About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

I was too nice to say that. I thought it through though.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

In long or short words?

Bogsnorkler said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

I was too nice to say that. I thought it through though.

Voice your own complaints in your own words. Nice, is a place you think you are coming from but it is wise to inform you that not everybody stands on your viewpoint.

roughbarked said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

I was too nice to say that. I thought it through though.

Voice your own complaints in your own words. Nice, is a place you think you are coming from but it is wise to inform you that not everybody stands on your viewpoint.

roughbarked, have you been buying from Tau’s supplier?

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

Bogsnorkler said:

I was too nice to say that. I thought it through though.

Voice your own complaints in your own words. Nice, is a place you think you are coming from but it is wise to inform you that not everybody stands on your viewpoint.

roughbarked, have you been buying from Tau’s supplier?

I was wondering that about Boris.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

In long or short words?

Either.

For example:

First sentence: Who is ‘we’ and where are we supposed to be going?
Second sentence: Failing linguistically at ‘what’?
Third sentence: Who is ‘falling apart’?
Fourth sentence: Who is a global community? The forum, humanity, someone else?

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

It’s uncharacteristically vague for roughbarked. I had to look twice to be sure that it wasn’t a post from transition or SCIENCE.

captain_spalding said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

It’s uncharacteristically vague for roughbarked. I had to look twice to be sure that it wasn’t a post from transition or SCIENCE.

you and me not fwends anymore

you not nice, not talks to you anymore

arms cwossed

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

In long or short words?

Either.

For example:

First sentence: Who is ‘we’ and where are we supposed to be going?
Second sentence: Failing linguistically at ‘what’?
Third sentence: Who is ‘falling apart’?
Fourth sentence: Who is a global community? The forum, humanity, someone else?

The fourth sentence is intended to be global because that is where the forum and humanity both exist.
I’ll leave the rest up to you.

transition said:

captain_spalding said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

It’s uncharacteristically vague for roughbarked. I had to look twice to be sure that it wasn’t a post from transition or SCIENCE.

you and me not fwends anymore

you not nice, not talks to you anymore

arms cwossed

There, there, i was just worried that someone was encroaching on your style.

transition said:

captain_spalding said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

It’s uncharacteristically vague for roughbarked. I had to look twice to be sure that it wasn’t a post from transition or SCIENCE.

you and me not fwends anymore

you not nice, not talks to you anymore

arms cwossed

It is a tough place to be.

captain_spalding said:

transition said:

captain_spalding said:

It’s uncharacteristically vague for roughbarked. I had to look twice to be sure that it wasn’t a post from transition or SCIENCE.

you and me not fwends anymore

you not nice, not talks to you anymore

arms cwossed

There, there, i was just worried that someone was encroaching on your style.

I tells my mum she gives you a smack

captain_spalding said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

It’s uncharacteristically vague for roughbarked. I had to look twice to be sure that it wasn’t a post from transition or SCIENCE.

Whence did it occur that you thought you knew how my mind worked?

transition said:

captain_spalding said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

It’s uncharacteristically vague for roughbarked. I had to look twice to be sure that it wasn’t a post from transition or SCIENCE.

you and me not fwends anymore

you not nice, not talks to you anymore

arms cwossed

OK Robin. (We have recently been partaking in “Ghosts” again.)

buffy said:

transition said:

captain_spalding said:

It’s uncharacteristically vague for roughbarked. I had to look twice to be sure that it wasn’t a post from transition or SCIENCE.

you and me not fwends anymore

you not nice, not talks to you anymore

arms cwossed

OK Robin. (We have recently been partaking in “Ghosts” again.)

Here we go…

roughbarked said:

Whence did it occur that you thought you knew how my mind worked?

I’ve never made that presumption. Hell, i don’t know how my mind works.

As i said, it was just that your post didn’t seem to have the clariy of expression as many that i’ve seen from you.

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Whence did it occur that you thought you knew how my mind worked?

I’ve never made that presumption. Hell, i don’t know how my mind works.

As i said, it was just that your post didn’t seem to have the clariy of expression as many that i’ve seen from you.

I am testing you. Of this I do admit.

buffy said:

transition said:

captain_spalding said:

It’s uncharacteristically vague for roughbarked. I had to look twice to be sure that it wasn’t a post from transition or SCIENCE.

you and me not fwends anymore

you not nice, not talks to you anymore

arms cwossed

OK Robin. (We have recently been partaking in “Ghosts” again.)

chuckle

transition said:

buffy said:

transition said:

you and me not fwends anymore

you not nice, not talks to you anymore

arms cwossed

OK Robin. (We have recently been partaking in “Ghosts” again.)

chuckle

In effect we are all on a par of sorts in this forum but we are such a tiny proportion of the world that we exist in.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

buffy said:

OK Robin. (We have recently been partaking in “Ghosts” again.)

chuckle

In effect we are all on a par of sorts in this forum but we are such a tiny proportion of the world that we exist in.

If only they understood the potential of our power…

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

chuckle

In effect we are all on a par of sorts in this forum but we are such a tiny proportion of the world that we exist in.

If only they understood the potential of our power…

If the power of manifestation could in reality have effect, our will alone could save the planet.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

Pray tell, which were the words that led you here?

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

Pray tell, which were the words that led you here?

If it comes down to “Second sentence: Failing linguistically at ‘what’?”

If can we talk about it ends in another two to four generations …. in diversification about what what actually means
then the eight ball has already gone into lots of pockets.

OK, I’ll have a go.

Linguistically, I think we are doing just fine.

Global cooperationwise, not so much.

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, I’ll have a go.

Linguistically, I think we are doing just fine.

Global cooperationwise, not so much.

Now we are talking.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, I’ll have a go.

Linguistically, I think we are doing just fine.

Global cooperationwise, not so much.

Now we are talking.

So.. which language do you wish to use?

Waiting.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, I’ll have a go.

Linguistically, I think we are doing just fine.

Global cooperationwise, not so much.

Now we are talking.

So.. which language do you wish to use?

English of course.

I mean I know it’s a bit annoying for everyone except the half billion or so people who use it as a first language, but every other language would be even more annoying, other than for the people who speak it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Now we are talking.

So.. which language do you wish to use?

English of course.

I mean I know it’s a bit annoying for everyone except the half billion or so people who use it as a first language, but every other language would be even more annoying, other than for the people who speak it.

It is this in which we speak but for at least if not many more times is the language not spoken in various latitudes ?

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

I don’t feel part of any global community. So I don’t think we need a common language for all of humanity. If we did English would not be the logical choice – it is hard to learn as it is full of all sorts of quirks and exceptions. It is really just an accident because the USA is so globally dominant economically and militarily.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, I’ll have a go.

Linguistically, I think we are doing just fine.

Global cooperationwise, not so much.

Now we are talking.

So.. which language do you wish to use?

I suggest the Victorian language of flowers.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

So.. which language do you wish to use?

English of course.

I mean I know it’s a bit annoying for everyone except the half billion or so people who use it as a first language, but every other language would be even more annoying, other than for the people who speak it.

It is this in which we speak but for at least if not many more times is the language not spoken in various latitudes ?

I mean even the Europeans use English when they want a common language.

But I’m afraid I will shortly be popping off to allow time’s echos to reflect on the waters of sleep.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I mean I know it’s a bit annoying for everyone except the half billion or so people who use it as a first language, but every other language would be even more annoying, other than for the people who speak it.

I dunno. I used to speak a fair bit of Russian, and i can do all right with French (although i have to continually study/practice), and now and then i’d find that languages other than English can sometimes have an economy of expression that isn’t possible in English.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

I don’t feel part of any global community. So I don’t think we need a common language for all of humanity. If we did English would not be the logical choice – it is hard to learn as it is full of all sorts of quirks and exceptions. It is really just an accident because the USA is so globally dominant economically and militarily.

This will change.

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Now we are talking.

So.. which language do you wish to use?

I suggest the Victorian language of flowers.

Pretty.

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I mean I know it’s a bit annoying for everyone except the half billion or so people who use it as a first language, but every other language would be even more annoying, other than for the people who speak it.

I dunno. I used to speak a fair bit of Russian, and i can do all right with French (although i have to continually study/practice), and now and then i’d find that languages other than English can sometimes have an economy of expression that isn’t possible in English.

Sure thing bro’.

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I mean I know it’s a bit annoying for everyone except the half billion or so people who use it as a first language, but every other language would be even more annoying, other than for the people who speak it.

I dunno. I used to speak a fair bit of Russian, and i can do all right with French (although i have to continually study/practice), and now and then i’d find that languages other than English can sometimes have an economy of expression that isn’t possible in English.

That’s where the word fuck has universality.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I mean I know it’s a bit annoying for everyone except the half billion or so people who use it as a first language, but every other language would be even more annoying, other than for the people who speak it.

I dunno. I used to speak a fair bit of Russian, and i can do all right with French (although i have to continually study/practice), and now and then i’d find that languages other than English can sometimes have an economy of expression that isn’t possible in English.

Sure thing bro’.

k’ching.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

I don’t feel part of any global community. So I don’t think we need a common language for all of humanity. If we did English would not be the logical choice – it is hard to learn as it is full of all sorts of quirks and exceptions. It is really just an accident because the USA is so globally dominant economically and militarily.

French is absolutely chock-a-block with ‘rules’ which you must obey, or else, but it can also produce ‘wtf’ situations.

I raised some of these with my first French teacher, and his assessment was ‘does English make sense all the time? No? Well, don’t expect it from French, either’.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

I dunno. I used to speak a fair bit of Russian, and i can do all right with French (although i have to continually study/practice), and now and then i’d find that languages other than English can sometimes have an economy of expression that isn’t possible in English.

Sure thing bro’.

k’ching.

Like I wouldn’t hove known without TV when this chick called me about whether I had a third party complant her lawyers could use.. I asked.. are you from Liverpool? she said yes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I mean I know it’s a bit annoying for everyone except the half billion or so people who use it as a first language, but every other language would be even more annoying, other than for the people who speak it.

I dunno. I used to speak a fair bit of Russian, and i can do all right with French (although i have to continually study/practice), and now and then i’d find that languages other than English can sometimes have an economy of expression that isn’t possible in English.

Sure thing bro’.

One example i found, even before i began to learn the language, was from the battle of Trafalgar.

A French ship, badly damaged, had drifted from the fighting, but was brought under control and was heading back to the battle.

The captain of another French ship hailed, and asked the ship’s captain where he was headed.

The captain of the first ship drew his sword, pointed with it, and said ‘au feu!’

Said a great deal with two short words.

captain_spalding said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

I dunno. I used to speak a fair bit of Russian, and i can do all right with French (although i have to continually study/practice), and now and then i’d find that languages other than English can sometimes have an economy of expression that isn’t possible in English.

Sure thing bro’.

One example i found, even before i began to learn the language, was from the battle of Trafalgar.

A French ship, badly damaged, had drifted from the fighting, but was brought under control and was heading back to the battle.

The captain of another French ship hailed, and asked the ship’s captain where he was headed.

The captain of the first ship drew his sword, pointed with it, and said ‘au feu!’

Said a great deal with two short words.

:)

Night night

yes, everyone who exists has thought, that’s the point

SCIENCE said:

yes, everyone who exists has thought, that’s the point

For this once I concur we agree.

Roughie, succinctly, what are you talking about? How are we failing linguistically.

dv said:

Roughie, succinctly, what are you talking about? How are we failing linguistically.

sounds like it was self referential.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

I don’t feel part of any global community. So I don’t think we need a common language for all of humanity. If we did English would not be the logical choice – it is hard to learn as it is full of all sorts of quirks and exceptions. It is really just an accident because the USA is so globally dominant economically and militarily.

how unexpected, accidental, be a funny turnout if it were an inevitable accident, perhaps it’s inevitably accidental, I mean English seemed sort of inevitable when I went to school, helped along by TV and movies, but whatever I got Englished, had my conceptual categories shaped that way, gave them great certainty, rigidity, what goes in what and where they stay, and the transparent work they do, and what a fortunate thing it was to have my neurons arranged so, the advanced metaphysics lessons

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

Lacks clarity. Please rephrase.

OK, so roughbarked says that we are free to interpret it as we wish.

> Has anybody thought? About where we are going?

Constantly. Scientifically, technologically, economically, militarily and politically.

The phrase “going to heck in a handbasket” comes to mind.

> Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.

This is a weird one. I read books, OK. So far, I have only ever seen one book that is actually written in the language which our youth now speaks. Even teenagers write books in that archaic language that was in use 300 years before. Do you know what I mean? That archaic language where grammar is correct. Grammar hasn’t been correct in spoken language since, well forever.

So far as world languages are concerned, there is a huge effort to recreate dead languages, Hebrew, Latin, Australian and New Guinea languages for instance.

You could say that we are failing because written language has totally failed to keep pace with spoken language. Or you could say we are failing because spoken language has totally failed to conform with written language. All we can really say is that there is a tension between the two, not whose fault it is, or even whether the two ought to agree or not.

> it would seem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart.

Failing is not the same as “falling apart”. There has always been a tension between those who would keep the past inviolate and those who move with the times. And between those who are globally moral and those who only think of themselves. Both have always been a failure, you can’t say that it has gotten worse. It hasn’t become worse.

> Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

Yes we are. Should we be? Being a global community is putting all your eggs in one basket. A minor failure could destroy the whole world’s economy and throw us back into a lifestyle of perpetual “kill or die”. But in the other hand a global community means that for the whole world was in a state of complete peace for about 5 years after 1995, which was an unprecedented length of peace in the entire previous history of mankind.

I say yes. Multinational companies and the global community they generate is the best thing that could have happened in the world.

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

I think loose we is modern phenomenon

transition said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

I think loose we is modern phenomenon

We don’t.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

About where we are going?
Linguistically, it does seem that we are failing.
it would seeem to me to be the wrong place to be falling apart. There is more but I do think it is a place we should start. Since after all we are a global community. like it or not.

I think loose we is modern phenomenon

We don’t.

you’re fiblying, call’t jovial denial

Oh dang it. I wrote a nice long reply here.
Now it’s gone gone gone.

Anyway, the linguistic part.

There always have been and always will be a tension between those who wish to hold on to the past and those who wish to rush into the future.

Linguistically, books are in the past, the language used in the most modern books is 300 years in the past. For example grammatically correct – nobody talks like that unless they want to talk archaic. Even teenagers these days write books in ancient language rather than in everyday speech.

There are plenty of people who want to resurrect a halcyon past that never existed. Reviving dead languages like Hebrew, Latin, Australian and New Guinea languages. Who try to maximise the diversity of extant languages.

Globally in the commercial field, ancient English seems to have taken over everywhere, except for people who deliberately want to be not understood by English speakers, and for those who find it easiest to converse in the language of their youth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population

There is no country where all people can speak English. But conversely, there is no country in the world where English is never spoken. Very few countries have less than 10% of population speaking English.
I can name all these:

• Brazil, China, Tanzania, Argentina, Algeria, Myanmar, Yemen, Columbia, Nepal, Malawi, Costa Rica, The Gambia.

And that is all. All other countries have more than 10% of population able to speak English.

BTW, 27% of Australians don’t have English as first language.

mollwollfumble said:

BTW, 27% of Australians don’t have English as first language.

Legally (as opposed to ‘practically’), Australia has no ‘official language’. 178 countries do have ‘official languages’, Australia and England are not among them.

New Zealand has three, Canada has two, the United States has none, the Netherlands has two (but Frisian is not spoken widely).

captain_spalding said:

… the Netherlands has two (but Frisian is not spoken widely).

Bull!

Bogsnorkler said:

captain_spalding said:

… the Netherlands has two (but Frisian is not spoken widely).

Bull!

Don’t have a cow, man.

captain_spalding said:

… the Netherlands has two (but Frisian is not spoken widely).

Frisian is closer to English than Dutch. Frisian and English are on the margins of being mutually intelligible. You might not understand every word, but you’d get the gist of it.

English is a really easy language to learn, I learned it before I was three…

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

I’m still learning English.

Arts said:

English is a really easy language to learn, I learned it before I was three…

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

They’re not more difficult for children.

Arts said:

English is a really easy language to learn, I learned it before I was three…

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

Japanese is not tonal.

Arts said:

English is a really easy language to learn, I learned it before I was three…

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

This is true, to some extent, with English. The meaning of the word converse, for example, depends on how it’s pronounced: CON-verse, meaning opposite or alternate; or con-VERSE, meaning talk, discuss. There are many others, though I acknowledge that they’re not as extreme as Chinese, Japanese, and other inflected languages.

Arts said:

English is a really easy language to learn, I learned it before I was three…

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

even a sheepdog named carrot would appreciate that

Arts said:

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

There must be a huge scope for puns and plays-on-words in such a language.

btm said:

Arts said:

English is a really easy language to learn, I learned it before I was three…

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

This is true, to some extent, with English. The meaning of the word converse, for example, depends on how it’s pronounced: CON-verse, meaning opposite or alternate; or con-VERSE, meaning talk, discuss. There are many others, though I acknowledge that they’re not as extreme as Chinese, Japanese, and other inflected languages.

Modern Chinese is not inflected. It was simplified a long time ago.

dv said:

Arts said:

English is a really easy language to learn, I learned it before I was three…

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

Japanese is not tonal.

my Japanese nail tech would disagree

btm said:

Arts said:

English is a really easy language to learn, I learned it before I was three…

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

This is true, to some extent, with English. The meaning of the word converse, for example, depends on how it’s pronounced: CON-verse, meaning opposite or alternate; or con-VERSE, meaning talk, discuss. There are many others, though I acknowledge that they’re not as extreme as Chinese, Japanese, and other inflected languages.

I also disagree, it’s less tone and more context.. however I will give you wind and wind.

Witty Rejoinder said:

btm said:

Arts said:

English is a really easy language to learn, I learned it before I was three…

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

This is true, to some extent, with English. The meaning of the word converse, for example, depends on how it’s pronounced: CON-verse, meaning opposite or alternate; or con-VERSE, meaning talk, discuss. There are many others, though I acknowledge that they’re not as extreme as Chinese, Japanese, and other inflected languages.

Modern Chinese is not inflected. It was simplified a long time ago.

I briefly studied Chinese in first year uni (1992), and was taught inflection. Perhaps I was being taught a misch-masch of old and modern.

Arts said:

dv said:

Arts said:

English is a really easy language to learn, I learned it before I was three…

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

Japanese is not tonal.

my Japanese nail tech would disagree

(shrugs) I guess they are misinformed about their language then? Which is not uncommon. Tonality is even less of a feature of Japanese than it is of English.
I find it hard not to sound like an arsehole sometimes so I just don’t bother …

Arts said:

dv said:

Arts said:

English is a really easy language to learn, I learned it before I was three…

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

Japanese is not tonal.

my Japanese nail tech would disagree

They might be confused by what you mean by tonal. Japanese doesn’t have the 5 different pronunciations of the letter a that English has. There is one option only so if you don’t use the right ‘tone’ you completely mispronounce the word to the end that you may not be understood.

Witty Rejoinder said:

btm said:

Arts said:

English is a really easy language to learn, I learned it before I was three…

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

This is true, to some extent, with English. The meaning of the word converse, for example, depends on how it’s pronounced: CON-verse, meaning opposite or alternate; or con-VERSE, meaning talk, discuss. There are many others, though I acknowledge that they’re not as extreme as Chinese, Japanese, and other inflected languages.

Modern Chinese is not inflected. It was simplified a long time ago.

He doesn’t mean grammaticallt inflected. He means tonally distinct inflection.

Arts said:

btm said:

Arts said:

English is a really easy language to learn, I learned it before I was three…

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

This is true, to some extent, with English. The meaning of the word converse, for example, depends on how it’s pronounced: CON-verse, meaning opposite or alternate; or con-VERSE, meaning talk, discuss. There are many others, though I acknowledge that they’re not as extreme as Chinese, Japanese, and other inflected languages.

I also disagree, it’s less tone and more context.. however I will give you wind and wind.

French can be quite contextual, too. A simple example is the word ‘femme’. In one sentence it will mean ‘wife’, in another it means ‘woman’. ‘Fille’ is ‘girl’ in this sentence, ‘daughter’ in perhaps the next sentence. There’s more, but those are basic examples.

You have to pay attention, or you can become confused quite quickly.

I mean the point is English easy, everything else difficult..

probably

Asia
Numerous tonal languages are widely spoken in China and Mainland Southeast Asia. Sino-Tibetan languages (including Meitei-Lon, Burmese, Mog and most varieties of Chinese; though some, such as Shanghainese, are only marginally tonal) and Kra–Dai languages (including Thai and Lao) are mostly tonal. The Hmong–Mien languages are some of the most tonal languages in the world, with as many as twelve phonemically distinct tones. Austroasiatic (such as Khmer and Mon) and Austronesian (such as Malay, Javanese, Tagalog, and Maori) languages are mostly non tonal with the rare exception of Austroasiatic languages like Vietnamese, and Austronesian languages like Cèmuhî and Tsat. Tones in Vietnamese and Tsat may result from Chinese influence on both languages. There were tones in Middle Korean. Other languages represented in the region, such as Mongolian, Uyghur, and Japanese belong to language families that do not contain any tonality as defined here. In South Asia tonal languages are rare, but some Indo-Aryan languages have tonality, including Punjabi and Dogri, as well as the Eastern Bengali lects.

dv said:

Arts said:

dv said:

Japanese is not tonal.

my Japanese nail tech would disagree

(shrugs) I guess they are misinformed about their language then? Which is not uncommon. Tonality is even less of a feature of Japanese than it is of English.
I find it hard not to sound like an arsehole sometimes so I just don’t bother …

should have done that this time … though you could be right, maybe she was Korean and just forgot what country she came from

btm said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

btm said:

This is true, to some extent, with English. The meaning of the word converse, for example, depends on how it’s pronounced: CON-verse, meaning opposite or alternate; or con-VERSE, meaning talk, discuss. There are many others, though I acknowledge that they’re not as extreme as Chinese, Japanese, and other inflected languages.

Modern Chinese is not inflected. It was simplified a long time ago.

I briefly studied Chinese in first year uni (1992), and was taught inflection. Perhaps I was being taught a misch-masch of old and modern.

You’ll remember then that in Mandarin at least the pinyin for conjugating ‘to be’ is:
I am —> Wo shi
you are —> Ni shi
he/she is —> Ta shi
they are —> Tamen shi

Only the pronouns change.

Arts said:

I mean the point is English easy, everything else difficult..

probably

Yes, obviously. English is natural, so everyone understands it, though you need to speak it slower and louder for some people.

very young children as recall’t enthusiastically apprehend the grunts around them, even the nuances, something grownups might learn when they swear around them, the kids seem to have a special immediate appreciation of the expression involved, you might soon afterward hear the child from the backseat of the the car imitating your expressive grunt, adopting it for use, and you might think dear God I just put that word in the child’s head, so what the hell you may as well give them the full list of swearwords and explain they are swearwords and what swearwords are for, not to be used too often, or inappropriately

I mean you might refer to someone as a dickhead, the kid immediately seems to appreciate the force of the expression and something of context, senses the frustration and disapproval, even adapted to more toddler-speak willyhead they naturally understand it, and there you are providing a list of all the possible names for that appendage hoping it will dilute their interest, or help them forget that one specific word

maybe simplistic rules are simplistic

transition said:

you might refer to someone as a dickhead

did someone call for us

SCIENCE said:

maybe simplistic rules are simplistic

are you sure it’s that simple?

monkey skipper said:

SCIENCE said:

maybe simplistic rules are simplistic

are you sure it’s that simple?

There are several reasons why English is considered one of the hardest languages to learn.

IRREGULAR FORMATIONS

There are over 300 irregular verbs, including most of the common verbs. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. People learning English just have to remember that the past tense and past participle of bake are baked/baked, and those of take are took/taken, and those of make are made/made. Every additional arbitrary thing you need to remember makes a language harder to learn.

There are also common irregular plurals but fortunately only a few dozen: just have to remember that the plural of house is houses and the plural of mouse is mice.

IRREGULAR SPELLING

You can’t reliably tell how a word is pronounced from its spelling, nor its spelling from its pronunciation. This is something that afflicts literally thousands of words in English, mostly common ones. The example people usually bring up is tough, cough, lough, though, through, bough, ough, thought, thorough, or flanger/danger/hanger/anger, but you could fill pages with the examples really, and people learning English just have to separately remember the pronunciation and spelling. Said/paid. Bread/mead. Friend/fiend. Bear doesn’t rhyme with gear. Tear doesn’t even rhyme with tear. Live/live, wind/wind, wound/wound, bow/bow, close/close, row/row, sow/sow, lead/lead, does/does, bass/bass etc etc. All of these add the the mental burden of learning English.

WEIRD SPELLING RULES

Even for words that are pronounced regularly, the rules are weird. You can’t tell whether th- is voiced or unvoiced. It’s voiced in this and unvoiced in thin and you basically just have to remember it. You can’t tell whether g before i/e is hard or soft: give, gift, get, geld, but ginger, gin, gem, gel. Sometimes -gh is an f sound: fucking why? And how does someone know when? The long forms of vowels sound nothing like the short form. In decent languages the long form of i is … a longer i sound (as indeed it is in marine but that’s an exception). In English it’s an “ah” sound diphthongued towards “y”. The long “e” in English is actually a long “i” sound. The rules governing when the long form is taken are also pretty odd, to do with double-letters and the distant e. Diner and dinner should logically differ only by the length of the ‘n’ sound but instead adding the n changes the initial verb. Travel has a short ‘a’ sound, and raven has a ‘ei’ sound, because of course, how obvious.

COMPLICATED PHONOLOGY

24 consonants is not all that excessive (some people might struggle initially with the dental fricatives but they’ll come around). The real kicker is the 20 vowels, and in particular the 7 articulatory locations. It’s … above average. Most languages are happy with 3 (Arabic) or 5 (Italian). It can be difficult for a new learner to, in mouth or ear, distinguish the short e sound from the short a sound.
They can also struggle with the long strings of consonants, as in latchstring or textbooks.

—-

There are some good points about English. The fact that its vocab has been drawn from so many sources gives it a kind of energy of fusion when it comes to poetry, and it has a marvelous range of grammatical forms that allow transmission of subtle concepts. It also did away with the multiple articles and arbitrary grammatical gender of so many European languages.

Arts said:

dv said:

Arts said:

my Japanese nail tech would disagree

(shrugs) I guess they are misinformed about their language then? Which is not uncommon. Tonality is even less of a feature of Japanese than it is of English.
I find it hard not to sound like an arsehole sometimes so I just don’t bother …

should have done that this time … though you could be right, maybe she was Korean and just forgot what country she came from

That could be it.

dv said:

There are several reasons why English is considered one of the hardest languages to learn.

IRREGULAR FORMATIONS

There are over 300 irregular verbs, including most of the common verbs. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. People learning English just have to remember that the past tense and past participle of bake are baked/baked, and those of take are took/taken, and those of make are made/made. Every additional arbitrary thing you need to remember makes a language harder to learn.

There are also common irregular plurals but fortunately only a few dozen: just have to remember that the plural of house is houses and the plural of mouse is mice.

IRREGULAR SPELLING

You can’t reliably tell how a word is pronounced from its spelling, nor its spelling from its pronunciation. This is something that afflicts literally thousands of words in English, mostly common ones. The example people usually bring up is tough, cough, lough, though, through, bough, ough, thought, thorough, or flanger/danger/hanger/anger, but you could fill pages with the examples really, and people learning English just have to separately remember the pronunciation and spelling. Said/paid. Bread/mead. Friend/fiend. Bear doesn’t rhyme with gear. Tear doesn’t even rhyme with tear. Live/live, wind/wind, wound/wound, bow/bow, close/close, row/row, sow/sow, lead/lead, does/does, bass/bass etc etc. All of these add the the mental burden of learning English.

WEIRD SPELLING RULES

Even for words that are pronounced regularly, the rules are weird. You can’t tell whether th- is voiced or unvoiced. It’s voiced in this and unvoiced in thin and you basically just have to remember it. You can’t tell whether g before i/e is hard or soft: give, gift, get, geld, but ginger, gin, gem, gel. Sometimes -gh is an f sound: fucking why? And how does someone know when? The long forms of vowels sound nothing like the short form. In decent languages the long form of i is … a longer i sound (as indeed it is in marine but that’s an exception). In English it’s an “ah” sound diphthongued towards “y”. The long “e” in English is actually a long “i” sound. The rules governing when the long form is taken are also pretty odd, to do with double-letters and the distant e. Diner and dinner should logically differ only by the length of the ‘n’ sound but instead adding the n changes the initial verb. Travel has a short ‘a’ sound, and raven has a ‘ei’ sound, because of course, how obvious.

COMPLICATED PHONOLOGY

24 consonants is not all that excessive (some people might struggle initially with the dental fricatives but they’ll come around). The real kicker is the 20 vowels, and in particular the 7 articulatory locations. It’s … above average. Most languages are happy with 3 (Arabic) or 5 (Italian). It can be difficult for a new learner to, in mouth or ear, distinguish the short e sound from the short a sound.
They can also struggle with the long strings of consonants, as in latchstring or textbooks.

—-

There are some good points about English. The fact that its vocab has been drawn from so many sources gives it a kind of energy of fusion when it comes to poetry, and it has a marvelous range of grammatical forms that allow transmission of subtle concepts. It also did away with the multiple articles and arbitrary grammatical gender of so many European languages.

Janina does not use should or could. she always uses must. You must do this. You must do that. Pisses everybody off.

sarahs mum said:

Janina does not use should or could. she always uses must. You must do this. You must do that. Pisses everybody off.

Oh, I almost forgot…

INCOMPLETE VERBS

English has some verbs that are incomplete, in that they just don’t have some of the normal grammatical forms. What’s the past tense or past participle of “must”? “Musted”? “Musten?” Oh it just doesn’t exist. So how do I say it? Don’t. What’s the present participle of can? Canning? Okay yes if you’re talking about putting something in a can but not in the sense of being able to.

sarahs mum said:

Janina does not use should or could. she always uses must. You must do this. You must do that. Pisses everybody off.

musk

dv said:

dv said:

There are several reasons why English is considered one of the hardest languages to learn.

IRREGULAR FORMATIONS

There are over 300 irregular verbs, including most of the common verbs. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. People learning English just have to remember that the past tense and past participle of bake are baked/baked, and those of take are took/taken, and those of make are made/made. Every additional arbitrary thing you need to remember makes a language harder to learn.

There are also common irregular plurals but fortunately only a few dozen: just have to remember that the plural of house is houses and the plural of mouse is mice.

IRREGULAR SPELLING

You can’t reliably tell how a word is pronounced from its spelling, nor its spelling from its pronunciation. This is something that afflicts literally thousands of words in English, mostly common ones. The example people usually bring up is tough, cough, lough, though, through, bough, ough, thought, thorough, or flanger/danger/hanger/anger, but you could fill pages with the examples really, and people learning English just have to separately remember the pronunciation and spelling. Said/paid. Bread/mead. Friend/fiend. Bear doesn’t rhyme with gear. Tear doesn’t even rhyme with tear. Live/live, wind/wind, wound/wound, bow/bow, close/close, row/row, sow/sow, lead/lead, does/does, bass/bass etc etc. All of these add the the mental burden of learning English.

WEIRD SPELLING RULES

Even for words that are pronounced regularly, the rules are weird. You can’t tell whether th- is voiced or unvoiced. It’s voiced in this and unvoiced in thin and you basically just have to remember it. You can’t tell whether g before i/e is hard or soft: give, gift, get, geld, but ginger, gin, gem, gel. Sometimes -gh is an f sound: fucking why? And how does someone know when? The long forms of vowels sound nothing like the short form. In decent languages the long form of i is … a longer i sound (as indeed it is in marine but that’s an exception). In English it’s an “ah” sound diphthongued towards “y”. The long “e” in English is actually a long “i” sound. The rules governing when the long form is taken are also pretty odd, to do with double-letters and the distant e. Diner and dinner should logically differ only by the length of the ‘n’ sound but instead adding the n changes the initial verb. Travel has a short ‘a’ sound, and raven has a ‘ei’ sound, because of course, how obvious.

COMPLICATED PHONOLOGY

24 consonants is not all that excessive (some people might struggle initially with the dental fricatives but they’ll come around). The real kicker is the 20 vowels, and in particular the 7 articulatory locations. It’s … above average. Most languages are happy with 3 (Arabic) or 5 (Italian). It can be difficult for a new learner to, in mouth or ear, distinguish the short e sound from the short a sound.
They can also struggle with the long strings of consonants, as in latchstring or textbooks.

—-

There are some good points about English. The fact that its vocab has been drawn from so many sources gives it a kind of energy of fusion when it comes to poetry, and it has a marvelous range of grammatical forms that allow transmission of subtle concepts. It also did away with the multiple articles and arbitrary grammatical gender of so many European languages.

so the base of it is that English is considered one of the hardest languages to learn because the prescriptivist gatekeepers maintain the bullshit and get away with it because it’s backed by the biggest armoury

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

dv said:

There are several reasons why English is considered one of the hardest languages to learn.

IRREGULAR FORMATIONS

There are over 300 irregular verbs, including most of the common verbs. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. People learning English just have to remember that the past tense and past participle of bake are baked/baked, and those of take are took/taken, and those of make are made/made. Every additional arbitrary thing you need to remember makes a language harder to learn.

There are also common irregular plurals but fortunately only a few dozen: just have to remember that the plural of house is houses and the plural of mouse is mice.

IRREGULAR SPELLING

You can’t reliably tell how a word is pronounced from its spelling, nor its spelling from its pronunciation. This is something that afflicts literally thousands of words in English, mostly common ones. The example people usually bring up is tough, cough, lough, though, through, bough, ough, thought, thorough, or flanger/danger/hanger/anger, but you could fill pages with the examples really, and people learning English just have to separately remember the pronunciation and spelling. Said/paid. Bread/mead. Friend/fiend. Bear doesn’t rhyme with gear. Tear doesn’t even rhyme with tear. Live/live, wind/wind, wound/wound, bow/bow, close/close, row/row, sow/sow, lead/lead, does/does, bass/bass etc etc. All of these add the the mental burden of learning English.

WEIRD SPELLING RULES

Even for words that are pronounced regularly, the rules are weird. You can’t tell whether th- is voiced or unvoiced. It’s voiced in this and unvoiced in thin and you basically just have to remember it. You can’t tell whether g before i/e is hard or soft: give, gift, get, geld, but ginger, gin, gem, gel. Sometimes -gh is an f sound: fucking why? And how does someone know when? The long forms of vowels sound nothing like the short form. In decent languages the long form of i is … a longer i sound (as indeed it is in marine but that’s an exception). In English it’s an “ah” sound diphthongued towards “y”. The long “e” in English is actually a long “i” sound. The rules governing when the long form is taken are also pretty odd, to do with double-letters and the distant e. Diner and dinner should logically differ only by the length of the ‘n’ sound but instead adding the n changes the initial verb. Travel has a short ‘a’ sound, and raven has a ‘ei’ sound, because of course, how obvious.

COMPLICATED PHONOLOGY

24 consonants is not all that excessive (some people might struggle initially with the dental fricatives but they’ll come around). The real kicker is the 20 vowels, and in particular the 7 articulatory locations. It’s … above average. Most languages are happy with 3 (Arabic) or 5 (Italian). It can be difficult for a new learner to, in mouth or ear, distinguish the short e sound from the short a sound.
They can also struggle with the long strings of consonants, as in latchstring or textbooks.

—-

There are some good points about English. The fact that its vocab has been drawn from so many sources gives it a kind of energy of fusion when it comes to poetry, and it has a marvelous range of grammatical forms that allow transmission of subtle concepts. It also did away with the multiple articles and arbitrary grammatical gender of so many European languages.

so the base of it is that English is considered one of the hardest languages to learn because the prescriptivist gatekeepers maintain the bullshit and get away with it because it’s backed by the biggest armoury

it’s not a real language, it’s just three european raccoons in a trenchcoat.

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

dv said:

There are several reasons why English is considered one of the hardest languages to learn.

IRREGULAR FORMATIONS

There are over 300 irregular verbs, including most of the common verbs. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. People learning English just have to remember that the past tense and past participle of bake are baked/baked, and those of take are took/taken, and those of make are made/made. Every additional arbitrary thing you need to remember makes a language harder to learn.

There are also common irregular plurals but fortunately only a few dozen: just have to remember that the plural of house is houses and the plural of mouse is mice.

IRREGULAR SPELLING

You can’t reliably tell how a word is pronounced from its spelling, nor its spelling from its pronunciation. This is something that afflicts literally thousands of words in English, mostly common ones. The example people usually bring up is tough, cough, lough, though, through, bough, ough, thought, thorough, or flanger/danger/hanger/anger, but you could fill pages with the examples really, and people learning English just have to separately remember the pronunciation and spelling. Said/paid. Bread/mead. Friend/fiend. Bear doesn’t rhyme with gear. Tear doesn’t even rhyme with tear. Live/live, wind/wind, wound/wound, bow/bow, close/close, row/row, sow/sow, lead/lead, does/does, bass/bass etc etc. All of these add the the mental burden of learning English.

WEIRD SPELLING RULES

Even for words that are pronounced regularly, the rules are weird. You can’t tell whether th- is voiced or unvoiced. It’s voiced in this and unvoiced in thin and you basically just have to remember it. You can’t tell whether g before i/e is hard or soft: give, gift, get, geld, but ginger, gin, gem, gel. Sometimes -gh is an f sound: fucking why? And how does someone know when? The long forms of vowels sound nothing like the short form. In decent languages the long form of i is … a longer i sound (as indeed it is in marine but that’s an exception). In English it’s an “ah” sound diphthongued towards “y”. The long “e” in English is actually a long “i” sound. The rules governing when the long form is taken are also pretty odd, to do with double-letters and the distant e. Diner and dinner should logically differ only by the length of the ‘n’ sound but instead adding the n changes the initial verb. Travel has a short ‘a’ sound, and raven has a ‘ei’ sound, because of course, how obvious.

COMPLICATED PHONOLOGY

24 consonants is not all that excessive (some people might struggle initially with the dental fricatives but they’ll come around). The real kicker is the 20 vowels, and in particular the 7 articulatory locations. It’s … above average. Most languages are happy with 3 (Arabic) or 5 (Italian). It can be difficult for a new learner to, in mouth or ear, distinguish the short e sound from the short a sound.
They can also struggle with the long strings of consonants, as in latchstring or textbooks.

—-

There are some good points about English. The fact that its vocab has been drawn from so many sources gives it a kind of energy of fusion when it comes to poetry, and it has a marvelous range of grammatical forms that allow transmission of subtle concepts. It also did away with the multiple articles and arbitrary grammatical gender of so many European languages.

so the base of it is that English is considered one of the hardest languages to learn because the prescriptivist gatekeepers maintain the bullshit and get away with it because it’s backed by the biggest armoury

it carries on bits of languages left by invaders.

sarahs mum said:

Kingy said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

so the base of it is that English is considered one of the hardest languages to learn because the prescriptivist gatekeepers maintain the bullshit and get away with it because it’s backed by the biggest armoury

it’s not a real language, it’s just three european raccoons in a trenchcoat.

it carries on bits of languages left by invaders.

and yet it evolves

Arts said:

English is a really easy language to learn, I learned it before I was three…

Japanese, and the other languages that rely on intonation are much more difficult to learn.. given that the same word said a different way can be the difference between asking for a carrot or a sheepdog..

Yes. Chinese also.

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

Janina does not use should or could. she always uses must. You must do this. You must do that. Pisses everybody off.

Oh, I almost forgot…

INCOMPLETE VERBS

English has some verbs that are incomplete, in that they just don’t have some of the normal grammatical forms. What’s the past tense or past participle of “must”? “Musted”? “Musten?” Oh it just doesn’t exist. So how do I say it? Don’t. What’s the present participle of can? Canning? Okay yes if you’re talking about putting something in a can but not in the sense of being able to.

The yanks use canning for bottling.

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

… the Netherlands has two (but Frisian is not spoken widely).

Frisian is closer to English than Dutch. Frisian and English are on the margins of being mutually intelligible. You might not understand every word, but you’d get the gist of it.

Like Glasgow “English” then?

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

… the Netherlands has two (but Frisian is not spoken widely).

Frisian is closer to English than Dutch. Frisian and English are on the margins of being mutually intelligible. You might not understand every word, but you’d get the gist of it.

Like Glasgow “English” then?

English can change from one side of London to the other.

SCIENCE said:

monkey skipper said:

SCIENCE said:

maybe simplistic rules are simplistic

are you sure it’s that simple?

I hope I’m not too late to point out that:

It’s more complicated than that.