Most inefficient languages? (Specific Languages) Language Learning Forum

Most inefficient languages?
Tags: Difficulty
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages	( Topic Closed)

69 messages over 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 7 ... 8 9 Next >>

apparition
Octoglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6445 days ago
600 posts - 667 votes

Speaks: English*, Arabic (Written), French, Arabic (Iraqi), Portuguese, German, Italian, Spanish
Studies: Pashto

Message 49 of 69

19 September 2007 at 7:10pm | IP Logged

Why did Germany simplify the orthography of their language?

Why did China create simplified characters during the Mao era?

If languages are not objectively difficult, and thus have no reason to change (since native speakers are seemingly doing just fine with it), then why do countries voluntary enact changes to their own languages?

EDIT: Or at least their writing systems, which was one of the original sticking points. I haven't really heard of a country outright changing their spoken language so much.

Edited by apparition on 19 September 2007 at 7:14pm
1 person has voted this message useful

FSI
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6154 days ago
550 posts - 590 votes

Speaks: English*

Message 50 of 69

19 September 2007 at 7:21pm | IP Logged

As j.c., I, and others pointed out earlier (if not in this thread, then in the "English is forever" one, and in similar versions of this sort of debate), a language and a writing system are two completely different things. Are all languages objectively equal? Sure. Are all orthographies? Nope. If desired, one can try to form rankings for writing systems - but the varying difficulties of writing systems have as much to do with the oral languages themselves as various forms of music notation (standard, tablature, etc) have to do with music. They're attempts at capturing the spoken language, and some writing systems are a much greater aid to learning the spoken languages than are others.

Edited by FSI on 19 September 2007 at 7:26pm
1 person has voted this message useful

justinwilliams
Diglot
Senior Member
Canada
Joined 6484 days ago
321 posts - 327 votes

3 sounds
Speaks: French*, English^C2
Studies: German, Italian

Message 51 of 69

19 September 2007 at 7:26pm | IP Logged

...

Edited by justinwilliams on 19 September 2007 at 8:30pm
1 person has voted this message useful

lloydkirk
Diglot
Senior Member
United StatesRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 6208 days ago
429 posts - 452 votes

Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Russian

Message 52 of 69

19 September 2007 at 7:31pm | IP Logged

"I must ask you: why are you learning languages if you don't enjoy learning new ways to think and express things. If you don't enjoy learning the complexities of a new language, why are you on this forum? That is precisely what learning a language is all about.:

Where did I say that I didn't enjoy learning new ways to express myself? To be honest though, you don't need a "new" language to accomplish that. I master english in new ways every day. There are many reasons why one would learn a language so I think it's rather foolish of you to presume you know them all. Perhaps, I wish to access literature in it's original, family reasons,etc...Most languages have features/grammatical peculiarities that are entirely useless and do not aide expression. My native english has them too. So no, I don't enjoy learning the unnecessary complexities a language and have no admiration for those that do.

Good Day
1 person has voted this message useful

FSI
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6154 days ago
550 posts - 590 votes

Speaks: English*

Message 53 of 69

19 September 2007 at 7:32pm | IP Logged

FSI wrote:

justinwilliams wrote:

So hard language to assimilate as baby vs hard language to learn if you prefer.

The issue with this is that children the world over learn to speak and understand their languages at the same times - everywhere. They start speaking around 12 months. They hit the two word stage soon after. From there, they generally go on to full sentences of varying degrees of accuracy, continually improving with age. There isn't a language in existence where the majority of children take longer to learn the spoken/aural language as a whole than the majority of children who learn to speak/understand any other language. So there isn't an objective hierarchy of languages for children, just as there isn't one for adults.

In addition, the same phenomenon is also readily observable in more intimate settings with children raised in bilingual households. Provided both languages are equally present in the household, the child learns both at the same time on average, regardless of which two languages are put together. Such a child, if continually exposed to both languages, will go on to develop native proficiencies in both languages, and become equally capable of expressing him or herself in either. Neither is harder, neither is easier. They're just dual means of communication.
1 person has voted this message useful

justinwilliams
Diglot
Senior Member
Canada
Joined 6484 days ago
321 posts - 327 votes

3 sounds
Speaks: French*, English^C2
Studies: German, Italian

Message 54 of 69

19 September 2007 at 7:34pm | IP Logged

...

Edited by justinwilliams on 19 September 2007 at 8:30pm
1 person has voted this message useful

FSI
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6154 days ago
550 posts - 590 votes

Speaks: English*

Message 55 of 69

19 September 2007 at 7:35pm | IP Logged

lloydkirk wrote:

So no, I don't enjoy learning the unnecessary complexities a language and have no admiration for those that do.

The issue is that your ideas of "unnecessary complexities" are completely filtered through the fact that you were raised speaking English - yet you refuse to acknowledge this on even a fundamental level, instead choosing to insist that these "complexities" are universally unnecessary.
1 person has voted this message useful

Chung
Diglot
Senior Member
Joined 6951 days ago
4228 posts - 8259 votes

20 sounds
Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish

Message 56 of 69

19 September 2007 at 7:35pm | IP Logged

justinwilliams wrote:

I actually don't understand why people are so reluctant to the thought of changing what they're comfortable in even if it's for the best. If a Mr X declared that French didn't have any genders anymore, I'd be more than happy to try my best not to assign genders to words. After a few weeks, I'd be comfortable using that and I'd know my effort would have been for a good cause.

Sidenote: People are never willing to say that their hometown sucks. They always thinks that THIS is how things should be. People born in cities prefer cities. People born and raised in the countryside prefer it over cities. I know what's bad about my hometown. When I was playing hockey I knew it when we were not as good as the other team although every single one of the teamates I've had would never utter or even think such an horrible idea. I know French has its flaws...

It's not because people aren't aware of it existing that it doesn't exist. I mean I didn't know there was a reason for me saying LA France, LE Japon, etc but a learner of French told me how it works. Similarly, it's not because I don't notice that having to use a particular verb tense is hard that it's not. It's something incredibly hard that I've come to master through exposure, time and practice. And I'm sure I can say it's been harder to master than to put 's' at the end of plural nouns.

Walking is easier than running even though arguably we can all* run well since we're used to doing it. (for the "native speakers speak it well therefore it as easy as anything else" argument) That might be a better example than the cars...

The problem is how to define "the best". In a way, constructed languages such as Esperanto and Slovio were meant as a way to simplify languages, but you don't exactly see hordes of people rushing off to learn these languages. While they have their speakers/supporters, there is perhaps a sort of mental laziness that comes from being comfortable in one's own native and natural language, be it English, Russian, Mandarin, Arabic or Hausa. Besides, these constructed languages were designed by people whose mother tongue was a natural language, and thus the scope of the constructed language was limited to that of the creator(s) linguistic experience.

I think that you've hit the nail on the head with the analogy of using your hometown. Very few people reject their native language, for all its flaws (which are only apparent when you compare it to other languages - Goethe said it best that "He who knows no foreign language knows nothing of his own.")

1 person has voted this message useful

This discussion contains 69 messages over 9 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 0.3438 seconds.