[QUOTE=ThePuska;26860567]I've never seen any good arguments for the "simplicity" or easiness of English. You can't avoid being saturated by it in a western country these days, which means that you'd be pretty stupid not to learn it even inadvertently. Its omnipresence and necessity mean that people will learn it, contrary to other languages they may study but which are neither deemed necessary nor as commonly used apart from their native countries - which of course creates the illusion that the language is easy to learn compared to others. It's not; you're simply more motivated to learn it and indefinitely better exposed to it.[/QUOTE]
Also replying what you replied to, but it's the same thing for Chinese. There's literally NO WAY to otherwise know what a word is without searching through a dictionary for it since their "pictograms" are made specifically for that word, but bear no resemblance to the relation of that word. So you have to sit in Chinese class all day taking in new words.
In English each individual letter only means something when placed with another. You may not learn all the words from the start, but it's far easier to as each word's letter holds relation to another word so you can actually remember a word from the order of the characters rather than from whatever the fuck Chinese uses.
This isn't as surprising as one would think. China always resists change. Preserving their cultural customs is something they'll die for in the face of change.
[QUOTE=BmB;26856034]
And [english] is a disease that need not spread any further. It is degrading to thought and eloquency.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, because a language that is crossing continental borders is causing thought degradation. Not that your post doesn't have enough dumb ratings, I just wanted to tell you how silly you sound. Also you should have just used eloquence not eloquency which isn't really a word.
Change is good and english has gone through a lot of change. Change means evolution and evolution means progress and efficiency.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;26860726]What english doesn't have is a plural version of "you". If you are referring to a group, you say "you", same if you refer to one person, which causes confusion. Other languages I know all have a plural version of "you".[/QUOTE]
y'all :v:
Also you're wrong. You don't refer to a group as you in a context where it might be confusing. You could easily say you all, any of you, all of you, you guys, ect. If you ever get confused as to whether someone is talking to you or to a group of people, then either the writer is a bad writer or you missed something.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;26860567]I've never seen any good arguments for the "simplicity" or easiness of English.[/QUOTE]
Language a result of evolution. No one sits down and writes the most logical and modulated language so that everyone can know what things mean without knowing the word itself. In order to speak any language effectively you have to know how to pronounce the word and what it means independent of how its spelled or anything like that. You have to memorize each word's meaning individually and sometimes even phrases. English is certainly not one of the only languages that do this by far.
In my opinion, the only way a language could be deemed "more difficult" to learn is based off of the similarities to a language you already speak. For example, English speakers find it much easier to learn German and vice versa than they would learning Chinese and vice versa. However the Chinese would find it easier to learn Japanese than an English speaker would. This is because of the similarity in phonics and sentence structure ect.
[QUOTE=koekje4life V2;26852393]Oh China, you so communist.[/QUOTE]
fyi authoritarian=/=communist.
China is in no way a communist country.
[QUOTE=Brage Nyman;26853006]I'm swedish i use Mobiltelefon all the time.[/QUOTE]
yeah.
or just mobil
[QUOTE=DireAvenger;26862490]Also replying what you replied to, but it's the same thing for Chinese. There's literally NO WAY to otherwise know what a word is without searching through a dictionary for it since their "pictograms" are made specifically for that word, but bear no resemblance to the relation of that word. So you have to sit in Chinese class all day taking in new words.
In English each individual letter only means something when placed with another. You may not learn all the words from the start, but it's far easier to as each word's letter holds relation to another word so you can actually remember a word from the order of the characters rather than from whatever the fuck Chinese uses.[/QUOTE]
I agree, a logical correspondence between written symbols and phonemes makes a good writing system. Unfortunately that idea isn't fully realized in English either - the alphabet doesn't correspond to the phonemes at all and the meaning of individual symbols changes based on their relation to other symbols so that you end up associating complex symbol structures with words anyway, almost as if the individual symbols themselves didn't matter at all. The "colonel" already mentioned in this thread is a great example. You can't spell it unless you've specifically learned to spell that word; it's not that different from representing it with a pictogram.
[QUOTE=Mutex;26862961]Language a result of evolution. No one sits down and writes the most logical and modulated language so that everyone can know what things mean without knowing the word itself. In order to speak any language effectively you have to know how to pronounce the word and what it means independent of how its spelled or anything like that. You have to memorize each word's meaning individually and sometimes even phrases. English is certainly not one of the only languages that do this by far.
In my opinion, the only way a language could be deemed "more difficult" to learn is based off of the similarities to a language you already speak. For example, English speakers find it much easier to learn German and vice versa than they would learning Chinese and vice versa. However the Chinese would find it easier to learn Japanese than an English speaker would. This is because of the similarity in phonics and sentence structure ect.[/QUOTE]
I think I wrote a thread about this once.
Yes, all languages have things you simply have to learn. There are however significant differences in how much you need to learn to understand the language and produce it. English has roots in so many languages that it creates needless redundancy. There are no good rules for the prefixes "a-", "de-", "dis-", "un-" and "non-", for example. Latin, Greek and English vocabularies are mixed together when just one would do.
It creates an interesting language, but lack of consistency within the language makes it objectively more difficult to learn. No natural language is perfectly optimized, but English is especially bloated.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;26852801]It kinda is, it's an easy to learn language and it's pretty much everywhere.[/QUOTE]
English is so fucked up when it comes to tense and abbreviations it is alot more difficult for say a French speaker to learn english rather than spanish.
If languages didn't evolve, there would be no Chinese.
We'd still be communicating in grunts and whistles and clicks.
[editline]21st December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;26864739]English is so fucked up when it comes to tense and abbreviations it is alot more difficult for say a French speaker to learn english rather than spanish.[/QUOTE]
It's not abbreviations that are the problem, it's contractions.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;26859725]English has survived so long because it's a scrappy, highly adaptable language.
Don't have a word for something but another language does? Just use the foreign word, it's that simple![/QUOTE]
Such adaptability isn't a trait unique to English. It's a common trait of all Germanic languages.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;26859318]I don't see anything wrong with English.[/QUOTE]
Then you must know nothing.
[editline]22nd December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tanner;26867283]Such adaptability isn't a trait unique to English. It's a common trait of all Germanic languages.[/QUOTE]
Of all languages.
[editline]22nd December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;26864760]If languages didn't evolve, there would be no Chinese.
We'd still be communicating in grunts and whistles and clicks.
[editline]21st December 2010[/editline]
It's not abbreviations that are the problem, it's contractions.[/QUOTE]
This is not linguistic evolution this is cultural imperialism. *difference*
[editline]22nd December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mutex;26862961][QUOTE=BmB;26856034]And [del][english][/del] [b][amalgamation of languages][/b] is a disease that need not spread any further. It is degrading to thought and eloquency.[/QUOTE]
Yes, because a language that is crossing continental borders is causing thought degradation. Not that your post doesn't have enough dumb ratings, I just wanted to tell you how silly you sound. Also you should have just used eloquence not eloquency which isn't really a word.[/QUOTE]
You must be an idiot.
[QUOTE=BmB;26867346]Then you must know nothing.
[editline]22nd December 2010[/editline]
Of all languages.
[editline]22nd December 2010[/editline]
This is not linguistic evolution this is cultural imperialism. *difference*
[editline]22nd December 2010[/editline]
You must be an idiot.[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing you're one of those guys who would halt the progress of knowledge and evolution of language for the sake of preserving cultural identity.
I don't really value cultural identity that much, so I guess I don't really understand the problem.
Progress in language is good. However, as I've said many times before: This is not progress.
I don't disagree with china's decision. :china:
I don't see a problem with this.
Imagine you are reading an English website and there are Chinese symbols scattered around the place.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;26852564]What does this have to do with communism? A fascist state could easily do this too. You are an idiot.[/QUOTE]
I have a question.
What the hell is with these arrogant people where everytime someone says something even jokingly that is somewhat incorrect, these people have to go along and nitpick it and insult their intelligence?
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;26852801]It kinda is, it's an easy to learn language and it's pretty much everywhere.[/QUOTE]
English is the hardest language to learn as a second language, dimwit, with more inconsistencies than French.
Personally, I think German would be the best option. It's succinct and very logical.
(Plus, it'll be mega-easy for me, Afrikaans is my first language :3: )
Also, language evolves naturally. If it didn't, we'd still be talking in verse, not prose.
Languages also intermingle, forming new languages. A classic example of this is Afrikaans, it's essentially Dutch, but it's mixed with English too. As well as all the different dialects in languages.
China is just trying to prevent change, but it's inevitable.
Newspeak is the only good language. English is so doubleplusungood.
[QUOTE=koekje4life V2;26852393]Oh China, you so communist.[/QUOTE]
no they're not
[editline]22nd December 2010[/editline]
I'm glad, english is a terrible language and it's unfortunate that it has become the 3rd most spoken language in the world
[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26867600]I'm guessing you're one of those guys who would halt the progress of knowledge and evolution of language for the sake of preserving cultural identity.
I don't really value cultural identity that much, so I guess I don't really understand the problem.[/QUOTE]
Why do you insist on writing with proper grammar and spelling on this website, instead of using AOL speak? Would you demand the same from everyone else? If writing in another way is thought to be "simpler", "easier" or "quicker", then doing so must be progress. Even at the cost of looking like a fucking idiot.
Do you know what it sounds like to the native speaker of a language when that language is mixed with English? When the other language doesn't even belong to the Indoeuropean language family and someone insists on using English idioms or English vocabulary when there are native ones to replace them? It sounds idiotic, as if you didn't know how to speak your own language.
You're conservative about your language as well
[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26867600]I'm guessing you're one of those guys who would halt the progress of knowledge and evolution of language for the sake of preserving cultural identity.
I don't really value cultural identity that much, so I guess I don't really understand the problem.[/QUOTE]
If you lived in the oldest society in the world you would care more about cultural identity
[QUOTE=Erratic;26871044]I don't see a problem with this.
Imagine you are reading an English website and there are Chinese symbols scattered around the place.[/QUOTE]
I have no problem with reading a German website and seeing English scattered around the place.
It would be awesome if the whole world used the same language. I even watch all my movies and TV shows in English because most of the dubbed voices sound either retarded or nothing like the original. Sometimes they don't even translate jokes properly. They translated the fishsticks joke literally to Fischstäbchen which doesn't sound anything like Schwanz. It's impossible to understand the episode if haven't seen the English version first.
[QUOTE=Jiyoon;26876364]If you lived in the oldest society in the world you would care more about cultural identity[/QUOTE]
If you ran an authoritarian country and were concerned about pro-Western sentiments threatening loyalty to the state, you'd use the preservation of cultural identity as an excuse to squelch external influence.
[QUOTE=Robber;26877913]I have no problem with reading a German website and seeing English scattered around the place.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I think it's annoying they're both beautiful langzages imho, but I think when combined they sound awful.
Warum bist du eigentlich noch nicht im deutschen Überforum?
[QUOTE=Lord Voldemort;26864608]什麼是愚蠢的想法他媽的中國[/QUOTE]
You just Google translated that didn't you
We'll begin with box, and the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.
Then one fowl is goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a whole lot of mice,
But the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be pen?
The cow in the plural may be cows or kine,
But the plural of vow is vows, not vine.
And I speak of a foot, and you show me your feet,
But I give a boot... would a pair be beet?
If one is a tooth, and a whole set is teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be beeth?
If the singular is this, and the plural is these,
Why shouldn't the plural of kiss be kese?
Then one may be that, and three be those,
Yet the plural of hat would never be hose.
We speak of a brother, and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
The masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine she, shis, and shim.
So our English, I think you will agree,
Is the trickiest language you ever did see.
I take it you already know
of tough, and bough and cough and dough?
Others may stumble, but not you
on hiccough, through, slough and though.
Well done! And now you wish, perhaps
To learn of less familiar traps?
Beware of heard, a dreadful word
That looks like beard and sounds like bird.
And dead; it's said like bed, not bead!
For goodness sake, don't call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat,
(They rhyme with suite and straight and debt)
A moth is not a moth in mother,
Nor both in bother, broth in brother.
And here is not a match for there,
Nor dear and fear for bear and pear,
And then there's dose and rose and lose –
Just look them up – and goose and choose,
And cork and work and card and ward
And font and front and word and sword.
And do and go, then thwart and cart.
Come, come, I've hardly made a start.
A dreadful language: Why, man alive,
I'd learned to talk when I was five.
And yet to write it, the more I tried,
I hadn't learned it at fifty-five.
[An alternative version quotes the final couplet as:
And yet to write it, the more I sigh,
I'll not learn how 'til the day I die.
I occasionally use words from Languages I don't know.
Like I often use Nyet and Nien.
Although, For some reason Nyet problemski is wedged into my vocabulary, I rarely say "no problem"
(yes I am aware that Problemski is not Russian)
[QUOTE=xXScoutXx;26878894]I occasionally use words from Languages I don't know.
Like I often use Nyet and Nien.
Although, For some reason Nyet problemski is wedged into my vocabulary, I rarely say "no problem"
(yes I am aware that Problemski is not Russian)[/QUOTE]
I for one think that taking words from other languages is a good thing. Using the same words all the time is boring
I attempt to implement Nadsat into my daily life, but that's only because Anthony Burgess is a top bloke
[QUOTE=Mizzy;26875748]English is the hardest language to learn as a second language, dimwit, with more inconsistencies than French.[/QUOTE]
Ahaha you can't be serious. I knew english since I was 13 and english is my 3rd language, first being latvian and second being russian. English is really easy, especially if you compare it to something like russian or german.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;26878064]If you ran an authoritarian country and were concerned about pro-Western sentiments threatening loyalty to the state, you'd use the preservation of cultural identity as an excuse to squelch external influence.[/QUOTE]
So the fuck what? It's quite hard to keep control of 1.3 billion people, if they become too globalised then the country itself stands little chance of maintaining control of its vast population. If preservation of cultural identity also preserves the efficiency and well-being of the state as a whole then what is the problem?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
