I don't think any spoken language is more difficult than another as a FIRST language, but if we consider writing systems and adult learners, then we could perhaps say that it takes LONGER to learn some languages. For some people, that means a language is "difficult"...
Grammatical complexity of German and Romance languages
I refer to OïL's previous posting:
<<<"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. ">>>
He states that he learned German since the age of 10, and after 5 years he still had difficulties to build one single sentence correctly and fluently. This is normal and very frequent - the same is stated by Germans learning Slavic languages.
Since then he learned English and was amazed how easy it was to build correct sentences after a few months of learning.
This provides evidence for K. T. posting:
<<<I don't think any spoken language is more difficult than another as a FIRST language, but if we consider writing systems and adult learners, then we could perhaps say that it takes LONGER to learn some languages. For some people, that means a language is "difficult"... >>>
<<<"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. ">>>
He states that he learned German since the age of 10, and after 5 years he still had difficulties to build one single sentence correctly and fluently. This is normal and very frequent - the same is stated by Germans learning Slavic languages.
Since then he learned English and was amazed how easy it was to build correct sentences after a few months of learning.
This provides evidence for K. T. posting:
<<<I don't think any spoken language is more difficult than another as a FIRST language, but if we consider writing systems and adult learners, then we could perhaps say that it takes LONGER to learn some languages. For some people, that means a language is "difficult"... >>>
<<I refer to OïL's previous posting:>>
Don't omit the rest of OiL's post:
<<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. >>
I suppose these "idiotisms" refer to having to learn to spell each word on a case-by-case basis?
Don't omit the rest of OiL's post:
<<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. >>
I suppose these "idiotisms" refer to having to learn to spell each word on a case-by-case basis?
>>I suppose these "idiotisms" refer to having to learn to spell each word on a case-by-case basis? <<
No I don't think so. Why would that mean he finds it easier to undertsand the Spiegel than the Economist?
I think what he means, is that although the grammatical rules of German are complex, once you have learnt them, you realise it is actually a very structured, logical language. I'm not sure the same can be said of English, which I think has a more chaotic structure.
And Sam II, I don't understand why you decided to try and use Oil's post to support your argument, when its conclusion actually contradicts it.
No I don't think so. Why would that mean he finds it easier to undertsand the Spiegel than the Economist?
I think what he means, is that although the grammatical rules of German are complex, once you have learnt them, you realise it is actually a very structured, logical language. I'm not sure the same can be said of English, which I think has a more chaotic structure.
And Sam II, I don't understand why you decided to try and use Oil's post to support your argument, when its conclusion actually contradicts it.
<<Why would that mean he finds it easier to undertsand the Spiegel than the Economist?>>
I'm not familiar with the Economist, but could it be that it's written in an arcane, obfuscatory, obscure, or jargon-filled style?
I'm not familiar with the Economist, but could it be that it's written in an arcane, obfuscatory, obscure, or jargon-filled style?
>>I'm not familiar with the Economist, but could it be that it's written in an arcane, obfuscatory, obscure, or jargon-filled style?<<
No, why would it be, it's a mainstream publication? It's just written in English at near its highest standard. That means it's very good English, but also tends to contain all the complexities and ambiguities of the English language.
Let's be clear: English is easy at a basic level. It lacks gender, noun declension and much verb conjugation. But get beyond this basic fabric of language and it has many intricacies, things that a language like German is not burdened with (for a learner) at a higher level.
No, why would it be, it's a mainstream publication? It's just written in English at near its highest standard. That means it's very good English, but also tends to contain all the complexities and ambiguities of the English language.
Let's be clear: English is easy at a basic level. It lacks gender, noun declension and much verb conjugation. But get beyond this basic fabric of language and it has many intricacies, things that a language like German is not burdened with (for a learner) at a higher level.
I think people are just lazy after they reach a level where they can communicate.
I agree and disagree with the opinions. Not being able to read magazines with interviews in the ordinary language, or signs or documents DOES make it "harder" to acheive good fluency quickly in a language like Japanese. However, this has nothing to do with grammatical complexity. It's the problem of hearing something and then there is no written reinforcement.
It doesn't bother me if anyone disagrees. This is only based on my own experiences learning a few languages and from a little reading.
I agree and disagree with the opinions. Not being able to read magazines with interviews in the ordinary language, or signs or documents DOES make it "harder" to acheive good fluency quickly in a language like Japanese. However, this has nothing to do with grammatical complexity. It's the problem of hearing something and then there is no written reinforcement.
It doesn't bother me if anyone disagrees. This is only based on my own experiences learning a few languages and from a little reading.
<<<I think what he means, is that although the grammatical rules of German are complex, once you have learnt them, you realise it is actually a very structured, logical language. I'm not sure the same can be said of English, which I think has a more chaotic structure.
And Sam II, I don't understand why you decided to try and use Oil's post to support your argument, when its conclusion actually contradicts it. >>>
There is no contradiction: grammatical complexity of German is not to be confused with complications due to a chaotic disorganization (e. g. of English). It is sure that with highly organized languages like Latin, Greek, Russian and German you have in the end a much better tool - but you have to learn the grammar in the beginning in order to be able to use one of these forceful languages fluently and in a correct way. In English (and Romance languages) it is the other wy round.
And Sam II, I don't understand why you decided to try and use Oil's post to support your argument, when its conclusion actually contradicts it. >>>
There is no contradiction: grammatical complexity of German is not to be confused with complications due to a chaotic disorganization (e. g. of English). It is sure that with highly organized languages like Latin, Greek, Russian and German you have in the end a much better tool - but you have to learn the grammar in the beginning in order to be able to use one of these forceful languages fluently and in a correct way. In English (and Romance languages) it is the other wy round.
"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."
AAHAHAHAHAH!!! This is good! Apart that they are so !gauls" that nowadays you can hardly find a Frenchman/Woman in France (see the French national teams in all sports just for ex), but without the Romans, European peoples went on hanging on trees for centuries again
AAHAHAHAHAH!!! This is good! Apart that they are so !gauls" that nowadays you can hardly find a Frenchman/Woman in France (see the French national teams in all sports just for ex), but without the Romans, European peoples went on hanging on trees for centuries again
<<but without the Romans, European peoples went on hanging on trees for centuries again >>
were the Greeks hanging from trees?? they are Europeans...
were the germans? they lived orderly lives and had monogamous relationships and stable families...
and the Romans? Murderers, perverts and blood-thirsty barbarians!!! haha
were the Greeks hanging from trees?? they are Europeans...
were the germans? they lived orderly lives and had monogamous relationships and stable families...
and the Romans? Murderers, perverts and blood-thirsty barbarians!!! haha
No not all Europeans, only Germans.
the Greeks ? ok, they didn't hanging from trees.
the Germans? Animals prone to genocides, mass murder, group rape, they were perverted and dirty in such way Romans were disgusted.
They even f**k each other in public in those "monogamous and stable families..."
They were considered subhuman by Romans. There is a reason if they called them "BARBARIANS". The barbarians were the ferocious Germans tribes not the Romans, I think you MUST open your prime grade history book, if even you opened it.
A proof over dozens? Romans brought in Great Britain a level of civilization in each field the inhabitants cannot even think possible. they didn't impose Latin, they didn't make mass murders. Few centuries after came the Germans, Vikings etc.: only genocides and savage violence, the history is well known and clear to anyone except few XXXXX that pretend not to know it.
The rests of Roman civilization are still here after thousands of years.
AH AH
the Greeks ? ok, they didn't hanging from trees.
the Germans? Animals prone to genocides, mass murder, group rape, they were perverted and dirty in such way Romans were disgusted.
They even f**k each other in public in those "monogamous and stable families..."
They were considered subhuman by Romans. There is a reason if they called them "BARBARIANS". The barbarians were the ferocious Germans tribes not the Romans, I think you MUST open your prime grade history book, if even you opened it.
A proof over dozens? Romans brought in Great Britain a level of civilization in each field the inhabitants cannot even think possible. they didn't impose Latin, they didn't make mass murders. Few centuries after came the Germans, Vikings etc.: only genocides and savage violence, the history is well known and clear to anyone except few XXXXX that pretend not to know it.
The rests of Roman civilization are still here after thousands of years.
AH AH
<<the Germans? Animals prone to genocides, mass murder, group rape, they were perverted and dirty in such way Romans were disgusted.
>>
hmmm, funny, the Germans are still around...the Romans are GONE
if the Romans were so great, why couldn't they preserve their empire?
You see, the writings the Romans left of their way of life and their neighbors, don't you know, were written *BY them* so you have to take them with a pinch of salt, so to speak...no bias at all on their part do you think?
you're a frickin' genius
>>
hmmm, funny, the Germans are still around...the Romans are GONE
if the Romans were so great, why couldn't they preserve their empire?
You see, the writings the Romans left of their way of life and their neighbors, don't you know, were written *BY them* so you have to take them with a pinch of salt, so to speak...no bias at all on their part do you think?
you're a frickin' genius
Barbarian is actually a Greek expression meaning: "someone who can't speak "(in Greek);(and therefore goes: "bar-bar").
funny, those Germans are GONE too
unless you think a German have a parent of 2000 years....
The Romans are not gone AT ALL: they go on living on everyday habits and traditions in Europe.
mmmhhh where are the rests of the great German civilization of that time?
The question on the Roman Empire is the peak of the intelligence!! only a mighty genius can make a similar question.
Where is the British Empire if they were so great? The same question for all the other great empires: Where is the Gengis Khan empire? Where is the Maya and Aztech? And the Egyptians? And Chinese empire? And all the other enormous empires of history?
The Romans Empire standed for 2000 years (changing the European history), the British one 100, just for example. VERY FEW civilisations on Earth stand for so long time.
EVERY civilization/empire born-rise-have a peak and a DISSOLUTION. NOTHING is immortal: even children know that, maybe some adults aren't able to think of it. Compliments for these clever questions.
Say hello to Germans.
unless you think a German have a parent of 2000 years....
The Romans are not gone AT ALL: they go on living on everyday habits and traditions in Europe.
mmmhhh where are the rests of the great German civilization of that time?
The question on the Roman Empire is the peak of the intelligence!! only a mighty genius can make a similar question.
Where is the British Empire if they were so great? The same question for all the other great empires: Where is the Gengis Khan empire? Where is the Maya and Aztech? And the Egyptians? And Chinese empire? And all the other enormous empires of history?
The Romans Empire standed for 2000 years (changing the European history), the British one 100, just for example. VERY FEW civilisations on Earth stand for so long time.
EVERY civilization/empire born-rise-have a peak and a DISSOLUTION. NOTHING is immortal: even children know that, maybe some adults aren't able to think of it. Compliments for these clever questions.
Say hello to Germans.
Where is the Roman Empire??? you'd better to ask yourself where is the German empire, if ever a G.E. existed (that's to say no)