No, it just means that her brain that couldn't express itself out of English is the same brain that can't express itself in English, either.

> Does this imply

The difference between the language "absorbed in childhood" and a language one actually knows is the same as the difference between religion "absorbed in childhood" and one's actual value system. The notion that one "knows" a language by virtue of having heard it a lot during their first few years is not unlike the notion that a little girl who grew up in a brothel is ipso facto a whore (a notion, incidentally, maintained throughout the vast majority of history by the vast majority of people).

> I ... do what?

Deconstruct and reconstruct. You know that you understand how a watch works when a) you can take apart any watch and put it back together so it creates the same watch you started with and b) you can, presented with a pile of items, either select the parts of a watch, create the parts of a watch or explain why neither is possible. Similarly, you know your brain is working when you can express yourself in any arbitrary system equally well.

Does this mean that if my thinking is unchanged after reading, or hearing something, whatever was read or heard has not been understood?

"Neither do you in English."

Does this imply a difference between a language absorbed in childhood, and one learned as an adult? Seems I could easily learn another language as an adult and just map from the new language to the old which ... points to nothing.

What is the missing step that leads to understanding? Is it the recognition that meaning is independent of the particular form language takes?

If I want to be in good physical shape, I work out. If I want to understand what I'm reading/hearing I ... do what?