English has far more vocabulary than any Romance language.
What makes English so difficult to learn?
<<English has far more vocabulary than any Romance language. >>
I suspect that the English dictionary makers have just been more thorough when compiling the list of words..
I suspect that the English dictionary makers have just been more thorough when compiling the list of words..
<<I've never felt that romance languages were complex. >>
Perhaps there not complex compared Chinese, Basque, or Navajo, but they're seem to be a whole heck of a lot more complex than English.
Perhaps there not complex compared Chinese, Basque, or Navajo, but they're seem to be a whole heck of a lot more complex than English.
Obviously you are not aware of the complexities of the use of tense and aspect or of the use of phrasal verbs and prepositions in English... (English verbs, even though they are not all that heavily inflected compared to those in, say, German, and are far less inflected than those in Romance languages, are actually very non-trivial for non-native speakers to use in a native-like fashion, and especially those whose native languages are not Germanic languages.)
actually very non-trivial for non-native speakers to use in a native-like fashion, and especially those whose native languages are not Germanic languages
Probably, but evidently you are not aware that the contrary is the same
Probably, but evidently you are not aware that the contrary is the same
What I simply meant is that those who say that "English is easy" are overlooking various harder sides of English; I did not mean that English is comparatively all too *hard* either compared to many other languages.
<<What I simply meant is that those who say that "English is easy" are overlooking various harder sides of English>>
Doesn't English have fewer "harder sides" than most other languages?
- no tones
- trivial morphology (pidgin-like)
- no clicks, pops, whistles, implosive sounds, finger snaps, etc.
- uses plain alphabet (although spelling is non-optimal)
- few or no unusual features (like meaningful pauses, gemminate consonants, ergativity, vowel harmony or other mutations, etc.)
- no "shades" (still don't know what these really are, though)
Doesn't English have fewer "harder sides" than most other languages?
- no tones
- trivial morphology (pidgin-like)
- no clicks, pops, whistles, implosive sounds, finger snaps, etc.
- uses plain alphabet (although spelling is non-optimal)
- few or no unusual features (like meaningful pauses, gemminate consonants, ergativity, vowel harmony or other mutations, etc.)
- no "shades" (still don't know what these really are, though)
>>- trivial morphology (pidgin-like)<<
Not really when compared with many a Chinese language or Austronesian language, much the less actual creole languages. In comparison to such languages, English actually has a lot of morphology. Hell, English has significantly more morphology than Afrikaans, which is another Germanic language.
>>- few or no unusual features (like meaningful pauses, gemminate consonants, ergativity, vowel harmony or other mutations, etc.)<<
This really depends. To have truly native-like production and understanding of many northern NAE dialects, for instance, you need to be able to be able to perceive and realize the following as separate:
* Aspirated and unaspirated plosives
* Preglottalized and unpreglottalized plosives
* Short and long vowels
* Normal and geminate consonants
* Oral and nasal vowels
* Lenis and fortis obstruents independent of actual voicing
and to truly have native-like production of some dialects, such as my own, you also realize the following as separate:
* Palatalized and unpalatalized consonants
* Lateralized vowels/semivowels and unlateralized vowels/semivowels
* Short, long, and overlong vowels
Okay, you are probably thinking that, for starters, none of these are phonemic aside from lenis and fortis obstruents (and even then you probably just think of them as being "voiced" and "voiceless", even though that really is not accurate in the context of English phonology), and in very many dialects outside North America, vowel length. The matter, though, is that all these phonetic cues need to still be produced accurately to sound native or to even be really understood well. Furthermore, many native speakers may rely upon such cues such that they need to be perceived to be understood properly (for instance, oral and nasal vowels being distinguished due to the elision of /n/ and vowel length, aspiration, preglottalization, and actual lenisness/fortisness being contrasted rather than voicing per se).
Not really when compared with many a Chinese language or Austronesian language, much the less actual creole languages. In comparison to such languages, English actually has a lot of morphology. Hell, English has significantly more morphology than Afrikaans, which is another Germanic language.
>>- few or no unusual features (like meaningful pauses, gemminate consonants, ergativity, vowel harmony or other mutations, etc.)<<
This really depends. To have truly native-like production and understanding of many northern NAE dialects, for instance, you need to be able to be able to perceive and realize the following as separate:
* Aspirated and unaspirated plosives
* Preglottalized and unpreglottalized plosives
* Short and long vowels
* Normal and geminate consonants
* Oral and nasal vowels
* Lenis and fortis obstruents independent of actual voicing
and to truly have native-like production of some dialects, such as my own, you also realize the following as separate:
* Palatalized and unpalatalized consonants
* Lateralized vowels/semivowels and unlateralized vowels/semivowels
* Short, long, and overlong vowels
Okay, you are probably thinking that, for starters, none of these are phonemic aside from lenis and fortis obstruents (and even then you probably just think of them as being "voiced" and "voiceless", even though that really is not accurate in the context of English phonology), and in very many dialects outside North America, vowel length. The matter, though, is that all these phonetic cues need to still be produced accurately to sound native or to even be really understood well. Furthermore, many native speakers may rely upon such cues such that they need to be perceived to be understood properly (for instance, oral and nasal vowels being distinguished due to the elision of /n/ and vowel length, aspiration, preglottalization, and actual lenisness/fortisness being contrasted rather than voicing per se).
Travis : « English verbs [...] are actually very non-trivial for non-native speakers to use in a native-like fashion, and especially those whose native languages are not Germanic languages. »
Tja. In diesem Bereich ist Englisch aber kein Einzelfall : es ist immerhin schwierig, sowohl den Muttersprachlern nachzueifern, als auch sich gewandt auszudrücken (egal welche Sprache). Ich stimme zu, daß es kein "einfache" Sprache gibt. Wie du es schon erwähntest, gibt es nur sprachlernendenspezifische Schwierigkeiten.
Tja. In diesem Bereich ist Englisch aber kein Einzelfall : es ist immerhin schwierig, sowohl den Muttersprachlern nachzueifern, als auch sich gewandt auszudrücken (egal welche Sprache). Ich stimme zu, daß es kein "einfache" Sprache gibt. Wie du es schon erwähntest, gibt es nur sprachlernendenspezifische Schwierigkeiten.
<<no "shades" (still don't know what these really are, though)>>
In some recent thread, someone mentioned that romance languages have "shades". Apparently, English doesn't have these, so they said English was much simpler.
I know almost nothing about Romance languages, so the only thing I can think of is something like the -azo, -ona, -ote, -ucha type suffixes found in Spanish? (and presumably French and the others).
In some recent thread, someone mentioned that romance languages have "shades". Apparently, English doesn't have these, so they said English was much simpler.
I know almost nothing about Romance languages, so the only thing I can think of is something like the -azo, -ona, -ote, -ucha type suffixes found in Spanish? (and presumably French and the others).
Haha all languages have SHADES. hahhahahhahahahahhahaha what pathetic folly to suggest that you can't express nuances in English!!!!! LOOOOLLOLOLOLOLO! ROFL! Why do foreigners have such superiority complexes, just cos they can speak A LITTLE english they think they've mastered it! hahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahah so funny! why don't you write something in ENGLISH and see if anyone actually READS IT! hahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahaha, it'll be an essay in idiocy!
I would never say "the house is burning". I would say "the house is on fire". But I get your point about the phrasal verbs being difficult for learners. Have fun!