English

[ryan]

Hey guys, i learnt some years ago that the English luanguage is the most complicated to learn. Words and prases taken from different launguages (French, German, Chinese, Japenese).
But what im wondering is why are there different types of English, Like UK, US and AUS.
For example the US say Center like that but we (meaning AUS) say it like Centre (along with the UK also).
Any ideas on why that happened.
To all you english speaking people out there, Ryan

 

[Artlav]

Hey guys, i learnt some years ago that the English luanguage is the most complicated to learn.

And yet it is considered one of the easiest to start learning. It really depends on who you ask for opinion.

But what im wondering is why are there different types of English, Like UK, US and AUS.

Don't forget to think four-dimensionally.
What i mean is that the British empire spread it's language all over the world a couple of centuries ago, resulting in many countries around the world adopting it as their own, like USA and Australia. And in every one of them the language was evolving on it's own ever since.

 

[TSPenguin]

Hey guys, i learnt some years ago that the English luanguage is the most complicated to learn.

Really? Try learning german, much more complicated. After that try some of the asian languages.
I usaly hear the exact opposite, english is often refered as one of the easiest languages to learn.

 

[unussapiens]

The biggest problem with english is that for every rule there is an exception, and for every exception there is an exception.

 

[cjp]

I once heard that Chinese is the most difficult language, followed by Dutch. But maybe that was just about pronunciation. I've never found a foreign equivalent to the "ui" in "Kuiper belt", and the Dutch "G" is also infamous, although you can find similar sounds in e.g. Spanish, Arabic and especially Hebrew.

I think you can distinguish at least three aspects on learning a language: pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. For me, vocabulary has always been the most difficult part. Of course, vocabulary becomes easier if you already know a closely related language: this greatly helps in Dutch vs. German, between the roman languages, and to some degree in Dutch/German vs. English and French vs. English. So the difficulty of a language greatly depends on what you already know. If you want an objective measure, you'd have to look at a language as if you needed to teach it to an (extra-terrestrial) alien.

When it comes to grammar, I think English is actually a quite simple language (*). You have a relatively small number of grammatical forms, compared to e.g. German or Latin.

(*) I would be ROFL if it turns out this sentence is grammatically incorrect :lol:. I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't know for sure.

Edit:
I want to add that one of the main problems with English is the terribly inconsistent connection between spelling and pronunciation. Most non-Latin languages using the Latin alphabet have this problem to some degree, but I've never seen it as bad as in English. In French, for instance, you have dozens of spellings that are pronounced the same, but at least each one of these can only be pronounced in a single way.

 

[fort]

Look on the side of the grammar with Japanese language. I will not say : one sentence (une phrase), one rule, but something like that.

 

[simonpro]

It was my understanding that English is one of the more simple languages to learn, but one of the hardest to master.
Dutch is fairly easy too, btw, Cjp. Easy to read/write anyway, speaking it is another matter

 

[cjp]

Look on the side of the grammar with Japanese language. I will not say : one sentence (une phrase), one rule, but something like that.

Yes. I tried Japanese for some months, and I really like its simple grammar. As long as you ignore all those subtle politeness levels (they expect you to do that anyway if you're a foreigner), the grammar is really easy. The only thing holding me back from actually communicating in Japanese is vocabulary. I know something like 20 words now .


-----Posted Added-----

It was my understanding that English is one of the more simple languages to learn, but one of the hardest to master.
Dutch is fairly easy too, btw, Cjp. Easy to read/write anyway, speaking it is another matter

Which makes English an excellent choice for a worldwide "Lingua Franca". One of the good things the English and Americans brought to us.

Aangezien je beweert dat Nederlands eenvoudig te lezen is, kan ik de rest ook wel zo schrijven. Wat mij opvalt bij Scandinavische talen (uitgezonderd Fins) is dat ik het nog wel een beetje kan begrijpen in geschreven vorm, maar dat het volkomen onbegrijpelijk is als het wordt uitgesproken.

Don't cheat by using Babelfish or other translation software!

 

[Jarvitä]

Hey guys, i learnt some years ago that the English luanguage is the most complicated to learn. Words and prases taken from different launguages (French, German, Chinese, Japenese).
But what im wondering is why are there different types of English, Like UK, US and AUS.
For example the US say Center like that but we (meaning AUS) say it like Centre (along with the UK also).
Any ideas on why that happened.
To all you english speaking people out there, Ryan

English is a real simple and primitive language, you don't have grammatical cases or genders, you only have two grammatical numbers (singular and plural), a very simplified tense system and dumbed-down pronunciation. For me, the most complex part of learning English was the latin alphabet. And attempting not to choke on the "r"s.

 

[simonpro]

Jag förstår din Holländsk skrivning för det mesta. Du är riktigt, vi talar liknande språk.
Jeg tænke at Dansk er det meste lignende til Hollandsk, så min Hollandsk kendskab er forbedrer efter 2 år her..

(edit) Must admit I checked it afterwards with Babelfish to make sure I had the right idea though!

 

[fort]

cjp,

I started to study briefly, very superficially, Chinese, then Japanese, a long time ago.

It seemed to to me to remember that in the Japanese language, the distribution of the words in sentences was quite different from that which for example the French applies, latin, most generally. Agents and the verbal function being placed at the beginning of sentences and other functions and circonstants (where, when, "actant", "patient"...i mean: who make the action ) but the gender and the number, also, called at the end, in Japanese...

 

[cjp]

It seemed to to me to remember that in the Japanese language, the distribution of the words in the sentences was quite different from that which for example the French applies, latin, most generally.

You get used to that. Try speaking your own language with the words in a different order, for instance. Verb at the end, using the "particle" system for distinguishing different objects etc.. And for French/Japanese it's easy: every order is exactly the opposite

Jag förstår din Holländsk skrivning för det mesta. Du är riktigt, vi talar liknande språk.
Jeg tænke at Dansk er det meste lignende til Hollandsk, så min Hollandsk kendskab er forbedrer efter 2 år her..

(edit) Must admit I checked it afterwards with Babelfish to make sure I had the right idea though!

So, Babelfish doesn't have Danish or Swedish; Google translate helped me more. So your first sentence is Swedish and the second one Danish?
I made some errors: I didn't get "vi", "liknande", "kendskab" and "forbedrer". And I thought "Dansk" was "Danish" :rofl:. So, in this case, the Swedish sentence was more clear to me.

(edit) I also thought "år" was "hour". I guess I'm not ready to go to Scandinavia yet!

 

[Belisarius]

This is actually my speciality (been training people in general and business English for 20 years or so, both native English and non-natives, as well as translating/interpreting). I speak English, Spanish, Catalan and a little Japanese, I can also communicate more basically in any Latin language and to some extent in German.

So here's my take...

When it comes to grammar, I think English is actually a quite simple language (*). You have a relatively small number of grammatical forms, compared to e.g. German or Latin.

(*) I would be ROFL if it turns out this sentence is grammatically incorrect :lol:. I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't know for sure.

I want to add that one of the main problems with English is the terribly inconsistent connection between spelling and pronunciation.

First up, your English is flawless, never known you to make the slightest mistake. I wish more native-speakers your age were so good. Your points are absolutely spot-on.

English grammar is basic (the base verb grammar can be written on one sheet of A4, the other aspects on another), and the exceptions pretty marginal.

The spelling-phonetic system is completely out of whack, never having been adjusted in 300 years, and reflecting pronunciation around 400 years old. There is NO linguistic authority in English and several people (like Mark Tawin and GB Shaw) have tried to make spelling more rational, but nobody listened to them.

The vocabulary of English is awesome. The nuances in physical action and expression verbs are incredibly detailed.

... you don't have grammatical cases or genders, you only have two grammatical numbers (singular and plural), a very simplified tense system and dumber-down pronunciation. For me, the most complex part of learning English was the latin alphabet. And attempting not to choke on the "r"s.

Also true, but the question of pronunciation depends on where you come from. Spanish has 5 vowel phonemes, Catalan and French (I think) have 10, but English has 16 (or more if you count some dialects). The difference in pronunciation between "peel" and "pill", for example, is completely inacessible to most Spanish speakers.
Don't worry about the "r"s, there are at least three different types. Say them how you like.

For example the US say Center like that but we (meaning AUS) say it like Centre (along with the UK also).

That's "spell" diffferently not "say" differently. Actually we say it more or less the same (except that Americans don't pronounce the "t" in this position and say "Cenner"). The spelling is different convention, in this case introduced by the US lexicologist Noah Webster in 1834. He wanted to go a lot father in reforming US spelling, but only changed a few things (-re endings to -er and -our endings to -or, and stuff like that).

Sorry for such a long post but this is both my profession and my passion. Believe me, I could go on like this for pages.

 

[Hielor]

...(except that Americans don't pronounce the "t" in this position and say "Cenner").

<--- American. No, I don't do a proper "t" in the word center, but it's not quite "cenner" either...it's like the "t" becomes a glottal stop or something.

We're just lazy that way.

 

[fort]

cjp,

Yes, just. And if I observe this rule that the protagonist placed in first place is that which makes the action and the following that which undergoes it, I can of course understand a sentence like Pierre, Paul, beat. It is another reading and I know that blows (coups) are distributed, and their author, a little later.

Too late to intervene ? :lol:

 

[Belisarius]

Hielor:
Yeah, it's a mini-glottal stop in American "cen'er". And it's not laziness, it's just the standard US accent.

But I've got a London native accent (I also speak "proper" for work and stuff) and we have a much stronger glottal stop here. For "bottle of water" we would say...

"bo'h'ul o' wa'h'a" (where 'h' is almost like a throaty grunt)

 

[cjp]

Also true, but the question of pronunciation depends on where you come from. Spanish has 5 vowel phonemes, Catalan and French (I think) have 10, but English has 16 (or more if you count some dialects).

16? Is it that complex? I thought most languages have 5 or 7 vowels (which has recently been explained in research with computer simulations of self-organizing communication in a group of simulated agents). Wikipedia says about Dutch "The vowel inventory of Dutch is large, with 13 simple vowels and four diphthongs" (which makes 17 :graduate, but unfortunately the English phonology page doesn't give such a clear number.

 

[simonpro]

So, Babelfish doesn't have Danish or Swedish; Google translate helped me more. So your first sentence is Swedish and the second one Danish?
I made some errors: I didn't get "vi", "liknande", "kendskab" and "forbedrer". And I thought "Dansk" was "Danish" :rofl:. So, in this case, the Swedish sentence was more clear to me.

(edit) I also thought "år" was "hour". I guess I'm not ready to go to Scandinavia yet!

My Swedish/Danish probably isn't the best to read anyway. Because I've spent so long in Denmark now I frequently mix up the two languages, which is probably terrible for learners to understand.
vi=we
liknande=similar
kendskab=knowledge
forbedrer=better

 

[Belisarius]

"The vowel inventory of Dutch is large, with 13 simple vowels and four diphthongs" (which makes 17 :graduate, but unfortunately the English phonology page doesn't give such a clear number.

In standard British-type English we have 12 simple vowels and 4 dipthongs (some say 8, but I think they're out of date). The exact number varies according to the dialect and the authority they're quoting.
But for those coming from Japanese or Spanish, with 5 simple vowels, it's pretty tough.
In my experience, phonetics is the area which is worst taught and worst understood.

BTW, could you explain the research you mention. PM me if you think it'd be boring for the other users.

 

[fort]

Spanish has 5 vowel phonemes,...French (I think) have 10

Alas or so much better. Around 10/12. A, e, i, o, u, but, also, ou, an, on, in, eu, é, è, y as i or as il/ill for aill, eill, ouill...,w (oué...for simpifier). And some but rare ^,¨ after the evacuation, a few centuries ago of some s ( asne -ass ?- > âne ).

après l'évacuation il y a quelques siècles de quelques