|
 |
Most precise spoken language? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| ireulx Newbie Australia Joined 5072 days ago 1 posts - 1 votes Speaks: English* | Message 1 of 9 10 January 2011 at 2:58am | IP Logged | |||||
|
Hi all. I have a bit of a long question I was hoping you gurus could shine some light on. :)
Recently the idea that language shapes the way we think has gained a great deal of currency with scientists who largely dismissed the idea for many decades. If the hypothesis is true then in theory learning a precise language to fluency (where one thinks in that language) could be beneficial in clarifying both one's thought and speech. For example some languages have no concept of 'left' and 'right', rather they think in terms of 'north' and 'west' and so on. Native speakers of these languages are more spatially aware than say speakers of English. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html ?pagewanted=all ) Another example are more precise expressed concepts than English. For example one language (Kwaio) has no simple word for 'we' but instead has two forms of 'we': 'me and you' and 'me and someone else (but not you)'. This is further modified depending on the number of people you are referring to (either 'we two', 'we few', or 'we many'). So the 'we' concept is much more precise as the speaker has to think about the specifics. ( http://www.economist.com/node/15108609 ) There are many more examples. In a recent debate on the issue ( http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/190 ) I noted a comment that said "Even in this decade, a group of French activists have proposed making French the sole language of European law, because of its purported great 'rigour' and 'precision'." This got me thinking about the precision of languages. Is French really considered a precise and rigourous language? What is the most precise and rigourous 'widely-spoken' language in your opinion? Sorry if this has been asked before. I couldn't find any threads about it! 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| tritone Senior Member United States reflectionsinpo Joined 6125 days ago 246 posts - 385 votes  Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish, Portuguese, French | Message 2 of 9 10 January 2011 at 4:57am | IP Logged | |||||
In general I think talk of languages being inherently better at communication is nonsense. The clarity, "expresiveness" or 'precision', of language depends on the skill of the speaker, and not the language itself.
That just sounds like a different way of saying the same thing. And how would it be more precise anyway? We is actually ambiguous. We who? The pronoun "we" could be you and any number of unspecified people..saying "me and you', "me and him", "me and them" is explicit.
They are not to be taken seriously...especially since the french don't generally speak any other languages, and wouldn't know any better. I doubt any of those activists are polyglots. Edited by tritone on 10 January 2011 at 5:08am 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6708 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 3 of 9 10 January 2011 at 10:33am | IP Logged | |||||
|
I have been learning Bahasa since last summer. Nouns and pronouns in this language don't have obligatory markers for number or case, which means that for instance "saya" (I) can be used indiscriminately as a subject, object or 'owner': "Saya telah perbaiki sepeda saya" = 'I already repaired bicycle I' (bicycle mine). Verbs lack markers for tense and number and person, whereas passiveness can be indicated with thea prefix "di" ("Saya telah diperbaiki sepeda saya" = I got my bike fixed). But how do you live without those markers? Well, in the sentence a gave "telah" I translated "telah" as "already", but actually it is used to indicate that something already has been done, i.e. the same thing which is expressed through the perfect tense in English.
The point is that everything you want to express can be expressed, and therefore you can be very precise even in a language that to a large extent has dispensed with flexion. This extends to vocabulary: if you need to point a certain electronic gadget out it may not have a name in Bahasa (or Danish for that matter), but then we just borrow one, and with time this word may or may not be adapted to local pronunciation or get a nickname. In a few cases a language is prone to forcing people to be TOO precise (he vs. she in English!), but even then the langage users will find a way to express a more fussy or comprehensible notion if they feel they need it. And the French activists who claim that their language is the most logical in the world are of couse just showing their bottomless ignorance. For instance even Bahasa makes a difference between "we including you" and "we and not you", but the French just mix the two. How can anybody live with such a lack of precision? Edited by Iversen on 13 January 2011 at 9:57pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Gosiak Triglot Senior Member Poland Joined 5131 days ago 241 posts - 361 votes Speaks: Polish*, English, German Studies: Norwegian, Welsh | Message 4 of 9 10 January 2011 at 10:41am | IP Logged | |||||
As long as European officials keep speaking and writing in their own native language/languages and let interpreters and translators preform their tasks great 'rigour' and 'precision' will be achieved. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Doitsujin Diglot Senior Member Germany Joined 5325 days ago 1256 posts - 2363 votes Speaks: German*, English | Message 5 of 9 10 January 2011 at 12:39pm | IP Logged | |||||
The whole idea of French being a "precise and rigorous language" probably dates back to Antoine de Rivarol who proclaimed in his prize-winning essay for the Berlin Academy Discours sur l’universalité de la langue française: “Tout ce qui n’est pas clair n’est pas français [...]” (All that is not clear is not French [...]) But I'm sure that many who studied French would beg to differ. But too much precision can also be a burden. For example, Arabic has masculine and feminine verb forms for the second and third persons Singular, Plural and Dual. For example: Singular: he writes (huwa) yaktubu she writes (hiya) taktubu you (masc. ) write ('anta) taktubu you (fem. ) write ('anti) taktubīna I write ('anā) 'aktubu IMHO, that's a bit too precise, but I'm pretty sure the Arabs like it just the way it is. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7161 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 6 of 9 10 January 2011 at 4:57pm | IP Logged | |||||
The thing with being "precise" and "rigorous" is that it varies among speakers. That idea among some French activists is little more than opinion masquerading as linguistic fact. Such ideas occur among others (e.g. I've had Turks try to enlighten me about the apparent "perfection" and "logic" which informs their native language) and should not be used to unduly dump on the French as goofy or pretentious as the idea is. How do you define precision? Hungarian conjugates verbs differently depending on whether the complement is a "definite" direct object or not ("definite" to a Hungarian, that is). I'm giving a book to you. Adok neked könyvet. (give-I (indefinite-form) to-you book-accusative suffix) I'm giving the book to you. Adom neked a könyvet. (give-I (definite form) to-you the book-accusative) We see three dogs. Látunk három kutyát. (see-we (indefinite-form) three dog-accusative) We see the three dogs. Látjuk a három kutyát. (see-we (definite-form) the three dog-accusative) I see you (plural) Látok titeket. (see-I (indefinite form you-accusative plural) I see them. Látom őket. (see-I (definite form) them) Mansi, which is related to Hungarian makes even finer distinctions than this since the Mansi verb's conjugation depends not only on whether the complement is a "definite" direct object, but also whether the subject and/or the object is in singular, dual or plural. For example: indefinite conjugation: - teeγ-əm = I eat - teeγ-men = we (two) eat - teeγ-uw = we (more than two) eat definite conjugation: - teeγ-ləm = I eat [one definite object] - teeγ-aγəm = I eat [two definite objects] - teeγ-anəm = I eat [more than two definite objects] - teeγ-lamen = we (two) eat [one definite object] - teeγ-aγmen = we (two) eat [two definite objects] - teeγ-anmen = we (two) eat [more than two definite objects] - teeγ-luw = we (more than two) eat [one definite object] - teeγ-aγuw = we (more than two) eat [two definite objects] - teeγ-anuw = we (more than two) eat [more than two definite objects] Here's a question with probably no correct answer: Is the above unduly complicated or indicative of language expressing maximum information in the name of "precision"? 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| stelingo Hexaglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5837 days ago 722 posts - 1076 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Italian Studies: Russian, Czech, Polish, Greek, Mandarin | Message 7 of 9 10 January 2011 at 6:41pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
I see you (plural)
Látok titeket. (see-I (indefinite form you-accusative plural) I see them. Látom őket. (see-I (definite form) them) Out of interest, why is the indefinite form used with you, and the definite with them? 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7161 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 8 of 9 10 January 2011 at 7:52pm | IP Logged | |||||
Actually, I made a mistake. It should be "látlak titeket", not *"látok titeket" . The suffix -lak/-lek is used when the object is "you" (singular or plural). However by Hungarian "logic", a direct object in the second person is still not treated as "definite". A clearer example would be: Látunk titeket. (see-we (indefinite form) you (plural)) Látjuk őket. (see-we (definite form) them)
What constitutes a direct object in Hungarian seems somewhat idiosyncratic. However when it comes to the difference between a direct object in third person and ones in first or second person, I am guessing that it has to do with treating the third person as metaphorically linked/akin to a demonstrative pronoun or definite article (that, this, the). This link could be just part of my imagination but I recall that the Estonian word for "he, she" is "t(em)a" and that Bulgarian uses "той, тя, то" for "he, she ,it". In both languages the word for the third person singular pronoun likely originates from a word in the ancestral language that now usually occurs as a demonstrative pronoun in cognate daughter languages. (i.e. the Estonian word for "he, she" is cognate with the Finnish "tämä" meaning "this". The Bulgarian words for "he, she, it" are cognates of the Czech demonstrative pronouns "ten", "ta", "to"). 1 person has 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. |
