English probally is the easiest overall to learn, because there is no masculine/femine or any thing that must be said in relavence to the conversation, you just know from the context of whats been said.
I still say English is one of the hardest, and I think the number of spelling and grammatical errors in your first sentence alone is an indicator of that.
There are a lot of immigrants around where I live and I see a lot of people who speak English as a second language and I don't remember ever speaking to one of them who has not struggled with it. In fact, I'm not even sure it's possible for someone to just pick up English and not have a difficult time with it.
Many of such people have lived here for years, and still confuse have/has.
Heck, I've seen a lot of people who speak English as a first language who still don't seem to have it figured out.
As a Westerner who learned Chinese after reaching adulthood, I might be able to clear up some of these arguments, at least from my perspective.
Characters are largely memorized by components, though components only rarely give useful hints as to the meaning or pronunciation of the character. For example, if a character has the component for "gold" in it, you are never going to be able to guess what it means, because that information is just not specific enough. If you are trying to remember which radical goes on the word for "coin," though, "gold" is a safe bet. So the hints of meaning are utterly useless for deriving meaning from characters, but are fairly useful for helping you remember how to write characters.
As for pronunciation, you will rarely guess the correct pronunciation of a character if you haven't seen it before and don't happen to understand the context. For example, if a character is made of a component that is pronounced "ji", there are just too many possibilities to allow you to guess the new character's pronunciation ...
It might be pronounced ji
It might just rhyme with ji (xi, qi, bi, li, ti, pi, etc.)
It might start with a similar consonant sound as ji (ju, zhu, zhao, etc.)
Or it might just be pronounced completely differently, though this is probably true in the minority of cases
Again you can see how these clues might help you remember how to write a word you know, because you can recall a similar meaning component and a similar pronunciation component in lots of cases, but you can rarely use these clues to figure out the meaning or pronunciation of a character in isolation.
There are about 18 vowel sounds in English (which by the way is not 48) if you count the diphtongs, but it varies a bit with dialect.
Each character in chinese/japanese writing does not represent a picture of the meaning it conveys (but this is indeed a common misconception). The absolute majority of characters contain a component hinting the meaning, and a component reflecting the pronunciation. It is very unusual to memorize characters visually, the overwhelming majority of people remember them by which components make up a character.
Well I can swear at when I was at school, when I was learning how speech recognition software works, that my teacher specifically stated and wrote 48 sounds on the board, although to clear it up. This is in relation to sounds like e.g. oo,lo and op.
I also remember when I was watching a begginers program to Chinese that it stated that one of the chacters represented a mother and a child and the meaning of that is "good".
Hyena wrote:
I still say English is one of the hardest, and I think the number of spelling and grammatical errors in your first sentence alone is an indicator of that.
You'd be amazed how often I correct what I've wrote, although many errors still crop up.
You'd be amazed how often I correct what I've wrote, although many errors still crop up.
It wasn't meant as a sleight against you of course. It just goes to show how difficult the intricacies of our language are.
I'd also like to say that I think English is probably one of the funniest languages.
Think about this:
1. The rules of grammar can be very complicated, to the point where if someone gets it really wrong, it just sounds hilarious. Badly translated English is one of the funniest things ever.
Eg:
"Uh-oh, the truck have started to move."
"I feel asleep!"
"You invaders! Get you the hot bullets of shotgun to die!"
2. We have one word for sunset and about three dozen or so words for vomit.
3. The very fact that English has so many different words means that comedically (and poetically as well) it's often just a matter of using the right word at the right time.
Not funny: "Melvin sneezed on his cat."
Funny: "In an instant, a torrent of membranous nasal fluid left Melvin's nose and propelled his cat into the stratosphere, leaving nothing but a meow with a doppler effect."
This is because pronunciation drifts with time, at creation these characters probably accurately reflected pronunciation. It is also a good argument for why logographic writing systems are a bad idea. :) But perhaps that's an argument for another topic.
English has also became a logographic writing system.
If you type "hav", it is wrong because it must be written "have". If you type "nite", it is wrong because it must be written "night" even though it rhymes with "kite".
The pronounciations change more often than the words themselves. The words have became pictograms. You must not write "musta" or "must of"; it must be written "must have" even though the "have" has been reduced into a schwa/semifricative.
Writing is more longlived than speech, and thus it forms a different language, a relic of past, whereas the speech develops.
In Finnish, the written language and the spoken language already follow different grammar rules (the written one being richer with grammatical cases and the spoken one being richer with exceptions), even though it is not false to say that you can pronounce exactly as is written or write exactly as is pronounced.
I like the semicolon; it brings some nice variety. I'm not sure about its proper use though; I use it the same way as in Finnish.
I could write like that in IRC, a discussion forum and other such informal contexts, but I wouldn't write like that in formal text. In the latter case I would write:
"I like the semicolon because it brings some nice variety. I'm not sure about its proper use though. I use it the same way as in Finnish."
I see no real need for semicolon there. It doesn't bring anything that couldn't be expressed better. It just feels artificial.
Usually if two sentences are closely related you can join them with a conjunction or another particle or a comma. If they are not as related, you can just perfectly separate them with a period. (This paragraph is a good example of this.)
"I like the semicolon because it brings some nice variety. I'm not sure about its proper use though. I use it the same way as in Finnish."
I see no real need for semicolon there. It doesn't bring anything that couldn't be expressed better. It just feels artificial.
It is true that the sentence could be written the way you did.
However, it is now a different sentence from the one I wrote.
In the same way as you can write "siellä ehkä syödään" ("maybe they eat there", lit. "there maybe is-eating") or "siellä syötäneen" ("maybe they eat there", lit. "there is-eating-maybe") in Finnish.
Both are essentially the same thing, and people could say the potential form (the shorter) is needless and "artificial" because the other already expresses the same thing, arguably in a simpler manner.
(Btw, I have recently noticed at least one incident where I used the potential form in speech, and I had to reconstruct the sentence, because the listener, a native Finnish speaker, didn't understand it.)
It is true that the sentence could be written the way you did.
However, it is now a different sentence from the one I wrote.
You seem to imply that the semicolon adds richness to the sentences. I happen to disagree. IMO it makes the sentences poorer, and writing them properly makes them richer and more expressive.
In this sense I think the comparison with the potential form in Finnish is not accurate because, in my opinion, using the potential form adds to the richness of the language instead of making it poorer and more artificial-looking. IMO the semicolon doesn't add anything to the language, only substracts.
Here's something to consider when trying to dismiss English as an easy language to learn compared with others. It may be syntactically simple, it does have several strange irregularities within its grammar.
Also, its vocabulary is absolutely immense, with several heteronyms that native speakers don't even think about, such as: refuse, number, relay, tear, wind, invalid, for a very abridged list. (Longer List)
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
I noticed that there isn't much talk on German, isn't it supposed to be quite similar to English in some ways? I heard my friend say before that 1 good thing about German is that each vowel is pronounced always pronounced in the same way, which sort of eliminates those promise/compromise kinds of confusion.
AKA> Well I can swear at when I was at school, when I was learning how speech recognition software works, that my teacher specifically stated and wrote 48 sounds on the board, although to clear it up. This is in relation to sounds like e.g. oo,lo and op.
Ah, but all sounds are not vowel sounds. There are about 28 consonant sounds as well, counted together there are about 46 sounds, so 48 could very well be correct for the dialect your teacher was talking about.
AKA> I also remember when I was watching a begginers program to Chinese that it stated that one of the chacters represented a mother and a child and the meaning of that is "good".
This is true. But these characters form only a small part of chinese characters.
Hyena> ... if someone gets it really wrong, it just sounds hilarious.
I think it is like this in almost any language. I've been laughed at for saying some pretty stupid things in foreign languages...
Comparatively I don't feel that English has very hard grammar.
Bisqwit> English has also became a logographic writing system.
I agree. And like I probably made obvious too many times already, I'm not too fond of logographic writing systems.
Just an aside, "kite" also sounds nothing like you expect it to (like "kitten" without the n). When I'm made world dictator (any minute now) it will be spelled kait or kayt.
Additional reading for anyone interested: English orthography.
xoinx> I noticed that there isn't much talk on German, isn't it supposed to be quite similar to English in some ways? I heard my friend say before that 1 good thing about German is that each vowel is pronounced always pronounced in the same way, which sort of eliminates those promise/compromise kinds of confusion.
German has a quite consistent spelling system, yes. I remember my first German teacher saying something to the effect of that she could teach anyone to read a German text aloud with acceptable pronunciation in about a week.
Gramatically there are several differences between English and German. Around a quarter of English vocabulary is of germanic (not German) origin. There are probably people here who are much better informed on German than me, though.
Long post. I should really be working. :/
I noticed that there isn't much talk on German, isn't it supposed to be quite similar to English in some ways? I heard my friend say before that 1 good thing about German is that each vowel is pronounced always pronounced in the same way, which sort of eliminates those promise/compromise kinds of confusion.
The reason behind that is that current german is more or less an artificial language. Back in 18th century when germany was a patchwork of small states every region spoke it's own dialect. As a lingua franca the southern written german established. Later the way northern germans tried to pronounce that (which was very literally) was chosen as the official pronounciation.
The only things foreigners really have trouble with are the two ch sounds, as in ich or Nacht.
Oh and to clean up about grammar:
- Noone minds if a foreigner confuses noun genders. It's just too much asked.
- Cases are dimnishing anyway. For starters there are 4 cases in german, but one of them is almost dying, the rest equals subject and 2 types of object.
- Verb inflection is a pain as in every inflected language.
- One thing the teachers won't tell you is that spoken german only knows two times, present and perfect. The others are almost never used outside written german.
- Understanding spoken german seems to be relatively easy as I'm told, since there are lots of easy recognizable prefixes and postfixes.
Just an aside, "kite" also sounds nothing like you expect it to (like "kitten" without the n). When I'm made world dictator (any minute now) it will be spelled kait or kayt.
But then people will pronounce it like the name "Kate", and that's no good!
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
Joined: 3/17/2006
Posts: 243
Location: Back to good old Germany
Gorash wrote:
- One thing the teachers won't tell you is that spoken german only knows two times, present and perfect. The others are almost never used outside written german.
The only point I don't agree upon. We also use the future and the subjunctiv (the "first" type, the second type has died out (thank god)).
I know a girl here in Oswego. She is 21 years old and has been learning German for about 10 years now. Her major is German and she already spent a six months study abroad in Germany. I would rate her 6 out of 10.
Every time I read her essays I think "Thank god, that I don't have to learn this stupid language!".
At the moment, I'm wondering if I should refresh my French (which is really rusty) or learn something new. I'd be interested in Spanish or Italian I think.
BomF> But then people will pronounce it like the name "Kate", and that's no good!
No, they would pronounce it like "kite" is pronounced today, obviously. Spelling reforms do not attempt to change pronunciation. Kate would be changed to Keit. If you still want your name to be spelled Kate, get used to having it pronounced kah-teh. :)
Gorash> ... one of them is almost dying ...
Genetive case? I always had trouble with that, so I would be most pleased.
> Genetive case?
correct. There are enough constructs to replace it. It's mostly used to sound elitist (combined with semicolons), or in articles mourning the loss of our language.
No, they would pronounce it like "kite" is pronounced today, obviously. Spelling reforms do not attempt to change pronunciation. Kate would be changed to Keit. If you still want your name to be spelled Kate, get used to having it pronounced kah-teh. :)
People who can't respect the magic ending e shouldn't get to change the English language! You should get used to not always having things your way and admit you don't always know what's best for everyone.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
xoinx: That's right, English belongs to the 'germanic family' of languages. Swedish/Danish etc. look like mispelt versions of English. :)
As for the 'Kite' thing, I think that looks exactly how you say it. Have you ever heard of the 'magic e' rule? Pick, pike. Till, tile. And so on. Of course, there's always exceptions to the rule...
Heteronyms and such are what makes the language more fun, and it gives wordplayers something to do. :) Free Peace Sweet!
The cat wouldn't exhibit the doppler effect since it was never moving towards you.
The doppler effect also applies to objects moving away. In their case, the apparent frequency is lower than the originating frequency.
I've always interpreted the doppler effect to mean the change in frequency that occurs as the object passes you. Looking in the dictionary I can see it doesn't agree with me, but I think my definition is more sensible ;) .
- One thing the teachers won't tell you is that spoken german only knows two times, present and perfect. The others are almost never used outside written german.
The only point I don't agree upon. We also use the future and the subjunctiv (the "first" type, the second type has died out (thank god)).
Don't know what your friend's got to do with it, but judging from the people I've heard speaking over time, future gets used very little. You always can get by with present (similar to chinese and japanese) if meaning in context is clear: Ich gehe nachher einkaufen - I'll go shopping later.
And well, subjunctive, that is not a tense, it's a mood... and the type we're using is actually the second type, the first type is the one nearly extinct </nitpicker>.
Joined: 3/17/2006
Posts: 243
Location: Back to good old Germany
Gorash wrote:
Don't know what your friend's got to do with it, but judging from the people I've heard speaking over time, future gets used very little. You always can get by with present (similar to chinese and japanese) if meaning in context is clear: Ich gehe nachher einkaufen - I'll go shopping later.
This structure is comparable to the going-to-future. It works for many sentences, but by far not for all. Ich gehe mir ein Auto kaufen - it's not incorrect, but usually you'd rather say Ich werde mir ein Auto kaufen.
And the subjunctiv - you're right. Actually, I just looked it up and type I and II are dying out. The third one remains because Germans love to use auxiliary verbs...
btw: The story about my friend was the only thing related to the topic because it shows that German seems to be quite hard to master.
Damn it, enough of German grammar now ;)
