Learning English is like learning to wash dishes or scrub tables. Something you ought to know how to do but not very fun to do.
Does anyone like the English Language?
Thanks every body to answer my post. I like your critique very much. But I can only answer one question today. That is some one said: “Language is an aesthetically pleasing language.” that is true, I don’t deny it and I want the English to be a more beautiful language too. Do you know in Shakespeare’s time, there were only 30,000 words but now even the Oxford dictionary list 300,000 entries. That is to say we have at least, ten times words as Shakespeare’s time. The result is that every body can repeat each word ten times less than Shakespeare. In other word, no one can use the normal words as skilful as Shakespeare. The result is no one can match the level of Shakespeare. Once we are successful in the reform, our basic words could be as less as 3,000 words. That is to say we can use every word ten times as skilful as Shakespeare. The world carried by the words would be more beautiful and true.
I don't think you'll find one person who has a 300,000 word vocabulary. The average vocabulary of a person is supposed to be around 30,000 anyway. Remember there a lot of words in the dictionary that are archaic or rarely used or scientific terms.
Yes, since the days of Shakespeare the vocabulary of the English Language has increased manifold... and more some.... due to the ever developing world of science and technology and everything else that have helped to make up the world we all know today. Furthermore, since the 16th/17th centuries, a huge number of words have been nicked from other Languages and subsequently enriched English further by their absorption, thanks in part to the expansion of the British Empire. For instance, a lot of old geezers, in particular, go to bed in their pyjamas, but I doubt very much indeed that Will ever saw that word.
Mind you, many of the expressions Shakespeare and his contemporaries used have long since become defunct, although the contributory words may well still exist but with different meanings. For instance, the word "merry" had a different meaning then from that of today, and the word "homely" then meant what it does in America today, but not here in the UK where it now means something totally different.
Like all Languages English is a living and breathing body - it thrives on sustenance of all kinds, and like the human beings who have the pleasure of speaking it - it changes over time.
Mind you, many of the expressions Shakespeare and his contemporaries used have long since become defunct, although the contributory words may well still exist but with different meanings. For instance, the word "merry" had a different meaning then from that of today, and the word "homely" then meant what it does in America today, but not here in the UK where it now means something totally different.
Like all Languages English is a living and breathing body - it thrives on sustenance of all kinds, and like the human beings who have the pleasure of speaking it - it changes over time.
<<Once we are successful in the reform, our basic words could be as less as 3,000 words. >>
When is this reform expected to be complete? After the US and Europe have been liberated by armies from the East?
(Is this the same reform that adds 10? possible tones to each English vowel, so you end up with 80 vowels?)
When is this reform expected to be complete? After the US and Europe have been liberated by armies from the East?
(Is this the same reform that adds 10? possible tones to each English vowel, so you end up with 80 vowels?)
I am not sure if you are the host of this forum or your name is Host but I am pretty sure any Chinese high school student can grasp more than one million words, because the Chinese vocabulary is full of self-explaining word. What is self-explain word? In English term you may call them compound word. For instance, rarely any one know a word ‘prill’, for it is a synthetic word, once we shift it into a compound word (or self-explain word ), every body know it as high-grade-copper-ore. In Chinese language, only 3,000 basic words are necessary to be learnt, all the rest words are compound word or self-explain words. Do you know how many compound words can be made by these 3,000 basic words? Let’s count, suppose every time we take two basic words for a compound word; that is to say it will be 3,000X3, 000=9,000,000 compound words. If we take three basic words as compound word, we can make 3,000X3,000X3,000=27,000,000,000 compound words, not to say we can have a compound word that made by four basic words like prill=high-grade-copper ore.
I know rarely some English speaker have more than 30,000 words. The reason is that the English vocabulary full of synthetic word.
I know rarely some English speaker have more than 30,000 words. The reason is that the English vocabulary full of synthetic word.
Cheng-Zhong Su: If Chinese is the ultimate language, I suggest you attempt to get more people to study it instead of trying to reform a language you still need to learn.
Hello Damian: I know there are plenty words used in Shakespeare’s time, no longer use in today. But can you tell me how many words an English teacher can say satisfactorily “that is enough”? I know that plenty English words may have more than one meaning, but do you know correspondently, each meaning of the same word have a unique Chinese translation? Or we may say that if in average each English word has two meanings, then the Chinese vocabulary will double the size of English vocabulary.
Finally, I agree you that English like all language, changing all the times. I hope the changing towards a good direction not the wrong direction. The first thing is find out which one is right and which is wrong. What I am going to do is talking about the principle of the changing.
Finally, I agree you that English like all language, changing all the times. I hope the changing towards a good direction not the wrong direction. The first thing is find out which one is right and which is wrong. What I am going to do is talking about the principle of the changing.
Dear Doomsayer: I am not sure that why you always talking about one country take over the other. Are you always thinking about this? As I know in the world no language can be called perfect, so every language need a reform not just English. I hope the speaker of this language understand the reform before others.
No one can give the time table of the reform. Here is what I said in the other forum:
Esperanto, Ido, Eurolang etc. didn’t give their speakers any benefit. For instance Esperanto has created as much compound word and derivatives as possible. Indeed, it made the language easy to learn but on the other hand, this process makes the words longer than normal English words, in the average. Supposing it take just 0.2 second longer than English in average, it means to say 1/5 life of the speakers was wasted in oral action, without any information exchange. Beside this, as our thinking process is a sort of speaking in mind. That is to say our thinking process is cohered with speaking in some way. Once our speaking speed is slow down, our thinking speed would be slow down too.
Now, the Auxlang should refer a projecting language or a goal language. It is not invented by a single person but by the people of the world. The project divided by two steps. First step: Any language that wants to share the future IAL (International Auxiliary Language) should take a reform. Second step: After this reform, these languages could be learnt in a short time, so some governments (for instance German and France) may require their students learn both language then the jargon lead a new language (we may call it Gerench). Repeat this process; the world language will be united.
First step:
As very language has its unique property, so we can’t suggest any thing to any single language. Linguists of that language should response the reform. They have to design the plan and maybe found their own school to achieve the reform. For the moment, we can only recommend the target as:
1. Reducing the basic words under 4,000. 2. Any other word could be substituted by a compound word from these 4,000 words. 3. The speaking speed should not slower than current language. 4. Every learner could pronounce any words properly when facing a writing material. 5. The ability of drawing information from other cultures and languages should be better than any other languages.
In other words, after learn the basic letters; any learner could pronounce any words exactly when facing the writing material. After learnt the 4,000 words, a learner should understand all the vocabulary no matter how many words it will have. This step is in fact helps the language attract more people to learn it and let its speaker enjoy more information during life time.
No one can give the time table of the reform. Here is what I said in the other forum:
Esperanto, Ido, Eurolang etc. didn’t give their speakers any benefit. For instance Esperanto has created as much compound word and derivatives as possible. Indeed, it made the language easy to learn but on the other hand, this process makes the words longer than normal English words, in the average. Supposing it take just 0.2 second longer than English in average, it means to say 1/5 life of the speakers was wasted in oral action, without any information exchange. Beside this, as our thinking process is a sort of speaking in mind. That is to say our thinking process is cohered with speaking in some way. Once our speaking speed is slow down, our thinking speed would be slow down too.
Now, the Auxlang should refer a projecting language or a goal language. It is not invented by a single person but by the people of the world. The project divided by two steps. First step: Any language that wants to share the future IAL (International Auxiliary Language) should take a reform. Second step: After this reform, these languages could be learnt in a short time, so some governments (for instance German and France) may require their students learn both language then the jargon lead a new language (we may call it Gerench). Repeat this process; the world language will be united.
First step:
As very language has its unique property, so we can’t suggest any thing to any single language. Linguists of that language should response the reform. They have to design the plan and maybe found their own school to achieve the reform. For the moment, we can only recommend the target as:
1. Reducing the basic words under 4,000. 2. Any other word could be substituted by a compound word from these 4,000 words. 3. The speaking speed should not slower than current language. 4. Every learner could pronounce any words properly when facing a writing material. 5. The ability of drawing information from other cultures and languages should be better than any other languages.
In other words, after learn the basic letters; any learner could pronounce any words exactly when facing the writing material. After learnt the 4,000 words, a learner should understand all the vocabulary no matter how many words it will have. This step is in fact helps the language attract more people to learn it and let its speaker enjoy more information during life time.
I like writen English more than spoken. It's a simple , functional and effective language to me.
<<I like writen English more than spoken>>
That's interesting, because you always hear so many complaints about spelling around here, along with calls for spelling reform.
That's interesting, because you always hear so many complaints about spelling around here, along with calls for spelling reform.
Again this crap about reforming languages proposed by people who have no idea whatsoever what a language is. Ok, it's funny, but some people might take it seriously.
<<After learnt the 4,000 words, a learner should understand all the vocabulary no matter how many words it will have.>>
It will still have 4,000 words. With 4,000 words, you can create compounds, but they'll still be made of the same 4,000 stinking words. Can anyone imagine English with only 4,000 words and odd inexpressive intonation? It would be awful, and it would ruin the English language, which is already beautiful the way it is. But I know most of you guys can imagine such a weird English: it's just the kind of English spoken by ESL Asian Learners who still have to improve.
<<After learnt the 4,000 words, a learner should understand all the vocabulary no matter how many words it will have.>>
It will still have 4,000 words. With 4,000 words, you can create compounds, but they'll still be made of the same 4,000 stinking words. Can anyone imagine English with only 4,000 words and odd inexpressive intonation? It would be awful, and it would ruin the English language, which is already beautiful the way it is. But I know most of you guys can imagine such a weird English: it's just the kind of English spoken by ESL Asian Learners who still have to improve.
"some governments (for instance German and France) may require their students learn both language then the jargon lead a new language (we may call it Gerench)"
Non, non, pardonez moi!
Il devrait être appelé Freman ou Frautsch.
Non, non, pardonez moi!
Il devrait être appelé Freman ou Frautsch.
In response to the original post, I love English. True, I am a native speaker, but I think I would love it anyway, were I only a student of it.
As many have pointed out, English's sine qua non is the fact that it has more vocabulary than any other language, derived from a very broad range of sources. Plus, it has many helpful grammatical rules which preclude excessive inflections and aid to developing a host of useful words from simple roots by adding suffixes and prefixes.
It is QUIRKY. That is undeniable. It is also rather difficult to write with clarity. French may be more precise, but is not as interesting without the manifold layers of meaning and nuance available in English by simply altering a word or two in a sentence.
For a simple instance, "I am loving English," on one level means the same as "I love English." Both express a delight in the language. However, the second implies an especial current joy, perhaps in contrast to some previous field of study.
As many have pointed out, English's sine qua non is the fact that it has more vocabulary than any other language, derived from a very broad range of sources. Plus, it has many helpful grammatical rules which preclude excessive inflections and aid to developing a host of useful words from simple roots by adding suffixes and prefixes.
It is QUIRKY. That is undeniable. It is also rather difficult to write with clarity. French may be more precise, but is not as interesting without the manifold layers of meaning and nuance available in English by simply altering a word or two in a sentence.
For a simple instance, "I am loving English," on one level means the same as "I love English." Both express a delight in the language. However, the second implies an especial current joy, perhaps in contrast to some previous field of study.
<<As many have pointed out, English's sine qua non is the fact that it has more vocabulary than any other language, derived from a very broad range of sources. Plus, it has many helpful grammatical rules which preclude excessive inflections and aid to developing a host of useful words from simple roots by adding suffixes and prefixes.>>
Having a large vocabulary is a bad thing rather than a good thing. It makes allegedly high quality writing turn into just a bunch of Latinate words without any feeling or purpose, and is pointless because in most cases there are perfectly good English equivalents available. For example, to try to sound smart one might use expressions like "sine qua non", this however almost always fails miserable and ends up sounding completely pretentious, laughable and fucktardish.
Having a large vocabulary is a bad thing rather than a good thing. It makes allegedly high quality writing turn into just a bunch of Latinate words without any feeling or purpose, and is pointless because in most cases there are perfectly good English equivalents available. For example, to try to sound smart one might use expressions like "sine qua non", this however almost always fails miserable and ends up sounding completely pretentious, laughable and fucktardish.