'm doing and we can negotiate and everything will proceed in a civilised way. It's the not talking that is making one of us drool and the other impatient. Which of us does the drooling/impatience varies.

oooh yes - and perhaps tell the friend that in fact until the age of five you should only teach babies three-letter words - that way you'll easily win, simply with words like roll (as in sausage!!), cola, etc. It's very important to scupper the competition as early as possible.

although it's true, it's easier to ignore a crying child than one shouting "mummy, I'm hun-gry" (although I can ignore that too, just takes more effort)

But what if she ends up winning arguments with you by the time she is three? You could end up having to live entirely on sweets and let her have a pony in her bedroom and all kinds of things.

"I feel like as soon as she talks, the crying will stop, and I will be able to patiently explain why I'm doing what I'm doing and we can negotiate and everything will proceed in a civilised way"

PMSL. Oh yes indeedy. Snort!

DS1: "Why do monkeys have legs?"
Me: "So they can walk"
DS1: "Why do monkeys have legs so they can walk?"

methinks she thinks about this too much