Language/Language Learning

[Sociobiology]

talking about correct in English has problems anyway. It is three languages all with different rules all cobbled together. like combine monopoly, poker, and checkers into ad hoc game, then complaining about following rules.
This is also why English is considered the second hardest language on earth to learn.
heck we have an an entirely superfluous letter. "C"

[Kirrig]

talking about correct in English has problems anyway. It is three languages all with different rules all cobbled together. like combine monopoly, poker, and checkers into ad hoc game, then complaining about following rules.
This is also why English is considered the second hardest language on earth to learn.
heck we have an an entirely superfluous letter. "C"

Who says that?

[Sociobiology]

talking about correct in English has problems anyway. It is three languages all with different rules all cobbled together. like combine monopoly, poker, and checkers into ad hoc game, then complaining about following rules.
This is also why English is considered the second hardest language on earth to learn.
heck we have an an entirely superfluous letter. "C"

Who says that?

Who says want?
I'm long winded you'll have to narrow it down.

[Kirrig]

Who says that?

Who says want?
I'm long winded you'll have to narrow it down.

The second hardest language bit.

[YellowApple]

Who says want?
I'm long winded you'll have to narrow it down.

The second hardest language bit.

A large number of teachers of "English as a second language", at least in the United States, do indeed cite similar claims. They aren't exactly unfounded, either, given how many exceptions to exceptions to exceptions to rules exist in "standard usage".

I predict that somewhere in the next couple of centuries English will become so complicated from new "rules" being constantly and arbitrarily added to it that it will simply be impossible for anyone to learn as a native language.

-snip-

Except it's not a red herring. There was a time before the "-er" prefix was implemented to simplify the "more [adjective]" construct in select cases. Declaring the constructs that were affected by this implementation to be invalid due to not being in common usage is precisely the same as regarding any other archaic word or phrase in English as suddenly invalid. You are using a subjective and arbitrary opinion regarding "standard usage" to contradict the actually well-defined structural syntax of the English language.

Also, could you explain how the two sources you cited disprove my comparison between computer language and human language? The hypotheses regarding instinctual language and "universal grammar" actually prove my suggested model more than they disprove them. Just as computer processors have a built-in instruction set, our brains have a built-in language, at least so the two texts seem to claim. Then again, I am basing these observations on their summarizations, as I have better uses for the money I earn than to spend it on books involving hypotheses, though they do appear to be interesting reads.

This might actually be an interesting read for my side of this debate, however, as it demonstrates that there are, in all actuality, very few differences between the languages we speak and the languages our computers speak. Though the document does not make the direct claim that our languages are programming languages like I have, it does make the identical function quite clear by explaining the methods used to break down spoken languages into more regimented and procedural logic statements.

[Kirrig]

The second hardest language bit.

A large number of teachers of "English as a second language", at least in the United States, do indeed cite similar claims. They aren't exactly unfounded, either, given how many exceptions to exceptions to exceptions to rules exist in "standard usage".

I predict that somewhere in the next couple of centuries English will become so complicated from new "rules" being constantly and arbitrarily added to it that it will simply be impossible for anyone to learn as a native language.

-snip-

Except it's not a red herring. There was a time before the "-er" prefix was implemented to simplify the "more [adjective]" construct in select cases. Declaring the constructs that were affected by this implementation to be invalid due to not being in common usage is precisely the same as regarding any other archaic word or phrase in English as suddenly invalid. You are using a subjective and arbitrary opinion regarding "standard usage" to contradict the actually well-defined structural syntax of the English language.

Also, could you explain how the two sources you cited disprove my comparison between computer language and human language? The hypotheses regarding instinctual language and "universal grammar" actually prove my suggested model more than they disprove them. Just as computer processors have a built-in instruction set, our brains have a built-in language, at least so the two texts seem to claim. Then again, I am basing these observations on their summarizations, as I have better uses for the money I earn than to spend it on books involving hypotheses, though they do appear to be interesting reads.

This might actually be an interesting read for my side of this debate, however, as it demonstrates that there are, in all actuality, very few differences between the languages we speak and the languages our computers speak. Though the document does not make the direct claim that our languages are programming languages like I have, it does make the identical function quite clear by explaining the methods used to break down spoken languages into more regimented and procedural logic statements.

I reject those claims. Non-native speakers outnumber native speakers of English, if I recall correctly. It is more the language equivalent of nationalism than anything if you ask me.

That said, those that aren't Dutch/German/Scandinavian/Other European are notorious for their poor command of English when they learn. This is possibly down to a lack of borrowing on English's part. This is best illustrated with Indians vs Fijian Indians, the latter group being almost universally easier to understand. (When speaking.)

[YellowApple]

A large number of teachers of "English as a second language", at least in the United States, do indeed cite similar claims. They aren't exactly unfounded, either, given how many exceptions to exceptions to exceptions to rules exist in "standard usage".

I predict that somewhere in the next couple of centuries English will become so complicated from new "rules" being constantly and arbitrarily added to it that it will simply be impossible for anyone to learn as a native language.



Except it's not a red herring. There was a time before the "-er" prefix was implemented to simplify the "more [adjective]" construct in select cases. Declaring the constructs that were affected by this implementation to be invalid due to not being in common usage is precisely the same as regarding any other archaic word or phrase in English as suddenly invalid. You are using a subjective and arbitrary opinion regarding "standard usage" to contradict the actually well-defined structural syntax of the English language.

Also, could you explain how the two sources you cited disprove my comparison between computer language and human language? The hypotheses regarding instinctual language and "universal grammar" actually prove my suggested model more than they disprove them. Just as computer processors have a built-in instruction set, our brains have a built-in language, at least so the two texts seem to claim. Then again, I am basing these observations on their summarizations, as I have better uses for the money I earn than to spend it on books involving hypotheses, though they do appear to be interesting reads.

This might actually be an interesting read for my side of this debate, however, as it demonstrates that there are, in all actuality, very few differences between the languages we speak and the languages our computers speak. Though the document does not make the direct claim that our languages are programming languages like I have, it does make the identical function quite clear by explaining the methods used to break down spoken languages into more regimented and procedural logic statements.

I reject those claims. Non-native speakers outnumber native speakers of English, if I recall correctly. It is more the language equivalent of nationalism than anything if you ask me.

That said, those that aren't Dutch/German/Scandinavian/Other European are notorious for their poor command of English when they learn. This is possibly down to a lack of borrowing on English's part. This is best illustrated with Indians vs Fijian Indians, the latter group being almost universally easier to understand. (When speaking.)

Non-native speakers tend to outnumber native speakers in the vast majority of languages, or at least the more prevalent ones, English included. Additionally, English is used quite extensively internationally, hence why so many attempt to communicate with it. However, fluency is very difficult; as we are seeing with the "more easy" shebang, there are a number of complicated and seemingly-random exceptions to rules that make the difference between "technically correct" and "fluent". Combined with the enormous variety in what syllables can be spoken in an English word or phrase, I would say that few languages are actually harder to become fluent in - Chinese being the most notable of said few.

[Kirrig]

I reject those claims. Non-native speakers outnumber native speakers of English, if I recall correctly. It is more the language equivalent of nationalism than anything if you ask me.

That said, those that aren't Dutch/German/Scandinavian/Other European are notorious for their poor command of English when they learn. This is possibly down to a lack of borrowing on English's part. This is best illustrated with Indians vs Fijian Indians, the latter group being almost universally easier to understand. (When speaking.)

Non-native speakers tend to outnumber native speakers in the vast majority of languages, or at least the more prevalent ones, English included. Additionally, English is used quite extensively internationally, hence why so many attempt to communicate with it. However, fluency is very difficult; as we are seeing with the "more easy" shebang, there are a number of complicated and seemingly-random exceptions to rules that make the difference between "technically correct" and "fluent". Combined with the enormous variety in what syllables can be spoken in an English word or phrase, I would say that few languages are actually harder to become fluent in - Chinese being the most notable of said few.

Especially when the rules don't really exist and one just has to judge the correct usage. Still, second hardest is ambitious. As far as I am aware only blonde/bolnd has a gender.

[Lauruccia]

My native language is Serbian, which practically means that I natively know about 6 languages (Serbian, Croatian, New Montenegrin, Old Montenegrin, Bosniak, Serbian Ijekavica (Bosnian) etc. are like same, few differences and that's it)

Then, I know English very well, most of the English that we learnin school I already knew. I'm learning German now and I want to learn Dzongka/Tibetan and Mandarin Chinese.

So, that means that I'm Octlingual?

[Pawn and King]

My native language is Serbian, which practically means that I natively know about 6 languages (Serbian, Croatian, New Montenegrin, Old Montenegrin, Bosniak, Serbian Ijekavica (Bosnian) etc. are like same, few differences and that's it)

Then, I know English very well, most of the English that we learnin school I already knew. I'm learning German now and I want to learn Dzongka/Tibetan and Mandarin Chinese.

So, that means that I'm Octlingual?

I study at SSEES, and they've got different sections for Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin. That's at least 4!

I can speak English, French, Russian, Italian, and I'm currently learning Farsi.

Farsi is pretty easy as languages go, the script seems to be the hardest bit about it.

[Sociobiology]

Who says want?
I'm long winded you'll have to narrow it down.

The second hardest language bit.

I had to ask because I thought you were asking about the superfluous 'C'
I'm quoting a polylinguist (14 languages) I work with. anything like language is going to be subjective. but your right it should have said 'considered by many'.
English has so many violations of syntax many would claim it has no rules, like how to pluralize.
Has emphasis and tonal variance. emphasis alone makes it very difficult for those who's native language does not have it.
English use tonal changes to indicate questions instead of particles.
English has spelling bees because spelling and pronunciation are so dissimilar.
compare strait, eight, and mate


on the other hand this also makes English a very precise language, and unlike many languages has an easy time absorbing non-English words, which is part of the reason it is so difficult.
And thanks to modern media English is incredibly wide spread.

[Serrland]

The second hardest language bit.

I'm quoting a polylinguist (14 languages) I work with. anything like language is going to be subjective. but your right it should have said 'considered by many'.
English has so many violations of syntax many would claim it has no rules, like how to pluralize.
Has emphasis and tonal variance. emphasis alone makes it very difficult for those who's native language does not have it.
English use tonal changes to indicate questions instead of particles.
English has spelling bees because spelling and pronunciation are so dissimilar.
compare strait, eight, and mate


on the other hand this also makes English a very precise language, and unlike many languages has an easy time absorbing non-English words, which is part of the reason it is so difficult.
And thanks to modern media English is incredibly wide spread.

There's a reason the venerable Stephen Fry calls it a "mongrel mouthful" - that's a great way to describe why I love English so much, tbh.

[Sociobiology]

Who says want?
I'm long winded you'll have to narrow it down.

The second hardest language bit.

I had to ask because I thought you were asking about the superfluous 'C'

[Crolacia]

I know Croatian,English and German language. I'm planning to learn Finnish as well.

[YellowApple]

The second hardest language bit.

I had to ask because I thought you were asking about the superfluous 'C'
I'm quoting a polylinguist (14 languages) I work with. anything like language is going to be subjective. but your right it should have said 'considered by many'.
English has so many violations of syntax many would claim it has no rules, like how to pluralize.
Has emphasis and tonal variance. emphasis alone makes it very difficult for those who's native language does not have it.
English use tonal changes to indicate questions instead of particles.
English has spelling bees because spelling and pronunciation are so dissimilar.
compare strait, eight, and mate


on the other hand this also makes English a very precise language, and unlike many languages has an easy time absorbing non-English words, which is part of the reason it is so difficult.
And thanks to modern media English is incredibly wide spread.

To expand on that, even compare "eight" and "ate". Homophones are rampant in English, whereas they seem to be relatively rare in other languages. Using, say, Spanish as a comparison, there aren't nearly as many commonly-used words that look or sound so similar; I believe the closest to this phenomenon is "Por qué" (why) v. "porque" (because) and even that has a difference in emphases.

[Salandriagado]

I had to ask because I thought you were asking about the superfluous 'C'
I'm quoting a polylinguist (14 languages) I work with. anything like language is going to be subjective. but your right it should have said 'considered by many'.
English has so many violations of syntax many would claim it has no rules, like how to pluralize.
Has emphasis and tonal variance. emphasis alone makes it very difficult for those who's native language does not have it.
English use tonal changes to indicate questions instead of particles.
English has spelling bees because spelling and pronunciation are so dissimilar.
compare strait, eight, and mate


on the other hand this also makes English a very precise language, and unlike many languages has an easy time absorbing non-English words, which is part of the reason it is so difficult.
And thanks to modern media English is incredibly wide spread.

To expand on that, even compare "eight" and "ate". Homophones are rampant in English, whereas they seem to be relatively rare in other languages. Using, say, Spanish as a comparison, there aren't nearly as many commonly-used words that look or sound so similar; I believe the closest to this phenomenon is "Por qué" (why) v. "porque" (because) and even that has a difference in emphases.

Compare French:

Gall, amant de la Reine, alla (tour magnanime)
Galamment de l'Arène à la Tour Magne, à Nîmes

The language is all homophones.

[YellowApple]

To expand on that, even compare "eight" and "ate". Homophones are rampant in English, whereas they seem to be relatively rare in other languages. Using, say, Spanish as a comparison, there aren't nearly as many commonly-used words that look or sound so similar; I believe the closest to this phenomenon is "Por qué" (why) v. "porque" (because) and even that has a difference in emphases.

Compare French:

Gall, amant de la Reine, alla (tour magnanime)
Galamment de l'Arène à la Tour Magne, à Nîmes

The language is all homophones.

Yes, but at least pronunciations are relatively consistent.

[Serrland]

To expand on that, even compare "eight" and "ate". Homophones are rampant in English, whereas they seem to be relatively rare in other languages. Using, say, Spanish as a comparison, there aren't nearly as many commonly-used words that look or sound so similar; I believe the closest to this phenomenon is "Por qué" (why) v. "porque" (because) and even that has a difference in emphases.

Compare French:

Gall, amant de la Reine, alla (tour magnanime)
Galamment de l'Arène à la Tour Magne, à Nîmes

The language is all homophones.

Aye but at least French is better with vocal inflections as clues.

[Sociobiology]

To expand on that, even compare "eight" and "ate". Homophones are rampant in English, whereas they seem to be relatively rare in other languages. Using, say, Spanish as a comparison, there aren't nearly as many commonly-used words that look or sound so similar; I believe the closest to this phenomenon is "Por qué" (why) v. "porque" (because) and even that has a difference in emphases.

Compare French:

Gall, amant de la Reine, alla (tour magnanime)
Galamment de l'Arène à la Tour Magne, à Nîmes

The language is all homophones.

french is one of the three main contributing languages to English, the other being German and Norwegian, and with a healthy dose of Latin.

[Kirrig]

And all this contribute sto my firm belief in English's ability to eat other languages.

[Salandriagado]

And all this contribute sto my firm belief in English's ability to eat other languages.

We are the language-borg. We will consume all.

[Arumdaum]

Going to be in Tokyo for a few hours on the 24th. Gonna learn some Japanese.

[The Truth and Light]

Going to be in Tokyo for a few hours on the 24th. Gonna learn some Japanese.

Aa sugoi da yo.

[Varazhdin]

Besides my own language, which is croatian, I also speak german and english. I have also lerned latin, old irish and spanish, but I don't speak them well enough to actually talk with someone in them. So, I guess I don't speak very many languages.

I don't know if that counts since I'm not fronm USA, but in mhigh school you can learn english or german as first foreign language (those you continue from elementary school), those two and italian as second foreign language (which you learn from the beginning), italian, french, spanish or russian as third foreign language (which you can choose in the second grade instead of informatics), and now they also introduced a one year class of slowenian. You also learn latin for first two grades. So, tecnically you can learn four foreign languages at the same time in my former high school.....

[Esternial]

So, there is controversy over the fact that many American kids are not learning languages and that they should.

Like some decent English, for example.

Personally, growing up in a bilingual country, I was basically forced to learn both Dutch and French. On top of that, I taught myself a decent bit of English during my childhood by watching BBC, Friends, etc. which gave me a head start when I finally got English in high school.

We had German too, but only enough for basic conversations. My mom watches German soaps sometimes, so that gives me a chance to polish up what little German I posess.

I also had Latin in high school, but that isn't really 100% relevant.