Does anyone like the English Language?
<<I know that the Chinese language call a sentences as sick sentence when you express one meaning twice. The expression of ‘10 apples’ is in fact expressing the meaning of plural twice.>>
Having redundancy in a language isn't necessarily bad. Over a noisy communication channel, redundany could help reconstruct more of the content of the message at the receiving end.
<< How about:
Customer: "Ya still got any o' those great pies left?"
Baker: "Sure -- still got 8 peach, 2 pear, and 10 apple. Y'oughtta try the pear -- they're scrumptious -- only 2 left." >>
The plural "pies" was already used by the customer, repeating this word another four times would be redundant. Context is everything. If the baker would have stated "I have 8 peach, 2 pear, etc." to the customer as he walked through the door he would have been left confused.
Customer: "You have two peach what?"
Baker: "Pies."
Customer: "Why didn't you say that in the first place?"
"Eight peach pie" means that a pie is made using eight peaches. "Eight peach pies" means there are eight individual peach pies. Quite a difference.
@Cheng-Zhong Su:
"10 apples" is not redundant. It is not "sick" nor "disease." Using or not using plural forms does not make a language better or worse, it's just a different way of expressing the same idea.
Your problem is that you believe your language to be the pinnacle of perfection and find any differing methods to be inferior. Your reasoning for ridding English of plural words is flawed at best and insane at worst. The same goes for the rest of your reform ideas.
As I said before, if Chinese is the best language on Earth you should be spending your time trying to get everyone to speak it instead of trying to polish a turd, as it were.
Chinese the best language on Earth? Are you joking???!!!!
<<"10 apples" is not redundant. It is not "sick" nor "disease." Using or not using plural forms does not make a language better or worse, it's just a different way of expressing the same idea.>>
Whether you understand it or not "10 apples" does indicate the plural twice, as Cheng-Zhong Su said, though of course it doesn't make the language any worse.
<< Whether you understand it or not "10 apples" does indicate the plural twice, as Cheng-Zhong Su said, though of course it doesn't make the language any worse. >>
No. Just no. "Apples" specifies that we are talking about multiple items, 10 lets us know how many of those items there are. And, again, without the 's' the meaning is different, meaning that the plural form is necessary to give the intended information.
The fact that an unrelated language can get the information across without a plural form does NOT mean that the same can apply to every other language. If anything, removing plurals removes the amount of information possible using only two words.
In any case, the fact that "10 apples" means something different without the 's' is proof that the plural form is NOT redundant because it is a necessary component that gives specific meaning, in this case, to the number 10. Arguing against this fact is futile.
Even if it were redundant for phrases like "10 apple" it is not redundant in phrases like "I like dogs", which is quite different to "I like dog". So if you removed plurals in some cases but not in others it would make the language more complicated rather than less complicated. You would have to learn a huge number of rules for when it should be rmeoved and when not.
<<Even if it were redundant for phrases like "10 apple" it is not redundant in phrases like "I like dogs", which is quite different to "I like dog".>>
Indeed.
An example for Cheng-Zhong Su that illustrates the difference:
1) Americans like dogs.
2) Chinese people like dog.
Cheng-Zhong Su said:
<<
I think he means to say that it is not economy to add a ‘s’ at the end of a noun. For English lack adequate letters to represent so many meanings. I agree with this point of view. That is the English has to use every letters more carefully. We can’t in one hand trying to simplify the vocabulary while one the other hand uses the letters lavishly. I know that the Chinese language call a sentences as sick sentence when you express one meaning twice. The expression of ‘10 apples’ is in fact expressing the meaning of plural twice. That is to say the same phenomenon, in one language could be called as grammar while in other language called disease. If both of them can tell the listener exactly the same thing, then I prefer the economy one.>>
I tend to side with the less-is-more attitude when it concerns overly complex grammar that serves no real communicative purpose - english has already rid itself of most of those indo-european characteristics (like grammatical gender). However, in this case, our humble simplified plural noun inflection 's' serves a necessary purpose, and should definately stay.
Anyway, if you're of the opinion that languages should be more "economical", then convince the Chinese to get rid of their ridiculously complex and impractical writing system, and adopt an alphabet.
Does it make sense for every single word to have its own unique character?
I can see how 'less is more' might be true for native speakers, but for a learner I think it would make it harder. A lot of subtle details are expressed in English through sentences which are grammatically more or less the same, so to understand the subtleties you have to 'read between the lines'. On the other hand, highly synthetic languages often express the same details in an explicit fashion by pegging on another ending or something.
<< Indeed.
An example for Cheng-Zhong Su that illustrates the difference:
1) Americans like dogs.
2) Chinese people like dog. >>
You're my new hero.
<<No. Just no. "Apples" specifies that we are talking about multiple items, 10 lets us know how many of those items there are.>>
Knowing how many there are is enough to indicate that we are talking about multiple items.
And it's not an exotic concept either. French just across the Channel is pronunced with no difference at all between plural and singular forms for most nouns, that's how "necessary" it is. Conversely written French indicates plural not only in nouns but in adjectives as well, which English does not. Does that mean French can give information that English can not ?
<< And, again, without the 's' the meaning is different, >>
In that particular example it's not.
<<Even if it were redundant for phrases like "10 apple" it is not redundant in phrases like "I like dogs", which is quite different to "I like dog".>>
If "dogs" did not have its 's' I'm sure even you would still be bright enough to understand what is really meant. No to mention it would be pretty easy to make the phrase unambiguous anyway if for some odd reason you wanted it to be.
<<I tend to side with the less-is-more attitude when it concerns overly complex grammar that serves no real communicative purpose - english has already rid itself of most of those indo-european characteristics (like grammatical gender). However, in this case, our humble simplified plural noun inflection 's' serves a necessary purpose, and should definately stay.>>
Grammatical gender also serves a purpose ; it can give the noun a completely different meaning.
I don't see what's wrong with English.
It isn't a harsh sounding language and the words don't look "ugly" either.
English sounds much better to the ear than German, Dutch and even French.
<<I can see how 'less is more' might be true for native speakers, but for a learner I think it would make it harder. A lot of subtle details are expressed in English through sentences which are grammatically more or less the same, so to understand the subtleties you have to 'read between the lines'. On the other hand, highly synthetic languages often express the same details in an explicit fashion by pegging on another ending or something.>>
It is interesting that no one here is able to take this from an artistic perspective. What advantages or disadvantages are their in writing creatively in the English language. Rhyme is more difficult to achieve in English due to the lack of gendered words, but the large number of words and the subtlety (necessity to read between the lines) can be quite useful for a writer since ambiguity is often helpful in creating depth.