I feel such a difference between a philologist/linguist and a linguaphile as, say, a choreographer and a ballerina.

The beauty of a language is, generally judged by its soft or rigid, melodious or harsh, ring. Other aspects, such as the flexibility of derivation, play hardly any role in grading. Were it the case, Russian would certainly be placed on the winner’s stand. It would rank first in plasticity.

My view is that knowing languages is part of the process of becoming a cultured person.

Language is present in a piece of work like the sea in a single drop.

One should connect language learning with either work or leisure. And not at the expense of them but to supplement them.

Knowledge—like a nail—is made load-bearing by being driven in. If it's not driven deep enough, it will break when any weight is put upon it.

Solely in the world of languages is the amateur of value. Well-intentioned sentences full of mistakes can still build bridges between people.

Aside from mastery in the fine arts, success in learning anything is the result of genuine interest and amount of energy dedicated to it.

Language is the only thing worth knowing even poorly.