European Common Language - The Poll

What is your choice for a single European language?

  • English (top 10 world languages)

    Votes: 32 47.8%
  • Spanish (top 10 world languages)

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Portuguese (top 10 world languages)

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Latin

    Votes: 12 17.9%
  • Esperanto

    Votes: 4 6.0%
  • German

    Votes: 3 4.5%
  • French

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A new hybrid

    Votes: 14 20.9%

  • Total voters
    67
Spelling? We have only problem with 3-4 letters... in english every letter is a problem... For example:
Why are you simple word "but" pronauncing bat or bot? It has no sense... Why simple latin words like pronunciation is pronounces: pronawsii-eyshn? :LOL:

This is the reason, whyenglish speakers are horrible in almost every foreign language... :)
Majority of english natives have big dificculties with reading as it is written... even in latin or deustch, which are some kind of "sister-languages"... :)

Its obvious from your writing that you had problems learning English. Your grammar is bad and your spelling worse. I am a High School English and History teacher and can tell very easily why you dont like English or think its "primitive": The simple reason is that you are not good at it. I have had thousands of cases of students hating English and/or History simply because they were no good at it. Its simple psychology: when someone is not good at something they deprecate the subject in order to save face. :) I know: its human nature :)
 
Last edited:
As I said - this is wonderfull language for slaves, but not for international, political or cultural use.

Again be careful: If you think English is a "wonderfull (sic) language for slaves" then there is something wrong with your mind or you have some weird prejudice that I have never heard of. Anyone who says English is not fit for international, political, or cultural use is either hopelesly ignorant or insane. Maybe its your Polish nationalism?? I know its extreme :)
 
Last edited:
If english would be dead language for thousands of years, some one who would decipher this language, would have
very impossible work - first -he will misuderstand primarly half of text, and 2) he would be reading text in 90% wrong. As I said - this is wonderfull language for slaves,
but not for international, political or cultural use.

Only a person who does not fully learn languages will have a hard time "deciphering" a language. I would imagine in the far future some one who knew little or was weak at languages will have a hard time deciphering Polish compared to English.
 
Last edited:
First of all my friend you need to be careful about saying such things that English is primitive language because it is simply ridiculous. I never heard anyone say English sounds "primitive!" Maybe Poles only think that :)
What sense does it make to attack all ethnicity if you don't agree with one person?

And what the heck happened with your friendship guys? Just tone down the epithets.
 
This ship has sailed. If you want to fly planes or ships, you need to understand English; if you want to do computer work, you need to understand English; if you want to negotiate a loan with the Chinese, you'd better either speak Chinese or English. In India it's a type of lingua franca among all the competing languages of the sub-continent, and their mastery of it is one reason they can service communications and computer companies. Even French is only kept alive as a diplomatic language because the French were founding members of NATO and insist upon it. Spanish would have more right to be one of the official NATO languages because so many people speak it around the world, but that's not going to happen either.

As a literary language, English is, in fact, unparalleled, in my opinion, and I say that even though it isn't my native language. The circumstances of its creation from both Germanic and French/Latin roots means that it has an absolutely enormous vocabulary, with multiple words carrying different emotional and visual connotations for things that only have one word in other languages. Just take a look at an unabridged dictionary of English words some day and compare it with dictionaries for other languages. Also, as befits a language which has been ever expanding, the grammar has simplified, actually making it easier to learn. The only difficult thing about it is that it is not written phonetically, but anyone who can memorize combinations of letters can overcome that easily...just look at all the Chinese and Indian kids who win American "Spelling Bees" every year.

The world has changed. You change with it or you don't compete.
 
Anyone who says English is not fit for international, political, or cultural use is either hopelesly ignorant or insane. Maybe its your Polish nationalism?? I know its extreme :)

I say. OK, I disagree with that 'slaves' part - slaves should not exist at all. Politics and airport use maybe, but regarding cultural and scientific use, English is an awful choice - missing grammatical cases and imprecise.
 
What have you been smoking??? Every nation or empire requires a common language in order to do business at home and abroad. Greek and Latin was used in ancient times to do business with foreigners from Europe, Africa, and Asia. Europeans, Americans, Latin Americans, Indians, Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are certainly not going to learn Polish or Lithuanian or Latin!!! They already know English and even German and Spanish! So why would they change language or how are you going to do business with them???

Now I dont know what you are talking about.
I was talking about one language for Europe, and you added Cheneses and others asians.
For what?
If some one of them is knowing english, than when you make spanish one language they will have the same problem if you chose karelian.
So what's a difference?
It should be language for us, not for them.
smile.gif


First of all my friend you need to be careful about saying such things that English is primitive language because it is simply ridiculous. I never heard anyone say English sounds "primitive!"

Not sounds, but his biulding is primitive.
Aspecially grammar and basic vocabulary.
According to grammar:
You can compare english to PIE - you'll see a big diffrence.
You can compare to pragermanic - the same.
To anglosaxonic - the same.
Even to XVIII century english - and if you are english teatcher you should know this!
You are a specialist, so tell me - which one has more complicated structure?
- present day english?
- XVIIth century's?
- anglosaxonic (aenglisc)?

You can compare latin, deutsch, church or old slavonic, even urlaic languages - and
you'll see which language is more developed and which one is less developed.

I can even risk the thesis, that every one language from europe is more developed and
more complicated than english. English in this language panorama is more like tok pisin...
smile.gif



Its obvious from your writing that you had problems learning English. Your grammar is bad and your spelling worse.

Johannes, if you during 24 months of learning polish on your own, without grammar (I don't like it and I dont lern this yet at all - I confess),
without teatcher and withoyt any one who know polish, can learn so many as I did with english during last two years, then you can say
something about correct spelling and grammar errors. Then will see, who better know each others language. I deeply doubt, if you will be
in basic level understand(able) by others. Could you make argument about such deep discuccions as it have place here? I see that people
understand me pretty well, so it is not so horrible :) But I know my problems: I make to long sentences, I dont know grammar, and spelling
is so complicated, that even natives make mistakes, who are talking, readng and writing in english whole life. I never wrote in english until
this forum, so - can you do better with polish during two or maybe even three years? I deeply dout. In writing you will be maybe better,
because polish orthography compare to english that is pice of cake.

I am an High School English and History teacher and can tell very easily why you dont like English or think its "primitive": The simple reason is that you are not good at it. I have had thousands of cases of students hating English and/or History simply because they were no good at it. Its simple psychology: when someone is not good at something they deprecate the subject in order to save face. :) I know: its human nature :)

If I would don't like english, I wouldnt learn it. I have no need for that. I'm learning, because I like it.
I know couple of other languages too, so if you can do better... be my guest.
smile.gif


Ad. spelling - as I said, writing on computer is a couse of many mistakes, because you can
press wrong button by accident, or miss him. In polish it is no problem, because you can
uderstand even if every letter are wrong writing. In english one miss letter or one wrong
press button can change everything and make very earsy gibbrish - why? Because words
are not very goog developed. Mostly are build with one sylablle, or two...

Again be careful: If you think English is a "wonderfull (sic) language for slaves"

Maybe not wonderfull, but good, or very good :)

I am not author of this statement, but my teatcher of german. :)
I share his opinion. He knew couple of languages in high level...
If you lived in XVII or XVIII centuries and you brought some
slaves from africa (or whatever different culture) you had need
for simple language to communicate with them which they can
quickly learn and understand.

So, maybe this is a reason, who knows...
smile.gif


then there is something wrong with your mind or you have some weird prejudice that I have never heard of.

Don't be so childlish...
rolleyes.gif

I guess, that it must be very hard to hear such humor in america, were even in historical films or fairy tails, you must have negros, hindu and asians...
laughing.gif

It is horrible... I am watching film about Cinderella and what I see there? Negros. I watch film about apostles - and what I see? John and some other
apostle are negro, with Mary Magdalene as well... so... this is very hard to hear such kind of digression in such madness enviroment...

Anyone who says English is not fit for international, political, or cultural use is either hopelesly ignorant or insane.

As you can observe in the world, every language is useable. Why? Because is using.

But in disscusion about which language is better, we must lokking for others qualities than only having users.

Maybe its your Polish nationalism?? I know its extreme :)

No it isn't. Some people called me cosmopolitan.
But that that I speak polish cannot decide that polish is excluded
from options, the same for you, that that you are speaking english,
does not decide, that english is not primitive. It doesn't matter.

Do you Jahannes speak maybe some other, especially fusional languages on high level?

Only a person who does not fully learn languages will have a hard time "deciphering" a language. I would imagine in the far future some one who knew little or was weak at languages will have a hard time deciphering Polish compared to English.

Don't be stubborn only because you cannot see this what others are seeing.
You are talking like daltonist, who cannot understand, that red and green are two different colours.

I give you one grammar and one lexical example.

I dont rememberwho, but some one was created a thread were he wrod about Bible God.
Whithout even saxon genitive, what is very common in present day english.

In majority languages this would be gibber.

Because what does it mean?

Bible is the God?
Bible is a god?
God is a Bible?
God is in Bible?
Or maybe this is simple enumerating two words: "God and Bible"
God who is described by Bible?
Or maybe Bible whith was writing by God?

It could mean everything.
And this is the same whith
80-90% words in sentences.
The words means nothing.
Only context decide about meaning.

So, I would say, that english is a language like hebrew script.
It could mean everything and nothing. Meaning is determine
by users on very well known context and situation.

Simple with word.

When some one are taking english dictionary and lokking for meaning of some word,
he has a big problem, because one word is equivalent od 10 some times 20 or more
meanings. Comparing this whith lacking of grammar and contextual meaning, some
one, who would not know english witch would be dead for centuries, would be have
big difficulties to understand what is exactly text talking about.

Simple: about word "live" dictonary is giving me only in basic meaning 22 different
meanings, plus homofon "leave" - 35 meanings - but it is probably not all.

And according to spelling - some one who would be working with dead english
language, would be reading as it is written, not as it is pronaucing. I am always
amazed when english people cannot even read foreign names in simple alfabeth
which they are using. This is terrrible - how it is possible to not now 22-26 letters?
Even Russians can read in latin alphabet, but not Englishmen...


What sense does it make to attack all ethnicity if you don't agree with one person?

And what the heck happened with your friendship guys? Just tone down the epithets.

This is Lebrok quite popular thinking among everyone who learn english... primarly among people whom I know and Knew during my lifetime.
Among other nationalities you can find similar thinking about english.
It is very difficult to uderstand for englishmen, that english is primitive (meaning simple) because if some one don't know any fusional language,
with differet nouns and verbs, with conjugations and declinations, many modes, aspects, couple of different kinds of numbers, and some others
grammar quantities plus with more correct and unequivocal meanings of words, and more developed words not only by lengh but by usefullness
and possibiliets which are n one word who can do whith many suffixes and prefixes dozes of different and new words.

This ship has sailed. If you want to fly planes or ships, you need to understand English; if you want to do computer work, you need to understand English; if you want to negotiate a loan with the Chinese, you'd better either speak Chinese or English. In India it's a type of lingua franca among all the competing languages of the sub-continent, and their mastery of it is one reason they can service communications and computer companies. Even French is only kept alive as a diplomatic language because the French were founding members of NATO and insist upon it. Spanish would have more right to be one of the official NATO languages because so many people speak it around the world, but that's not going to happen either.

Yes, I agree. This is reality.
I was takling theoritacly.

The only difficult thing about it is that it is not written phonetically, but anyone who can memorize combinations of letters can overcome that easily...

Yea, but I think differently: not orthography is hard but spelling is incorrect :)
I like, when I can see a root of word. I prefer original latin or germanic visual
image (not ymyD - or something like that
good_job.gif
) because even, if I cannot read
I can see what that word can probably means. Seeing words is more important
than reading - even chenese are knowing that, and the same pictograms, can be
reading by many different nationalities, even from different language-families.

Question for everyone who says, that english isn't primitive language.
How many different words in different forms can you create from my
nick, rethel, using only normal present day english, (not old or aenglisc).
Take rethel as a root. How many? :innocent:
 
Last edited:
Primitive or not, irrelevant to were it comes from and its history, At the moment English is the main communication language of the world. It also happened naturally and at par with world events and economic development. In all honesty it does not seem to be abiding either and its seems its going to be there and maybe grow in decades to come, with more and more countries recognizing the fact that knowing English will take you further then any other.
 
I'm astonished that anyone would vote for Latin as a lingua franca in Europe. Why would anyone pick a language frozen in time in the first centuries AD with only the vocabulary for the technology, science, etc. of that time? For that matter, by the middle Empire, the Latin we study in ancient texts was already evolving, as all living languages must do.

Europe has to live and compete in the real world. It needs a common language not only for use within Europe but for dealing with the world outside of Europe. How could it be a great idea for it to try to do business in Latin while the Indians are all speaking English and the Chinese are learning it in record numbers. Is everybody supposed to learn Latin and English? I don't even know where to begin for anyone choosing Esperanto.

Just to touch on something I mentioned before, English has one million words now, and new ones are being added every day. The admission of words from other languages (the majority of the English vocabulary comes from the Romance or Classical languages even if the grammar and sound is Germanic in origin.), which continues today, and the easy creation of compound words and derived words is one of the causes of its success. For someone who loves words and expressions, it's like a never ending cornucopia of different words for different contexts, often chosen for the sound correspondence and to produce a visual image. Just as an example, look at the different words for group of animals: a pride of lions, a herd of cows, a gaggle of geese (I love this one.), a cloud of mosquitoes (can't you just see it), a pack of coyotes, a school of fish, a swarm of bees. I love it.

The other is its flexibility, and that comes, from what I can remember, from its loss of inflections. (I beg pardon from our linguists for this layman's exposition.) The same words can be used as both nouns and verbs. There are famous examples: you can plan a table, or table a plan, place a book or book a place, lift a thumb, or thumb a lift, all of which provide new connotations and nuances and visual images.

Anyway, as I said, it's all great for writers. Of course, this wealth of vocabulary and the association of certain words only for certain contexts, along with the lack of clear rules for pronunciation and spelling, are what, in combination, can make learning English a challenge despite the simplified grammar. It also makes learning to read extremely difficult for dyslexics, because you almost have to "read" words by learning them as a whole unit, visualizing them the way a Chinese pictograph is learned perhaps, rather than sounding something out letter by letter. I can say from experience that this is the way you have to approach spelling words in English. You have to look at a word and see it as a whole in your mind's eye. It's the opposite, in that way, from Italian, where it's very easy to learn how to pronounce a word. Even if you mangle the sounds, as most foreigners do, you can learn the rules for stress, etc., and you spell it exactly the way it sounds. However, the grammar, the tenses, etc., are a nightmare.

By the way, this is a nice site which gives a clear explanation of some of these things which might be useful to non-native speakers.
http://esl.fis.edu/grammar/langdiff/english.htm

Sorry for the slight digression, but like it or lump it (another English expression I love), Europeans need to learn English, and these are the problems with learning it. The only way to really do it is to immerse yourself in it, if not by living in an English speaking environment then through movies, tv, music etc. This is why, I think, Italians lag in learning English...they very early on decided to dub it all into Italian and not use subtitles. I think that was a mistake.
 
This ship has sailed. If you want to fly planes or ships, you need to understand English; if you want to do computer work, you need to understand English; if you want to negotiate a loan with the Chinese, you'd better either speak Chinese or English. In India it's a type of lingua franca among all the competing languages of the sub-continent, and their mastery of it is one reason they can service communications and computer companies. Even French is only kept alive as a diplomatic language because the French were founding members of NATO and insist upon it. Spanish would have more right to be one of the official NATO languages because so many people speak it around the world, but that's not going to happen either.

As a literary language, English is, in fact, unparalleled, in my opinion, and I say that even though it isn't my native language. The circumstances of its creation from both Germanic and French/Latin roots means that it has an absolutely enormous vocabulary, with multiple words carrying different emotional and visual connotations for things that only have one word in other languages. Just take a look at an unabridged dictionary of English words some day and compare it with dictionaries for other languages. Also, as befits a language which has been ever expanding, the grammar has simplified, actually making it easier to learn. The only difficult thing about it is that it is not written phonetically, but anyone who can memorize combinations of letters can overcome that easily...just look at all the Chinese and Indian kids who win American "Spelling Bees" every year.

The world has changed. You change with it or you don't compete.

Very well put: exactly my thoughts. Thank you.:)
 
Not sounds, but his biulding is primitive. Aspecially grammar and basic vocabulary. According to grammar: You can compare english to PIE - you'll see a big diffrence.
You can compare to pragermanic - the same. To anglosaxonic - the same. Even to XVIII century english - and if you are english teatcher you should know this! You are a specialist, so tell me - which one has more complicated structure? - present day english? - XVIIth century's? - anglosaxonic (aenglisc)? You can compare latin, deutsch, church or old slavonic, even urlaic languages - and you'll see which language is more developed and which one is less developed. I can even risk the thesis, that every one language from europe is more developed and more complicated than english.
smile.gif

Ok I can understand were you come from as Engish is your second language and it will be difficult to express yourself properly. But you should not use the adjectives "primitive or simple." If you do you are making a fool of yourself. You need to find another, more proper, adjective. There is no such thing as "primitive or simple" languages. ALL human languages are complex. Even Eskimo is a highly complex language. Languages simply evolve and change. English was originally 100% Low German dialect. But when the Normans invaded England they introduced a lot of French and Latin. So it changed. But it has always been a complex language. Here is an example:
Old English “The Lord’s Prayer”:
Old EnglishModern English
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;
Si þin nama gehalgod
to becume þin rice
gewurþe ðin willa
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfele
soþlice
Father our thou that art in heavens
be thy name hallowed
come thy kingdom
be-done thy will
on earth as in heavens
our daily bread give us today
and forgive us our sins
as we forgive those-who-have-sinned-against-us
and not lead thou us into temptation
but deliver us from evil.
truly/Amen/So be it.
OLD (GERMANIC) ENGLISH MODERN ENGLISH

As you can see the structure is the same only the words are slightly different in some instances. For example, Old English uses the Germanic "Reich (rice)" instead of "Kingdom", "loaf" instead of "bread", "guilt" instead of "sins", etc, some are totally different (but few) -- "alys and deliver".
 
Johannes, if you during 24 months of learning polish on your own, without grammar (I don't like it and I dont lern this yet at all - I confess), without teatcher and withoyt any one who know polish, can learn so many as I did with english during last two years, then you can say something about correct spelling and grammar errors. Then will see, who better know each others language. I deeply doubt, if you will be in basic level understand(able) by others. Could you make argument about such deep discuccions as it have place here? I see that people understand me pretty well, so it is not so horrible :) But I know my problems: I make to long sentences, I dont know grammar, and spelling is so complicated, that even natives make mistakes, who are talking, readng and writing in english whole life. I never wrote in english until this forum, so - can you do better with polish during two or maybe even three years? I deeply dout. In writing you will be maybe better, because polish orthography compare to english that is pice of cake.

If I would don't like english, I wouldnt learn it. I have no need for that. I'm learning, because I like it. I know couple of other languages too, so if you can do better... be my guest.
smile.gif


In english one miss letter or one wrong press button can change everything and make very earsy gibbrish - why? Because words are not very goog developed. Mostly are build with one sylablle, or two...

OK OK I understand were you are coming from and I tip my hat to you, if you learned it by yourself in the last two years (I think that is what you said). My suggestion is to get a teacher or tutor to teach you as it would be easier and you will learn faster. Yes I understand that if you make a mistake in grammar then the whole structure makes little sense. That is why you need to be careful and reread before publishing. This way you won't make mistakes, or use a spell check on your computer. This will solve all your spelling problems. But I still think you need to memorize each word and its meaning. Otherwise you will be walking in the dark. Also write in short-precise sentences.

By the way I know Spanish as well. I dont speak or write fluently but I can do pretty well if I speak to a Latin American. I am also learning Russian, but it's very difficult language (especially when they use Cyrillic). I hope in two years I can speak it enough to say complete sentences (functionally).
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as "primitive or simple" languages.

do you really think that tok pisin is equvalent of english? :)

ALL human languages are complex. Even Eskimo is a highly complex language.

Because the more primitve group of people, the more difficult language - especially in the past.
Languages are mostly devolving than evolving. We can observe what happend with Latin and
Slavonic. This languages were more advanced than present day romanic and slavic languages.
They maybe had fewer words, but their language-structure was more advanced.



Old EnglishModern English
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;
Si þin nama gehalgod
to becume þin rice
gewurþe ðin willa
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfele
soþlice
Father our thou that art in heavens
be thy name hallowed
come thy kingdom
be-done thy will
on earth as in heavens
our daily bread give us today
and forgive us our sins
as we forgive those-who-have-sinned-against-us
and not lead thou us into temptation
but deliver us from evil.
truly/Amen/So be it.

This is very fine exemplar.
As I can see, in aenglisc were minimum two form of pronoun in plural in first person.

nominativ: ure
genitiv?: urne

In present version you have only one: our.
The same with "your".
"Thy" and "thou" dosn't exist any more exept KJV :)
þu, þin, ðin - compare to your....

So which one is more primitive and which
one more developed in that particular case?

p.s. Johannes, how do you read this ferst version?
As it is written, or maybe, as normal english text? :)

For example "rice": riike or rays?:LOL:
 
Do you Jahannes speak maybe some other, especially fusional languages on high level?

Rethel don't be silly: English is a "fusional" language; it's just more analytical. It evolved that way perhaps because the English were very pragmatic as opposed to the other Europeans who are more rational or idealistic (I am speaking in philosophical terms here). Yes I speak Spanish and it is very "fusional." Perhaps I will become more "fusional" if I learn Russian!:indifferent:
 
Yes I speak Spanish and it is very "fusional."

I don't know how much, but I guess, that no so much as latin.

So try imagine what I am talking about.
If you can think easly in spanish and write, you should know.
even semi fusional language is better than creol (ie english :p ).

Perhaps I will become more "fusional" if I learn Russian!:indifferent:

Probably, but polish is better complicated! :)
 
I say. OK, I disagree with that 'slaves' part - slaves should not exist at all. Politics and airport use maybe, but regarding cultural and scientific use, English is an awful choice - missing grammatical cases and imprecise.

I don't understand what you mean by English being in a sense "regarding cultural and scientific use, English is an awful choice - ". Can you explain because you make no sense.
 
Johannes Ike already said it: English is an awful choice - missing grammatical cases and imprecise.

I'm fully agree with him.

p.s. in my sentence, who said it?
Johannes,
Ike,
Johannes-Ike
Johannes and Ike,
if Ike, who is Johannes? :)

As you see, it is not knowing. In polish and latin it would be
exactly precize who said and what is going on with Johannes.

But lacking of vocative makes this sentence gibberish. To see this,
you have to use using this case, if not, you'll never see it. In polish
is some trend to using nominative in the place of vocative. People
who don't use him do not see the problem. But if you are using it,
then lacking of that particular gramatical thing is obvious, gibberish,
and iritating - it is awefull. And this is only small part of grammatical
complication of language. So you must have faith, because, you are
(as isolating and position language speaking man) like daltonist who
cannot see no colour (not only one, but all of them) so this is hard
to explane to you, what is the colour at all... :)

Of course, every one understand what is written, but
not because it is written, but because of context and
some kind of language-spirit.

p.s.
can you tell me, how many words
english can created from my nick?

And which one version on english
in the case of pronouns is better?

And what with this equality of Tok Pisin?:rolleyes:
 
...I give you one grammar and one lexical example.

I dont rememberwho, but some one was created a thread were he wrod about Bible God.
Whithout even saxon genitive, what is very common in present day english.

In majority languages this would be gibber.

Because what does it mean?

Bible is the God?
Bible is a god?
God is a Bible?
God is in Bible?
Or maybe this is simple enumerating two words: "God and Bible"
God who is described by Bible?
Or maybe Bible whith was writing by God?

It could mean everything.
And this is the same whith
80-90% words in sentences.
The words means nothing.
Only context decide about meaning.

So, I would say, that english is a language like hebrew script...

"Bible God" is perfectly understandable to a proficient English speaker. It is simply an example of a Germanic "Compound Noun" that has a corresponding structure in German. The difference is that English prefers, as a general rule, to put spaces between the individual components of its compound nouns while German prefers to string them all together. The underlying grammatical concept is the same.

"Bible God", therefore, means the "God who is described by [the] Bible". Educated English speakers are expected to know who this god is, whether they believe in him or not.

You can create similar compound noun forms in English with virtually any character/person/role and story/setting. For example:

Epic hero (e.g. Ulysses, Gilgamesh, etc.)
Star Wars princess (a compound noun of a compound noun!)
Game of Thrones dragon
Mabinogion wizard
Bible prophets
Steampunk engineers

We can even get more compound on compound nouns:

1) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction
2) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction
3) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website
4) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website moderation rating system
5) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website moderation rating system revision plan
6) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website moderation rating system revision plan errata
7) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website moderation rating system revision plan errata correction timetable
8) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website moderation rating system revision plan errata correction timetable iPhone app
9) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website moderation rating system revision plan errata correction timetable iPhone app download manager
10) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website moderation rating system revision plan errata correction timetable iPhone app download manager OS installation prerequisites
11) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website moderation rating system revision plan errata correction timetable iPhone app download manager OS installation prerequisites complaints
12) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website moderation rating system revision plan errata correction timetable iPhone app download manager OS installation prerequisites complaints bit bucket
13) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website moderation rating system revision plan errata correction timetable iPhone app download manager OS installation prerequisites complaints bit bucket emptier
14) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website moderation rating system revision plan errata correction timetable iPhone app download manager OS installation prerequisites complaints bit bucket emptier union
15) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website moderation rating system revision plan errata correction timetable iPhone app download manager OS installation prerequisites complaints bit bucket emptier union strike
16) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website moderation rating system revision plan errata correction timetable iPhone app download manager OS installation prerequisites complaints bit bucket emptier union strike negotiator
17) Star Wars hyperdrive malfunction fanfiction website moderation rating system revision plan errata correction timetable iPhone app download manager OS installation prerequisites complaints bit bucket emptier union strike negotiator biography
...and on, and on
 
Johannes Ike already said it: English is an awful choice - missing grammatical cases and imprecise.

I'm fully agree with him.

p.s. in my sentence, who said it?
Johannes,
Ike,
Johannes-Ike
Johannes and Ike,
if Ike, who is Johannes? :)

As you see, it is not knowing. In polish and latin it would be
exactly precize who said and what is going on with Johannes.

But lacking of vocative makes this sentence gibberish. To see this,
you have to use using this case, if not, you'll never see it. In polish
is some trend to using nominative in the place of vocative. People
who don't use him do not see the problem. But if you are using it,
then lacking of that particular gramatical thing is obvious, gibberish,
and iritating - it is awefull. And this is only small part of grammatical
complication of language. So you must have faith, because, you are
(as isolating and position language speaking man) like daltonist who
cannot see no colour (not only one, but all of them) so this is hard
to explane to you, what is the colour at all... :)

Of course, every one understand what is written, but
not because it is written, but because of context and
some kind of language-spirit.

p.s.
can you tell me, how many words
english can created from my nick?

And which one version on english
in the case of pronouns is better?

And what with this equality of Tok Pisin?:rolleyes:

Rethel, I am not going to get into a discussion about linguistics to see if English is an "awful" language. I am not an expert in linguistics but I know that English is a beautiful language with very well developed structure. (I am sure millions of people will agree with me). If you don't agree then its your opinon.

Tok Pinsin is now considered a legitimate language Papua New Guinea. All pidgin languages develop from legitimate ones. So they have to be complex in order to be functionable. Pidgin languages are actually quite common in the evolution of languages. For example, during Roman times, many people in Iberia and Gaul who did not speak Latin, eventually spoke pidgin Latin and from there it developed into Spanish and French. Likewise a form of Greek pidgin developed during the Hellenistic Era in order to allow Middle Eastern peoples to do business with European Greek-speakers. I believe it was called "koine?" So just because it's pidgin does not mean its inferior to other languages. Its actually quite clever to use it as it allows different people to trade and communicate. This might insult some native speakers but it is a legitimate way for humans of different cultures to interact.
 
Last edited:

I wonder to see how much lot a new hybrid and Esperanto supporter
 

This thread has been viewed 106840 times.

Back
Top