Which language is more complex morphologically: English, Indonesian or Esperanto. Explain your answer, please
English, Indonesian or Esperanto
>>Esperanto verb forms are generally simpler than English verb forms but Esperanto still has the old Indo-European accusative case<<
So does English for pronouns.
What about Afrikaans and Chinese? Aren't they both also morphologocally simpler?
So does English for pronouns.
What about Afrikaans and Chinese? Aren't they both also morphologocally simpler?
Chinese is about as morphologically simple as it gets. It's a myth that Chinese is monosyllabic (most words are two syllables, but some have one and some have more), but there is very little of what we would call "inflection", and compound words are straightforward combinations of morphemes. Most of the morphemes have their own independent meanings as well, leading to logical compound words such as "electric brain" (computer).
The morphological simplicity doesn't necessarily make it *easy*, though. Chinese is a very highly context-sensitive language, perhaps one of the most context-sensitive languages there is, and a character (and therefore the morpheme it represents) can often be a noun, a verb, an adjective, or an adverb, depending on the context. The writing system also doesn't always make it easy to figure out where the word boundaries are unless you already know most of the words, so you may have to figure out whether two characters next to each other are a compound word or not.
- Kef
The morphological simplicity doesn't necessarily make it *easy*, though. Chinese is a very highly context-sensitive language, perhaps one of the most context-sensitive languages there is, and a character (and therefore the morpheme it represents) can often be a noun, a verb, an adjective, or an adverb, depending on the context. The writing system also doesn't always make it easy to figure out where the word boundaries are unless you already know most of the words, so you may have to figure out whether two characters next to each other are a compound word or not.
- Kef
How about Vietnamese -- how does it compare (morphologically) to Chinese and Indonesian?
How many (or what percentage of) languages are morphologically simpler than English?
How many (or what percentage of) languages are morphologically simpler than English?
How many (or what percentage of) languages are morphologically simpler than English?
Amongst Indo-european languages perhaps Afrikaans and some germanic northern Languages may be morphologically simpler than English
Amongst Indo-european languages perhaps Afrikaans and some germanic northern Languages may be morphologically simpler than English
>>Amongst Indo-european languages perhaps Afrikaans and some germanic northern Languages may be morphologically simpler than English<<
If you mean the Scandinavian languages (barring Finnish), then from what I understand they are somewhat more complex, but not a great deal. I think they retain gender and some adjective inflection, although there is no verb conjugation for person or number, where English still retains the 's' in the present third person.
If you mean the Scandinavian languages (barring Finnish), then from what I understand they are somewhat more complex, but not a great deal. I think they retain gender and some adjective inflection, although there is no verb conjugation for person or number, where English still retains the 's' in the present third person.
>>Chinese is about as morphologically simple as it gets. It's a myth that Chinese is monosyllabic (most words are two syllables, but some have one and some have more),
The problem is about words, not characters. I've learnt only one bisyllabic character: that for sea mile.
>>but there is very little of what we would call "inflection", and compound words are straightforward combinations of morphemes. Most of the morphemes have their own independent meanings as well, leading to logical compound words such as "electric brain" (computer).
Then I wonder what inflections there could be? I've been advised not to quote Chinese examples when writing about inflectional morphemes. Are there any?
The problem is about words, not characters. I've learnt only one bisyllabic character: that for sea mile.
>>but there is very little of what we would call "inflection", and compound words are straightforward combinations of morphemes. Most of the morphemes have their own independent meanings as well, leading to logical compound words such as "electric brain" (computer).
Then I wonder what inflections there could be? I've been advised not to quote Chinese examples when writing about inflectional morphemes. Are there any?
I think that the "number indicator words", like "ge", and the object indicators, such as for paper, long objects and such, could be similar to inflections.
Maybe from the morphological point of view it is, but i bet that it is more complicated in other fields.
<<Indonesian is one of the simplest major languages that exist today. >>
Some months ago, a knowledgeable poster described some of the horrendous and subtle difficulties in Indonesian.
Does this leave English as the only major natural language devoid of overwhelming difficulties (other than spelling)?
Some months ago, a knowledgeable poster described some of the horrendous and subtle difficulties in Indonesian.
Does this leave English as the only major natural language devoid of overwhelming difficulties (other than spelling)?
<< Some months ago, a knowledgeable poster described some of the horrendous and subtle difficulties in Indonesian.
Does this leave English as the only major natural language devoid of overwhelming difficulties (other than spelling)? >>
English is certainly not free of horrendous and subtle difficulties.
Does this leave English as the only major natural language devoid of overwhelming difficulties (other than spelling)? >>
English is certainly not free of horrendous and subtle difficulties.
>>I think that the "number indicator words", like "ge", and the object indicators, such as for paper, long objects and such, could be similar to inflections.
But that's just bound morphemes, like the word for computer. "Electricity" and "brain" when separated would simply be two words.
But that's just bound morphemes, like the word for computer. "Electricity" and "brain" when separated would simply be two words.
I didn't stay with Mandarin long enough to be fluent, but I found the grammar the easiest (or at least the most straightforward) of anything I ever studied. Once you get down the basic word order, it's gets to be mostly a question of learning vocabulary. (Yes, I know I'm over-simplifying.)
Of course, the written language is difficult, but not as bad as, let's say, Japanese. Most characters have one pronunciation, not two or more as in Japanese. Learning 10 characters a day--not an impossible task--will give you the bulk of daily-used characters in less than a year. (The harder part is all the words that sound similar--some even with the same tone--which makes understanding difficult.)
English may be easier than many European languages, but you still have a huge number of irregular verbs, phrasal verbs, idiomatic irregularities, etc. (Not to mention the spelling and pronunciation.)
I found that Esperanto is easier to produce than understand, once you learn all the affixes. There are a lot of words in Esperanto that you almost have to deconstruct to understand, as opposed to natural languages, even for some common international terms. (I don't know Indonesian, but I'm wondering if the affixes also make it not as easy as advertised.)
Maybe Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese, etc., are also as simple as Chinese. (Again, if you can handle the writing and pronunciation.)
Of course, the written language is difficult, but not as bad as, let's say, Japanese. Most characters have one pronunciation, not two or more as in Japanese. Learning 10 characters a day--not an impossible task--will give you the bulk of daily-used characters in less than a year. (The harder part is all the words that sound similar--some even with the same tone--which makes understanding difficult.)
English may be easier than many European languages, but you still have a huge number of irregular verbs, phrasal verbs, idiomatic irregularities, etc. (Not to mention the spelling and pronunciation.)
I found that Esperanto is easier to produce than understand, once you learn all the affixes. There are a lot of words in Esperanto that you almost have to deconstruct to understand, as opposed to natural languages, even for some common international terms. (I don't know Indonesian, but I'm wondering if the affixes also make it not as easy as advertised.)
Maybe Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese, etc., are also as simple as Chinese. (Again, if you can handle the writing and pronunciation.)