Is на ты an idiom meaning fluent?

In a TED TALKS video the speaker says in English, "But that doesn't really make you fluent."
The TED TALKS translation to Russian goes like this:
Но это не значит быть «на ты».
The Google translations are like this:
Но это не действительно сделать вас свободно. (That doesn't really make you fluent.)
Но это не значит, что ты свободно. (That doesn't mean that you're fluent.)
Usually fluent is translated as forms of беглый or свободный. Could it be that на ты is an idiom for fluent?

Another idea is that на ты somehow refers to something said in the previous sentence, but I'm not seeing how this would be the case. At any rate here's the link to the TED TALK video with Russian translation in case anyone is interested in seeing the original context. The sentence occurs at about four minutes into the talk.
LINK: https://www.ted.com/talks/mitch_resn...cript#t-255612
Thanks!!!

"на ты" = to know something/somebody very well.
- Миш, ты сможешь решить эти уравнения?
- Конечно, я вообще с математикой "на ты"

In your context fluent refers to language level and I'd translate the sentence as:
Но это не значит быть "на ты" с языком (английским или о каком там идет речь))
или
Но это не ведет к свободному владению языком.

Quote:

---

As they created their interactive Mother's Day cards, you could see that they were really becoming fluent with new technologies. What do I mean by fluent? I mean that they were able to start expressing themselves and to start expressing their ideas. When you become fluent with language, it means you can write an entry in your journal or tell a joke to someone or write a letter to a friend. And it's similar with new technologies. By writing, be creating these interactive Mother's Day cards, these kids were showing that they were really fluent with new technologies. 3:44 Now maybe you won't be so surprised by this, because a lot of times people feel that young people today can do all sorts of things with technology. I mean, all of us have heard young people referred to as "digital natives." But actually I'm sort of skeptical about this term. I'm not so sure we should be thinking of young people as digital natives. When you really look at it, how is it that young people spend most of their time using new technologies? You often see them in situations like this, or like this, and there's no doubt that young people are very comfortable and familiar browsing and chatting and texting and gaming. But that doesn't really make you fluent.

---

Judging from the definition he provided (be able to start expressing themselves and to start expressing their ideas) "became fluent" actually means "стали самовыражаться" but it sounds so damn creepy in Russian so I'd also choose "на ты" just for the sake of literacy and smooth flow, sacrificing a part of the original meaning (the ability for self-expression) while retaining the rest of the meaning given by Efreytor_S.

Actually "на ты" = "know something perfectly" or "get the hang of", maybe.

По-моему, fluent тут относится к осовению и владению "технологиями", которые используются для самовыражения, а не о самом самовыражении. Быть "на ты" с новыми технологиями - уметь выражать свои идеи с их помощью, владеть ими на креативном уровне.

Как раз в следующем абзаце ведущий и говорит, что владение технологиями ещё не является самовыражением.

По-моему, мы немного недопонимаем друг друга.
Be fluent переводится тут как свободное владение технологиями, а не умение самовыражаться, НО ведущий дальше поясняет что, с его точки зрения, по настоящему свободное владение это когда ты можешь выражать свои идеи с помощью технологий. Тем не менее, это разные смысловые единицы и заменять одно другим не нужно, иначе при переводе текста целиком получится ерунда.
Если сократить до минимума - Be fluent with technologies is to be able to express yourself. If you can't, you're not fluent.
Здесь, как и в оригинале, нельзя заменить "fluent" на "самовыражаться", иначе будет масло масляное.

По-моему - тоже.
Технически, fluent имеет своё стандартное определение. Ведущий дает своё собственное определение, отличное от стандартного. Т.е. сначала говорит слово, а затем поясняет что именно он имеет в виду, что это слово, с его точки зрения, означает в данном отрывке. И это его пояснение входит в противоречие со стандартным определением fluent как "бегло говорить". И все дальнейшие употребления fluent, имхо, должны подразумевать не стандартное определение, а то, которым оперирует ведущий. И его определение fluent как раз и подразумевает самовыражение (по его же собственным словам).
Далее он говорит, что дети - да, владеют технологиями. Родители видят их делающими разные вещи, когда они чатятся, играют, делают что-то, т.е. они "на ты" с технологиями, однако это не означает, что они могут самовыражаться (с помощью технологий).

Basically, fluent has its own standard definition. The host provides his own definition, different from the standard one. That is, at first he says the word and then explains what he means by saying this word, what this word is supposed to mean in this context according to his opinion. This custom definition contradicts the basic meaning of "fluent" as "to speak quickly and smoothly". I think all the subsequent instances of "fluent" must be treated according to the host's custom definition rather than the standard one. While his definition does imply self-expression (according to his own words).
Then he says: yes the kids are just fine with technology. Their parents see them doing various stuff like chatting, gaming, doing something else, being on familiar terms with technology but that doesn't make them fluent.

Added: Well, the definition is not that different from the standard one but it's not exactly the same either. It's more like subclassing in terms of programming languages, that is, another property (self-expression) added to the basic set of properties of the standard object (fluent).

Three quick comments:

1) IMHO, the word fluent is used as part of an extended analogy. It is not meant literally, but since programming languages and natural languages have some similarity, it's not a complete analogy, which might be somewhat confusing. Keep in mind that Resnick is a professor at MIT and that Chomsky is also a professor at that same institution. Chomsky came up with the idea of "Generative Grammars" which is a concept taught in both linguistics and computer science. LINK: Generative grammar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Given that cultural background and set of shared assumptions, Resnick might see fluency in a way that is different from most English-speakers.)

2) Also IMHO, the term proficient (or highly proficient) could be substituted for fluent for the most part, but that would lose some of the meaning implied through the use of the linguistic analogy.

3) Also IMHO, Resnick's comments in the paragraph in question are in response mainly to the idea of what is commonly referred to as "Digital Natives." People born after the time that computers became common household items are sometimes called "digital natives" since they have never known a time when computers were not used in daily life. The erroneous assumption is that "digital natives" are automatically (by virtue of being born after a certain date and their exposure to technology) technologically proficient to the point of "fluency." Resnick argues that such proficiency should not be assumed. In fact, research shows that "digital natives" are no more technologically proficient on average than previous generations.

I see it, mate. Btw, is the "на ты"-thing clear for you now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medved

I see it, mate. Btw, is the "на ты"-thing clear for you now?

---

Yes, I think it's fair to classify it as an idiom. Thanks for the explanation and interesting discussion!

Быть на "ты" с чем-то (идиома, разговорное) = быть знатоком, хорошо разбираться в чём-то.

Быть на "ты" с математикой, с компьютороми и т.п.

Как зарабатывать через интернет и быть на ты с техническими моментами | AlexandraKarelova.Ru

- Надо быть на "ты" с опасностью. Вот я своей тёще так и говорю: "Эй, ты!"...


На английский я бы перевела просто: to be comfortable with something. Не знаю, есть ли идеоматическое выражение.

Yes it is an idiom. It's just that it has minor nuances, it's more like "to be on familiar terms with something", which is basically not "fluent", it's rather "proficient", yes, that's the right word you picked for that matter.