Does anyone like the English Language?

@Cheng-Zhong Su:

You're talking about code, not language. In order to understand what the different intonations mean in relation to the card, a system would have to have been decided beforehand. This can be done in any language, English included.

I believe your misunderstanding derives from a lacking in ability on your part to speak even an approximation of English, thus you don't realize that the meaning of even simple English sentences and words change with just a small alteration in intonation. Apart from changing the information content of a word, certain intonations can also insult a person without using any insulting words.

In fact, I could say the most complementing thing in the word to you but actually be barraging you with insults.

Correction: In fact, I could say what appears to be the most complimenting thing in the world to you but actually be barraging you with insults.

Until now, people believe that the English has the richest scientific vocabulary in the world but no one thinks about how a single person can master such a huge vocabulary?
Human’s life is limited. With current language, a single person could master limited words too. Just think about what if a baby, from the first day of his life, he learn 10 words each day, when he is eighty years old, how many words he get? It should be 365×80×10=292,000 words. It tells us that the speed of learning and the speed of the vocabulary development is no match.
As everybody knows, that computer only uses two symbols to indicate everything of the world. The question is, if someone was allowed to utter only two different sounds (for instance A and B) can he express the universe by these two different sounds? The answer is ‘yes’ but too slow. For instance, the English has roughly 400 different sounds (20 consonants×20 vowels=400 sounds. Sound is different with syllable, ‘be’ is a syllable and also a sound, ‘sprint’ is a syllable but more than one sound or it is the combination of sounds), supposing we only need to express 400 different things, an English speaker uses one of the 400 different sounds for each meaning would be enough. But a language just having 2 sounds, to create 400 different phonetic symbols, it should be:
222222222=29 =512
That means in some cases, they have to pronounce nine sounds to express one of the 400 different things. For instance the English say ‘I’, while the two sounds’ speaker has to say ‘ABBAABBBA’. If the English speaker makes four oral motions in one second, should the two sounds’ speaker make his mouth 49=36 motions in one second to make it even?
It shows that a language has more different sounds will take much advantage than a language that has less different sounds. For it can express the same meanings by fewer oral motions. Once the English adopts the tone and the number of vowels turned to be 80 (may be more), the English would have 1,600 different sounds (20 consonants×80 vowels=1,600). It will set off a chain reaction that is every words turn to be shorter; the result is most words of the vocabulary turned to be compound words or self-explaining words.
The example is the word ‘alto’. In the dictionary, the explanation of that word is: lowest female voice. Suppose let lowest=lo, female=fe and voice=vo, then we can replace lofevo with alto. For the lofevo is a self-explaining words, you don’t need to learn it. At first the word of ‘lofevo’ and ‘alto’ may exist in parallel but sooner or later, as people don’t like to use the ‘alto’, the word would be dead. When most words turn to be self-explaining words, by the Chinese experience, the 2 million English words would shrink to be 3,000 basic words and all the rest is self-explaining words. You may call the basic words as semantic primitives, semantemes, Hanzi or what ever. Any way, once you learn the 3,000 basic words, you may master a vocabulary bigger than the current English vocabulary easily.

For the last ten months, we were talking this issue on:
http://www.lingforum.com/forum/index.php

and
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/auxlang/

It begs the question - who were the persons Paul knows who do not, or did not, enjoy the learning of English? Are they/were they native speakers of the Language, or other people wishing to learn it for a variety of reasons?

There are a variety of reasons for learning English and naturally enough for all native speakers it is a matter of course - we grow up with it, and at school we all studied English as it was part of the curriculum in a country where it is the everyday means of communication - not only did we all speak English as we studied English in the English lessons, but so we did for every other subject of the classroom. It was forced upon us, it was obligatory to take English lessons - we had no choice - we live in a country where the English Language is, to put it mildly, more than just a little important. Without it we'd be in a wee bit of crock of poo, that's for sure.

Most probably the compulsion behind all this English learning could lead to some resentment, and nobody enjoys being resentful do they?

Anyway, others learn English as a Language secondary to their own native tongue, but such is the global influence of English now that a working knowledge of it is pretty much essential if you wish to interact with the modern world in any effective way. Maybe a certain amount of resentment could figure here as well.

Traditionally English has never quite had the reputation for romantic aestheticism that French or Italian, and perhaps Spanish, have enjoyed - the Latin Languages - the Languages of amour and amore. But I maintain that Engish can have its moments there too, and if used properly, and with the right words, sweet nothings whispered into a loved one's auditory orifice can be every bit as mellifluous and heavenly erotic as any of those in any other Language.

English literature, in whatever form, is bursting with the most beautifully expressive language, a Language packed with a larger vocabulary than any other, and with more synonyms than any other, to mention just a couple of features.

English is a very sensitive creature - if spoken well, and treated well, it can sound literary Elysian. If maltreated - pretty dire. That may well be the case for every other Langauge anyway.

However, English is now infinitely more globally commercial than any other Langauge on earth - it is the main means of international communiction in this respect, not to mention socially and in practically all aspects of entertainment. Hence the reason why it's easily the most studied Language in the world, learned either with enthusiasm and happy enjoyment, or under a cloud of glum duress, depending on motiviation and ambition.

===============================================

Tomorrow - 11:00 hrs 11/11/08 - the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month - here is a lad from Bognor Regis, Sussex, England - former G4 singer Jonathan Ansell, born in the same month as myself, using his native Language with some grace and beauty with long lost Heroes in mind - as he did in the Royal Albert Hall, London, last Saturday evening during the annual Festival of Remembrance.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CYtBTyysL7o&feature=related

English is my second language but I think I love it better than the native English speaker. I have read some of the posts. Most of them love English merely looking for the benefit of that language. They don’t want to make any effort to improve this language. They are just exhausting the legacy of their ancestors and ignoring that this language may follow the footstep of Latin.
I love this language too. I love it and I hope this language to be the most powerful language in the world. Therefore a reform is necessary. English is the first language of my children. I hope this language will last forever. I don’t like my children cheated by some other language’s speaker and I hope my children can handle millions words during their life time.

<<and I hope my children can handle millions words during their life time. >>

lol, why exactly?

People don't learn languages because they are beautiful, they learn them just because they may result useful.

<<Almost everyone I know learns english purely for utilitarian reasons, and none of them enjoy it.>>

That's because most learners do NOT know English enough to be able to enjoy it.

<<It shows that a language has more different sounds will take much advantage than a language that has less different sounds. For it can express the same meanings by fewer oral motions.>>

Not true at all. To understand why, just imagine you replace most words with one sound. That would be very efficient, as you would be able to say a whole sentence with just a few sounds. To understand why this is stupid, you can try to create such a system and see for yourself, where you would have to be able to pronounce thousands of distinguishable sounds and of course perceive all of them as different words. To start with, try with 100 different vowels.

<<They don’t want to make any effort to improve this language.>>

There is no need to improve anything. You CANNOT change a language. It changes over time, and it reflects cultural aspects of its speakers. Knowing lots of words is totally useless if the others you talk to are not familiar with them.
As for adopting tones like in Chinese, let's suppose the English speakers did so. Then, if sounds with different tones mean different things, how do I express feelings? Sarcasm? Doubt? And how do I sing? How would the Iron Maiden sing with all those changes in pitch? It would be crap! You would ruin English.

At the end of the day language is merely a communication vehicle. Most people will learn the language that gives them the most economic benefits which of course will depend on many factors. Aesthetics of a langauge is really an insignificant point.

Although there IS poetry. And literature.

<<That's because most learners do NOT know English enough to be able to enjoy it. >>


At what point does one know enough English to be able to enjoy it? Let's be honest, almost all English learners know English much better than English speakers know other languages. If you meet a German who claims to know English, most likely he's functionally fluent, but if you meet an Englishman who claims to know French he probably knows only high-school level or less. And it is possible to enjoy a language without knowing it well. I particularly find the early stages most exciting, when one meets all the subtleties and peculiarities of the language for the first time.

<<At what point does one know enough English to be able to enjoy it?>>

At the point where usage becomes easy and one doesn't have to grope for words or constantly repeat oneself to get someone to understand.

Computer programming only becomes enjoyable once you can write long sequences of working code without having to intensively debug or constantly look up the needed elements. This applies to language, as well.

<<
At the point where usage becomes easy and one doesn't have to grope for words or constantly repeat oneself to get someone to understand. >>

That's your opinion, others may differ.

<<That's your opinion, others may differ.>>

I think it's a pretty widespread opinion.

I wan't to rephrase my initial statement:

"I get the impression that English is the most studied language, but the *LEAST* admired."

...and its more than an impression. I'm sure of it now. Few people regard the english language highly.


<<It begs the question - who were the persons Paul knows who do not, or did not, enjoy the learning of English?>>

Non-native, and native speakers alike...