|
 |
Do you find russian words hard to stick ? | ||
Tags: Russian | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages |  | |
| Stolan Senior Member United States Joined 4033 days ago 274 posts - 368 votes  Speaks: English* Studies: Thai, Lowland Scots Studies: Arabic (classical), Cantonese | Message 25 of 40 13 April 2014 at 7:43pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Billions of people, not billions of languages.
Lithuanian has mobile tones accentuation classes for nouns that are far far far more complex than both Vietnamese or Norwegian combined on top of other irregularities worse than Latin (which is actually a reasonable language), but that doesn't mean the morphology or elsewhere is balanced out, it has harder consonants and more vowels than Russian too, the morphology is sorta equal. There is no balancing out, what makes Vietnamese comparable to Russian or Icelandic outside of a slightly tough phonology that is as complicated as some IE languages? Can you name a single non-IE language that is as broken and wrecked apart in its morphology? You also know what I mean about cases only existing to complicate the syntax instead of their original purpose, don't you? Edited by Stolan on 13 April 2014 at 7:49pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Марк Senior Member Russian Federation Joined 5057 days ago 2096 posts - 2972 votes Speaks: Russian* | Message 26 of 40 13 April 2014 at 7:48pm | IP Logged | ||
1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Stolan Senior Member United States Joined 4033 days ago 274 posts - 368 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Thai, Lowland Scots Studies: Arabic (classical), Cantonese | Message 27 of 40 13 April 2014 at 7:59pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Well I don't know much about cree, but I can tell you Navajo. It is supposedly so difficult that one cannot speak it
until they are 16. Nouns are rare and more simple in the morphology, they can take a measure word like Asian languages, but they are rare because one can create entire sentences from just a verb. There is no subordination nor are adjectives distinct at all from verbs. One will focus mostly on verbs and the exceptions therein, everything else is tied to the verbs and their usage. Each verb has 5 irregular parts that must be learned but there are only 550 verb roots in total and those include adjectives and numerous noun phrases as a verb. Everything else is affixing. It is complex in some areas, lenient in others, tough, and unique, not a blood soaked mess. Cree seems to have simpler phonology, and there is far less assimilation or sandhi as well than Navajo, it is written with a syllabary and not a traditional alphabet, a polysynthetic language such as cree has fewer roots than Russian or Icelandic, and adjective inflection and the numerous redundant irregularities in the syntax (the syntax of RLIAG is far more complicated than any isolating language contrary to what Chinese speakers would want you to think) don't exist as the structure relies on encoding information in entire words rather than sentences filled with redundant agreement. Plus it doesn't make every distinction, some languages treat adjectives and adverbs as the same for example. You have a tank, a plane, but someone made a flying tank submarine fighter jet with titanium armor and fusion power=RLIAG RLIAG=Russian, Lithuanian, Icelandic, Ancient Greek. Edited by Stolan on 13 April 2014 at 8:04pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Марк Senior Member Russian Federation Joined 5057 days ago 2096 posts - 2972 votes Speaks: Russian* | Message 28 of 40 13 April 2014 at 8:04pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Stolan, why do you think there are three verb stems in russian (not two: infinitive and past tense), why are Lithuanian consonants harder than Russian (they are easier from my point of view)? And I think Lithuanian morphology is harder than Russian, there are more verbal forms.
1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Stolan Senior Member United States Joined 4033 days ago 274 posts - 368 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Thai, Lowland Scots Studies: Arabic (classical), Cantonese | Message 29 of 40 13 April 2014 at 8:11pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Well the, verbs in class 4 in Russian can drop the suffix in the past only, and the past often has a different stress
than the other forms so there are 3 areas the check. Lithuanian has more consonants, but the lack of the same changes is a plus I guess, but the morphology in Lithuanian verbs is more complex but not as irregular as the stress is predictable and every form can be brought down to 3 principal parts, not so in Russian, and the existence of aspect pairs means the "perfective" tense will always be irregular and those verbs will also have the same irregularities, perhaps as many as 15 parts to check for one "definition" including stress changes. One must also remember what case the verb governs as well (they exist only to complicate syntax and are more complicated than those of uninflecting languages which rely more on particles such as prepositions despite being miles simpler in that area ironically). The tonality and phonology of Lithuanian is still more complex than Burmese or Norwegian anyway. Edited by Stolan on 13 April 2014 at 8:14pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Марк Senior Member Russian Federation Joined 5057 days ago 2096 posts - 2972 votes Speaks: Russian* | Message 30 of 40 13 April 2014 at 8:18pm | IP Logged | ||
|
There are more consonants in Lithuanian, but they have more restrictions. Russian hard and soft consonants can appear almost anywhere in a free manner, while in Lithuanian they are opposed only in front of non-front vowels and it is much easier for a learner. Both languages contrast palatalization with iotation, which is extremely difficult for most people.
I think you are exaggerating the complexities of the Russian past tense. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Stolan Senior Member United States Joined 4033 days ago 274 posts - 368 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Thai, Lowland Scots Studies: Arabic (classical), Cantonese | Message 31 of 40 13 April 2014 at 9:42pm | IP Logged | ||
|
But I assume you do believe everything else I said is true about complexity and syntax? Edited by Stolan on 14 April 2014 at 9:50pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6598 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 32 of 40 16 April 2014 at 3:11pm | IP Logged | ||
I've been thinking of this a lot while working on the Italian/Romance subjunctive. And this is one of the things that compensates for other difficulties in Russian. For the subjunctive OR conditional, you just add the particle бы that never changes. That's it. Now let me join other learners of Romance languages crying in the corner. Also quite ironical how it's been said that Russian is so weird with sentences that don't contain verbs, yet we use them where Romance languages don't bother, again with the subjunctive. ¡Que te mejores! - wtf is that, really? The main difference I see is that in Russian there's no "safe ground", no "easy stuff" to cling to. You WILL make tons of errors, so just keep calm and continue. 2 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
