 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
But it goes back only one milenium and only has a fraction of the number of words the new dictionary will have...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
I doubt there is any way to "evaluate" "better" in this matter
Anyway, let's see if it ever gets finished first...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
zapnic
|
|
English and creek are both indo-euro language
due to this they are similar
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lightblue
|
|
L'Boro, UK
Oct 2001 time: 05:24
|
|
Hmm as an a non-english native speaker (Dutch), and someone who has learnt German, French and Luxembourgish as well, I found english by far and away the easiest language to pick up. Some of the pronunciation is a bit dodgy if you're not used to it (though, tough etc), but I managed to pick up enough english from TV/games that I was able to read in english before i got taught it (don't ask me how).
Now (after 6 yrs in the UK) my written English far outstrips my written Dutch, largely because of my significantly larger vocabulary makes it easier to compose more elegant pieces.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001 time: 15:24
|
|
Sorry, but there are different Welsh and Scottish accents too. The sing song 'Bombay Welsh' of South Wales is different from the accent of North Wales or Mid Wales, and neither sound anything like working/lower class English accents. If you were to try to get a Geordie and a Cornishman to communicate in their local dialects and accents, rather than standard English, they might have a hard time. Whereas, in Scandinavia, the British made, English language soap opera, set in the North East, 'When The Boat Comes In', could be understood without sub-titles.
The B.B.C. subtitled the excellent comedy series 'Rab C. Nesbit' for the benefit of Sassenachs down south who couldn't understand it. Despite its being in English...
One of the problems encountered with the use of English in Britain is that a class/character judgment will be made dependent upon your accent- its difficult for newsreaders/announcers to be taken seriously if they speak in anything other than Received Pronunciation and Standard English. Brummies and Scousers need not apply, was a non-spoken rule at the B.B.C. .
One of the reasons for the success of the Irish 'Murphia'
and Scots 'Macia' in radio and television is that their accents can usually place them beyond judgments made on class grounds, and they are also mellifluous. A soft Scottish accent from the Western Isles, or an educated Irish brogue are very attractive. Sexy, too...
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mindseye
For an example of English vocabulary strength, consider: big, large, huge, immense, mammoth, gargantuan, collosal, goliath, gigantic, great, enormous, vast, massive, etc. |
But what difference does that make? Is collosal bigger or mammoth bigger?
quote: Originally posted by mindseye
Contrast with Chinese, where it seems you can only say big, very big, really big, extremely big, etc - or so I am told by natives who I've asked (they may have been wrong or misunderstood my question). |
That's because Chinese aren't based on individual characters but groups of characters (a bit similar to phrases). Chinese characters are more like roots/suffixs/prefixs/etc. - components to form words in English.
quote: Originally posted by mindseye
Of course, in either language you can also use similes, metaphors, literary references, slang, etc. to add additional flavor. However English seems to me to have the advantage in terms of sheer breadth of vocabulary. |
Both collosal and goliath are both references, while mammoth is an analogy (started out as one anyways - or so I think).
As I pointed out before, for Chinese, you need to count the character groups. That makes up the language's vocabulary, not individual characters.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001 time: 05:24
|
|
English is easy to learn for Germanic-language-family native speakers (Germans, Norse, Dutch...), then Latins, then other Indo-Europeans. It is quite hard for Chinese, and was hard for people who only spoke Maori and such languages (now they are all taught English as kids I believe).
I dismiss the written vs. pronounciation aspect because it is IMO secondary. Look for Irish (Gaelic) for a tough one (Conchobar = Conor...).
The simplicity of English is only in surface. The amount of irregular verbs is enormous for instance, and probably proves a nightmare to Chinese for instance. I wish I were able to show a fe examples of English oddities which can drive foreigners mad.
In particular, there are many assumptions in English which usually travel into f.e. software making it hard to translate. Stuff like the order of words in a sentence, different words for his/her based on the owner and not the owned gender/number...
Anyone knows about artificial languages here? Esperanto for instance was made to be an easy-to-learn language, but proved to be as hard as English for non Europeans. Languages tend to come along with a frame for thinking which I beliebe is what matters in learning the language. If you can think in English, then you are able to learn it, learn new words and rules as you encounter them. Otherwise, you will always fail.
Some artificial languages were very interesting concepts, like all-noun, though most of them are totally unsuitable for conversation as noone knows them. And there are many existing languages that have concepts that cannot be expressed simply in other tongues. Tthe various degrees of truth in some native american languages for instance cannot be expressed in any natural way in English.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001 time: 00:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare
The simplicity of English is only in surface. The amount of irregular verbs is enormous for instance, and probably proves a nightmare to Chinese for instance. I wish I were able to show a fe examples of English oddities which can drive foreigners mad. |
Love to.
In English, if you take the perfectly innocent sentence:
"If I see it, I'll tell you."
And try to put it in the past tense:
"If I saw it, I'd tell you."
The result is not the past tense. It's STILL in the present, only you've just lowered to possibility of occurrence. You've made the sentence an "unlikely" occurence in the present, expressed with a past tense.
To make it into hte past, you have to push it into the past perfect:
"If I'd seen it, I'd have told you."
Only then, with a so-called "pluperfect" or double-past formation, can you express a past and unlikely event.
Follow so far?
But that's not all. We've looked at the present unlikely, the past unlikely. The future unlikely is formed by adding "should" to the condition but not the result:
"If I should see it, I would tell you."
(There's, incidentally, another way to express unlikelihood - but this time you use the root form:
"I will do it, lest he do that."
Can also be used to express want:
"I will see to it that he do that."
But this formation is becoming archaic.)
Last edited by ranskaldan on 22-12-2002 at 09:25
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|