Why is English syntax so easy compared to th Romance tongues

Guest   Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:55 pm GMT
It seems that in English you only need to string words together to produce correct sentences, you don't need to worry about gender agreement, declensions, conjugations, etc . One must only take care of proper word order: Subject +verb +object . Invert that order if it's a question and the job is done. How come is English so easy? It was consciously created that way by their native speakers so English would someday become the most studied language around the world due to its simplicity? Thanks in advance.
eeuuian   Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:29 am GMT
<<How come is English so easy?>>

Perhaps a better question is "Why are most other languages so complex?"
Why do some languages have up to 1.5 million conjugated verb forms, for each verb?

Of course, not every aspect of English is simpler than other languages -- consider spelling.
Togo   Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:52 am GMT
English has painfully huge amounts of synonyms and homonyms, I always found that to be quite difficult. Words like "set" are a nightmare.
Wise Being   Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:13 pm GMT
For a world lingua franca simplicity is a great advantage.
Buddy   Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:09 pm GMT
<<How come is English so easy?>>

Well, is it all that easy? Take the sentence above--not to be picky, but the syntax is not correct--it should read: "How come English is so easy".

<<It was consciously created that way by their native speakers so English would someday become the most studied language around the world due to its simplicity? Thanks in advance. >>

English was never consciously created. Rather, it evolved naturally (and by "naturally" I mean with very little discipline and supervision ;) It just happened that way.

Stress accent in English holp [sic :] to steer it in this direction, so did the loss of certain pronouns like "thou".

Hope this answer'th your questions.
ASU55RR   Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:42 am GMT
I'll agree it's easier, but not really that much. Romance languages (I grew up speaking English and Francaise Cadien), with the possible exception of Romanian, are rather straight forward and have few irregulars.

Now Czech... that was a tough language to learn- word order rules were straight forward and not much different than English, but 3 genders with 7 declinsions that must agree with every pronoun, adjective, and noun...

Obviously the English language wasn't the grand scheme of an Old English speaking peasantry and a Franco-Norman elite to form the great world language for 900 years later... although that would be a cool back story... It evolved like all languages.
Ouest   Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:59 am GMT
eeuuian Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:29 am GMT

Perhaps a better question is "Why are most other languages so complex?" Why do some languages have up to 1.5 million conjugated verb forms, for each verb?

________________

I would say this is indeed the question - what processes produce language simplification i.e. transition from synthetic to analytic?
lplp   Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:40 am GMT
English verbs are almost as complex as romance languages:

infinitive: tohave
1st prsn: Ihave
2nd: Youhave
3rd: Hehas, Shehas, Ithas
2nd plural (optional): Youhave, Y'allhave, Youallhave, Yousehave
3rd plural: theyhave

The main diference is that it is prefixes rather than suffixes that mark the conjugations.
Caspian   Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:21 pm GMT
<< Why do some languages have up to 1.5 million conjugated verb forms, for each verb? >>

Really??? Which languages? I don't believe this for one instant!

<< Words like "set" are a nightmare. >>

Yes, I once heard that this was the English word with the greatest number of meanings.
Brian   Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:43 pm GMT
<<How come is English so easy?>>

I find it extremely ironic (and funny) that you committed a grammatical error while asking this question.
meijse   Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:52 pm GMT
English does not have simpler syntax, than let's say Italian.
The number of tenses used in English is greater, in Italian you can do fine with one future (partirò), one present (parto), two past tenses based on their perfectivity/imperfectivity (partivo vs sono partuto), two subjunctives (che io partca, se io partissi) and one conjuntive (io partirei)

compare with English

I part, I am going to part, I will part, I will be parting, I will have parted
I parted, I have parted, I used to part, I was parting, I had parted, I have been parting
if I parted, If I had parted, we advise he part immediately
I would part, I would have parted, I would be parting, I would have been parting
???   Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:48 pm GMT
<<How come is English so easy?>>

>>I find it extremely ironic (and funny) that you committed a grammatical error while asking this question.<<

Lol quite. Obviously the 'simple' rule for questions and word order doesn't apply here.
Yegor Ivanovich Pizdetsky   Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:27 pm GMT
<<I part, I am going to part, I will part, I will be parting, I will have parted
I parted, I have parted, I used to part, I was parting, I had parted, I have been parting
if I parted, If I had parted, we advise he part immediately
I would part, I would have parted, I would be parting, I would have been parting >>


You can say those in other languages too... In Spanish for example, (and I assume you can in Italian too):

parto, voy a partir, partiré, estaré partiendo, habré partido,
partí, he partido, solía partir, partía, había partido, he estado partiendo,
si partiera, si hubiera partido, le aconsejamos que parta de inmediato,
partiría, habría partido, estaría partiendo, habría estado partiendo


Strange how it corresponds practically 100%. Why is this?
Blanquita   Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:34 pm GMT
All languages have more or less the same tenses, but some express them through conjugations and English on the other hand uses modal verbs like will. English lacks the subjunctive mood, unlike Romance verbs.
Moloko   Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:11 am GMT
''English lacks the subjunctive mood''

Wrong, subjunctive is alive and kicking in standard American English:


If I were you.
It was required that we go to the back of the line.


It is true that this mood is rare in standard British English.