A detailed analysis of why the English language sucks - General

[QUOTE=ThePuska;22289467]It does kind of discourage me from answering some of the better posts in this thread when most people don't even read the first two paragraphs of the OP[/QUOTE] It makes sense. English is a difficult language with lots of redundancy and little nuances that most people ignore. I myself mispronounce lots of the more esoteric words I know since I learned them through text and not conversation. You basically have to learn the proper way to pronounce larger words in English through IPA or someone who already knows the word.

The only reason it's so widespread today is because at one point in time, something like one out of every five people on the planet was a subject of the British monarch.

[QUOTE=ThePuska;22289467]It does kind of discourage me from answering some of the better posts in this thread when most people don't even read the first two paragraphs of the OP[/QUOTE] You're going to struggle to debate when you only criticise without offering a solution. You've said English is a crappy language because it absorbs other languages (which other languages quite freely do - look at "le weekend" and "le fastfood" in French), you're annoyed that there are too many words in the English language (but that facilitates artistic expression and allows for more subtly nuanced conversations), you complain that the Latin alphabet is ill suited to English despite the fact the only readily available alternatives are the Cyrillic alphabet (which was originally invented [i]just to distance Russia from the rest of Europe[/i]), the Arabic and Semetic writing systems (which are more suited to raspier languages) and East Asian scripts (which generally feature ideograms and would be nigh on impossible to reconcile with the way we speak). You criticise English for being too vernacular (it doesn't correct itself from past mistakes) despite the fact that this allows a greater variety of - You know what? Your post is so terribly constructed that I can't even reply any more. I love the English language. I study French at the moment, and while I am nowhere near fluent in French, I can say that I prefer English just for its sheer variety of things to say. Admittedly, we'd be a richer language if we sprinkled in some ideophones, but you know what? It's the best we have. There's a reason why elegant, refined, constructed languages like Esperanto fails - the chaos of the English language is beautifully self ordering.

[QUOTE=johanz;22288844]Only thing I hate about english is that there is no plural "you" There is plural "I" which is "we" but not "you"[/QUOTE] You is part of the category of words that are considered both singular and plural.

[QUOTE=Splurgy;22289559]I doubt that you're a writer. If you are, it's for a high school newspaper.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the constructive criticism.-_-

[QUOTE=Splurgy;22289738]you're annoyed that there are too many words in the English language (but that facilitates artistic expression and allows for more subtly nuanced conversations)[/QUOTE] I thought someone might notice that there's a slight contrast. Synonyms aren't bad, being able to say the same thing in multiple ways is artistic freedom. What annoys me here, if you can speak of annoying, is that the logic in the way these words are constructed is hidden from the average user. There's a difference between having content and being bloated: when you're explaining the Latin dictionary to explain the etymology of an English word, the Greek dictionary to explain the etymology of another word and some Proto-Germanic root when you're explaining a third one - the language is bloated. It's inefficient and inelegant, though interesting. There's nothing wrong with loaning words, unless 60% of the language's words are not even from the same language family. [QUOTE=Splurgy;22289738]you complain that the Latin alphabet is ill suited to English despite the fact the only readily available alternatives are the Cyrillic alphabet (which was originally invented [i]just to distance Russia from the rest of Europe[/i]), the Arabic and Semetic writing systems (which are more suited to raspier languages) and East Asian scripts (which generally feature ideograms and would be nigh on impossible to reconcile with the way we speak).[/QUOTE] Perhaps I was using the wrong term or not explaining myself well enough, but the point was that the alphabet is needlessly ambiguous in the case of English. The sounds used in English, Latin and Greek are not that different from each other that you would need an entirely new alphabet. But English phonemes just haven't been linked to the alphabet, even if they could. An attempt to do so would surely look retarded to an average English person, because that's exactly how retards spell - phonetically. They're pretty smart. [QUOTE=Splurgy;22289738]You know what? Your post is so terribly constructed that I can't even reply any more.[/QUOTE] I don't think it's terribly constructed but it could be better [QUOTE=Splurgy;22289738]There's a reason why elegant, refined, constructed languages like Esperanto fails - the chaos of the English language is beautifully self ordering.[/QUOTE] I think it's because people just don't want to adapt everything to a new language. And there aren't enough speakers to pressurise others to learn it. Switching is inconvenient. And the faults in the old language must be minor since it has worked so far.

Spanish is fucking gay. Verb conjugations and genders are retarded. Adjectives come after the noun which make no fucking sense.

[QUOTE=johanz;22288844]Only thing I hate about english is that there is no plural "you" There is plural "I" which is "we" but not "you"[/QUOTE] From the north-east: yous from the south: yall [editline]11:19PM[/editline] That's how we do it in murika

When english is spoken (properly) I find it to be very clean. Many other languages, especially german, have a very dirty/ugly sound to them. The variety of different words for similar things are great. No word has exactly the same meaning, each one has a subtly different tone/atmosphere. It's wonderful for expressing ones self.

I do say, OP! I do believe your post inspires quite the dapper! If you excuse me I wish to pardon this young fellow in the confines of bars! Why, I do say sir, would you like to be put into the confines of a dark and perilous pit? If you do not wish for so, then I do request that you...as the young'uns of nowadays generation like to say; [b][i]Jog on.[/b][/i]

On your bike lad

Every language has it's problems, get over it.

[QUOTE=NorthernFall;22289370]I ask you to create a better language then. Go on. Show me your perfect language.[/QUOTE] You don't need to be a chef to know the food is bad. Not saying English is bad or something.

[QUOTE=ThePuska;22290483]I thought someone might notice that there's a slight contrast. Synonyms aren't bad, being able to say the same thing in multiple ways is artistic freedom. What annoys me here, if you can speak of annoying, is that the logic in the way these words are constructed is hidden from the average user. There's a difference between having content and being bloated: when you're explaining the Latin dictionary to explain the etymology of an English word, the Greek dictionary to explain the etymology of another word and some Proto-Germanic root when you're explaining a third one - the language is bloated. It's inefficient and inelegant, though interesting. There's nothing wrong with loaning words, unless 60% of the language's words are not even from the same language family.[/quote] That's only a problem if you're learning the language as a foreign language. We're not going to cripple the language so people learning it find it easier to speak (->pigins); the native speaker comes first. [quote] Perhaps I was using the wrong term or not explaining myself well enough, but the point was that the alphabet is needlessly ambiguous in the case of English. The sounds used in English, Latin and Greek are not that different from each other that you would need an entirely new alphabet. But English phonemes just haven't been linked to the alphabet, even if they could. An attempt to do so would surely look retarded to an average English person, because that's exactly how retards spell - phonetically. They're pretty smart. [/quote] I suppose it would be better to have a phonetic alphabet, but it just seems like an unnecessary hassle. English works fine as it is - it's confusing to toddlers, people who don't speak English and mentally impaired people, but it's fine for everyone else. Switching alphabets would require [i]everyone[/i] to relearn the alphabet and I just don't think that's feasible. [quote]I don't think it's terribly constructed but it could be better I think it's because people just don't want to adapt everything to a new language. And there aren't enough speakers to pressurise others to learn it. Switching is inconvenient. And the faults in the old language must be minor since it has worked so far.[/QUOTE] Pretty much, yeah. I don't see a reason to change the lingua franca.

I prefer it to French :saddowns:

[QUOTE=ThePuska;22285724] Inflection is minimal in English. Ordinary nouns have only two forms: singular and plural, and the plural form is usually formed with simple rules. The most obvious exception to this is that it's almost a rule that loan words keep their original plural form, resulting in a hideously long list of exceptions to these rules with languages like Latin and Greek. The correct plural of "octopus" is "octopodes" and the technically correct plural of "prospectus" is "prospectus" with a long u. The plural forms of these words are used very liberally; no doubt the definitely incorrect "octopi" is often acceptable. Despite the rest of the language no longer having grammatical cases, some English pronouns still retain possessive and objective cases. The genitive "my", possessive "mine" and objective "me" are required without exception in all situations. Other pronouns are given special treatment: the pronoun "who" is already abandoning its objective "whom" and its incorrect, standardised genitive "who's" is commonly seen, though still frowned upon. Grammatical cases might intuitively seem like an inelegant solution, and the minimalistic approach English is heading towards could be thought of as optimal, but it comes at a cost. The lack of an objective case naturally requires the indication of objects in a different way. In English, this is achieved with a fixed word order. It is obvious that this hinders the language's expressivity and creative use of the language becomes awkward and Yoda-like. This is undesirable because it distances people from both reading and writing poetry, short stories and other works of art that rely on the language's ability to tell so much with so few words. Many things worth saying and hearing are left without the attention they deserve. [b]The millions of cooks are still dragging it backwards (in the general direction of the pot full of Rome-broth)[/b] People have yet to realize that the English vocabulary is already absolutely massive. Words for new concepts are usually created out of a rather limited vocabulary by forming compound words. While this occasionally leads to words that appear as frightening monstrosities to those who do not actually speak the language, the logic behind them is apparent and their actual meaning is easily deduced; it's the sum of their parts. New English words are coined by salvaging Latin and Greek dictionaries. It makes the words seem important. Unfortunately it also means that people need to know Latin and Greek to decipher them. Sciences are especially guilty of this. Note that the problem is not having synonyms, but having official terms constructed from foreign languages when there are perfectly fine native alternatives. "All-powerful" should be favoured instead of "omnipotent". [/QUOTE] Wow and I though I was a grammar nazi.

[IMG]http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/9198/superirony.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=ThePuska;22290483]There's a difference between having content and being bloated: when you're explaining the Latin dictionary to explain the etymology of an English word, the Greek dictionary to explain the etymology of another word and some Proto-Germanic root when you're explaining a third one - the language is bloated.[/QUOTE] 99.9% of English speakers will never have to explain the etymology of a word, English or otherwise. It's not like most "high-street" conversations have a pause while someone tries to explain why they used the word they did is it?

[QUOTE=Roskarnolkov;22289931]Thanks for the constructive criticism.-_-[/QUOTE] Ok, sorry, I guess I was harsh. Here's some constructive critcism. [quote]English is a crappy language. One cannot write anything that will remain permanently comprehensible. [/quote] You usage of "One" here sounds stilted and unnatural. Try "you". [quote] Unlike other languages that have definitive authorities telling their speakers what is right and wrong, English speakers only have a few dictionaries. This means that the language slowly degenerates after generations of slang and borrowing from other languages, and eventually we can't understand things written only a couple of hundred years ago.[/quote] Maybe substitute "Unlike" for "Whilst". In regards to your point, every large, European language evolves in that way - Shakespeare is considered to be Early Modern English in the same way that people writing in French in the early 1700s are described as utilising Early Modern French. [quote] Also, my being a writer, writing does feel very choppy at times, even at my best. [/quote] Despite the fact I am a writer, my style can sometimes become choppy. The sentence you had was incredibly clumsy. [quote] English is total crap, is simple and difficult at the same time, and, frankly, there's just not much to it, if you know what I mean. [/quote] Avoid repeating "crap/crappy". You need to explain your contradiction there. "The English language is terrible and, paradoxically, is both simple and difficult at the same time. *explain* Frankly, there's just not that much to it." [quote] One can't be very poetic or even enticing in English, because no words really sound like what they represent when they're strung together. They just sound like consonants.[/quote] en·ticed, en·tic·ing, en·tic·es. To attract by arousing hope or desire; lure: "The promise of higher pay enticed me into the new job." I don't think that's the word you meant. In terms of your point, look up the established literary canon for numerous examples of poetry in English, and then look up the word onomatopoeia. If a writer who writes in English thinks the English language is not poetic, they're doing their job wrong.

The English vocabulary isn't that big in my opinion. We have over 400,000 words, but on the other hand, there are a combination of 4 MILLION Japanese characters.

Don't you just love how the word 'Fuck' is so versatile?

[QUOTE=MrDoctor;22291052]The English vocabulary isn't that big in my opinion. We have over 400,000 words, but on the other hand, there are a combination of 4 MILLION Japanese characters.[/QUOTE] I'm going to hazard a guess and say most of those combinations aren't used.

English is cool because there's no verb conjugation or gender class. also, our verbs aren't randomly spelled differently sometimes (Spanish).

[QUOTE=Splurgy;22290998]Ok, sorry, I guess I was harsh. Here's some constructive critcism. You usage of "One" here sounds stilted and unnatural. Try "you". Maybe substitute "Unlike" for "Whilst". In regards to your point, every large, European language evolves in that way - Shakespeare is considered to be Early Modern English in the same way that people writing in French in the early 1700s are described as utilising Early Modern French. Despite the fact I am a writer, my style can sometimes become choppy. The sentence you had was incredibly clumsy. Avoid repeating "crap/crappy". You need to explain your contradiction there. "The English language is terrible and, paradoxically, is both simple and difficult at the same time. *explain* Frankly, there's just not that much to it." en·ticed, en·tic·ing, en·tic·es. To attract by arousing hope or desire; lure: "The promise of higher pay enticed me into the new job." I don't think that's the word you meant. In terms of your point, look up the established literary canon for numerous examples of poetry in English, and then look up the word onomatopoeia. If a writer who writes in English thinks the English language is not poetic, they're doing their job wrong.[/QUOTE] I think you misinterpreted what I was saying, but thanks. To everyone else: There is SOME verb conjugation in English. 3rd person singular always ends in an "s." But that's the only time we conjugate outside of the infinitive "to be."

A rapidly evolving language is a healthy language. Besides, you need to remember that English has it's roots as a lower class language spoken by the peasantry, since the nobles spoke French. The adaptability of English pays homage to that.

Born speaking English, have difficulties with every other language born speaking anyother, learn english in a flash Also, gender words are not even half bad. :/

English is good. Yu cn stil undrstend meh iff ey tulk liek diz cnt tu?

[QUOTE=johanz;22288844]Only thing I hate about english is that there is no plural "you" There is plural "I" which is "we" but not "you"[/QUOTE] Y'all as in 'Y'all should go down to the pond for a swim on this fine summer day.' But that's hick talk so I don't know how you're gonna take it. [editline]06:30PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Neuquen;22292550]Born speaking English, have difficulties with every other language born speaking anyother, learn english in a flash Also, gender words [B]is[/B] not even half bad. :/[/QUOTE] Sweet irony.

I hate French, everything has a gender, and I can't remember them for the life of me. How the fuck an I supposed to know that a table is feminine? Also verb conjugation!

I've studied Latin for four years, don't give English crap about being complicated.