Grammatical complexity of German and Romance languages

Guest   Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:15 pm GMT
Seriously, only myth I can read out of Asterix is myth of David and Goliath.
greg   Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:20 pm GMT
Sam II : « Asterix comics perpetuate in a humorous way the nationalistic 19th century myth that the ancestors of the French people are the Gaulois (nos ancetres les gaulois) and that peoples in Europe can be regarded as tribes of different ethnicities. »

Tu te gourres totalement. « Les aventures d'Astérix le Gaulois » sont en fait une satire, féroce et tendre à la fois, de l'insularité française, mais aussi de l'ouverture de la France sur l'extérieur. Cette caricature repose sur une double légende : 1] il existe une invariance entre l'époque de Vercingétorix et la nôtre — 2] la France est une Gaule modernisée. Le ressort comique de la BD vient de ce que toutes les histoires sont articulées sur ce double mythe de façon stéréotypée. Le schéma gallofrançais est bien sûr étendu, par simple copier-coller, aux autres peuples européens (ou pas) → voir « Astérix chez les Bretons » ou « Astérix aux jeux olympiques ».




Sam II : « "If you're looking for the source of anti-German sentiment in France, try the Franco-Prussian War, the First World War, and the Second World War. "
These wars were to a great part the product and not the source of the above mentioned myth that consists of the vision of France and Germany being two ethnologically different people fighting against each other since the beginning of history. The peak of anti-German sentiment in France is to be located between 1789 and 1870. »

L'hostilité des monarques français, au départ très affaiblis, à l'égard des puissantes dynasties du Saint-Empire est très ancienne. Au départ, l'antagonisme franco-allemand provient de la confrontation de l'impérialisme de la famille capétienne — qui ne régnait que sur un morceau de peuple qui n'en était d'ailleurs pas un — avec le Volk germanique dont la masse et le dynamisme ont toujours suscité l'émulation côté Francia occidentalis. C'est pas pour rien que le « Drang » s'est fait « nach Osten » et non pas "nach Westen". Je t'épargne la longue litanie des rivalités franco-autrichiennes...
furrykef   Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:57 pm GMT
<< you are talking about the German language but you are not able to write this simple sentence correct ... >>

It's "correctly", not "correct" ;) And while I'm correcting...

<< I know them by hard and I'm a big fan >>

That should be "by heart".

- Kef
Sam II   Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:58 am GMT
greg:
"Cette caricature repose sur une double légende : 1] il existe une invariance entre l'époque de Vercingétorix et la nôtre — 2] la France est une Gaule modernisée. "

This is exactly what I ment, thank you greg. Many French are not aware that Asterix is only a humoristic story made for entertainment. They really believe (at least psych. subconsciously) this "double legend" that modern France is a linear continuation of the Gaul of Vercingétorix.

greg:
"L'hostilité des monarques français, au départ très affaiblis, à l'égard des puissantes dynasties du Saint-Empire est très ancienne. Au départ, l'antagonisme franco-allemand provient de la confrontation de l'impérialisme de la famille capétienne — qui ne régnait que sur un morceau de peuple qui n'en était d'ailleurs pas un — avec le Volk germanique dont la masse et le dynamisme ont toujours suscité l'émulation côté Francia occidentalis. C'est pas pour rien que le « Drang » s'est fait « nach Osten » et non pas "nach Westen". Je t'épargne la longue litanie des rivalités franco-autrichiennes... "

I can subscribe that. But after the revolution, French impérialisme was assisted by a dangerous nationalism based on the above "double légende" that Asterix perpetates involuntarily and in a very charming way.
Adolfo   Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:59 pm GMT
"This is exactly what I ment, thank you greg. Many French are not aware that Asterix is only a humoristic story made for entertainment. They really believe (at least psych. subconsciously) this "double legend" that modern France is a linear continuation of the Gaul of Vercingétorix."

Do the French know at least that the name "France" itself comes from a Germanic tribe and not a Gaulish one?
OïL   Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:40 pm GMT
"Do the French know at least that the name "France" itself comes from a Germanic tribe and not a Gaulish one?"

— Rares sont les Français qui ignorent !...
Toute personne non totalement illettrée sait que la France procède d'une substance celtique (Gaulois) qui a reçu sa langue de Rome (Gallo-Romains) et son principe national d'un peuple germanique (Francs, Francie, et finalement France).

"Many French are not aware that Asterix is only a humoristic story made for entertainment. They really believe (at least psych. subconsciously) this "double legend" that modern France is a linear continuation of the Gaul of Vercingétorix."
— Ridicule et faux. Sans ses anachronismes et stéréotypes au 3e degré, Asterix perdrait toute sa force comique, et personne ne lirait les albums de la série.
OïL   Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:57 pm GMT
"OïL, was it difficult to learn German compared to learning English? How long did it take and which level did you reach? What were the most difficult hurdles?"
— J'ai démarré l'allemand à l'âge de 10 ans, et 5 ans plus tard, la 1ère fois que je suis venu en Allemagne, j'étais enragé par la difficulté à former la moindre phrase sans devoir remémorer des déclinaisons et conjugaisons compliquées.
Entre-temps, j'ai commencé l'anglais, et j'ai été émerveillé par la facilité à y accéder, à former des phrases correctes, juste après quelques mois d'école.

Avec les années, j'ai réalisé être plus à l'aise avec l'allemand. Plus on y avance, plus c'est facile. La langue parlée a une phonétique bien plus claire que l'anglais, et même les mots qu'on n'a encore jamais entendus se comprennent intuitivement (par étymologie/analogie).

Par contre, plus on progresse dans l'anglais, plus on voit qu'il est fait de milliers d'idiotismes qu'il faut apprendre un par un, comme des idéogrammes.

Quand j'ai lu un article du Spiegel, je sais ce qu'il dit. Quand c'est un article du Economist, je n'en suis jamais 100% sûr.
Sam II   Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:55 am GMT
OïL
<<<Toute personne non totalement illettrée sait que la France procède d'une substance celtique (Gaulois) qui a reçu sa langue de Rome (Gallo-Romains) et son principe national d'un peuple germanique (Francs, Francie, et finalement France). >>>

Your statement itself shows accurately the durability of the Gallo-Romanic myth. You state that the "sustance" of the French people consists of Celts. What do you mean by "Celtic (Gaulois) sustance"? Do you mean that the average Frenchman is of Celtic (Gaulois) ancestry? In your opinion, what has happened to the heavy Latin Roman and Germanic settlement? Gaul was for more than a milennium a Roman and later Germanic colony, an area for settlement by colonists and veterans. Think of the colonization of the Americas - would you characterize the USA as having an American-Indian "substance" which has got its language from England?

Discribing the Roman colonization as being an act of pure language transfer and the Germanic colonization by Burgundians, Goths and Franks as consisting of only a donation of national principles is wishful thinking of Gallo-French 19th century nationalism.
Adolfo   Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:21 pm GMT
"Discribing the Roman colonization as being an act of pure language transfer and the Germanic colonization by Burgundians, Goths and Franks as consisting of only a donation of national principles is wishful thinking of Gallo-French 19th century nationalism."

In fact the Language of the Romans could be considered a minor aspect of the Romanisation. The Romans taught the Gauls how to make big and complex urban societies work: they were taught from the Roman Law (a fundamental tool ) to civil engineering (bridges, acueducts...). If the Romans didn't conquer the Gauls they hardly could become more than barbaric people.
Guest   Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:37 pm GMT
<<In fact the Language of the Romans could be considered a minor aspect of the Romanisation. The Romans taught the Gauls how to make big and complex urban societies work: they were taught from the Roman Law (a fundamental tool ) to civil engineering (bridges, acueducts...). If the Romans didn't conquer the Gauls they hardly could become more than barbaric people. >>

...and let's not forget the slaughter of innocent Christians to lions, overt promiscuity, brothels and orgies, and blood-thirsty colosium events...man! those Romans sure were a sophisticated bunch!
Adolfo   Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:46 pm GMT
I forgot promiscuity and orgies.It is another good thing the Romans had. They were such a divine culture!
Tiago   Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:51 pm GMT
True. Regarding the original topic of the thread, I posit that *no* languages are harder to learn than others, and if they were, we wouldn't be able to tell by studying foreign-language learners... So if someone can compile at which age do children in each language-area start speaking, we may have a less unbiased test of ease of learning for a language -- although I strongly suspect that most languages would be clustered very close together on that graph.

Of course, in the case of foreign-language learning, it is my belief that the most important factor contributing to the ease or difficulty of learning is the method employed. A good teacher -- and a good textbook -- can work wonders.
Guest   Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:45 pm GMT
BS, of course there are some languages harder to learn than others, it's not the same thing to learn Italian that to learn Chinese. (for anyone)

And Spanish is the easiest language to learn of all, just cuz you know that whatever language it is that you speak is harder than Spanish is that you people are always saying "all languages are equaly difficult" but you know it's not true.
Adolfo   Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:48 pm GMT
I do not think that all languages are equally difficult. It is much easier for me to learn Italian rather than Chinese. I can not demonstrate why, perhaps my experience is not a scientific argument, but since I experienced it I hardly can accept that all languages are equally difficult. I would say that they are all equally complex, but obviously it will be easier to learn a language related to yours.
Guest   Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:02 am GMT
<< ... but there is nothing *inherently* more difficult about Chinese (the languages themselves, not their writing systems). >>

Wouldn't you normally have to learn the writing system, when you learn a language like Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or even English? Wouldn't the time spent learning how to read and write Chinese count towards the overall difficulty in learning Chinese?

If difficulties in the writing system don't count, then why do we see threads about English spelling reform around here every now and then? If you don't like English spelling, don't bother learning the English writing system. Just learn the English language itself.