I agree with the premise of the article. I started going to International school (all classes in English) at age 9. Got two University degrees in England. Have several academic papers published. There are still moments where I'm made aware that I'm not a native English speaker - for example I sometimes translate German figures of speech into English, where they don't exist.
However I'd disagree that the article's premise is unique to English. I've been learning Japanese for the past few years, and while it's definitely more difficult to learn than English for someone who's coming from another European language, I think the long tail of being native-like is equally infinite. It's just based on different things. Examples would be は vs が (this is a beginner-level topic as well, but comes back in a different way much later), sentence-level pitch accent, the fact that writing in formal language is basically the world's most elaborate game of madlibs, etc.
As a Japanese, I agree with you.
When friends who are learning the language ask me questions, I sometimes can't even answer them.
So I end up saying "that's just how we say/use it".
And much respect from me.
I wouldn't learn Japanese if my mother tongue is European language.
I've tried twice to learn Japanese and I consistently get stuck on kanji. The spoken language is actually really intuitive in a lot of ways, and hiragana/katakana fit easily into my brain, but kanji, with the multiple and inconsistent readings, is just mind-blowingly hard for me. And it's a shame that I keep getting stuck there as it really is a beautiful language.
I think you should start with easy ones. IIRC kids take small tests in class every semester at elementary school (like 50-150 kanjis per test). Those kanjis are the easy ones and then you can build up. So learning kanjis you find on a newspaper or a novel might be too hard. Understanding those words in real life context requires you to have higher language skills anyway (e.g. understand economy news or whatever in Japanese).
On a slight side note, kids can't even write their own names in kanji. You can imagine how happy we got when we were taught kanjis that were part of our name. So you shouldn't feel bad about it, taking small steps serve you well in the long term.
> On a slight side note, kids can't even write their own names in kanji. You can imagine how happy we got when we were taught kanjis that were part of our name.
Do you have any thoughts on the implications (social, mainly) of logographic writing systems?
Also would be interested in having a sense of the historic patterns of literacy in Japan in context of Tokugawa caste system.
When you finish middle school, you're supposed to learn most of kanjis used in real life.[0] At that point it's pretty rare to encounter kanjis that are completely foreign to you.
But there's electronic dictionary on which you can draw to search for kanji.[1] I used one of these in high school.
The easiest way is just using OCR which for example the Google Translate app lets you do. After that you can search by drawing it or search by the radicals that you recognize in it.
One thing to note is that the order they are learned is not from easiest to hard. The order is more based off the complexity of the meaning of the kanji.
Learning kanji is a skill. The more you practice it, the easier it will get. Also what's a few thousand kanji if you also have to learn 10s of thousands of vocabulary.
Perhaps ‘spaced repetition’ tools like Anki might come in handy in organising the memorization. You still need to come up with a system, but the app will then help with putting kanji into the brain. Spaced repetition is suited precisely for things that don't have a prominent internal structure which would lend itself to learning.
Afaik Anki is popular for learning Japanese, iirc even the author did exactly that, so there's probably plenty of readymade material. Though it may be mostly for vocabulary.
Yes, IMO the easiest way to 'learn' the kanji is Heisig's book "Remembering the Kanji", along with an Anki deck to review daily. I 'learned' 2000 kanji this way in 3 months, with a daily time investment of about 1 hour. There are plenty of pre-made RTK Anki decks.
The reason I'm putting learn in quotation marks is because afterwards you need to reinforce them in context, ie by learning vocab and doing tons of reading (there's a term called 多読 which means it's not the quality of the material or even your level of comprehension, but just the sheer amount of pages you read).
Im learning Japanese too and both agree and disagree. There are way fewer idiosyncrasies in the language IMO, the rules tend to hold and depending on how you’re explained concepts they make more sense (は described as the “topic” particle, が described as the “identifier” particle, which most resources don’t explain properly but makes the choice much easier to understand). Sounding things out is super straightforward due to the direct mapping from sounds to kana.
But some things are pretty elusive or just require a great deal of memorization to sound natural, like which counter words are the correct counter for the given noun, or the proper pitch accent patterns and intonation to apply to words and phrases, and speaking with the different levels of formality. Plus the huge hurdle of learning a ton of Kanji.
Kanji (at least the first 3-4000), counters, word-level pitch accent, etc are all totally learnable and I wouldn't consider them "advanced" topics. That's not to say it doesn't take a couple thousand hours to get there, just that with enough time spent studying and consuming native content learning these things is inevitable.
Likewise understanding something like は vs が to the level of a fairly advanced non-native speaker is not that difficult. Especially now that there are actual good grammar resources that don't explain things in the bizarre way that the traditional textbooks do. At that point you can _understand_ everything, and explain yourself in a way that you will always be understood.
However once you know all those things there's a whole different category of issues that separate you from native speakers. Case in point: this 331-page book [1], written in Japanese, only about は vs が. Clearly if knowing that が is always the topic etc was enough to pass for a native, this book would not exist.
As I said, this is in no way unique to Japanese. There's a difference between speaking correctly and speaking at a native level. Most are happy with the first, and that's ok - it's mostly an academic exercise once you go beyond that.
>Kanji (at least the first 3-4000), counters, word-level pitch accent, etc are all totally learnable and I wouldn't consider them "advanced" topics.
For reference, the Kanji Kentei test[1] has 12 levels.
> Level 2 is as high as many Japanese, even those with higher education degrees, tend to go. Passing level 2 can be used as leverage when applying for jobs, etc. Passing levels pre-1 and 1 is especially rare even among native speakers.
Level 2 has 2136 daily use kanji. Pre-level 1 has 2965 kanji, Level 1 (the highest) has 6355.
The Kanji Kentei tests production. I probably couldn't even produce 500 kanji without a computer/phone), and I don't think I will ever make it much further than that, because why bother? When would I ever need to handwrite kanji without access to a digital dictionary?
Recognition, however, is an entirely different story. To be able to recognize 98% of words, which is approximately the amount you need to be able to deduct the meaning of the remaining words from context, in the average novel you need something like 3000-3500 kanji.
The good news is recognition is much easier to achieve than production. With Heisig you can learn the first 2000 kanji (recognition only) in about 3 months, the next 1000 are more difficult because they're less common, but still it's nothing compared to passing even the lower levels of the Kentei.
Japanese is hard for different reasons but some of them are self-inflicted. Bothering with pitch accent is one: no second of effort towards it will be ever relevant in comparison to learning new vocabulary or collocation. An other big issue is indeed in manuals, which teach sentences construction with the English logic instead of the Japanese one (eg starting with 私は学生です already poses 3-4 pedagogical problems). I’m working on a conversation guide (in French for now) to avoid those issue but that’s a lot of work...
Disagree re pitch accent being unimportant - it depends what your goals are and what your experience level is. If you’re competent enough with grammar but screw accent up constantly Japanese people get tired of listening to you, when you nail it people are more at ease talking to you in my experience. Like someone messing up stress in English all the time.
If your goal is to get over that then it’s absolutely worth studying, and arguably it’s worth studying early before you pick up bad habits in the first place.
As the parent mentioned, it’s all dependent on your goals.
> There are way fewer idiosyncrasies in the language IMO, the rules tend to hold and depending on how you’re explained concepts they make more sense (は described as the “topic” particle, が described as the “identifier” particle, which most resources don’t explain properly but makes the choice much easier to understand).
In my opinion this perspective more likely reflects your comparative lack of exposure to Japanese than to English. For example, you mentioned wa and ga as an example of an actually clear concept (albeit foreign), but in speech these particles may be dropped, and choosing what to drop also adds subtle meaning to what is communicated.
Well the English 'counter words' for animals are also tough aren't they? Ok, a flock of birds everybody knows as well as a murder of crows. But what about an exaltation of larks? And is it a school of dolphins or rather a pod?
Most of those collective nouns are just made up and are not used in the real world: "In the course of the 14th century, it became a courtly fashion to extend the vocabulary, and by the 15th century, the tendency had reached exaggerated and even satirical proportions." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun
I read an interesting article about it a few weeks ago, b̶u̶t̶ ̶I̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶f̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶t̶. (Edit: wccrawford linked it: https://www.audubon.org/news/no-its-not-actually-murder-crow...) There's a quote from a biologist who studies wombats about the supposedly-correct collective noun for a group of wombats: "Wombats do not form groups in the wild."
And then there's ridiculous ones, like "a murder of crows", that many people know because they're ridiculous, but people still don't use them.
And then there's a ton that almost nobody knows, and nobody uses.
In the end, it's not a big deal. Unlikely Japanese, where they really do use counters for those kinds of object. Flat things like paper, cylindrical things like beer bottles, etc etc.
Not going to defend the consistency of English for a second but for that particular example: paper isn’t sliced, so it wouldn’t make sense to refer to “a slice of paper”.
Obviously the standard usage of a “piece of paper” is pretty arbitrary, but slice is clearly wrong.
On the other hand, all 3 of those can be used with "piece of". Slice describes something that was done to it, and sheet describes its form. (As opposed to scrap or some such term.)
I don't see how that's inconsistent. Slice is used to describe things that are cut from a larger whole, particularly for food, while paper is manufactured as sheets.
English uses those also to some degree: a case of beer, a carton of eggs.
But, yeah, if you told me to pick up some eggs and a a carton/box of beer, I'd know what you probably wanted. (In the latter case, I might ask if you wanted a 6-pack, 12-pack, or 24.)
Pandemoniums of cockatoos are still rather common in Australia, especially considering the ruckus they bring along, and the occasional damage they cause.
Ok, so that was a bad example. What about order of adjectives, do people in the UK bother about that? Like a red metal big ball, or a big red metal ball?
> What about order of adjectives, do people in the UK bother
Yes.
Usually size comes first: big red metal ball.
red big metal ball sounds wrong to me and so do metal red ball and red metal big ball.
But I'm not sure if it can be succinctly expressed as a general rule. It's just something that native speakers do without thinking, seeing it written in the wrong order or hearing it said in the wrong order just feels wrong to me. Perhaps a linguist could provide a rule, or at least a rule of thumb.
"Important" is dramatically overstating it. I've only ever seen anyone remark on adjective order in an ESL class.
English is full of ordering constraints that matter. This isn't one of them; if you put your adjectives in a strange order, the worst thing that can happen is that people realize you're foreign. [1] And the odds are they knew that anyway, unless you managed to learn perfect pronunciation without absorbing common speech patterns.
[1] They may not even notice. ESL classes treat adjective order as a big deal, but native speakers will often violate the normal constraints if they have to string together several adjectives in a row. You're most likely to be noticed if you put exactly two adjectives in the unconventional order.
This isn't even to take into account that we flub our speech (not to mention writing) all the time. It's easy to imagine someone saying "red... Metal... Big ball!" because that was the order that the features of the ball arrived in their mind.
So there's a difference between planned speech and rushed speech, and there's piecing together what someone means through their mistakes.
For another example, last night I was watching some Zoom comedy [0] and one of the comedians twice fumbled their joke, saying a word that was important to the punchline too early. So they abandoned the joke and moved on. Inferring what had happened was fairly natural, but you really had to have a robust (as in, fail-safe) grasp of English and, I suppose, culture, to roll with it.
> This isn't even to take into account that we flub our speech (not to mention writing) all the time. It's easy to imagine someone saying "red... Metal... Big ball!" because that was the order that the features of the ball arrived in their mind.
Well, I meant to; this is what I had in mind when I said "native speakers will often violate the normal constraints if they have to string together several adjectives in a row".
i have a similar experience. i became mostly fluent after a year of living in the US during high school. (and then living in the US again and other english speaking countries for a few years)
i always explained to people that complained about learning german being hard, that i felt that german is hard at the beginning, but once you are over the hurdle, it gets a lot easier, whereas english is easy at the beginning, and it keeps getting harder.
learning german is like climbing up a steep road followed by a shallow incline, whereas learning english is a not so steep road that just keeps going up and up and up.
I would describe your statement of german to be accurate in terms of how I've been learning it. I'd classify myself as a soft A1 but i have a decent vocabulary built up and can generally understand what a sentence is saying even if I don't know all the words. The foundation of the language is vital to learning it and as a native English stuck in SVO, the german sentence structure gets weird fast. But then it just clicked. Like oh I know where to put that now! The hard part i have is knowing which specific word to use because in context the meaning of it could change based off of how a native would use it. Honestly, the conjugations don't scare me so much as they used to. I'm not good at all with like accusative, genitive, etc but I don't think twice when altering verbs.
I agree with both of your premises. I started going to International school when I was 10 and got all my education in English. I got two college and one masters degrees. I am fairly confident in my ability to use English yet my wife is American and every day she finds something to correct in my English.
My wife have been learning Turkish using Duolingo and a Turkish learning platform for the past couple months, and she can hold her end up in basic conversation. We have many expat friends who have been learning Turkish for a year or so and they can communicate pretty well.
Turkish syntax is wildly different than English syntax, and pronunciations are throat based rather than tongue based. There are lots of synonyms and parallel meanings in everyday use. Moreover there are not many resources to learn Turkish from. Yet, people start speaking broken Turkish enough to communicate complex ideas within a year.
Something I've heard fairly consistently from people who've learned English as a second language is that it's relatively easy to learn English to a basic or intermediate level, since English grammar is relatively simple (no genders, no cases, simple verbs, etc), but taking your English from intermediate to advanced is much harder because of all the weird quirks, irregularities, idioms, phrasal verbs, inconsistent spelling etc..
My experience of learning several Asian languages as a native English speaker is kind of the opposite - the initial learning stage is very hard and it took me a long time to get to a point where people would understand me at all. But once I got over the initial hump, things progressed from "basic" to "intermediate" quite smoothly. (I never stuck around for long enough to get from "intermediate" to "advanced" though, so who knows.)
OTOH, English speakers are happy to accept that you speak decent English with a relatively low bar. I can have a conference call with French, German, or Russian accented people, where nobody questions whether those people understand the content of the conversation.
Certain languages are so specific that as soon as someone says one wrong thing, everyone switches to... English. Happens all the time in every other language that I know anything in. Someone shows up who gets a der/die/das wrong, or they can't do a soft Danish D, or they muck up a tone, and everyone else looks at each other and reply in, of all things, foreign accented English.
Yeah, part of the bargain of making English the international language is a shared understanding that bad English is good enough. It doesn’t fly in any other language that I’ve used.
Sometimes I point this out to mollify friends who complain about English linguistic/cultural hegemony. The flip side is that, e.g., my French colleagues are much more able to insist upon standards in their mother tongue.
I’ve gotten the “Please, sir, we do this in English” response most often in Paris, but I don’t get frustrated by it. I tried, but it wasn’t good enough. Fair enough.
And, even if not bad, relatively simple. If you do what I'll refer to as business writing, even if you don't totally dumb it down and chop it up into short sentences as tools like Grammarly will nag you to, your editor is still not going to want a lot of long sentences, "SAT words," complex tense structures, etc.
This has another side: non-native speakers are expected to understand different accents and flavors of English just like an anglophone would. For example, as a Russian native speaker, I had real trouble comprehending even a slightest French accent, while having zero issues with others. I'd imagine there are a lot of ears "incompatible" with my own accent, so I spent a fair amount of time on getting rid of it.
Even native speakers can have trouble understanding some British accents. Most of my family has lived in Texas for several generations and are monolingual English speakers, but one cousin was born in and has lived his whole life near Liverpool, and sounds a bit like it (omitting long story about immediate aftermath of WW2 and my feckless great uncle). His wife is from Cheshire and has a rather strong accent. I understand her just fine, but went to college on the East Coast, had professors and classmates of varied linguistic backgrounds, and have spent most of my adult life in Germany.
When they visited Texas for a family reunion, several of my cousins who have not spent much time around non-Texans honestly asked about the language she was speaking.
For that matter, deep South and Cajun accents can be tough for a Northerner. I worked in New Orleans for a few years. A friend of mine from undergrad was also working there. He was from Jacksonville in northern Florida, so less deep South language-wise than other places. I remember telling him once I sometimes really had trouble understanding people. His response was that he did too.
More of a tangent as I agree with your point, but...
I think this diversity, while large, is still less than in many other languages. As one example of many, just within Europe there are accents/dialects of German in Switzerland that are largely mutually unintelligible even to some other Swiss German speakers, and nearly entirely unintelligible to most Germans. This is also true for dialects of Italian, or even Dutch, according to friends from those countries. It's generally even more fragmented outside of European languages.
Unlike English, some of these cases don't even have easily standardized registers. In my experience, people in Birmingham or Glasgow, for instance, can fluidly switch to a more standardized accent and dialect that's natively or "intuitively" understandable to a speaker from North America or South Africa.
I think the primary factor that causes this perception is the lack of any proper dialect continuum between English and another language. There are of course a few minor ones like English<->Scots and English<->Jamaican Patois, but nothing significant that any sizeable number of speakers would encounter.
Dialect continuums between languages are basically the norm around the world. You can even connect Sicilian to Portuguese for example.
I would assume the primary reason English isn't part of any major one is because Britain is an island, otherwise English would probably connect to Dutch and join the West Germanic continuum. It would then appear just as fractured as any other language.
This is a good point. When I was in Switzerland they had a guy from Muothathal on TV. TV decided to subtitle him. I thought Swiss German was weird, but this fellow seemed to be speaking a completely different language, to my beginner ear.
The thing is though, you can ask people to speak High German instead of mundart, eg at meetings. They admit it's different enough to warrant explicit statement.
You can't be telling your Liverpudlian or Brummie to speak the Queen's English, that would be rude.
A few years ago I visited an office in Birmingham which is less than 100 miles. Someone was trying to tell me a password and I had to get them to write it down after several failed attempts. The basic sound of some of the letters was just completely different. I also have a strong accent which can be much harder to understand than a none native speaker.
I'm not the person you asked but I am someone who worked to change my accent (successfully enough that I have gone from a thick, easily identifiable accent to not having anyone guess that I was not local to where I live now in the last 15 years or so).
There's no real trick to it other than paying attention. Record yourself speaking, listen closely to how the sounds you use differ from the accent you want to have. Then practice saying those sounds over and over until they become natural. Keep at this for several years.
It's painful to do (though I find it less so if you focus mostly on specific sounds rather than listening to your full speech -- it's easier to separate the sound from the revulsion of hearing your own voice that way) but it works.
It’s also because English is currently the bridge language, also known as Lingua franca.
I find that the main thesis of this post is in agreement with my experience, been using English for 20 years and haven’t explored all the galleries and tunnels inside the language.
You might as well call me English too (I live in Wessex after all)!
What WP seems to have forgotten to mention is who actually used those terms. I'm prepared to be shot down but I doubt there was a properly defined concept of "Western European" between say 300 to 1500 in the right hand side bit of what we now call Europe.
What you are on about is the left and right Roman Empires (my terms) and how they talked about each other.
The left lot is now nominally modern Germany and France and much besides, what was called the Holy Roman Empire. The right lot is the Byzantine Empire.
Now, your Franks were part of the left lot. The Franks were a tribal identity, cf Saxon, Angle, etc. The Franks is where la belle France gets its name (cf Frankreich, and Französisch - German names for France and French.)
I am English (by assertion and routine) but my family name says I am descended from Germans on the male line (Brits being patrilineal.) As it turns out 300 odd years ago from a Hanoverian merchant seaman and (very) loosely on my matrilineal line 500 odd years ago I have a ancestor from Padstow in Cornwall. I also have inroads from all of the home nations (England, Ireland (both), Scotland and Wales). There are also quite a few other inputs to my blood line from much further abroad.
One of my uncles is quite fastidious in his research and has many thousands of people in the DB.
We use kg most of the time for weight unless lbs and oz work better.
The m is very handy and we spell it correctly hereabouts - metre (unlike your mates in the US) but when subdivided, the cm is 2.54 too small (1 inch is 2.54 cm)
The Holy Roman Empire was a right old mish mash, just like the Pretannic Isles or Brythonic Isles or whatever.
Nowadays people are so wrapped up in modern boundaries and notions of nationalism and fail to notice that history is rather messy.
My family history has been rather well researched by my uncle who has a no nonsense approach to his findings. We have at least one mass murderer in the bloodline. An innkeeper of a pub and hostelry on Salisbury Plain at a crossroads was not a nice person. There was a chair that dumped people into the cellar where they were butchered. The whole thing has been hyped somewhat but it was 200 odd years ago. During WW1 an ancestor may have run away during a Zeppelin raid on Kent. We know he was signed up to join the army and had done basic training and was sent to a camp in Kent before despatch to France. He would have had a pass to visit relatives within reason. Anyway it gets complicated.
My point is that a simple comment like "the Franks themselves spoke a Germanic language" is a bit trite (no offense meant). We classify the Frankish language as Germanic, but then we also classify modern English as such. My name is also quite literally testament to how daft it gets.
Yeah I've heard/seen that a lot. I know a few foreigners with great English, but they still make mistakes all the time. It must be one of the least consistent languages out there. But most languages probably have some interesting surprises at the "advanced" level. I learned French for a long time. It's hard at first because the spelling/pronunciation is weird for an English speaker. Then it gets much easier, because French is in fact a fairly consistent language with nice structure. However at the advanced level French has quite a few surprises. Strange inconsistencies preserved for historical or aesthetic reasons, opaque idioms, surprising new tenses, chains of relative clauses to make your head spin...
My first language is Russian. I learned English from 12 to 14 to a basic level and from then came to the US and learned the rest of what I know here. Some thoughts:
1. English has a very simple, pre-defined sentence structure. Run-on sentence are discouraged. The language has almost logical decisions regarding the use of the verb “be”. Words are rarely skipped because they are implied. By contrast Russian is much more contextual and free flowing. “I love you”, “you I love”, and “love I you” are all valid sentences with slightly different meanings. “To be” is often skipped. “I hungry” is valid because what else would you put between those two words other than “am”?
2. English has almost no conjugation. The only word changes that happen. Are for present to past or past perfect tenses (go/went/gone). By contrast in Russian you end up conjugating loads of words depending on the relationships between the object and the subject based on direction, action, possession, and gender.
3. English has nine tenses plus the infinitive. Russian has 3+1, which encapsulate the meaning of the 9+1 in English with implied context.
4. English used articles the/a/an to indicate specificity. Russian has no such concept.
5. Word munging is uncommon in English. When a new word is coined it is mostly atomic (app, tweet, selfie). You rarely can take two existing words and combine them with a prefix, a suffix, an ending and get a new word that is grammatically correct. In Russian “protoplanotraincycled” would be a word you could coin and use on the fly.
Those are just some of the more glaring examples of differences. Aside from the extra/more specific tenses and the articles, Russian contains all the complexity of English. Therefore as someone who knows Russian, I think it’s easier to learn English. This is like if you know Haskell you probably have an easier time learning Basic but not the other way around.
Where the drudgery of English comes in is vocabulary. Anyone that tells you that the SATs are not biased towards native speakers is full of putrescible waste. I used to play this game when I was in high school where I would hand a sizable English/Russian translation book to a friend and tell them to pick any Russian word and I could translate it to English. I had a nearly perfect success rate. The vocabulary just isn’t full of obscure $5 words. And before you object that this was simply because the book didn’t contain all the words in usage, not so: the Russian language is just a smaller language where words’ meanings are changed with prefixes and suffixes more than by using entirely different words.
In English why do you need to say “exacerbate” when you can say “make worse”? Or “defenestrate” when you mean “toss out the window”? The usual answer I hear is that it’s because it makes the language more beautiful and precise. I think it makes it inflexible and inconvenient in the same way that it’s easier to have 26 letters combined in arbitrary patterns than 5000 kanji that each represent one or more things.
P.S.: this is why cursing in English is so simple and stunted while in Russian I can have a conversation with someone using nothing but the word “dick” and it would be not only perfectly understandable but also quite expressive.
P.P.S.: “dick off the dicks over the dick and re-dick them dickwards” is close but not close enough. Russian is a nightmare to learn, 0/10 would not recommend.
In English why do you need to say “exacerbate” when you can say “make worse”? Or “defenestrate” when you mean “toss out the window”? The usual answer I hear is that it’s because it makes the language more beautiful and precise. I think it makes it inflexible and inconvenient in the same way that it’s easier to have 26 letters combined in arbitrary patterns than 5000 kanji that each represent one or more things.
You have to thank the British and the social class system they have invented. A person who can exacerbate a matter by virtue of defenestrating something (or someone) is at least of the middle class social status, and by listening to their speech accent in person, you will also be able to reason about how posh was the school they – naturally – attended (low class people went to a school but did not attend it). «Exacerbate» vs «make worse», «defenestrate» vs «throw out of the window», «attend a school» vs «go to a school» are examples of social register words that are specific to a particular social status of the person or a social group they belong to. Middle to upper class people tend to use more words of French and Latin origin to stand themselves apart from people of a lower social class who tend to use more words of the Anglo-Saxon / Germanic origin.
Social register embedded at the language vocabulary level is not unqiue to English (for instance, Korean, Thai, other SE Asian and some native North/South American languages also have multiple registers that require switching to the most appropriate vocabulary depending of how old, how regal, how well known etc the receiver of the speech is), but the clear indication of socioeconomic background is likely a rather unique trait of the English language.
Bah, we have this in Greek also. How "cultured" one is can be seen in their speech. In Greek it's not speaking with big words ("exacerbate" vs. "make worse") but how many old Greek words one uses. For instance, pretentious twats that fancy themselves to be educated above the common folk will use words that sound like something Solon would have said to his slaves or Konstantine II to his horse.
Then there's the matter of diacritics. Hellenistic Greek used to have a panoply of diacritics, of two kinds, one kind to change the pitch of vowels and one to indicate a soft or hard sound (occasionally used on consontants, particularly rho, ρ). These could even be combined together to make Greek text something that looked a little like a vim regex. With time, Greek pronounciation lost its pitch accent and the diacritics became irrelevant to spoken Greek. Yet they were kept on in written text until the early 1980's when they were finally abolished from the school curriculum so most people today don't know how to use those. Unless of course they make a point of writing in the "polytonic" system that includes the diacritics, which they will invariably tell you is because "that's more correct". In truth, it's not more correct, it's anachronistic and archaic, but it marks the person out as someone who is e r u d i t e.
So it's not just English, sorry to say. In fact it's easier to see how you'd have classism in the UK, which is, after all, a United Kingdom, with a monarch and hereditary (?) lords and all. In a place like Greece it's harder to justify because there everyone is basically middle class, with small variations- and we booted our last king out in the 1970's. So here it's even more pathetic when people put on airs. In the UK it's more a political thing, they're trying to put you in your place. But in the UK, it's not the language that's the problem, it's that society is rigidly stratified and language is only the symptom of the awful inequalities.
> In Greek it's not speaking with big words ("exacerbate" vs. "make worse") but how many old Greek words one uses
To be fair, in English it's not really “big words”, either, it's also old (but not particularly English; Greek, Latin, and French are pretty high on the list.)
Exacerbation (from which exacerbate is a back formation) is a fairly direct import from Latin. Defenestration was from (IIRC, at the time—and this was 400 years ago—already archaic) French. sic, which is definitely not a big word, is often perceived this way, again a Latin import. &c.
I'd argue that it's less pretentious and more helpful to non-native speakers, as it indicates pronunciation. It's a marker that the word is pronounced "co-op-er-ate" and not "coop-er-ate". The diaeresis works much like vowel markers in Hebrew to make the words easier to pronounce for people reading a word they might not have heard pronounced.
So why don't they just leave the dashes in, you know, like co-operate? I think a dash is much easier understood than an umlaut. Especially for native speakers
> Unless of course they make a point of writing in the "polytonic" system that includes the diacritics, which they will invariably tell you is because "that's more correct". In truth, it's not more correct, it's anachronistic and archaic, but it marks the person out as someone who is e r u d i t e.
Indeed, Greek language definitely needs a spelling reform.
To be fair, once upon a time, England was full of English people. The educated would know Latin as that was the language of the church and of international correspondence. Then, the Normans arrived and the upper classes rapidly became somewhat French. So, the difference in speech between upper class and commoner as well as between educated and less educated (England had remarkably high literacy rates even among the commoners) has a strong historical basis. I also haven't even mentioned the influence of Danish (Viking) on the language. I would guess that part of the richness of the vocabulary is down to the fact that English is an amalgamation of several languages.
It is deeply rooted in history, indeed; however, the British class system is a much more recent invention, and came along to become solidified with an onset of the industrial revolution, if I am not mistaken. The social divide had become so stark that good education became a privilege of middle and upper classes. Commoners could no longer afford paying for their education, hence they had no way of learning «fancy» Latin and «Greecian» words.
As for the Old Norse influence on English, I believe it is still a thing in Orkney Islands and in the local dialect locals speak. Danes at the time, when they took a questionable joy of raiding and pillaging villages and towns across British Isles spoke, essentially, the Old Norse
> In English why do you need to say “exacerbate” when you can say “make worse”? Or “defenestrate” when you mean “toss out the window”?
This is the thing about English. Everyone can learn intermediate English, but there's a long tail of vocabulary that comes from other languages. Often you find there's an English word, a French work, and a Latin word for something. You'll then discover that there's some subtlety of meaning between them. For instance, if someone has only figuratively been booted out of a position (politics), they've been defenestrated. You'd never say they've been tossed out the window.
Part of me suspects the French and Latin imports are to do with the elite who wanted to check if someone had been educated at the right places.
You only get defenestrate in quite pretentious literary essays. I'm English and only came across it recently. I think the availability of Google has made that sort of stuff more common writers can use obscure words and rather than have 90% of their readers not understand, now they can google it. English has a vast stock of words like that that some writer probably made up a centuries ago - there's a lot of old literature out there.
And punny and other wordplay headlines. For example, I could absolutely see, if there were a politician named Fenwick who was fired, a headline writer doming up with: Fenwick defenestrated.
It's not an uncommon word, even in speech. I did a quick check and the Times, Telegraph and Guardian all have plenty of examples of its use, too, across different sections of the paper. Even the Daily Mirror had 4 entries.
Ophthalmologist is derived from old Greek. I have never visited an eye doctor but I get my specs from an optician. Eye doctor makes sense as a concept and I have said it myself but is not routinely used.
The Normans brought Old French with them and that became the court language. Old English was more Saxon based. The classic examples of the effect of that invasion are meat vs animal names eg beef (French) and cow (Saxon).
>I have never visited an eye doctor but I get my specs from an optician.
You sure? At least where I live, you get an exam from an "eye doctor" (typically an optometrist) when you get a prescription. An optician fits and sells glasses. Ophthalmologists are M.D.s who have broader latitude in prescribing medications, etc.
This is one of the differences between UK and US English. In Britain, the term "eye doctor" just isn't used.
It's of a type with legislator vs law-maker; it's only really in the past few years that politicians in the UK have occasionally been referred to as law-makers.
Sure, I could have offered a better example, but the point is that English has enjoyed some wrenching integrations over time, Hastings having caused a big one.
> In English why do you need to say “exacerbate” when you can say “make worse”? Or “defenestrate” when you mean “toss out the window”?
In English, the short, common words are the oldest ones, from Old English and Anglo-Saxon origin, the language of everyday people. The long, flowery and poetic usages came later, via French, Italian and Latin, the language of the French invaders from 1066.
You see these two distinct forms a lot in Shakespeare. Indeed he popularised many of the borrowings. Here is one great example from Macbeth:
"Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green one red."
Back in 1606, when Shakespeare wrote Macbeth, only the best educated could understand "... will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine". So Shakespeare finishes with "making the green one red", which everyone got.
* multitudinous - from Latin "multitudo"
* incarnadine - from French "incarnadin", via Italian and originally from Latin.
* red - from Old English "read", similar root as the German "rot" and Dutch "rood".
* green - from Old English "grene", similar root as the German "grun" and Dutch "groen".
So short words = old, Germanic; complicated words = newer, Latin or French/Italian.
> Anyone that tells you that the SATs are not biased towards native speakers is full of putrescible waste.
> The long, flowery and poetic usages came later, via French, Italian and Latin, the language of the French invaders from 1066.
My wife (nonnative speaker, European, Romance language) started looking at GRE vocabulary at one point. She found most of the hard words were super easy; it was the everyday ones that proved tricky.
The hardest things I found in Russian were the mobile stress - the way the stress on the noun or verb moves around depending on tense/case etc - and the sheer amount of irregularity in the inflections. The vocabulary is smaller though and it's also shared among other Slavic languages - I can get at least the gist of a newspaper headline in Polish or Bulgarian based on my knowledge of Russian, and I can imagine if you're a Slav native speaker it will be much easier than English.
That all said I found Finnish far easier, consistent and logical, even though it's not even in the same Indo-European family.
I'm Greek, so not a Slav, technically, but once I was in Plovdiv in Bulgaria and I realised I could read all the store signs. Not only where they in an alphabete very similar to the Greek alphabet (compared to the Latin one anyway), the words themselves were also often similar. For instance, I remember looking at a grocer's shop and the sign that said "Oranges", which looked very much like "Πορτοκάλια" in Greek.
Normally Slavic languages don't have Greek roots or vice-versa, so I was a bit surprised by those similarities.
>> That all said I found Finnish far easier, consistent and logical, even though it's not even in the same Indo-European family.
Isn't Finnish the language with 50 noun declensions or something mad like that?
The balkan countries have a long history of mutual cultural influence which mostly exolains this. In particular, there is a large Trukish influence common for things like exotic fruits and foods. The name for oranges is similar in Romanian (a romance language - portocală/portocale), Bulgarian (a slavic language - Портокали / портокали), and Greek (Πορτοκάλι / πορτοκάλια), all borrowed from Turkish (a Turkic, far-eastern language - Portakal / portakal).
The same is true for tea (Ceai, Чай, Τσάι, Çay), but it is not true for older local foods - for exmaple cheese is Brânză in Romanian, Сирене in Bulgarian, Τυρί in Greek and Peynir in Turkish; apple is măr, Ябълка, μήλο, elma.
Interestingly, while they don't generally share much vocabulary, the Balkan languages all share certain grammatical traits despite their very different origins origins (some examples are the use of articles even in slavic languages, a preference for the subjunctive instead of the infinitive, the lack of a proper future form for verbs, using a compound with "want" instead).
I think the term for this is Sprachbund[1] - where a number of languages in close geographical proximity pick up each others' grammatical and other traits despite belonging to different families.
> Isn't Finnish the language with 50 noun declensions or something mad like that?
I think you mean cases? These are mostly simple suffixes you attach on the end of the noun/adjective: for example talo (house), talossa (in the house, i.e. house-in). There's some rules around vowel harmony (same as with other Uralic languages like Hungarian, as well as Turkish) and consonant mutation (so a t becomes a d in a closed syllable) but these follow regular rules with a few exceptions for some foreign loanwords.
Vocabulary is quite small with lots of compound words - however other than some aforementioned loanwords (mostly from Swedish and more recently English) the core vocabulary is pretty alien to an Indo-European speaker. Spelling is completely phonetic (everything written as it's spelt) although as with most languages there are strong regional dialects.
Finnish has a lot of up-front rules to learn, but for the most part it's pretty regular with few exceptions (there's also the lack of grammatical gender, another feature of Uralic languages). Russian on the other hand is exceptions all the way down.
Seconding this. Endings are very regular, much more so than even (say) in Estonian. The base vocabulary is small (compared to English) and is acquired by sheer repetition (both active and passive). You need to retune your ear from English though, because both vowels and consonants differentiate between single and doubled (think: I scream, ice cream, ice scream).
> For instance, I remember looking at a grocer's shop and the sign that said "Oranges", which looked very much like "Πορτοκάλια" in Greek.
And interestingly to extend this chain of connections I just read your comment and through my basic knowledge of the Greek alphabet gained through maths, and a rough proficiency in pronouncing Cyrillic I could spot that the word is very close to the Turkish “portakal” (I know a few words from spending some time there over the years).
On the one hand it is very consistent and regular, on the other hand the suffix-approach means it requires a lot of concentration in speech. (Which then often results in Finnish people replying to me in English.)
Russian I love to hear, and I love the Russian naming system (Anna -> Anya).
> Word munging is uncommon in English. When a new word is coined it is mostly atomic (app, tweet, selfie). You rarely can take two existing words and combine them with a prefix, a suffix, an ending and get a new word that is grammatically correct.
> Or “defenestrate” when you mean “toss out the window”?
The word usually appears in its noun form, defenestration, for which there isn’t really a handy alternative. You can’t really talk about The Throwing-out-of-the-Window of Prague when discussing the Thirty Years’ War, for example.
> “dick off the dicks over the dick and re-dick them dickwards” is close but not close enough
“The fucking fucker’s fucking fucked” is perfectly grammatical and comprehensible English, if somewhat colloquial.
2. Two short sentences here don't accurately convey the horror of Russian's case system, where not just verbs but also NOUNS must change (decline) into one of 6 main cases (potentially more depending on whether you consider the locative, partitive genitive, vocative, etc. as distinct cases) :D, but yes absolutely - basically, you only ever have the possessive form in English 'add 's, or for pronouns just learn 'his/her/their' and even verbs have a maximum of 8 forms (be - am - is - are - was - were - been - being), with the vast majority having just four or five.
3. 9 is an odd number to pick, most people agree there are 12 or 16, but you have (multiply as appropriate) past, present, future, simple, future-in-the-past, continuous, perfect, perfect continuous, indicative, imperative, subjunctive, active, and passive forms.
Russian on the other hand has 2 grammatical tenses (past and non-past), and 2 aspects (perfective and imperfective), as well as a couple of forms constructed using auxiliaries (immediate future, conditional). It also has gerunds and participles, and all of this before we even start thinking about verbs of motion.
4. Russian does have the concept of specificity in some cases - in particular there are some cases where the genitive can be used instead of the accusative to indicate indefiniteness.
Definitely 0/10 for recommending learning Russian, except as an exercise in masochism (10/10).
Definitely 0/10 for recommending learning Russian, except as an exercise in masochism (10/10).
Hardly a 10/10 for the BDSM part. Whilst the Russian language has retained many grammatical features of the Proto-Indo-European language, it has also dropped many (i.e. perfect tenses, the aorist, a number of noun cases, merged long, short and ultra-short vowels into same quality vowels and lost all nasal vowels and the list goes on). Russian, whilst having its own share of linguistic quirks (but, hey, what language does not?) is no more complex than, say, Sanskrit.
For the purpose of inflicting severe bouts of pain in the rear orifice, give Basque (an absolutive-ergative language) or Georgian (a Kartveli language with the split ergative) a go. Both have no known language ancestors, both are highly agglunative languages with some serious phonetic challenges and with a wealth of deliciously mesmerising grammatical peculiarities.
Or try native highly agglunative North / South American (e.g. Navajo for agglunative and fusional delights and the tenseless verb conjugation by 7x modes and 12x aspects of each mode and Quechua for reversed concepts where future is placed «behind» the past which is always «ahead»), or Innuit, or North-Caucasian languages. Russian will feel like a godsend and a breeze after that.
Those all sound super exciting. I'm in Hungary at the moment and the language here is also pretty agglutinative, so that's not so scary, but the idea of seven modes and twelve aspects is... well, next level.
I revise my 10/10 downwards, based on what you've mentioned here to somewhere around a 6.
> Where the drudgery of English comes in is vocabulary. Anyone that tells you that the SATs are not biased towards native speakers is full of putrescible waste.
How much of Russian's vocabulary is "native"? My understanding it that English's vocabulary is pretty messed up because it's a mongrel language: Germanic substrate with substantial portions replaced or augmented by medieval French, with lots of Greek/Latinate vocabulary for "educated" topics. That's made even worse because it tends to adopt words complete without translating foreign spelling systems (notable recent example: Pinyin). Things would be a lot simpler if the vocabulary had evolved from the original Anglo-Saxon substrate.
English also holds onto gender for some French loan words (fiancée, blonde), accent marks, Latin plurals (cacti), the Latin notion of the word (viruses because viri is bad Latin), and occasionally Latin gender and plural (dominatrices). But not Greek plurals, so it's octopuses, not octopodes.
>> But not Greek plurals, so it's octopuses, not octopodes.
With the exception of (one) phenomenon, (many) phenomena, hopefully?
Also, now that I think of it: pegasus/pegasi, prolegomenon/ prolegomena, lemma/ lemmata, schema/ schemata, etc etc. There's one ending in -omenon that I keep forgetting...
As far as I can tell, the English rule is "sometimes we take the loanword's pluralisation, sometimes we don't, just memorise every single case and don't worry if you get it wrong sometimes"
For example, Samurai and Kimono are both loan words - but we import the pluralisation of Samurai (Seven Samurai) [1] whereas Kimono pluralises with an s on the end (Seven Kimonos) [2].
Another one I just remembered: "automaton/automata".
This site lets you search for English words by suffix, and the only words it can find ending in "-omenon" are "phenomenon" and... "superphenomon". What a phenomenal result.
IIRC, octopus, while Greek in origin, came into English mainly through scientific Latin, which probably plays a role in it not having a Greek-derived plural, or at least not dominantly (you will encounter both octopi and octopodes in English sometimes.)
I don't know either percentage estimation or comparison with other languages, but significant portion of Russian common vocabulary comes from other languages. Major influences are Greek, Tatar, Turkish, latter, French, and, most recent, English.
About the same %, i think. The only difference is russian language can absorb almost anything, applying usual rules - so newly imported words are feeling native almost immediately
> About the same %, i think. The only difference is russian language can absorb almost anything, applying usual rules - so newly imported words are feeling native almost immediately
That's probably it: it's not the origin of English's vocabulary that makes it difficult, but its bad habit of not adapting borrowed words to conform to the English system.
If English speakers would rework spellings and plurals to match English when borrowing a word, it would be a lot easier for everyone almost all the time (the only exception I can think of is the rare situation (of questionable utility) where an English speaker can recognize a borrowed word in its foreign context).
I’m learning Polish (from English), which is very similar grammatically and even allows for some understanding of Russian (with many false friends of course).
Going back to an earlier point re English speakers understanding beginners/non-natives, I find Polish to be the opposite — I imagine it’s similar with Russian? Examples of errors that cause Poles to look at me like I have two heads:
1. Mistakes in declination: granted changing an ending can dramatically change the meaning of a noun/adverb/adjective, but the ability to infer the intended meaning seems to be largely absent.
2. Mispronunciation of syllables: neglecting to pronounce an accent, for example “mnóstwo” (plenty) vs “mnostwo” (meaningless).
3. Using a wrong conjugation with verbs or slightly mangling the conjugation, e.g., “napisałem list” (I wrote a letter) vs “napisem list” (meaningless).
4. Not breaking up a word correctly —- it’s not always obvious where one syllable ends and another begins, e.g., pronouncing “zadzwonić” (to call) as “zadz-wonić” vs “za-dwonić”.
5. When not accenting the correct syllable (usually second to last in Polish but I understand there’s no general rule in Russian).
My best guess as to why there is little natural tolerance for mistakes is because of lack of immigration. Poland is nearly entirely homogenous, and the biggest immigrant population is Ukrainians, who also speak Slavic languages.
I'll just add for anyone interested that you could replace “Russian” here with pretty much any Slavic language and most (if not all) of your observations would still stand.
As for the needles redundancy in vocabulary in English, this letter, which was discussed on HN recently, sums it up perfectly:
Almost all of latin-based words in English have been imported from French (which itself is almost entirely latin-based), including these 2. There's not much historical reason for English to pull vocabulary directly from Latin I think
Do you have evidence for that? (that these words came from French)
Your other claim doesn't seem right either, about most (let alone "almost all") words from Latin in English coming from French. Stats[0] seem to give about equal numbers of words in English from Latin and from French, 29% each. As for
> There's not much historical reason for English to pull vocabulary directly from Latin
"English has also borrowed many words directly from Latin, the ancestor of the Romance languages, during all stages of its development. Many of these words had earlier been borrowed into Latin from Greek. Latin or Greek are still highly productive sources of stems used to form vocabulary of subjects learned in higher education such as the sciences, philosophy, and mathematics."
Same here. I think we could also coin and use on the fly the word "refenestrate" which would be to throw some back throw someone back into a window they have just been thrown out of and "emphenestrate" which would be to throw someone through a window into a building.
«Эти хуи, на хуй, это захуярили и потом вместе похуярили на хуй» – «this bunch of not very nice men have done a sloppy job (of something) and then have locomoted out of here in a unknown direction»
Yes, with this example, it is possible to translate the foul language nearly bidirectionally.
The OP was enquiring upon an example of a dick conversation, hence an example of the use of the word «хуй» (a cock / a dick) to illustrate how productive the word formation can be in the Russian foul language.
Another quirk in the sample sentence is that the direction of the locomotion is not explicitly mentioned anywhere but is rather conveyed by way of a specific verb prefix «по-».
Russian verbs of motion can be uni- or multidirectional and employ prefixes to emphasise motion aspects.
The same sentence can be changed to: «Эти хуи, на хуй, это захуярили и потом вместе захуярили отсюда на хуй» to mean «this bunch of not very nice men have done a sloppy job (of something) and then have locomoted out of here in a particular direction (likely having something specific on their mind)». The prefix of «за-» disambiguates the direction and the purpose of the motion. Also notable that «захуярили» means both, «to have done a sloppy job of something» and «to get out of here / commence the locomotion».
BTW, the meaning of phrase above completely changes, depending on where you put stress in the highlighted word. :)
With both readings completely legit.
Those buggers buggered everything up and then buggered off to buggery. (Australian here, this version sounds slightly more natural than the 'fuck' version.)
> In English why do you need to say “exacerbate” when you can say “make worse”? Or “defenestrate” when you mean “toss out the window”? The usual answer I hear is that it’s because it makes the language more beautiful and precise.
That's... Not how vocabulary develops. English is a rich language in large part due to the conquest by the French - much like Norwegian is a rich language due to conquest by the Danish.
Although "defenestrate" is probably more like "tweet" than "computer" - I believe it was a bit of a "fashion statement" at the time.
It's from an event I Praha - I mean that there's very little use for the word (as opposed to "kill" or "throw out a window". It's not like sheep and mutton.
Wait, what? Norwegian is richer because of Danish?? (Also, what conquest?) I'd say it's the same language, just with lots of different dialects anyway.
What has enriched the Norwegian (and Danish and Swedish) language beyond the Germanic Scandinavian would be the importation of words from Latin, German, French, and English. All happening through trade and cultural influence, in roughly that order.
And vice versa. What has enriched English is much of Scandinavian origin[1][2].
An recent example in Sweden involved a politician protesting about anglicanisation of the Swedish language. He wanted to replace some widely used English term with a Swedish equivalent. Tracing the origin easily revealed it was instead the English who are using a Scandinavian expression. Which Swedes are now finding convenient.
Sort of. This is a somewhat modern thing. There is various punctuation--parentheses, em dashes, and semicolons in particular--that let you construct fairly long and complex sentences. But the modern style, certainly for basic communication, is to mostly break things up with periods. (To the point where it's sometimes OK if the segments are sentence fragments.)
Indeed. Go back and read some speeches from the 19th century (e.g. Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural speech) and you’ll find run on sentences everywhere. Heck, even the US Constitution is full of them.
You don't _need_ to say exacerbate instead of 'make worse', but it's a cool sounding word, so, like, why not. You wouldnt use it as a replacement for 'make worse' every time, though..there are instances where it just sounds wrong.
Defenestrate, though, is a joke word. You can't say defenestrate without tongue firmly in cheek.
P.S.: this is why cursing in English is so simple and stunted while in Russian I can have a conversation with someone using nothing but the word “dick” and it would be not only perfectly understandable but also quite expressive.
Perhaps you just need an education in high quality English swearing? Although I’m informed by my partner that Spanish is a much better language to swear in than English, if you have the choice.
Most of what you say above about English boils down to this: English doesn't compose words from parts. And so, without conjugation (in general, grammatical inflection), you need to have different words to represent different versions of the same concept. That's where the gigantism of English vocabulary comes from and where the use of the auxiliary verbs (to be and to have), comes from. The later are needed to slightly tweak the meaning of words to make them express different concepts; and, sometimes, you just need to invent a new word to say a new thing.
So for instance you go from simple "I eat" to more complex "I have eaten" to the cumbersome "I have been eating" and "I would have been eating" or, heaven forbid, "I would have had eaten". In Greek -and, I bet, in Russian or any language that allows inflection- these variations on the basic concept of eating can be expressed by verb terminations, although the occasional auxiliary verb or particle is also used: "έφαγα" (I have eaten), "έτρωγα" (I have been eating), "θα έτρωγα" (I would have been eating) and "θα είχα φάει" ("I would have had eaten) [granted, "τρώω", is an anomalous verb and its different forms sound like different words altogether... but they are composed in the same way as er omalous words, "κοιτάω", "κοίταγα", "θα κοίταγα", "θα είχα κοιτάξει" for "looking" rather than "eating"].
Then there's the thing with gendered nouns, that are absent in English but present in many other European languages. For example, to say "a male dog" in English you have to - well, do what I just did or add a pronoun ("he-dog", I don't know how this practice is called); respectively "she-dog" for female dog. In Greek you say "σκύλος, σκύλα, σκυλί" (skyl-os -a -i) for male, female and neuter (i.e. when gender is not important).
This makes English a language of many small words combined in different ways to give new meaning to utterances. It does really remind of ideographic writing as opposed to an alphabet.
But let's talk about what our languages lack that English has - you say that English has articles to indicate specificity. Most Slavic languages lack those and so native speakers of Slavic languages stand out when they use English. Instead of "the program has a bug", "progam has bug", instead of "search a list of integers", "search list of integers", etc.
In Greek again, we have a single word to indicate the position of an object "σε", as in "_στο_ τραπέζι" ("_on_ the table"), "_στην_ κουζίνα" (_in_ the kitchen), "πάω _στη_ θάλασσα" ("I'm going _to_ the beach") and "_σε_ δείχνω" ("I'm pointing _at_ you"). For me at least, after 15 years of living in the UK and using English every day, the correct use of thse different location-indicators (particles?) is still the last frontier that I haven't fully conquered and I find myself making mistakes when using them. "In the page" or "on the page"? "To the house" or "at the house"? Leaving things unsaid and relying on concept is all well and fine until you need to speak in a language that makes the ommitted information clear. Then you're in trouble and you realise you actually didn't have such a clear idea of the unsaid, after all.
I think there's a lot of bad linguistics in the linked article and in these comments, but your comment being more substantial than most I decided to focus my criticism there, sorry if that comes of as a bit adversarial. I just think that the general point that $language would be objectively easier/harder/more efficient/less efficient than $other_language based on arbitrary factoids is almost always at best irrelevant and at worst wrong. The easiest language to learn is the one that's most similar to yours. A Japanese speaker would find Korean significantly easier to learn than Spanish. Any attempt to go beyond that is IMO a fool's errand that's just going to confirm your own biases based on the languages you know and the languages you don't know.
>English has a very simple, pre-defined sentence structure. Run-on sentence are discouraged. The language has almost logical decisions regarding the use of the verb “be”. Words are rarely skipped because they are implied. By contrast Russian is much more contextual and free flowing. “I love you”, “you I love”, and “love I you” are all valid sentences with slightly different meanings. “To be” is often skipped. “I hungry” is valid because what else would you put between those two words other than “am”?
You make many points that I'm not sure I follow. Most of it boils down to "English is rather analytical, Russian is rather synthetic", which is of course correct but doesn't really mean much.
Chinese is even more analytic than English, Spanish is significantly more synthetic than either of them. What can we extrapolate from that? Not much.
Regarding the copula "to be" it's an other arbitrary attribute of a language. Some English dialects actually allow it to be dropped, in sentences like "he stupid". Japanese is also zero copula as are many languages from many language families: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_copula , I don't really think it means a lot when it comes to the difficulty of these languages.
>2. English has almost no conjugation. The only word changes that happen. Are for present to past or past perfect tenses (go/went/gone). By contrast in Russian you end up conjugating loads of words depending on the relationships between the object and the subject based on direction, action, possession, and gender.
>3. English has nine tenses plus the infinitive. Russian has 3+1, which encapsulate the meaning of the 9+1 in English with implied context.
Again, what's the argument? If anything it sounds like Russian is easier then?
Russian has verb aspect (perfect and imperfect forms) which is a rather big hurdle for us western learners not used to memorizing verbs in somewhat arbitrary pairs. You also have a huge mess of verbs of motions that are some of the most common ones and require a lot of practice to get right. идти/ехать/ходить/сходить/зайти/пройти... I get PTSD just thinking about it. However Russian conjugations are for the most part rather simple. Meanwhile Portuguese has 12 synthetic tenses (including 3 subjunctives for your pleasure), not counting the compound ones with ter/haver. Aspect is expressed through different tenses, not through different verbs like in Russian. What do we conclude from this? Again, not much IMO.
>5. Word munging is uncommon in English. When a new word is coined it is mostly atomic (app, tweet, selfie). You rarely can take two existing words and combine them with a prefix, a suffix, an ending and get a new word that is grammatically correct. In Russian “protoplanotraincycled” would be a word you could coin and use on the fly.
Just give up. Give in. Give it back. Take me on and attempt to take me over. Take it up with the linguists if you won't take my word for it. That's my take. It's a bit silly that I have to undertake this argument. We should really take it for granted that is is not true.
Some languages like Russian and German like to build compound words, in modern English and French it's a bit less common and productive. Again, so what?
Note that many English word have this compound structure, it's just often less obvious because they've been borrowed from latin or French so it obscures it somewhat. "впечатление" and "impression" for instance have exactly the same structure (в + печать + ~ение", "in + press + ~ion"), it's just probably less obvious to a native anglo than it is to your average drug because the English word is a direct loan from french. "app" is short for "application" which has exactly the same structure as приложение.
>Aside from the extra/more specific tenses and the articles, Russian contains all the complexity of English.
And English contains all the complexity of Russian. It's just expressed differently. I defy you to find an idea or concept in Russian that couldn't be expressed in English, Catalan, Arabic or Chinese. They would just sometimes be expressed differently.
If you're talking purely from a grammatical perspective then I disagree. English tenses are more varied than Russian ones, especially in the past and in the subjunctive. "If he had been there, he would've known". I've seen many Russian speakers with a high level of proficiency in English who still routinely make mistakes in these types of constructions.
>Where the drudgery of English comes in is vocabulary.
лекарь/врач/доктор, состояние/условие, перестать/остановить, вдруг/внезапно/неожиданно, прожить/выжить, идти/ехать/езжать, революция/переворот/восстание, международный/интернациональный, русский/россиский, шофёр/водитель. That's just out of the top of my head.
Interrestingly English and Russian share a similar trait here: English has many doublons like freedom/liberty which are from germanic and latin roots respectively. Russian does the same thing but with slavic and western european roots (generally german and french, nowadays also routinely english).
These faux-synonims that translate to the same thing in your language but carry sometimes important distinctions are always tricky, and in my experience they exist in every language. English has "do" and "make", French has only "faire" but English only has "know" while French has "savoir" and "connaitre".
English has "to put" while Russian has "положить" and "поставить". Russian loves to use very specific verbs where English would just use "to be": находиться, стоять, лежать, висеть and a few others. Similarly Portuguese has "ser", "estar" and "ficar" which can't usually be used interchangeably.
Anyway, I could go on. My TL;DR is that the concept of a language being objectively easier than an other is usually very shortsighted and just demonstrates a certain bias caused by the speaker's own language. Spanish is generally considered to be a relatively simple language by native English speaker, yet it's not grammatically simple. Chinese is vastly more analytic than even English, most learners will tell you that its grammar is usually very easy to grasp, yet it's often considered one of the hardest "mainstream" languages to learn for westerners.
The idea that a language like Russian would be harder to pick up or easier to master than English is laugable to me, as a non-native speaker of either. Russian is riddled with unpredictable stress patterns, irregular declensions and subtle use of word order (“I love you”, “you I love”, and “love I you” only mean the same thing superficially, mastering the nuance is where it gets tricky). English has complicated spelling rules, a mish mash of vocabulary from various origins in common use, conjugations that are only superficially simple (the forms are simple, the usage isn't). It also has phonemes like "th" which are rather uncommon and are hard to pronounce for most non-native speakers.
As for Russian's advanced stuff: after две you put feminine adjectives in the nominative plural and the noun in the genitive singular. But you can also put adjectives in the genitive plural if you want, but it's less common. Unless the stress position in the noun is different between the nominative plural and the genitive singular, in that case native speakers are more likely to use the genitive of the adjective.
That's just one random factoid I have in the back of my brain for having studied Russian. I could go on for a long time.
I disagree with your view (= that languages are objectively incomparable w.r.t. difficulty of learning them, and instead only depends on your native language), but I'm not going to try and argue about this.
However I am curious to know whether you have the same view on Esperanto?
True. My wife started learning English seriously in her mid 20s and even after over 25 years of daily, immersed, use struggles with native grammar and pronunciation constructs.
I am, at the moment, learning Spanish and also teaching English to native Spanish speakers. The languages present almost opposite sets of challenges. English is chaos: the connection between spelling and pronunciation is so random that one practically has to memorize how to say every word, as if they are ideograms; there are few conjugations to learn, but in place of that many rules for modal and auxiliary verbs; word order is extremely free, but that means that a listener needs to figure out the meaning of a sentence that might have a half dozen different structures; almost any verb can be combined with any preposition to form a phrasal verb with a meaning that needs to be memorized (put up, put down, put out (!), etc.); there are ironclad rules on one hand, but on the other, more exceptions than rules. I am fascinated by the challenge of really learning English grammar for the first time, so that I can try to explain how it works. Spanish, by contrast, is almost a formal mathematical system. There are many rules, but they are actual rules. They are difficult to master, but once you have them, they define the language. The spelling of a word tells you exactly how to pronounce it. The rules demand to be followed. My teachers are on my case for even a minor variation in punctuation, that would be perfectly normal in English. And one must beware of the different vocabularies in neighboring countries, which can get you in trouble. That situation is way worse than the differences between US and UK.
The notes in the article were interesting, but I was puzzled by the one about the present continuous tense, which does exist in Spanish. Also, the usage is the same as in English, although the use of simple present for present continuous is common in casual speech, and impossible in English (just because there are rules doesn’t mean people follow them).
While I agree with many of your points comparing Spanish and English, I disagree with several points:
In Spanish, word order is more fluid than in English--greatly facilitated by the fact that the person (1st, 2nd, 3rd...) of a verb is an ending rather than a separate pronoun. You can quite acceptably start sentences with subject, verb, direct object, even indirect object.
And while there are more rules than in English, there is also a much greater dependence on context to understand basic meaning. If you use loismo, 'lo' can refer to: you, he, she, it. If you don't pick up on a sometimes subtle contextual marker, you can quickly be talking at cross-purposes. The need for context also results from the much smaller vocabulary in Spanish, so meaning has to be interpolated by context or remain imprecise. (As a visual demonstration, look at any Spanish-English dictionary and see how much wider the English-to-Spanish section is than its counterpart.)
Your view that spelling = correct pronunciation is not as ironclad as you make it out to be. It has exceptions: Mexico and Texas being a prime examples--the x being pronounced like a jota.
I agree overall that Spanish has a clearer grammar that is more widely applied, but I don't think it's nearly as clearly defined as you make it out to be.
I agree with all this - especially the point about Mexico, etc. I was exaggerating a bit to bring out the contrasts, and as a student and someone learning how to teach the language, these contrasts seem stronger to me than they really are.
It's either Mexico and Texas, or Méjico and Tejas. Someone might mix across languages, but that does not mean that there is actually a formal exception to the rule.
Not at all. In Mexico, it's written México and pronounced Méjico. So that is definitely an exception to the pronunciation of x as a ks sound.
The spelling rule you imply is not correct either: the same Spanish speakers who write Texas for the state, write Tejano for the Latin music originating there--both of those spellings being the most widespread in both Texas and Mexico.
So I dug this up a bit, because I'm accustomed to the form "Méjico" in Spain.
You are right that México is written with an X but pronounced with a jota. However it has a special status of topónimo (place name), which sometimes don't have a translation (thank god).
E.g. "Washington" is not pronounced with a sharp S, it's just pronounced as in the original language. Or Wyoming is pronounced as "uaióming", not "bioming". Which is exactly what happens with México, in old spanish the X was pronounced as jota.
Spelling = correct pronunciation in Spanish is like 99.9% correct. The exceptions are almost always imported words. Even the tildes help you out to know how to pronounce a word you haven't seen before completely correctly, with the right stresses on each syllable. English is an embarrassment in comparison. If we did a total overhaul and simplification of English to remove all the inconsistencies, it'd be far easier to learn for everyone going forward (albeit at the inconvenience of everyone alive today).
Thank you for your educated empathy! I spent ten years in the US, have the highest proficiency level in the CEFR standard, and yet I dread phrasal verbs. Sure, I get the feeling the set of idioms I know is getting smaller as time goes on, and spelling is, well, not foreign friendly, to put it mildly.
But phrasal verbs... how can I really process that make out is somehow, intuitively, connected to kissing? What about putting out? How can a house burn up but also burn down? Putting off, setting somebody up, giving up? I will always feel more comfortable using postponing, framing and surrendering respectively. (I don't really use them more often to fit in [hey, that one almost makes sense!], but internally most phrasal verbs always feel artificial.)
For the record, coming from Spanish I feel the pain of native English speakers having to cope with to be as both ser y estar, but to this day I still have some trouble with do and make.
There is no intuitive way to know that make out has anything to do with kissing, and that was my point: each (idiomatic) phrasal verb is another unique word that must be memorized. They just happen to consist of two (or more!) other words.
I've lived in Spain for many years and speak pretty good Spanish. But there is one thing I still find relatively tricky in Spanish: the correct gender for nouns. The worst is when you're referring to something elsewhere in a sentence just by lo/la, well away from where the noun was, or have to make the adjective match the gender. If you get it wrong native speakers will not fully understand you or at least look at you weird.
For Spanish natives, the "his/her" relationship word when referring to family members can cause problems, since the "his" refers to the other person, whereas su/suya in Spanish refers to the main noun. e.g. "hermana suya" - the "suya" is female because of "hermana" (or "su hermana" the "su" is neutral), whereas in English "his sister" the "his" is male because the other person must be male, the gender of the sister doesn't matter.
Interesting point. Another thing that I recently learned is that a (for example) masculine noun, such as presidente, will take the feminine article if the person you’re talking about is female: la Presidente.
> almost any verb can be combined with any preposition to form a phrasal verb with a meaning that needs to be memorized (put up, put down, put out (!), etc.)
I knew someone who came to the US from Latvia. His observation was that in English, first you cut the tree down, then you cut the tree up.
As a Spaniard I agree with your observations. In Spanish most variations of pronunciation come from local variants, so even there there is consistency. In english is quite hard to grasp how to say new words. That's not a problem in Spanish.
For me the most difficult is pronunciation, and having so many exceptions.
> I was puzzled by the one about the present continuous tense, which does exist in Spanish
According to Spanish grammar, what would be considered the Spanish analog of the English present continuous is formally classified not as a tense, but a periphrasis.
The reason for saying that English has no future tense goes beyond just morphology. 'Will' is a modal operator that has no inherent future sense. For example, you can say "John will be here already". You can't do that with a true future tense. See e.g. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005471.h... for more on this. If you try translating the examples at the bottom into a language with a true future tense, then 90% of them will come out as gibberish, or as meaning something quite different.
It depends on how you define a tense. Strictly speaking, English has no morphological future tense, but some tense-aspect combinations are commonly referred to as a “future tense”. In Spanish, unlike «haber», «estar» is not considered an auxiliary verb in conjugation and therefore the present continuous-ish construction is not treated as a proper tense or tense-aspect pair.
There is something I’m not getting. If “I am talking” is the present continuous tense, why is «Estoy hablando» not the same tense? They seem to be exactly analogous: a verb for to be, conjugated, followed by the present participle.
I’m not a linguist, but here’s how I see it: They are analogous expressions, but as I mentioned, «estar» is not considered an auxiliary verb in Spanish conjugation. You only have «haber», while English has “to be”, “to have” and “to do”. So, technically, in English the expression is “conjugated form of auxiliary to be + gerund” while in Spanish it is defined as a paraphrasis composed of “conjugated form of to be + gerund”. Tomayto, tomahto.
To be clear, this is just a difference in the traditional grammatical terminology for each language. Linguistically speaking neither English nor Spanish has any such thing as a "present continuous tense".
Of course, the exact linguistic notion of "tense" is not particularly relevant to most people learning a language. I'm not objecting to its broader use in the context of language learning.
Regardless of how linguists classify it, the truth is that there is a direct correspondence in that respect. Every time you can use the present continuous ("I am eating") in English, you can use the Spanish equivalent ("estoy comiendo") in Spanish as well, and vice versa. It's one of the easiest thing to learn for Spanish speakers, contrary to e.g. the present simple which has quite different usage in English than in Spanish.
So saying that Spanish has no present continuous might be true in some pedantic or stilted sense of the word or in a technical context, but it's not very useful otherwise. For all practical purposes, for speakers and learners, Spanish has present continuous.
> The “-ing” progressive form of present tense (“I am reading”) is unique to English from other European languages (in French “Je mange” can be translated as both “I eat” and “I am eating.”)
At a minimum, Dutch and Spanish, among European languages, are also generally recognized as having a present continuous/progressive tense. Though this is somewhat arbitrary:
In English, the sense of the present continuous can be subsumed by the simple present, too, the present continuous emphasizes the continuous nature, but is not essential to communicate it.
And French has a construct that serves a similar emphatic function (être <conjugated in simple present> en train de + <infinitive>)
So this construct that communicates the exact same thing is not a present continuous tense but the english (to be <conjugated in the present tense> + present participle) construct is a present continuous tense; a fairly arbitrary distinction as to which productions that are applied to verb roots to form an expression which conveys a particular semantic combination of tense (time/location), aspect, mood, etc. is considered a grammatical tense and which productions that serve that purpose are instead considered idiom or something else that isn't a grammatical tense.
Yeah, that sentence is bullshit. Italian has a construct that matches the English one precisely: io sto mangiando, I am eating; io sto leggendo, I am reading; lei stava facendo, she was doing...
It's just a form of gerundio. As an Italian speaker, that's actually one of the easiest English forms to learn.
I remember I was surprised when I learned English at school, because they seemed to make a lot of emphasis on the present continuous and past continuous, and I found them trivial: they work exactly the same as in Spanish, i.e., at least off the top of my head, every English sentence analogous to "I am/was eating" can be translated literally into Spanish directly as "Yo estoy/estaba comiendo" without a second thought, and vice versa. It's not something where a native Spanish speaker learning English would make mistakes, even from a very basic level.
On the other hand, from the Spanish point of view it's much, much easier to make mistakes with the present simple, because there are many things that you can say with the present simple in Spanish but not in English. For example, to ask someone what they are eating in the present moment (not in general), in Spanish you could use both "¿qué estás comiendo?" and "¿qué comes?" (the second being more common in informal speech) and you could answer both "estoy comiendo kebab" and "como kebab". In English the first versions work ("what are you eating? I am eating kebab") but the second ones don't ("what do you eat?" "I eat kebab") and it's a super common error to make for beginner/intermediate learners, but almost no emphasis was made on that because we were busy doing a lot of exercises about writing sentences in present continuous.
I guess it was an effect of using British books written for a global audience (not tailored specifically to learners coming from Spanish) and the teachers following the books without questioning or adapting their methodology.
It's a grammatically correct sentence but it's asking something else (ambiguously). A native speaker would probably respond with "What do you mean? What do I like to eat? What type of food do I normally eat?" But they probably wouldn't take it, unless adjusting for a poorly phrased question, as "What are you eating right now?"
I was learning Italian some years ago in a class where others students were all English speakers, and it felt like cheating as the grammar was basically the same, just the words changed a bit, so I was having a much better time than anyone else! But when the teacher spoke fluently to me in Italian, obviously I would suddenly realize my Italian was still very poor and I had a lot to learn.
EDIT: by the way, the author must have meant that other germanic languages don't have "gerundio"? Looks like all Latin languages do.
In Italy it’s a running joke that everyone thinks they can speak any “Latinesque” language if necessary, because “they are just Italian pronounced a bit differently” - when obviously that’s far from the truth, resulting in very funny attempts to invent words on the spot. But yes, there are a lot of structural similarities; which is natural, considering how these languages came to be.
I find the transformation and evolution of languages in general and English in particular fascinating.
Old English was a Germanic language primarily. After 1066, the court language of England became French and remained so for centuries. It was in this period that the Middle English transformation happened.
The fascinating thing about this is that the language became much more regular in that period and, more importantly, it dropped a lot of what I as a native English-speaker at least consider pointless grammatical cruft.
For example: Old English had 3 noun genders (male, female, neuter; this being the norm for European and Semitic languages). Middle English lost that (other than male and female for people). Old English had 5 cases. By comparison, modern German has 4, Latin has 6, some Eastern European languages have more. The concept of case has almost completely disappeared from English (pronouns and the Saxon genitive notwithstanding).
It's fascinating because it seems what keeps languages unchanging is a ruling class. It's a bit like the philosophical view of grammar as being descriptive (my view) vs prescriptive. It's almost a model for conservatism being the resistance to change.
As a native English speaker I've found it difficult to learn other languages not just because of the ubiquity of English but because other languages have concepts that English just doesn't, like in German where adjectives and pronouns have to agree by case, number gender and article of a noun (eg "the" vs der/die/das/den/dem/denen/der/des). That structure just seems like such pointless cognitive load, at least to learn. I'm sure it's zero cost if you grew up with it.
But it does seem like it makes English easier to learn. Obviously there are some complexities in English (eg adjective order and the tenses).
And before anyone mentions Asian languages for simple grammar let me just point out: no clear word separators and the writing system in general (although this varies too).
The biggest problem that non-native speakers face with English is the pronunciation. There are no consistent rules which can be applied to letter combinations; and that alone makes it hard to master.
English is not my native language, but I've been using it for decades. Still have to look up pronunciation. OTOH, my native language Malayalam (and other Indian languages) doesn't really have the pronunciation problem. They're just read as they are written.
> The biggest problem that non-native speakers face with English is the pronunciation. There are no consistent rules which can be applied to letter combinations; and that alone makes it hard to master.
Compared to, say, Italian, sure, especially coming from another language using the Latin alphabet with nearly equally consistent and mostly similar mapping between sounds and writing (say, Spanish).
Compared to languages where the primary script isn't even phonetic, though, I don't see it.
What I’ve always wondered about this is if there’s a better way to present this: pronunciation in English is sort of path-dependent and I wonder if a two-phase approach of recognizing the etymological groups (Germanic-origin, French-origin, Spanish-origin, etc.) and then applying the rules for that group would make the pronunciation appear more regular.
That’s not a counter-example: the Latin root “corpus” was borrowed through French twice: once in the 16th century (corps) and once in Middle English (first corse, then corpse). This is a case of path-dependence: the newer borrowing is pronounced more like French while the older one has been regularized.
It's a definite advantage if a language is phonetic (eg German, Turkish) but there are also worse than English. French springs to mind.
English pronunciation inconsistencies are really a product of how many loan words there are, when they entered the language (ie they tend to become more regular over time) and what language they came from (eg you see consistencies in words of Latin origin vs Greek origin).
Also, at least the vowels are written in English (unlike, say, Arabic or Hebrew, generally speaking).
French pronunciation is more consistent than English, by far. Not that it is a high bar. There are more rules (digraph, silent letters and such), which is more complicated initially, but English is particularly inconsistent.
I don’t think words become more regular with time, actually. There are plenty of irregular words of Saxon origin much older than the Norman conquest. This can be seen easily in lists of irregular verbs: there is almost no Latin root there.
I don't think that's true about French. It has some weird rules, the refusal to pronounce the last consonant in a word is especially galling (ok, pun was intended), but it's fairly consistent once you figure it out.
English, though, is a slough. Enough practice, thorough practice, and you'll get through it. But it's rough going.
I think that's also the reason why Indians have a thick accent while speaking English.
A lot of the languages we learnt in India have a script that's spoken exactly the way it's written. The words contain all the information on how to pronounce it and there are no exceptions. This seems to carry over when we try to learn English (mostly to the everyone's amusement hah).
I’m a native British English speaker with two postgraduate degrees and I still come across words that I know the meaning of but when I think to use them in conversation I realise that don’t know how to pronounce them. Sometimes you just have to say ‘I’m not sure if I’m saying this right but...’ and have a crack at it.
Pedantic nitpick here, but the issue you are raising is orthography, not pronunciation.
A difficult pronunciation implies that a language has difficult sounds that non-native speakers can't pronounce (regardless how those sounds are spelled, or even if the language has a writing system at all).
Just a personal anecdote, my native language is Hungarian, and I have been studying English from pretty early on in primary school. And I was really terrible at it, I assume in part because of the “rules” that has more exceptions than applicable cases. And the language “clicked” much later on, when I accumulated enough of the language that I could “hear” whether a given sentence sounds right or not.
This is in stark contrast to my (failed) attempt at learning German, where even though I know like 3 words all together, I could form quite complex sentences because the language is so regular. I didn’t like learning all the rules, but it “clicks” much faster if they are consistent.
So my experience (as a layperson) is that a language has to be “compiled” and one must hear what is correct to be able to speak it to any reasonable extant - and in the learning phase, sentence forming is more like being “interpreted”. And perhaps a more “dynamic” language is more troublesome to compile.
Semitic languages never had a neuter gender. That's one of the prominent differences between classic Semitic and Indo-European languages.
Otherwise this description is pretty correct, but it omits an important part. Middle English was highly influenced not by Anglo-Norman (the dialect of French spoken by the Norman nobility who conquered and settled in England), but also by the Old Norse spoken by the Vikings who conquered and settled the Danelaw before them.
English has gotten about half of its vocabulary from Anglo-Norman (either in French or Latin form) and this is truly a tremendous influence. It is interesting to note, however, that Anglo-Norman mostly supplemented — not replaced! — native Old English words, and often provided a more aristocratic alternative to them. Thus the peasants who raised chicken, cows, pigs, calves and sheep for meat used Old English words to refer to the animals, but the richer classes who actually ate the meat used Anglo-Norman words to refer to it: poultry, beef, pork, veal and mutton.
Old Norse, on the other hand, probably doesn't comprise more than a small percentage (2-5%) of Modern, English vocabulary, but the parts it affected are much more core to the language, and it often replaced the Old English word, which often had a very similar sound: e.g. sister (Old Norse: systir, Old English: sweoster), egg (OE: ǣġ, pronounced 'ey'), sky (ON: ský, OE: heofon - which became restricted to 'heaven'). Even the plural pronoun "they" comes from Norse (ON: their, OE: hīe).
The loss of grammatical gender and case was probably almost complete by the 1066, when William the Conqueror invaded England. The Middle English that we start seeing a little after the Norman conquest is already missing most of the case and gender endings, which led linguists to believe that this change happened earlier, but was not reflected in the conservative writing. As you say, what keeps language unchanging is the ruling class, but this is ONLY true for the written language, which can be policed. The nobles and clergymen can't very much execute every single peasant who drops a grammatical case. But once the Old English ruling class was replaced with a ruling class who only cared about preserving French, and the writing standards for Old English lost hold, the preexisting changes started surfacing in writing.
As to why Old Norse affected Old English grammar so strongly while it had a smaller impact (in sheer size, if not importance) on the vocabulary than French, there seem to be two factors:
1. Contact between Old English and Old Norse was much higher than contact between Middle English and Anglo-Norman, since the Viking migration brought in both lords and peasants, and intermarriage was common. Language contact was especially a daily thing around the border area, which happened to be just around London. This turned out to be important, since other English dialects took more time to lose the grammatical endings, but once became the capital, the London dialect became the more important during the 14th and 15th centuries, once the royal court gradually started replacing French with English, since the English of the kings and court was most influenced by the London dialect.
2. The two Germanic languages were mutually intelligible in vocabulary, but their grammatical endings were strikingly different. The easiest way for English and Norse speakers to understand each other was to ignore the grammatical endings, and thus they lost their meaning.
I know people who have spoken English for over 10 years, but still give themselves away as non-native speakers by using the incorrect tense.
A common one is that they'll type something like "I didn't understood what he said". I can see their reasoning here: "understood" seems like the correct word to use when talking about a past event. Sadly, I don't know enough about my own native language to explain to them why they should be using the word "understand" instead.
That's actually quite a common rule found in many languages Usually the second or third verbs in a sentence take their infinitive form.
If you want to learn more about English and be able to help people in these cases, the best way is to learn a foreign language. I recommend French or German and get the corresponding "English Grammar for Students of..." book, i.e. for French: https://www.amazon.co.uk/English-Grammar-Students-French-Lea...
These books are excellent. You can read it in a day. You won't be that close to being able to speak French (as you won't know any vocabulary for a start), but you'll suddenly appreciate the grammar of your own language. It will even make you appreciate programming languages more. It's a truly enlightening experience. All the second-language European speakers you meet will know this stuff already.
"Understand" is an an infinite verb. "Understood" and "did" are finite ones. Each clause can have only one finite verb (its head) so "did" and "understood" cannot both occur in one. Put another way, "did" only takes an infinite verb as its argument.
After talking to people from a lot of other countries (inc. europeans who use English as their "lingua franca"), the main benefit of English is that it's incredibly fault tolerant. It's difficult to learn well enough to sound like a native speaker, but even if you are very far from it, you're still understandable.
Think about these phrases:
* I go store now
* I hungry
* I wash car later
* I cook food grill tomorrow if no rain
These all immediately sound like a "foreigner" speaking, yet are completely understandable. Many other languages, relying on conjugations and implicit subjects & objects are way more inaccessible to new learners!
I'd say English listeners are incredibly fault-tolerant because of how diverse English speakers are. Languages with fewer, more localized speakers are less tolerant of poor pronunciation because there's less variety in what they hear.
This x 100! My pronunciation in Czech is now pretty bang on, but when I started I didn't elongate "long" vowels enough - by that I mean a vowel like "á" should be pronounced about 50% longer than "a". My great example is when I was trying to tell my friend something about a pub called "u čápa". She told me she didn't know it, which was surprising as it was well known within my friend group. I explained its location and she said "ahhhhh, you mean u čápa!". I couldn't believe it - the difference between "I know this" and "What are you talking about, I have no clue what that could possibly be" was like 50 milliseconds more "a". But it makes sense - if you've only ever heard correct Czech your likely won't know dodgy Czech. Most native-English speakers have plenty of exposure to various levels of English-language ability, either directly via speaking to a tourist or indirectly through various other media (radio, TV, film, podcast, music).
They would be equally understandable in any language given a one-by-one translation of each word, since the same information is conveyed either way.
I think humans are the fault tolerant in language understanding, not a language. (Or in a different meaning of fault tolerance, like used in information theory, I would even wager that a more regular language will have more of it, because of some “parity checks”. For example, a disappearing subject will still make a sentence understandable because a suffix makes if contextually guessable, eg a gender)
Not much different than any other language... You can still get get quite a bit wrong and still be understood no matter what you're speaking. You dont even need to conjugate verbs necessarily.
OTOH in Mandarin, the correct way to say things is actually more or less like that :) Most of the time tenses are inferred from context, copula (the verb "to be" in "I am hungry" or "there is no rain") is omitted, and there are some prepositions but very often you don't need them (for example, you would indeed say "I go store").
A pity that it has a super complex pronunciation, tonal system and writing system to go with the extremely straightforward grammar.
Grammar is simpler, but the need for tonal agreement makes the vocabulary more complex. You can't just go to a "store". You would go to a food-store or a one-thing-store, or a store-store.
This is a really good point. It reminds me of exactly how my daughter spoke English as she was learning. It always amazed me how she put words together to make a sentence that was at face value wrong, but intent was understood. I think my two favorites were 'i scary' and 'that makes me funny'(after laughing, I guess context matters too)
English is no more or less fault tolerant than any other language. You can make the exact same sentences in Russian, German, French (I speak those so I can draw parallels) and they make the same amount of sense and sound the same (incorrect) - but you get the meaning. People here saying that native speakers of other languages are not fault tolerant but that just isn't true. There are exceptions, sure but for the most part people speak with me in German/French just fine even with the mistakes I make (Russian/English being my mother languages).
"Angloexceptionalism" really gets on my nerves to no end, and the worst part of it is that it seems it's mainly anglophone monolinguals that are making these outrageous claims, like English being intrinsically superior to other languages or being exceptionally easy to learn. Sure, English is really damn useful, but the grand scheme of things it's no more fit to be the global lingua franca than say Mandarin or Hungarian.
As a Hungarian speaker who also knows other languages, I think there is indeed a difference. To construct even quite basic sentences in Hungarian you have to learn much more rules than to do the same for English. At a basic level English feels like just putting words next to one another. I mean basics like "I go in the house. You eat dinner." To say these in Hungarian as a beginner you'd have to either rote learn stuff or prepare to work through lots of rules and tables.
In my experience English tends to be more "forgiving" and robust to non native mistakes for basic communication and the time to one's first fully correct sentence (self made) is shorter.
I'll admit my ignorance of the grammatical complexities of Hungarian beyond the fact that it's highly declined and has a really interesting case system, though I will remark that the modern lingustics community generally ascribes to the theory that all languages are equal in complexity. (This isn't necessarily an established, of course, as complexity is something that will likely never be fully quantified).
Ultimately though, learning languages is kind of a paradox in the sense it's both fairly easy and extremely difficult at the same time.
> the modern lingustics community generally ascribes to the theory that all languages are equal in complexity
That doesn't mean the complexity has to be evenly distributed along the learner's path.
Also, I'm not saying one is better than the other. But it's certainly something people experience. When I learned German, it took longer to craft correct sentences because there are more rules to pay attention to. You have to get the cases and its interactions with the genders right in every sentence for example. Same with conjugations. There is no "simple subset" of the language where you can avoid this. While there is a simple English that you can resort to and use almost perfectly with little study.
To build even a simple Hungarian sentence you need to understand vowel harmony, definite and indefinite conjugation, nuanced word order rules etc.
Also regarding this:
> the modern lingustics community generally ascribes to the theory that all languages are equal in complexity
It's very hard to quantify as you say and I don't think they'd be able to say otherwise even if it was otherwise due to fear of misinterpretation (i.e. they'd be accused of racism).
"that the modern lingustics community generally ascribes to the theory that all languages are equal in complexity."
I would love to see a citation for this.
It is easy to prove that an artificial language such as Esperanto has lower learning complexity than other languages. All you have to do is count the concepts a student has to learn.
With the thousands of languages out there, I would be surprised that all of them have equal concept count - I would think it would follow a normal distribution of some sort and that there are outliers at both ends.
This is something I happen to know a bit about, since a while ago I had a long conversation about this on a conlanging forum [0]. Unfortunately, I can give you no citation for this — quite the reverse! In fact, the general consensus seems to be that languages are not at all equally complex. My understanding is that statements to that effect are usually considered to be effectively a ‘lie-to-children’: not wrong as such, but certainly over-simplified. As Mark Rosenfelder says so eloquently in the linked thread:
> [Saying that this statement is wrong] … seems to me to fundamentally misunderstand why Linguistics 101 books say things like this. … It's because non-linguists are obsessed with which languages are better than others, and complexity is part of that. They want to hear that French is more logical, Italian is more beautiful, Arabic is God's language, Phrygian is the first language, etc, etc. They want to hear that the standard languages are better than dialects. They want to hear that primitive cultures speak primitive languages … linguistics professors all run into it and get tired of it and throw in some stuff to combat the myths.
Also, some linguists have put forward examples of genuinely simpler languages. Most famously, David Gil has suggested that Riau Indonesian is fundamentally simpler than other languages [1], but I’m sure there’s other examples.
That being said, I have a dissenting opinion: I think the vast majority of languages are indeed at about the same level of complexity (with exceptional cases like Riau Indonesian and creoles). Again, you can find some intensive discussion of my claim in the linked thread, but basically, my claim is that a lack of sophistication in one part of the grammar tends to be balanced by increased complexity in another part. e.g. Turkish has lots of suffixes making its verbs very complicated; English doesn’t have this, but compensates by using lots of auxiliary verbs with intricate rules for ordering and combining. Kalam only has about 200 verbs in total, but compensates with detailed rules for combining those verbs to give different shades of meaning. And so on and so forth.
> it's no more fit to be the global lingua franca than say Mandarin or Hungarian.
Sounds like an outrageous claim done by a monolingual ;)
These are the languages with the biggest barriers (tonal + alphabet in the case of Mandarin and weird case system in the case of Hungarian).
So no, those are the worse examples you could have picked. French could work, or maybe Japanese with a romanicized alphabet could work.
Heck, pick Latin, simplify the declensions, simplify the spelling towards ecclesiastical pronounciation and you might end up with something close to Italian.
Grammatical complexity, in my opinion is overhyped as a barrier to language learning. In my own experience, after enough time and pratice you eventually internalize grammar structures without a problem. The real issue is learning enough vocabularly to express yourself not simply fluently, but eloquently, and to be able to make it through any text you find.
Also, a few problems in your argument against Mandarin: tone really isn't a barrier. The writing system, which is not an alphabet, would actually present difficulties, but I wouldn't consider it an intrinsic part of the language - it could be changed. Writing English isn't much better, but similar complaints could be made for French.
(It should be noted that Manadarin morphology, on the otherhand, seems to discourage borrowing words, and most things are imported as calques. This could be viewed as a either good thing or a bad thing.)
Languages, in general, are around the same level of complexity. We can make comparisons and say that English inflection is massively simpler than Hungarian's , but we shouldn't concluded based on that assessment that English is simpler than Hungarian, but that this complexity is simply distributed differently.
English has a lot of relative benefits: it's closely related to a lot of widely spoken languages. And a lot of people speak it. It's not even close, even as a speaker of Spanish, which has more native speakers than English, it feels like a Sisphysian effort to find content that's just as high quality as I have been accostumed to in English, and inn any type of quantity. But none of these advantages are intrinsic to English.
My central thesis, after all, isn't that Mandarin or Hungarian, or even as easy to learn for most of the (IE speaking) world. It's that the supposed advantages of English aren't its grammar, and that English isn't a superior language by any means. History, not lingusitics, has allowed English to enjoy as much widespread diffusion and prestige as it does today.
It's a nice thesis but I disagree. Yes, the complexity of English is distributed in other places rather than in an exaggerated number of cases or multiple verbal conjugations.
But it is still easier than Mandarin or Hungarian (especially for speakers of PIE originated languages ;) ).
If you have languages that have "standardized teaching" you'll see that it takes a much longer time to go from A to B level in German than in French for example. See this (scroll down) https://www.mustgo.com/worldlanguages/language-difficulty/
Note that this difficulty is "kinda" reciprocal (not 100% because English is easy to a German speaker but not vice versa), you could have a different index for native Chinese speakers for example, but I'd bet English would be one of the easiest even then.
Sure, English has historical advantages, before that it was French and then Latin and people dealt with those in some way, so you have a point (access to a language plays much more on the ability to learn than grammar for sure).
It's not easier to learn because of grammar or vocab, but simply due to network effects. If you want to learn it, whoever you are, and wherever you live and whatever your mother tongue is there is the highest possible chance on average that you can access people who speak English, find high quality reference materials, and find native media that interests you.
If you run those considerations through all possible language pairs it's easy to see that these are the main factors that influence difficulty. Grammar, vocab, and pronunciation are a distant second.
That was the point I was trying to get at, that liguistically there's nothing "special" about English, as many people, as you can see in this thread, would claim. That's not to say there isn't a huge disparity between English and pretty much ever other language on the face of this earth, but we can ascribe it all to factors of history rather than any lingusitic factor. Once you establish a lingua franca, it tends to self-reinforce its position.
I disagree. I think English does have some inherent advantages. I can't say it's the "best", but it's certainly better than some alternatives.
There are some specific things that make it "easier" to learn: Latin alphabet with no accents, no genders, small conjugation tables, few tenses, very "relaxed" grammar. In this way English is a subset of rules already understood by other speakers.
What also needs to be mentioned, though, is its expressiveness. There are many objectively "easier" languages than English. For example: Afrikaans has a very simple grammar, being essentially a "stripped" Dutch; Spanish has a much smaller vocabulary. But all humans talk about the same things one way or another. A language being "simpler" means there must be other ways to communicate those more complex things. It's often done using very specific and nuanced rules based on context and culture.
English, on the other hand, can be mostly learnt in a book. There's not much culture to learn as English culture has already been exported widely around the world. You're much less likely to end up in a situation where you have no idea at all how to express yourself using the rules you've learnt.
There are definitely accents in English. They are just not written down which makes written English very confusing as nothing written has proper prononciation rules.
I'm convinced English is impossible to master. There are just too many corner cases.
That said, English is also a very abused language. Sadly these days, correcting someone leads to 'oh it's a living language and use determines definition', and more sadly, dictionaries play along with this idea.
This both makes the language harder to understand, and impossible to master IMO.
Its also impossible to master because what can be 100% correct in the US is wrong in India or in the UK or in Australia or New Zealand - all of who have English as their native language.
Being a de facto global language where listeners also have to learn to tolerate very wide differences in pronunciation and grammar, I wonder how this simplifies the perceived learning of the language. I know when I try to learn and use languages in other countries even mild issues with pronunciation will get you blank stare in return which is highly frustrating.
This! It’s been many years since I first started “adjusting” my processing circuits to understand all of the ways various English learners can mess up (and long ago started noticing similarities on what they consistently mess up, and their mother tongue). And don’t get me wrong, watching two or more people use broken English as their intermediary is always cool.
However, even the slightest mispronunciation in -their- tongue just hits a brick wall. I suspect it’s because so few have to deal with poor to intermediate speakers (excepting children) that their brains just can’t cope with imperfection.
He's trying really hard, but it's like nails on a chalkboard listening to him. It's worse than a bad computer text-to-speech converter.
Hungarian is one of those languages where it is shockingly difficult to learn to a level where you're intelligible at all, and learning to be fluent as an adult is borderline impossible. I've never met a person who has managed it.
For comparison, I once came across some Dutch primary school teachers on holiday that were more fluent in English than most native speakers that I know. They had a bigger vocabulary and used more complex sentence structures than I was used to from the typical locals. They had a mild, barely detectable accent.
My sister became fluent in less than a year I'd say (living in Hungary, Hungarian boyfriend, worked hard at it and super-good at languages generally). I don't know what her accent is like but she definitely has no problem being understood by Hungarians - she has since lived in Budapest for a decade and came top of her year in her Masters degree in translation there which involved lots of translation into Hungarian (including things like poetry!). So possible if difficult!
I don't think it's possible to be more fluent then a native speaker. You can sound more educated, or elite, or have better verbal skills or otherwise have a "gift of the gab", but a language is defined by the native speakers (except in special cases like Continental English or Esperanto).
One mark of high-level fluency is being able to casually confuse "less" and "few" and say things like "more better" just like a native English speaker does.
I've been learning dutch, and teaching my children to read (english, native language) The one thing that struck me is how impossible it is to "sound out" english. That is use the letters to make a stab at what the word will sound like.
Unlike dutch, the written word is only a slight guide as to how its supposed to sound.
I can't spell for shit in english, but I can spell quite well in dutch.
As a native Dutchman, I won't pretend that our language doesn't have some of these problems as well (good luck pronouncing things like "glooiing" or "apostelen" right the first time), but English is just special.
One of the simplest words, "read", has two correct interpretations that can sometimes even exist in the same sentence, with its pronunciation purely being based on context. There's an entire poem[1] about pronunciation in English that's near impossible to read for anyone but native speakers.
In my experience, speaking English is something you can learn about as quickly as you can learn any language, depending on how close your native tongue is to its language family. There's a few rules about how to structure a sentence, but overal, it's not a language that's particularly difficult to learn.
Reading becomes a challenge. If you don't know how a word is pronounced, you'll often mispronounced it the first time you read it.
When it comes to writing, you may as well be learning Chinese or Japanese; nobody in their right mind would write "thorough" and "tough" like they are written if they would come up with a writing system today.
I think the problem with English is that it's been written down without a proper reform for so long. Pronunciation changes over time, but if the written word doesn't change with it, you end up with a mess that's only making things difficult for kids and foreigners.
I'm not saying English is the only language with problems, though. If you're learning Dutch, you've probably run into the impossible "de" vs "het" problem, a remnant of when the language still had masculine, feminine and neuter. I've argued with other native speakers which articles feel more natural compared to which noun, only to find out the dictionary says both are allowed. Luckily, there are some rules (many of which are vague and full of exceptions), but most native speakers won't be able to tell them to you. Every language has its challenges.
That poem is amazing. It really brings to light how inconsistent English pronunciation truly is.
Also I bet most native English speakers wouldn't be able to pronounce most of those words correctly. Many are obscure words that rarely come up in conversation (I only know them because I watched a lot of British TV as a kid). And for the longest time I thought awry was pronounced “Aw ry” until I heard someone say it as “a wry”. The word “hagiography” has two hard g’s instead of just one. And recently I learned that the word “mercantile” in Chicago Mercantile Exchange is pronounced mercanteel rather than mercan-tile (like floor tile).
Easy vs hard is dominated not by grammar and vocabulary, but by access to the language and interest in it.
Nothing is more accessible than English, and there is absolutely mountains upon mountains of pop culture from the Anglosphere which no other language comes close to matching except for Japanese.
If you have access to people that speak the language, access to native media, and there is lots of stuff on that language that interests you, then it's easy.
If you want hard vs easy you could move to Antarctica and try learn Kimbundu.
The part about European langauges not having a present progessive tense was painful to read. Many european languages do have a present progressive, just not French and German, which aren't much of a representative sample.
Everything about English is very different just because of its standing in the world. People aren't even that interested in "mastering" other languages. Not just a native vs non-native thing either [0]. You'll see fewer books about style, copywriting and so forth targeting the native population too. People just don't do it as much in these languages and it's not as good of an investment. An American may be as interested in better writing skills as any ESL speaker. Fewer Frenchmen will think French skills are a good investment.
[0] Though this is interesting too. "Natives" of English may be more invested in this distinction than those of other languages. Native vs non-native dynamics are very different in English too.
So English is like Javascript, both languages are spoken/written by the majority of its intended engineers, have ton of resources/books/materials and lastly both the languages are easy to start but difficult to master.
Yes and it lives up to that promise. This article says English is "easy" but Esperanto is so much easier you can learn it for free along the way of learning English.
> The tests were completed by the pupils who learned Esperanto and a control group of equal size and same previous language learning experience, who did not. They showed that the children who participated in Multilingualism Accelerator classes had considerably higher scores than those who didn't.
Lots of my friends are Esperanto speakers and we use only Esperanto to communicate. I learned it to fluency in around 2 years. It’s incredibly easy to learn, super fun to use, and unique in that it bridges so many other languages that one can really experience a lot of different culture through the language.
I've 45, a native English speaker, and extremely literate. A few months ago I got into a disagreement with my husband on how to pronounce a word ("satiety"). Because I'd never seen it before, and while I could figure it out from context, it turns out my guess at the pronunciation was wrong.
English is humbling. You are still learning words in middle age. You are still learning pronunciations in middle age. It just never ends.
> The “-ing” progressive form of present tense (“I am reading”) is unique to English from other European languages (in French “Je mange” can be translated as both “I eat” and “I am eating.”)
Huh? We have the same construction in Spanish, which is another European language. "I read" -> "[yo] leo"; "I am reading" -> "[yo] estoy leyendo".
This form also exists in French, but uses a fixed expression and the verb infinitive, eg. "Je suis en train de lire", which could be translated literally as "I am in the process of reading".
It didn't say you can't express the same thing. Of course you can. The point was the present progressive tense is unique to English. Also, the translation of present progressive in English is more often than not simple present in Romance languages. I only know French but, example "I am eating" would be "je mange" in most contexts. The French way to express progressive, as "je suis en train de manger" is relatively uncommon.
I typed the following out in reply to a similar and now deleted comment about German having "Ich bin am essen" etc.:
It's not a boring detail and you're missing the point.
In the examples given in French, German and Spanish, the primary verb is "to be". That is to say, you are primarily expressing your current state. The tense is present. You are expressing your current state and in particular what you are currently doing.
In English, present progressive is a first-class tense. When I say "I'm eating a sandwich", the primary verb is "to eat". I'm telling you my current state as a side effect only. The correct translation in French would be "je mange un sandwich". If the sentence was "I can't come because I'm eating a sandwich", the translation would probably be different.
It's odd to to see people disputing the uniqueness of the present progressive tense in English. It's very well known amongst scholars and teachers. It's one of the very first things anyone learning English has to learn and, conversely, one of the first things an English speaker needs unlearn when learning a foreign language.
Sorry, but this seems like nonsense to me in relation to Spanish. The Spanish construction is pretty similar to the English one in usage. It may be slightly more restricted, but there is no linguistic basis for saying that one is a tense and the other is not. Linguistically speaking, the construction is not a tense unto itself in either language. (It's fine to talk informally about the "present progressive" as a tense, but no serious linguistic analysis of English would recognize the existence of any such tense as distinct from the present tense.)
I actually remember being misled by the myth of the uniqueness of the English present progressive when learning Spanish. I'd keep trying to avoid the use of the present participle unless the relevant event was really in progress right now. But it's really easy to find examples where this is not the case. See e.g. the headline here ("how often are you singing?"): https://www.biobiochile.cl/noticias/espectaculos-y-tv/tv/201... Or try a Google search for "these days I'm trying to": https://www.google.com/search?q=%22estos+dias+estoy+tratando...
Comparing Russian (my native language), English, and Turkish (that I've learned to lower-intermediate level 15 years ago and have since forgotten)... English has very simple rules, and tons of irregularities and exceptions everywhere. And as some have mentioned, tons of vocabulary. Aspects of Turkish sometimes felt to me almost like a programming language, it's very modular with complex rules compared to English (for a non-native learner of both), but there seem to be relatively few irregularities. Russian has both - complex rules, and tons of irregularities.
I am guessing rote learning without many complex rules is easier for most people?
PS. The biggest gap in my English that is obvious in my daily life is that I cannot for the life of me understand half of ZZ Top lyrics. Can native English speakers understand ZZ Top lyrics, e.g. "Poke Chop Sandwich" or "Two Ways To Play"?
Do you mean understanding what the words are or what they're talking about? I can understand the words in Two Ways to Play, but I would have had a lot of gaps in Poke Chop Sandwich if I hadn't already looked at the lyrics. I have little, if any, idea of what either of them are actually talking about. I get the vague sense that Poke Chop Sandwich might be their version of Fat Bottomed Girls by Queen ("waiting in the sack" and "gonna get some" might support this). Two Ways to Play is probably about a relationship, but I can't tell for sure what the problem is or what the singer is saying he wants to do about it. In any case, it seems like he wants to try again, but I can't entirely grasp what he's expressing about his philosophy of relationships.
I agree with this assessment as a person of colour who was born in an English-speaking country. I also have a degree on English. I'm currently at a threshold where I could get better, but the margins in terms of pay-off to diminishing returns is not appealing.
It's particularly frustrating when English-speakers arrogantly make fun of other languages (like Chinese/Japanese) as if English doesn't have its share of stupid shit.
I’ve thought, for years, about improving my English. But I don’t know how to go about doing so. I already speak, read, and write English without effort. But I want to improve further. There seem to be a lack of options for someone in this situation, all English learning resources seem to be aimed at beginners.
Relative to other languages, the premise might be correct but learning English was still not easy due to all the irregularities and overloaded words one has to memorize.
Yet here we are after the solidarity stunts, renaming of branches, the term 'master' is still used. As the change solved nothing, it can be described as a magnificent waste of time.
They are going to be fighting forever over a change that doesn't address the actual issue of what they are fighting against.
If we're taking descriptivist approach wouldn't it also apply to ESL speakers? There is probably many more Indian english speakers than AAVE speakers so wouldn't any differences not be mistakes?
There are only about a quarter million native Indian English speakers, according to Wikipedia. Certainly, a native Indian English speaker does not make errors (though they may make mistakes) in Indian English. That doesn't necessarily mean that a native Indian English speaker and a native Standard American English will have perfect mutual intelligibility.
What about people who mix, e.g. Spanish and English? Is that English too? How many Spanish words does one have to use before it stops being English? Surely there must be a limit.
English is a Germanic language, but about 60% of words used by English speakers today were imported from French and Latin, mostly after the Norman conquest of England. So by this standard, it stopped being English hundreds of years ago.
"A" vs "an" depends entirely on whether you consider the glottal stop to be a consonant. "A" before a vowel is only wrong if it's elided into the following word.
He’s right though. Who vs whom is one example that no one tends to get right. Ain’t is commonly misused, even as slang. Done vs have is epidemic within Ebonics.
of a distinction that exists in only the formal written register of less than a handful of English prestige dialects.
It is not wrong to say "Who did you learn this nonsense from?" It is just not formal written Standard American English.
Your insistence that one native speaker's dialect is somehow "more right" than another's is not a measure of someone's linguistic competence, it's a social value judgment with classist and racist overtones. Maybe if you spent some time studying AAVE (African American Vernacular English) and other dialects, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as "ebonics."
When the rules in the rule book are used as a cudgel to beat on native speakers of a language, it is the rules, and especially those using the rules in that way, which are wrong.
English has prestige dialects which conserve certain features, and others which are low status and don't. A phrase like "I done been doin it!" is grammatically regular, in a dialect of the language which you don't speak; it isn't the same thing as the mistakes a non-native speaker will make, at all, and you shouldn't treat it like it is.
I’ve seen this kind of attitude before in Taiwan many times over the years. I can’t help but feel that it comes from a place a bitterness due to being forced to learn English at a young age.
I would agree with you in full in certain edge cases (such as Vladimir Nabokov’s mastery of English which absolutely eclipses 99.9999% of native English speakers) but to suggest that most are better is a bit rich.
Average native speakers may be unaware of named grammatical concepts, such as tag questions or contrary to fact conditional statements, but they certainly understand how to use them.
Where you begin to see the gulf between native speakers and ESL people is in their swiftness in things like satire, asking questions which nudge conversation, effortlessly using articles correctly, communicating abstraction, making long sentences with numerous prepositional phrases which all use the right preposition. There are many tells.
A great number of people absolutely reach the level of being truly bilingual and integrated into the culture but it’s uncommon at least to become better than most native speakers.
However I'd disagree that the article's premise is unique to English. I've been learning Japanese for the past few years, and while it's definitely more difficult to learn than English for someone who's coming from another European language, I think the long tail of being native-like is equally infinite. It's just based on different things. Examples would be は vs が (this is a beginner-level topic as well, but comes back in a different way much later), sentence-level pitch accent, the fact that writing in formal language is basically the world's most elaborate game of madlibs, etc.