PDA

View Full Version : European Common Language - The Poll



edao
21-02-10, 21:16
What would your prefference be?:thinking:

Bill Chapman
21-02-10, 23:25
My preference would be for Esperanto. Incidentally, the first ever text book in Welsh designed to teach the international language Esperanto has just been published. The Mini-Cwrs is a 36 page guide to Esperanto, consisting of ten lessons, some reading exercises and a vocabulary.

Neander
22-02-10, 18:43
Latin language. It is fair for all, because no one nation is privileged in that case.

Mycernius
22-02-10, 18:52
English and not just because I am. It is the international language of the air and shipping. It is the primary language for trade and it is the primary language used on the internet. Look on the opening page on wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/):
English 3 200 000+ articles. The nearest is german with just over a million, french doesn't even reach a million.
In Europe German is the most spoken mother tongue, but english is the most widely spoken within Europe. German even has more speakers within Europe than french.

Latin is a dead language. Esperanto can probably muster 2 000 000 speakers worldwide, so it is a waste of time. The EU population stands at about 500 000 000 people, 51% of which can speak english either as a native or as a secondary language. Even if all the esperanto users lived in the EU that would make the speakers not even 0.5%.
A list of the most spoken:
http://www.krysstal.com/spoken.html

Neander
22-02-10, 20:39
Latin is a dead language, and it is a very strong reason to make it eu. common language.

Mycernius
23-02-10, 19:57
Latin is a dead language, and it is a very strong reason to make it eu. common language.
Could you explain why? Imagine the amount of words that would have to be incorporated into it to fit with the modern world. I would guess quite a few would have to be borrowed from English. What would you do for television, half from greek, half from latin? Call it a proculvision for it to be precise?

Neander
23-02-10, 21:22
Could you explain why?I explained why!!!

Even Jews are not privileged peoples of God, although pretend that.

English is for englishmen, serbian for serbs, german for germans.

So, Latin is not spoken by any nation, and it is a good compromise, when we discusse which language to choose for common euro language. And Latin has a long history of being euro-common language. It was lingua franca at least since 2 century BC until 15 century AD.

And English is not spread because it is easy to learn. It is not easy to learn, nor to speak. It was spread because of colonization, of the world.

As for your second phrase, I want to remember you that Pope of Vatican, update latin language time by time, with new words.

Maciamo
23-02-10, 21:30
Latin is a dead language for a reason. A language is a reflection of a people's mindset, culture, values and Zeitgeist. Latin died because it does not reflect the spirit of modern society any more. How would you talk about modern technologies in Latin ? Would you invent words for all the new concepts that have emerged in the last 1500 years ?

For all these reasons I am against the use (and even the compulsory teaching at school) of dead languages or the use of artificial languages like Esperanto, that are devoid of any spirit and culture. Esperanto is easy to learn, sure enough, but its simplicity also results in a lack of nuances found in languages that have been spoken and developed by hundreds of millions of people through centuries. Modern English is very different from the medieval Middle English and Old French from which it evolved, but it has incorporated everything that was good about these languages and added nuances that didn't exist before.

English is the best possible lingua franca between Romance and Germanic speakers because it is the only language that combines in a fairly balanced way elements from both linguistic families. It also has the largest vocabulary of any language on earth, and is extremely flexible and modern in its structure. As it already is the world's main lingua franca, it doesn't make sense to choose another one for Europe. The rest of the world won't follow suit.

Maciamo
23-02-10, 21:41
And English is not spread because it is easy to learn. It is not easy to learn, nor to speak. It was spread because of colonization, of the world.

English is definitely the easiest European language to learn for beginners because of its simplified grammar, but also because of the exposure to English through computer language, scientific and technical terms, Hollywood and all the other media using English.



As for your second phrase, I want to remember you that Pope of Vatican, update latin language time by time, with new words.

Latin's association with the Catholic Church is another good reason why it shouldn't be used. It is heavily tainted by religion, like Arabic, not something we want to built the future upon. We had enough with 1000 years of Catholic-induced Dark Ages.

Neander
23-02-10, 23:26
Would you invent words for all the new concepts that have emerged in the last 1500 years ?It just was invented.

Just read article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3030169.stm

Mycernius
25-02-10, 21:13
It just was invented.
Just read article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3030169.stm
An article that goes to prove my point about latin having to borrow from living languages.

telephonium albo televisifico coniunctum
Television, the root used for televisifico is a marrying of tele (greek) and vision (latin) and was used in english. I gave you the correct latin word for television in an earlier post (proculvision) which shows that they aren't even sure when it comes to latin. As for the word telephonium the root is telephone and that is entirely greek using tele and phone. Is that the best way tghey have for inventing new latin words, stick ium or um at the end. The internet would be internetium. Of course we would have to loose WWW as a prefix because latin doesn't use the letter W, along with J and U. Should we change it to mundus (or orbis terrarum) prolixus (or laxus, fusus, latus) aranea (or plaga), and then is it male or female form? You know english doesn't have that problem.
MPA.Eupediae.commus - Ite lookus interestium

Then there is the point that you are on an international forum where people speak a variety of languages and yet you are making your argument in, er, english. Why aren't you using your mothertongue? Let me think...hmmmmm. probably because not many people speak it outside the former Yugoslavia.:rolleyes2: English doesn't seem have that problem.

Neander
25-02-10, 22:12
Please stop, right now, cause all people who read your post will laugh with you. What you wrote:

An article that goes to prove my point about latin having to borrow from living languages.
The living languages have borrowed from latin, and not latin from living languages, dear friend. In which living language is word "television"??? It is not live language, it is international, scientific.

Television, the root used for televisifico is a marrying of tele (greek) and vision (latin) and was used in english.
Sorry, it is not english, and it has not any meaning in english. It is scientific international word.

I gave you the correct latin word for television in an earlier post (proculvision) which shows that they aren't even sure when it comes to latin.
Well, I can give you correct english word for television (I see far away), which shows...

As for the word telephonium the root is telephone and that is entirely greek using tele and phone. Is that the best way tghey have for inventing new latin words, stick ium or um at the end.
As for the word Teles phonos, which is greek, it is the way you invent new words in english, just remove -os from greek words.

Of course we would have to loose WWW as a prefix because latin doesn't use the letter W, along with J and U.
Why it is not loose in serbian, italian, turkish etc??? Internet is not entire in english.

Then there is the point that you are on an international forum where people speak a variety of languages and yet you are making your argument in, er, english.There are a many pages which use another language.
And here are many threads where users use other languages, french, spanish etc.
And your ancestors spoke latin when went to church, of course. I said, English must be thankfull to colonization of the world. But the fact that a language is spread is not argument that it must be spreaded more and more.
By your logic, Islamic religion must spread around the world, because it is has a lot of believers there.
English is even harder then portuguese to learn and to speak.


English doesn't seem have that problem.
Which problem?

LeBrok
25-02-10, 23:17
Please stop, right now, cause all people who read your post will laugh with you. What you wrote:


Actually it goes to you Neader. You, my friend, jump into conclusions much too quickly and too often. Try this: analyze first, write later.

Neander
26-02-10, 00:04
Actually it goes to you Neader. You, my friend, jump into conclusions much too quickly and too often. Try this: analyze first, write later. I don't see any fact here.

It si to laugh, and with high sound, when he says that Latin took english word "television".

It is known that latin even in ancient times borrowed from greek. I don't know why we have to wonder for that?

But when you don't see the tree in your eye, and you see the hair in anothers eye, it is to laugh, and also it is childish egoism.

edao
26-02-10, 00:18
As the poll appears to be split between English and a new hybrid what about a compromise?

If English was altered to make it easier to learn. I'm no expert in languages:clueless: but a suggestion might be the dropping of the 'th' sound (as many non native speakers struggle with its pronunciation) perhaps replaced with a d, so that would be pronouced dat, those, dose etc.

Various minor alternation like this could be made perhaps some problematic grammar changes, but essentially it would still remain understandable to current English speakers. The new variation could be given a generic name like Europa and marketed as a neutral world language.

Essentially the point would be:

1. Make english as easy to learn as possible without alienating the current speakers.

2. Re-brand it as a language of the world, making it easier for countries to adopt it as their official language.

Mycernius
27-02-10, 01:23
Please stop, right now, cause all people who read your post will laugh with you. What you wrote:
Somehow I doubt it.


The living languages have borrowed from latin, and not latin from living languages, dear friend. In which living language is word "television"??? It is not live language, it is international, scientific.
I will once more try to explain this to you. The word television is not international, it is not latin, but a neologism, a word made up from two seperate languages, greek and latin. It is a purely a word created in the english language. It did not exist before that.


Sorry, it is not english, and it has not any meaning in english. It is scientific international word.
Wrong again. It was coined by John Logie Baird. It was used in English, not as an international scientific word. He should know because he invented TV, and it seems the word as well.


Well, I can give you correct english word for television (I see far away), which shows...
No, it is televsion, as it was coined by an english speaker.


As for the word Teles phonos, which is greek, it is the way you invent new words in english, just remove -os from greek words.
Oh for crying out loud. Tele is greek, vision is latin. The word is a neologism.
If you want to go down to root words then even latin is derived from an older languages, primarily being celtic languages, Etruscan and Greek. So maybe we should really go for ancient greek. It was the language of scholars and science during the Roman republic. The Gospels were originally written in Greek. Everyday latin was for the plebs.



Why it is not loose in serbian, italian, turkish etc??? Internet is not entire in english.
No, but it is the most popular on the net and the most used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage


There are a many pages which use another language.
And here are many threads where users use other languages, french, spanish etc.
see link


And your ancestors spoke latin when went to church, of course.
Er, no. The mass might have been said in latin, but the majority of the people did not speak it, they spoke english. It is what prompted translations of the bible because people didn't speak latin. Even at the height of Roman occupation in the UK people still spoke the native language or a bastardised version of latin. By the time the Romans left we were back to speaking celtic languages. After that it was anglo-saxon. Your grasp of history is poor.


I said, English must be thankfull to colonization of the world.
As was french (very popular in the 19th centruy) Spanish and even latin by the Romans. English owes it sucess to not only colonisation, but the economic, scientific and cultural power of the US.


But the fact that a language is spread is not argument that it must be spreaded more and more.
Wut?:confused2:


By your logic, Islamic religion must spread around the world, because it is has a lot of believers there.
Islam is the fastest growing relgion on the planet. Bad analogy


English is even harder then portuguese to learn and to speak.
And Finnish is harder than English. What is your point?


Which problem?
The gender problem. French, German, Italian and Latin (also Spanish) assign gender to nouns. English doesn't. A cat is a cat and because it has no gender assignation it doesn't affect sentance structure. English also has no formal or informal you.
Maybe you would prefer japanese. No gender, regular verbs structure, hardly any plurals, loads of pronouns, but they don't like to use them. Maciamo is the better one to show the benefits of Japanese, after all he speaks it

Mycernius
27-02-10, 01:29
As the poll appears to be split between English and a new hybrid what about a compromise?

If English was altered to make it easier to learn. I'm no expert in languages:clueless: but a suggestion might be the dropping of the 'th' sound (as many non native speakers struggle with its pronunciation) perhaps replaced with a d, so that would be pronouced dat, those, dose etc.

Various minor alternation like this could be made perhaps some problematic grammar changes, but essentially it would still remain understandable to current English speakers. The new variation could be given a generic name like Europa and marketed as a neutral world language.

Some countries already do this. Singlish being an example.
When you think about it, it is how a language evolves. At one time all the words in, for example: knight, would have been said. Over time we have changed how we say the word.
It borrows from other languages and adopts the words to suit. As english become more global it could very well adopt the way the chinese say certain words. Never know in 200 years time the english then might sound just as odd to us as modern english would sound to Chaucer.

Maciamo
27-02-10, 13:42
The living languages have borrowed from latin, and not latin from living languages, dear friend. In which living language is word "television"??? It is not live language, it is international, scientific.

Modern words like 'television' built on Greco-Latin roots were coined (mostly) by English, German or French speakers.

Most of the so-called Greek or Latin words used in English today are recent coinages that just didn't exist in the Antiquity. It's obvious for television (or TV or telly) but it's less obvious for words like psychology or geology. It is easy to jump to the conclusion that these words existed in ancient Greece because they sound Greek. The truth is that nobody uttered these words until the 16th and 18th century respectively. See my thread Who gave sciences their names ? (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25271).

Modern English is not a pure Germanic language. It's a highly hybrid tongue mixing Norse, West Germanic, French, Latin and Greek vocabulary. It is superior to Latin or any other of its ancestor because it not only combines all those ancestors heritage, but came up with new words using roots from ancestral languages.




Well, I can give you correct english word for television (I see far away), which shows...

You reasoning is flawed because you think that modern English is Old English, two languages that are completely mutually unintelligible. Modern English is 70% Romance in vocabulary. The word 'television' (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=television) was first invented by a Frenchman in 1907, then borrowed into English and other languages. The shortening TV is American and dates from 1948.



As for the word Teles phonos, which is greek, it is the way you invent new words in english, just remove -os from greek words.

It's normal to use roots from your ancestors' language(s) to build new words. Everybody does it in any language. English people, just like most Europeans, have a mixture of Germanic, Celtic, Italic/Roman and Greek ancestry*. It's only natural that English or French or German speakers should use roots from Latin or Greek, the language of some of their ancestors, to make new words. Most of the new words in English are nevertheless built on Germanic roots**, to keep the ancestral balance.

* Then let's not forget that English is not just the language of English people, but of many countries including the USA, which population includes a lot of Greek, Italian, French and Spanish descent, strongly reinforcing the Greco-Roman genetic heritage of modern English.

** here are some examples : keyboard, screen, loudspeakers, mouse, network key, browser, chat, feeds, tweet, podcast...

Neander
27-02-10, 17:04
Modern words like 'television' built on Greco-Latin roots were coined (mostly) by English, German or French speakers.
I must remaind you, that the word 'television' is used in all languages. Neither it is english, nor french, nor serbian, nor albanian.
If these languages borrowed word televison from "scientific vocabulary", why it is abnormall for latin to borrow this word???
Well, latin is dead language, in the meaning that is not spoken by any nation, but it was spoken continuosly by Pope and cardinals in Vatican and even by chatolic church around the West Europe. Anyway it is not fully dead language, but partly dead. It is still official language of the state of Vatican.

You reasoning is flawed because you think that modern English is Old English, two languages that are completely mutually unintelligible.
Did you see it was an irony for what Mycernius said:

I gave you the correct latin word for television in an earlier post (proculvision) which shows that they aren't even sure when it comes to latin.

Then...


It's normal to use roots from your ancestors' language(s) to build new words.
And what is wrong with latin language which borrow word 'television'??? The prefix -us is just like in english is "the" f.ex. The boy, the girl etc...
I think it is childish ethnocentrism of english speakers to consider abnormal for latin to borrow modern words.
I don't see reasoning, just childish ethnocentrism.

* Then let's not forget that English is not just the language of English people, but of many countries including the USA, which population includes a lot of Greek, Italian, French and Spanish descent, strongly reinforcing the Greco-Roman genetic heritage of modern English.
I think it is wrong coclusion. These greeks, romans, italians etc, whatever they are, are just assimilated. Like a lot of mongols are assimilated in russian nation that doesnt mean Russian is mongol language.


** here are some examples : keyboard, screen, loudspeakers, mouse, network key, browser, chat, feeds, tweet, podcast...
These are just english words. Not more, not lesser, than english words. Every nation has these words in their language.

Neander
27-02-10, 17:30
I will once more try to explain this to you. The word television is not international, it is not latin, but a neologism, a word made up from two seperate languages, greek and latin. It is a purely a word created in the english language. It did not exist before that.
Dear friend, this word has not any conection with english. It is neologism, BUT it is not english neologism.
Every language use this word:
Africaans: televisie
Albanian: televizion
Bulgarian: телевизор (televizor)
Catalan: televisió
Croatian: televizija
Czech: televize
Dutch: televisie
etc. etc........
I don't see any conection with english. Tele is greek, Vision is latin.
So it is neologism, but NOT "english neologism".
To be english neologism, it must have english roots, and must be organic part of this language.

No, but it is the most popular on the net and the most used.
Well, I am not understanding you, what is your point here.
We are not debating if english is most used or not. Our debate is about, which language must be used as a common language.
I say again my sentence which seems you have not understood:

But the fact that a language is spread is not argument that it must be spoken more.

Then...


Islam is the fastest growing relgion on the planet. Bad analogy
It is the same as your reasoning. Plebs think in that way: "Every people do that, why we don't do that". It is logic of plebs.
I say again: The english is most used, but it is not reason to make it euro or global language.
It must have any positive value to be blobal or euro common language.

The gender problem. French, German, Italian and Latin (also Spanish) assign gender to nouns. English doesn't. A cat is a cat and because it has no gender assignation it doesn't affect sentance structure. English also has no formal or informal you.The first I think is not any reason. When you learn language you learn and gender, and it is not harder than your writing.

F.ex. Beautiful, is not read as it is written. First we have B
Then E, but here the sound E is not read.
Then A, again it is not read.
U, it is read
t, is read
i, is read
f, is read
U is read as I in THIRD, so it is not used.
L is read as strong L, so it is not used.

In 9 sounds, only 5 are read correctly, two are not read, and two are read in wrong way.

Latin has global scripting, One letter - one sound. It is a value of this language.

The second: Formal and informal are not language characteristics, but it reflects the culture and education.

In Serbian TI is singular YOU, and VI is plural YOU. Then, you can use formal VI, but it is not characteristic of that language, it just A HABIT.

Neander
27-02-10, 17:32
To be english neologism, it must have english roots, and must be organic part of this language.

To say more clear:

From the dying of words "tele" and "vision" together with latin/greek language, somewhere in the late ancient times....

UNTIL.....

Reviving of these words in the form of "television",,,

There are nearly 2 thousands years...

...it is not organic part of english, or another language.

edao
28-02-10, 15:49
"The decision to accord Irish full status is likely to stoke fierce passions within an EU that already has 20 recognised languages, 380 language permutations and an annual interpreting and translation bill of €1bn."

see link below:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cost-in-translation-eu-spends-83641bn-on-language-services-407991.html

It is things like this that make the EU look like a bit of a joke, until the issues of a common langauge is agreed upon it will remain a farce. Everyone is being to liberal and inclusive, to open the door to every minor tongue in Europe is completely unpractical and unnecissary.

They should make it manditory to speak english in the parliament if you can't or wont speak it then you can keep your mouth shut, and we can spend the 1bn on making people lives better.

Maciamo
28-02-10, 16:28
"The decision to accord Irish full status is likely to stoke fierce passions within an EU that already has 20 recognised languages, 380 language permutations and an annual interpreting and translation bill of €1bn."

see link below:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cost-in-translation-eu-spends-83641bn-on-language-services-407991.html

It is things like this that make the EU look like a bit of a joke, until the issues of a common langauge is agreed upon it will remain a farce. Everyone is being to liberal and inclusive, to open the door to every minor tongue in Europe is completely unpractical and unnecissary.

They should make it manditory to speak english in the parliament if you can't or wont speak it then you can keep your mouth shut, and we can spend the 1bn on making people lives better.


I don't see the problem. The article says that the EU is likely to reject Irish Gaelic as an official language. The 20 official languages are necessary. Even if only 10 million people speak Greek or Hungarian or Czech or Portuguese, many of these speakers do not have a sufficient level in another language to be able to understand all the legal texts. It is essential that all Europeans be able to understand their own legislations. Irish Gaelic will be rejected because about everybody can speak English well in Ireland. Those who speak Gaelic also speak English (but not vice versa).

Most of the daily business in the EU institutions is conducted in one of the three working languages : English, French or German. The other 17 official languages are not used in meetings, emails, and so on. Being official means that important documents and laws have to be translated in each of them. They are not working languages.

The EU is far from a farce. Everything is well thought of and well organised. It's probably more efficient than many national administrations.

Invictus_88
01-03-10, 16:14
None. Homogeneity is not a virtue in a culture.

Starship
02-03-10, 12:40
Irish became an official working language of the EU on 1st January 2007, This followed a unanimous decision on 13th of June 2005 by EU foreign ministers that Irish would be made the 21st official language of the EU. However, a derogation stipulates that not all documents have to be translated into Irish as is the case with the other official languages.

This is one of the main strengths of the EU if you ask me, you give up some of your freedoms/independence but you are rewarded with greater influence in a larger forum.

Why do you feel so strongly that everyone should speak the one language "English" in parliament edao? If its that essential we all speak the same language why did you kick up quiet so big a fuss back in the forties, we could all be speaking German now:petrified:

So I say Viva le difference!

"Go n-eiri an bothar leat.
Go raibh coir na gaoithe i gconai leat.
Go dtaitni an ghrian go bog blath ar do chlar eadain,
go dtite an bhaisteach go bog min ar do ghoirt.
Agus go gcasfar le cheile sinn aris,
go gcoinni Dia i mbois a laimhe thu."

Brian Barker
02-03-10, 19:09
As a native English speaker, I would prefer Esperanto as the future global language :)
Communciation should be for everyone, not just for an educational or political elite; that is how English is used at the moment :annoyed:

edao
03-03-10, 00:30
Why do you feel so strongly that everyone should speak the one language "English" in parliament edao? If its that essential we all speak the same language why did you kick up quiet so big a fuss back in the forties, we could all be speaking German now


In my opinion the benefits on a united Europe with all people able to freely communicate, work, travel and exchange all aspects of their culture far out weigh any romantic notions of the diversity of language.

Most peoples objections stem from insecurities about their own identity, who am I if I am born in France, live in France all my life and yet I dont speak French. Are they less French, or German if they adopt a unifying language? The Scots Irish and Welsh all speak English does it make us some kind of generic culture, not really.

I think people are still to tribal:

"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."
Charles Darwin

I feel if Europe is to truly take the world by the horns and stop the Americans making an arse of it we need to put medieval ideas of nationalism behind us and unite as Europeans. Lets not fear change:petrified:!

Imagine a room full of people who all speak their own different language, you set them a task to work together. Then compare their results with a room full of people who all speak the same language, there is no doubt who will be more productive. (I mean that in a metaphorical sense, not literally :grin:)

Starship
03-03-10, 12:14
Ok I take your point on the practicalities of one language for doing business, tower of Babel and all. But if you take the long view (and hope) this EU project is in for the long haul then I believe such practicalities will sort themselves out, maybe it will be English as a successful international language, maybe German as the economic power house of Europe but in the short term we should encourage multilingualism in our citizens.

I think Britain and Ireland have perhaps the worst track record in bringing up our kids with more than one language. In Ireland the most successful people speak Irish and English and learning a second language at an early age makes learning a third or fourth a lot easier.

http://www.csmonitor.com/world/europe/2010/0126/is-once-maligned-irish-language

Water will always find its own course and I think the language for doing business will in the end be decided by business men/women. But for the Union to continue forward I think it is essential we bring as many of the people with us as we go and if that means spending money on minority languages then so be it, its good for democracy and its good for the Union.

Neander
03-03-10, 12:18
I think all that is utopia.

We had Roman Empire. It did'nt create united Europe, but it divided more than it was divided.

In Europe was only Celtic, Italic, and Balkanic cultures, then after fall of Empire, a lot of new languages were born Spanish, Portuguese, French, Provans, Galician, Italian, Sardinian, Crosican, Retoroman, Vlach, Romanian etc..

Diferentiation is a law of nature. We can not stop it. We are different we must be so.

And all nations have a culture, which is linked to their language. Then the assimilation will destroy all these cultures, and new bastard cultures will be created.

edao
03-03-10, 13:29
"Broadcasted musical works are subject to quota rules under a related law whereby a minimum percentage of the songs on radio and television must be in the French language."

The Toubon Law (full name: law 94-665 of 4 August 1994 relating to usage of the French language), is a law of the French government mandating the use of the French language in official government publications, in all advertisements, in all workplaces, in commercial contracts, in some other commercial communication contexts, in all government-financed schools, and some other contexts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toubon_Law

It would be interesting to know if other countries in Europe have similar laws designed to protect their language? It seems pretty desperate to me to be making laws dictating what percentage of songs have to be in French. Surely this kind of approach goes agaisnt the diversity of language? How can language develop naturally when there are artificial laws governing its dominance.

Sounds like the French are scared :petrified: of change!

Brett142
06-06-11, 05:49
Why bother creating a new hybrid when we've gotten so far with English.
People need to stop seeing it as an attack on their own languages but a way for all humans to communicate with one another.

Vallicanus
03-02-12, 21:50
Latin language. It is fair for all, because no one nation is privileged in that case.

I agree. It would be neutral and especially good for documentation.

The rivalry between speakers of English, French and Spanish would upset European unity.

Carlos
04-02-12, 00:37
Spanish or Castilian is an Iberian Romance language group. It is one of the six official UN languages ​​and, after Mandarin Chinese is the language most spoken in the world by the number of people who are native speakers. It is also an official language in several major international political and economic organizations (EU, AU, OAS, OEI, NAFTA, UNASUR, Caricom, and the Antarctic Treaty, among others). It is spoken as a first and second language more than 450 million and more than 500 million people if you count those who have learned as a foreign language can be the third most spoken language by total speakers. On the other hand, Spanish is the second most studied language in the world after English, with more than 20 million students, while other sources state that exceed the 46 million students in 90 countries, and the third language most used on the Internet (7.8% of total).

Choose the Spanish language, the second most spoken language in the world. Obviously nothing is forever and the U.S. Empire someday will end, that is so, I do not know how or in what form, but these things happen. Spanish is in emerging countries and of course the world will not speak Mandarin to be understood, however, Spanish is a language familiar to speakers of languages ​​of Latin origin, and easy to learn for the Germanic peoples who, like the Arabs they're good with languages. The Frenchman had its golden age, but now has lost many integers must be exhausting to speak that language and is like being in a black and white film of Edith Piaf. I think that Spanish is the future, and may have been installed in Europe if we had had more luck, The Netherlands, The Navy Imbencible, is the destination, and end up happening.

PaschalisB
04-02-12, 01:25
English, since it's the easiest to learn

LeBrok
04-02-12, 03:14
That's right, plus it's already widely spread, most popular, and lingua franca in science, business, finance, songs, movies. It is spreading naturally by a need of communication in Global Village, without one organization controlling it and spending billions of taxpayers money. It is amazing how beautiful it works without even encouraging it, because it is needed.
Now, why would someone want to construct artificial language, devoid of cultural contexts and need for it, argue with different governments for decades to implement it, then spend billions of dollars to teach it around the world, to finally after 100 years be in position where english is right now?
This is nuts!

By all means, don't take my word for it. Look at esperanto,...it is dead, and it was always dead with no hops. It is only learned by people with great memory and a lot of time on their hands. Please, give me a brake!

Vallicanus
04-02-12, 11:10
After Prime Minister David Cameron's antics I don't see a mad continental rush to have English as the official EU language.

8mike
29-02-12, 17:41
i'd like it to be the language of the vinca :P or the proto indo european maybe

Franco
29-02-12, 17:44
English is fine.

Franco
29-02-12, 17:54
English, since it's the easiest to learn


It is for Germanic speakers, but not for Romance speakers. It could be worse if German was the lingua franca I guess.

hope
11-04-12, 21:14
Ok I take your point on the practicalities of one language for doing business, tower of Babel and all. But if you take the long view (and hope) this EU project is in for the long haul then I believe such practicalities will sort themselves out, maybe it will be English as a successful international language, maybe German as the economic power house of Europe but in the short term we should encourage multilingualism in our citizens.

I think Britain and Ireland have perhaps the worst track record in bringing up our kids with more than one language. In Ireland the most successful people speak Irish and English and learning a second language at an early age makes learning a third or fourth a lot easier.

http://www.csmonitor.com/world/europe/2010/0126/is-once-maligned-irish-language

Water will always find its own course and I think the language for doing business will in the end be decided by business men/women. But for the Union to continue forward I think it is essential we bring as many of the people with us as we go and if that means spending money on minority languages then so be it, its good for democracy and its good for the Union.

I agree with you Starship, Britain and Ireland do not do enough to teach languages. When I was at school we had the choice to take French language (no other was offered..just French) but it was only at the expense of dropping another subject. I chose French and had to opt out of science to do so. Big mistake I now find as languages I can teach myself at home..science not so much so!!

Christos
08-06-13, 19:16
English. It is a "business" language used world-wide. On a side note, I would have to say, Mandarin could soon replace it. There is a "joke" here in the States, that Americans should learn the language since we are "owned" by the Chinese (but that's another story)! <grin>.

Ember83
09-06-13, 14:58
English, even if Spanish is a little easier to learn for us Italians :48:
I also like Esperanto, though.

Cambrius (The Red)
12-06-13, 16:00
English is best as a common language for Europe.

LeBrok
12-06-13, 16:38
English. It is a "business" language used world-wide. On a side note, I would have to say, Mandarin could soon replace it. There is a "joke" here in the States, that Americans should learn the language since we are "owned" by the Chinese (but that's another story)! <grin>.
English, as of this moment, might have enough momentum (inertia) to become the only dominant world language. It is a natural trend, that whole world, the global village needs a language to communicate more than ever. Plus, it is one of easiest languages in the world, with teaching infrastructure in place in all countries with few millions of english teachers.
Chinese learn english now and use it doing business around the world.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if Chinese introduce english as an official language for the whole China. They have 20 languages with hundreds of dialects. I'm not expert on China, but I suspect that Mandarin might be really hated language, as language of occupiers. English might be the neutral alternative.

kromon
07-10-13, 23:22
It makes no sense to switch english to another language at this point.

Jovan
13-10-13, 23:34
You could have put at least one slavic language.

Garrick
13-10-13, 23:54
You could have put at least one slavic language.

But which Slavic?

Russian is Eurasian, other languages are less widespread, maybe only Polish.

I vote for German, although I'm not yet started to learn, I think the impact of German language will grow in the coming years.

Idun
27-11-13, 11:39
None official needed, many Finns are stubborn like that, good to keep the tradition alive. :wary2:


Mieleni minun tekevi,
aivoni ajattelevi
lähteäni laulamahan,
saa'ani sanelemahan,
sukuvirttä suoltamahan,
lajivirttä laulamahan.
Sanat suussani sulavat,
puhe'et putoelevat,
kielelleni kerkiävät,
hampahilleni hajoovat.

Florin C
07-01-14, 09:32
English (if we want it by choice), and the quicker, the better. Otherways, it will be imposed not by the americans (as one might think) but by the Chinese. They are learning English like mad out there, and with their versatility it will not be long until they will own world's economy. And if Europe can't compete with them it will be China's small time partner (like Africa).

Momentarily, Europe's luck is that the Chinese themselves don't give a sh*t about their own culture, and try their ass off to copy the western culture so that we are prevented from being forced to learn Chinese. But, otherways, English with Chinese accent will be upon us.

That being said, I would have liked it to be French. Yeap, French is „le most beautiful language in the world”. Europe can still impose its' own language, other than English, if it comes together and impose itself as a driving force and economic power. It could have been German, if the world wars didn't happen.

TrickleDownEffect
10-12-14, 22:54
Latin....Nil est dictu facilius

RobertColumbia
28-06-15, 22:24
English and not just because I am. It is the international language of the air and shipping. It is the primary language for trade and it is the primary language used on the internet. Look on the opening page on wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/):
English 3 200 000+ articles. The nearest is german with just over a million, french doesn't even reach a million.
In Europe German is the most spoken mother tongue, but english is the most widely spoken within Europe. German even has more speakers within Europe than french.

Latin is a dead language. Esperanto can probably muster 2 000 000 speakers worldwide, so it is a waste of time. The EU population stands at about 500 000 000 people, 51% of which can speak english either as a native or as a secondary language. Even if all the esperanto users lived in the EU that would make the speakers not even 0.5%.
A list of the most spoken:
http://www.krysstal.com/spoken.html

In addition, English as a standard language helps maintain strong ties and communication with much of the world, especially North America, the Caribbean, and Oceania where English is the primary language of a large number of people and is understood by many more.

Sile
29-06-15, 09:22
In addition, English as a standard language helps maintain strong ties and communication with much of the world, especially North America, the Caribbean, and Oceania where English is the primary language of a large number of people and is understood by many more.

English from England and not the Americanised version/slang or whatever its called. This is my choice for your Poll.
regards

Yetos
29-06-15, 14:31
I vote for koine language

Johannes
05-07-15, 16:05
I vote for koine language

Europe should adopt English and Spanish as official languages. Both languages are the most used in the world. English can be used for Germanic countries and Spanish for southern and eastern Europe. I talked to many Greeks in Florida and they liked Spanish. They said it has a similar tone as Greek and its easy to learn. I also talked to many Slavic people and they liked Spanish over English as it was easier to pronounce and learn.

Rethel
05-07-15, 17:51
It doesnt matter which language, it can be even zulu if we would have one. But I dont think that english or expecially spanish it is good idea. Better, if it would be some kind of small or dead language, what is most important, that should be most advanced language who has good developed grammar, and pretty good developed words (not only vocabulary). I don't know how spanish, but english is not the best choice. This language is maybe good for communication with the slaves on plantation, but it is not good choice for common high language, or some kind of "para-national" language for Europe. The best choices could be latin, lithuanian, polish or at least german. Latin and lithuanian are nice, because they don't privilaged any big group of people or any national interests, and they luckyly have many characteristics of original PIE language. The most important thing is, that they have very well developed flexion so, it is easy to say exactly, what someone wants to say. English is the worst language, because in basical level for foreigner the simple senteces have no sense, totaly. Short words are problem too, as well as lacking of difference between verbs and nouns, and to many homonims and idioms. Crazy pronunciation, where even natives sometimes can't read is next thing. Every one, who speaks on fusional (or even semi-fusional) language can say the same.

Johannes
06-07-15, 17:37
It doesnt matter which language, . . . But I dont think that english or expecially spanish it is good idea. Better, if it would be some kind of small or dead language . . . I don't know how spanish, but english is not the best choice. This language is maybe good for communication with the slaves on plantation, but it is not good choice for common high language, or some kind of "para-national" language for Europe. The best choices could be latin, lithuanian, polish or at least german.

You honestly believe that Europeans will be willing to adopt Polish or Lithuanian as a European national language??? Ok Latin makes sense, but do you expect the Americans, Chinese, and Japanese to learn it? I even doubt the Germanic countries would adopt it. What about Africans and South Asians??? If you want to do business you need a practical language and English or Spanish or both are best choices.

Johannes
06-07-15, 17:49
The most important thing is, that they have very well developed flexion so, it is easy to say exactly, what someone wants to say. English is the worst language, because in basical level for foreigner the simple senteces have no sense, totaly. Short words are problem too, as well as lacking of difference between verbs and nouns, and to many homonims and idioms. Crazy pronunciation, where even natives sometimes can't read is next thing. Every one, who speaks on fusional (or even semi-fusional) language can say the same.

English is difficult because it has two-three tones? and I admit the pronunciatin is chaotic. But if you learn English properly you will overcome those difficulties. People who do not learn English properly will always have problems with it. Spanish on the other hand has one tone and its pronunciation is very simple (like Japanese). I sincerely doubt even the Slavic countries will adopt Polish or Lithuanian. Polish will never be adopted in Europe because it has some consonants that cause confusion and the spelling is strange (i.e., W, Y, Z, and vowels are excluded in many words and names).

Rethel
06-07-15, 20:52
You honestly believe that Europeans will be willing to adopt Polish or Lithuanian as a European national language???

It doesn't matter, when european super state would decide.


Ok Latin makes sense, but do you expect the Americans, Chinese, and Japanese to learn it?

Do they expect to learn chinese or japanese form us?
They don;t live in Europe, so, what is a problem?
If EU would have one language (it dosnt matter which)
it is for them even better, because now they have to
learn about 25 languages, or 7-8 major toungs.
So... better for them it would be one... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/smile.gif


I even doubt the Germanic countries would adopt it. What about Africans and South Asians???[./quote]

What the hell they have to do with one european language? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/smile.gif

[quote]If you want to do business you need a practical language and English or Spanish or both are best choices.

I thougt we are talking about one langueage for Europe, not for whole earth... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/smile.gif
Do Asians care, that avarage european dont know, or cannot learn chenese or tagalog? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/smile.gif


English is difficult because it has two-three tones?

I didn't say, that he is to difficult, but, that he is to primitive... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/smile.gif


Spanish on the other hand has one tone and its pronunciation is very simple (like Japanese).

But isn't good as one for whole continent, especially, if we have his original and better form - ie latin. :)


I sincerely doubt even the Slavic countries will adopt Polish or Lithuanian.

I was talking about which language is better for multi reasons use.
Truth is, that in Europe no one will adopt others language willingly. :smile:
As it is in USA too... every one must speak english...


Polish will never be adopted in Europe because it has some consonants that cause confusion

English doesn't have...? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/smile.gif
Couple of diffrent a, e, i, o... :)
th, wh, R, r and rr...

...and it seems, that the less letters you vocalize or accuratly pronaunce, the better is your english... :smile:

British and neighbors are the best in that!


and the spelling is strange

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? :laughing:

This is the reason, whyenglish speakers are horrible in almost every foreign language... :smile:
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"... :smile:


(i.e., W, Y, Z, and vowels are excluded in many words and names).

I dont know, what you are talking about.

Examples:

Władysław - name.
Warszawa - city.
Amerykański - americanish.
Zbigniew - name (like zbigniew Brzeziński)
Zbyszek - the same name in diminutive.

so you have W, Y, Z and vowels... :smile:

Writing is very easy.

In internet exist simples, where you can for example,
wrote every single word with unorderd letters (exept
first and last) and you have no problems with reading
and understanding texts. In english, this is probably
impossible, because most of words are so short and
full of totaly diffrent menaing, that such of trick would
make text ununderstandable.

Btw, in fusional language you can create dozens of new word
from one basic word and get them totaly different menaning.
In polish maybe even hundrets... In english this is immposible...

Btw lacking of difference between nouns and verbs is terrible.

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.

Johannes
07-07-15, 00:31
[QUOTE=Rethel;461839]Do they expect to learn chinese or japanese form us? They don;t live in Europe, so, what is a problem?

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???

Johannes
07-07-15, 00:39
I didn't say, that he is to difficult, but, that he is to primitive... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/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!" Maybe Poles only think that :-)

Johannes
07-07-15, 00:54
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? :laughing:

This is the reason, whyenglish speakers are horrible in almost every foreign language... :smile:
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"... :smile:

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 :)

Johannes
07-07-15, 00:59
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 :)

Johannes
07-07-15, 01:12
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.

LeBrok
07-07-15, 02:54
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.

Angela
07-07-15, 02:57
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.

Ike
07-07-15, 05:10
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.

Rethel
07-07-15, 13:27
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. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/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... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/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.http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/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... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/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... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/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... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/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 thathttp://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/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:

Maleth
07-07-15, 16:16
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.

Angela
07-07-15, 17:53
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.

Johannes
07-07-15, 23:49
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.:smile:

Johannes
08-07-15, 00:22
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. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/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 English
Modern 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
08-07-15, 00:42
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.http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/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).

Rethel
08-07-15, 00:54
There is no such thing as "primitive or simple" languages.

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


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 English
Modern 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?:laughing:

Johannes
08-07-15, 00:58
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:

Rethel
08-07-15, 01:04
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! :-)

Johannes
08-07-15, 02:40
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.

Rethel
08-07-15, 11:14
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... :smile:

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?:rolleyes2:

RobertColumbia
08-07-15, 19:13
...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 (http://www.fluentu.com/german/blog/german-compound-nouns/) 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
08-07-15, 20:07
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... :smile:

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?:rolleyes2:

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.

Boreas
08-07-15, 20:14
(http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-best-language-for-math-1410304008)I wonder to see how much lot a new hybrid and Esperanto supporter

Ike
08-07-15, 20:20
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.

Rathel tried to describe it pretty well. I sometimes look at it as a descriptional language. It does not clearly state what needs to be said, but somehow hovers the subject while never trying to come down on it.

Bible God and examples alike. I agree that it is perfectly understandable to a proficient English speaker, but that is exactly the problem. It needs to be understandable to a non-proficient english speaker when he hears it for the first time. Every 5 year old can learn what 'blood' and 'orange' is, but deciphering what 'blood orange' is would be a hard task for it. Not to mention what he would get out of it, once he thinks he got it - a duck car (for taxi), a water mellon (for an eggplant)...

It simply sounds to me like a language Friday from Robinson Crusoe speaks - "Me like eat. Food taste good. You good cook." I'm not sure if you get this right, but that's my impression.

Rethel
08-07-15, 22:05
"Bible God" is perfectly understandable to a proficient English speaker.

Robert,
of course this is understandable, and I uderstand this type of construction very well.
But this is understandable, not because of mening the words, but feeling about them.
If you take only this two words, thay describe only two (or more) separate subjects.
Meaning is hide in order of words but not in the words themselves. So, if some one
does not feel this construction, he will not uderstand, because words are telling
nothing exept enumerating couple of things. For you this is obvious whiat it means,
becose this is your language, but try to compere this with others, or look deeply in
the written words, and you see, what I am talking about. Bible God you understand,
but if I'll write... God Bible... what it means? :smile:

Rethel
08-07-15, 22:12
I know that English is a beautiful language with very well developed structure.

So you must have deep faith :)

It doesn't matter what you think. Languages are different. Better or worse.
Claiming, that this or this language is super, extra and whatever the best,
because this is my native language is very childlish... As I show you, it isnt
true, because even aenglisc was better - and you even yourself show us
a fine example of that. So, be adoult and face the facts :)

Rethel
08-07-15, 23:03
It simply sounds to me like a language Friday from Robinson Crusoe speaks - "Me like eat. Food taste good. You good cook." I'm not sure if you get this right, but that's my impression.

Ike, great thanks!
I didn't know how to show this, but you find the way :)

.....

Johannes,
I asked you, how many new words can you created form my nick in english.

You are english teatcher, and you couldn't answer.

I'm not specialist of polish, but I can give you a sample right from my memory.
So, in fusinal languages, as for example slavic languages you can get:

retel
retelek
retelik
reteluk
retelak
retelok
retelczyk
retelczak
retelczuk
retelski
10
retelowski
retelicki
retelol
retelcze
retelno
retelow
retelnik
retela
retelka
retelica
20
retelsko
retelisko
retels
retelo
retelista
retelencja
retelacja
retelacz
retelicz
retelic
30
retelaczka
reteliada
retelada
retelita
reteladło
retelal
retelalka
retelnia
retelalnia
retelnictwo
40
retelnik
retelanka
retelina
retelówna
reteowa
retelowy
retelarz
retelarek
reteler
retelerz
50
retelianin
retelant
retelańczyk
retelranka
retelaczka
retelownia
retelew
retelewizna
retelewszczyna
retelizna
60
retelewsko
retelewsk
retelowsk
retelko
retelkon
retelon
retelman
retelizm
retelas
retelasek
70
retelasiuk
retelat
reteluś
reteliczek
retelu
retelic
retelić
retelowic
retelec
retelowiec
80
retelata
retelawa
retelaw
retelca
retelawca
retelawka
retelostwo
retelawstwo
retelaż
retelę
90
retelątko
retelnik
retele
reteli
retelba
retelca
retelech
retelcha
reteloch
retelochal
100
retelcho
re(tel)chol
retelcia
retelciciel
retelcie
reteliszcze
retelcizna
retelacja
retelactwo
retelczy
110
retelczyni
retelda
reteladło
retelidło
reteldziej
retelec
reteleczko
reteluszko
reteliszek
retelisiek
120
retelisz
retelach
reteluszek
retelel
retelańczyk
retelijczyk
retelownik
retelacja
retelowanie
retelcze
130
retelszcze
retelszczyzna
retelskie
reteleniec
reteleń
reteleństwo
reteleria
retelalka
retelerka
retelistka
140
retelniczka
retelowaczka
reteluszko
reteluszka
reteljerka
retelijka
retelawstwo
retelęga
retelała
reteliciel
150
retelidło
retelier
retelin
retelino
retelinka
retelyna
reteliś
retelisia
retelcio
reteliszek
160
retelitwa
reteliwo
retelia
retelela
retelog
retelogini
retelożka
retelessa
retelictwo
retelnicz
170
retelnicza
retelniczka
retelniczy
retelny
reteloba
retelocha
reteloć
retelcin
retelówek
retelowo
180
reteloł
retelor
retelość
retelot
retelota

And many, many others, basic roots... in nominative...

Now Johannes, multiplay this by two, because all of them can miss second "e".
so, lets say that it is possible only 180 multiplay by 2 it is 360 possibilites.
Now every one of this sufixes can create new word with everyone of them,
so you have 360x360 = 129600 words, and this new words can do the same,
so you mast next time multiplay this by 360 and so one...

But this is not the end!

Every one of them you can combine with hundrets of prefixes... lets say for our needs... 150.

129600x150=19.440.000 words...


But this is not all yet...!!

You can multiplay all of this by tens of suffixes of verbs and adjectives to create new verbs and adjectives...

And you can combine word retel with other words by couple ways...

Np.
retelomania
wilekoretel
reteliskok
skoczyretel
a.s.o.

And with all of them we can do the same, as with basic word in the list above...

So from one word, you can create trillions of new words...

So, tell me, how english isnt primitive, if rethel is only one... :)

Johannes
08-07-15, 23:52
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.

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?:laughing:

You have not learned what I tried to teach you -- that you need to use more accurate adjectives when describing something! Why do you use "primitive???" How can an educated man like you use ridiculous adjectives like "primitive" when describing a modern and very important language? English is not more primitive compared to "aenglisc", OK? "Thy" and "thou" are still used but only in religious texts or if you write a poem. Nothing has changed only what is practical is in use. English and American people are very pragmatic. They don't use words that are unnecessary anymore for normal usage. This does not mean they are regressing or "devolving." It's just not necessary to use "thy" and "thou." (If you want to pray to God or if you want to write a poem to your sweetheart, use them, otherwise there is no need to use them in everyday language).

The Old English Text is read as it is written with Old Germanic pronunciation and tone. For example, "rice" is pronounced as "rike" not like "rice = ryz." But you need to know how Old German was pronounced otherwise it will cause confusion and you might read it wrong (as a modern version). If you want to blame someone for the confusion it caused non-native English speakers blame it on the French. They only use "q" and "c" to pronounce all "k" and "c" sounds and they don't pronounce "e" at the end of many words (many but not all). I always tell my students that Engish is a mixed language and they need to know what is German and what is French/Latin.

I don't understand where you are coming from. You seem to want to prove somethng that needs no proving at all. All you need to do is memorize the words that are hard for you to understand and you will be OK. I know English has a problem with pronunciation of words and can cause confusion. For example, tire: "tire" is a word that means a round wheel of a car or a carriage. But when you use "tired" it has a different meaning (need to rest or sleep). In old English it was written as "tyre and tyred". The "y" was used to differentiate the "i " sound from the "e" sound. But it was changed (I wished it was not). Another example is "where" and "were". Where is used as a question to find a direction (where is Boston); while "were" is used as a plural for "was" (we were going to the market). But all is basically the same as Old German. OK?

Again just because English might be difficult for you to learn does not mean its weird or primitive. Be patient and learn it. Period.

Johannes
09-07-15, 00:20
Rathel tried to describe it pretty well. I sometimes look at it as a descriptional language. It does not clearly state what needs to be said, but somehow hovers the subject while never trying to come down on it.

Bible God and examples alike. I agree that it is perfectly understandable to a proficient English speaker, but that is exactly the problem. It needs to be understandable to a non-proficient english speaker when he hears it for the first time. Every 5 year old can learn what 'blood' and 'orange' is, but deciphering what 'blood orange' is would be a hard task for it. Not to mention what he would get out of it, once he thinks he got it - a duck car (for taxi), a water mellon (for an eggplant)...

It simply sounds to me like a language Friday from Robinson Crusoe speaks - "Me like eat. Food taste good. You good cook." I'm not sure if you get this right, but that's my impression.

First of all Rethel speaks poor English and I suspect you might as well. However, English is a Subject-Verb-Object language, just like all Indo-European languages. "Bible God" is a poor example because you need a verb to make sense of it (Bible is about God or Bible talks about God or Bible is God). If you ask a native Englsih speaker what is "Bible God" he will think you are a foreigner or ignorant person. You always need a verb in English. "Blood Orange" is a poor example to use on children. It makes no sense. There is no connection between "blood" and "orange", so why use it??? "Watermelon" is good: it means: a "melon (fruit) that has a lot of water." I don't see what is the problem here. The reason why you think English is aweful is because you are not a native speaker. Period. If you think English is a language that sounds like Friday talking to Robinson Crusoe, then I am sorry, but I cannot argue with you -- find someone like Rethel -- he will argue until the end of time. :laughing:

Rethel
09-07-15, 00:33
Why do you use "primitive???"

I allready explained it to you.


How can an educated man like you use ridiculous words like "primitive" when describing a modern and very important language?

As you see... it is possible... only you don't want understand on puropse what I mean by this word... :)


English is not more primitive compared to "aenglisc", OK?

You gave yourself an example with "our"!
Where are these two or three other forms?
If aenglisc is not conviced to you - compere
english to pragermanic or plattdeutsch.


"Thy" and "thou" are still used but only in religious texts or if you write a poem.

But this is arcaic, and no one teach this.
Normal speaker probably even doesn't understand this words.
When I first time saw this words in text, 1) I couldn't find what they mean in dictionaries, and
2) I was shocked, that such usefull words, are not useing - but everything is "you" and "your".
So: thou and thy a.s.o. - it is good kind of language, but only "you" - this is primitivism.
I don't belive, that you do not see this.:rolleyes2:


So they don't use words that are unnecessary for them.

The reason does not change the result. :grin:


This does not mean they are regressing or "devolving."

Ofcoure not, because you said so... :)


It's just not necessary to use "thy" and "thou."

But this "not necessary" I called primitivism. :)

Some tribes have no need for more that one numeral.
By your way of thinking, language without numbers,
is the same advanced language, as this one who has
centysilion numbers... because if there is no need for
using something from prctical causes, that does not
mean, that language is primitive... right? :)


The Old English Text is read as it is written with old Germanic pronunciation and tone

:good_job:

But I subconsciously had in mind regular english-speaker.
For example, when you are giving aenglisc texts to your
students, how they read this? :smile:


If you want to blame

I'm only curious :smile:


You seem to want to prove somethng that needs no proving.

I do not want prove anything, because there is no need for prooving, as you said.
Rather you want to contradict something, that is obvious, and for what you yourself
give prooves. From my side, I can tell, that present day polish is more primitive than
old polish or oldslavonic. We losed aoryst, dualis, some past tenses, ó, rz, h, ł, vowel
length, some interesting words... and now we are loosing vocative... but, if you really
want, you can still use some of this quantities... some of them are still aceptable (like
thy and thou) but some could be not understand by regular speaker. So, present day
polish is a little more primitive than his predecessors... old polish... or praslavonic.

That means, that this is devolution, not evolution.


Another example is "where" and "were".

Do exist (still) a difference between "w" and "wh"?


Again just because nelgh might be difficult for you to learn does not mean its werid or primitive.

You are still not talking about the same, about I am talking or Ike - and what we mean is so obvious... :rolleyes2:
I think, that you are doing this on purpose, because this is impossible, that you didn't get it yet... :thinking:

Rethel
09-07-15, 00:44
I don't see what is the problem here.

Because you don't want to see...

Or maybe you really don't get it?

I don't know, what is worse... :rolleyes2:

Johannes
09-07-15, 00:47
Ike, great thanks!
I didn't know how to show this, but you find the way :)

.....

Johannes,
I asked you, how many new words can you created form my nick in english.

You are english teatcher, and you couldn't answer.

I'm not specialist of polish, but I can give you a sample right from my memory.
So, in fusinal languages, as for example slavic languages you can get:

retel
retelek
retelik
reteluk
retelak
retelok
retelczyk
retelczak
retelczuk
retelski
10
retelowski
retelicki
retelol
retelcze
retelno
retelow
retelnik
retela
retelka
retelica
20
retelsko
retelisko
retels
retelo
retelista
retelencja
retelacja
retelacz
retelicz
retelic
30
retelaczka
reteliada
retelada
retelita
reteladło
retelal
retelalka
retelnia
retelalnia
retelnictwo
40
retelnik
retelanka
retelina
retelówna
reteowa
retelowy
retelarz
retelarek
reteler
retelerz
50
retelianin
retelant
retelańczyk
retelranka
retelaczka
retelownia
retelew
retelewizna
retelewszczyna
retelizna
60
retelewsko
retelewsk
retelowsk
retelko
retelkon
retelon
retelman
retelizm
retelas
retelasek
70
retelasiuk
retelat
reteluś
reteliczek
retelu
retelic
retelić
retelowic
retelec
retelowiec
80
retelata
retelawa
retelaw
retelca
retelawca
retelawka
retelostwo
retelawstwo
retelaż
retelę
90
retelątko
retelnik
retele
reteli
retelba
retelca
retelech
retelcha
reteloch
retelochal
100
retelcho
re(tel)chol
retelcia
retelciciel
retelcie
reteliszcze
retelcizna
retelacja
retelactwo
retelczy
110
retelczyni
retelda
reteladło
retelidło
reteldziej
retelec
reteleczko
reteluszko
reteliszek
retelisiek
120
retelisz
retelach
reteluszek
retelel
retelańczyk
retelijczyk
retelownik
retelacja
retelowanie
retelcze
130
retelszcze
retelszczyzna
retelskie
reteleniec
reteleń
reteleństwo
reteleria
retelalka
retelerka
retelistka
140
retelniczka
retelowaczka
reteluszko
reteluszka
reteljerka
retelijka
retelawstwo
retelęga
retelała
reteliciel
150
retelidło
retelier
retelin
retelino
retelinka
retelyna
reteliś
retelisia
retelcio
reteliszek
160
retelitwa
reteliwo
retelia
retelela
retelog
retelogini
retelożka
retelessa
retelictwo
retelnicz
170
retelnicza
retelniczka
retelniczy
retelny
reteloba
retelocha
reteloć
retelcin
retelówek
retelowo
180
reteloł
retelor
retelość
retelot
retelota

And many, many others, basic roots... in nominative...

Now Johannes, multiplay this by two, because all of them can miss second "e".
so, lets say that it is possible only 180 multiplay by 2 it is 360 possibilites.
Now every one of this sufixes can create new word with everyone of them,
so you have 360x360 = 129600 words, and this new words can do the same,
so you mast next time multiplay this by 360 and so one...

But this is not the end!

Every one of them you can combine with hundrets of suffixes... lets say for our needs... 150.

129600x150=19.440.000 words...


But this is not all yet...!!

You can multiplay all of this by tens of suffixex of verbs and adjectives...

And you can combine word retel with other words by couple ways...

Np.
retelomania
wilekoretel
reteliskok
skoczyretel
a.s.o.

And with all of them we can do the same, as with basic word in the list above...

So from one word, you can create trillions of new words...

So, tell me, how english isnt primitive, if rethel is only one... :)

Who cares how many times your name can be reproduced??? It is silly and useless. I don't even know what your nickname means. So I could not answer you. If you think that using words to mean many different or related things is more advanced than using an analytical method, then be my guest and use it. But it won't change nothing. English will be the dominant language of the future. So get used to it.

Ike
09-07-15, 00:58
First of all Rethel speaks poor English and I suspect you might as well.
We definitely do compared to native speakers, but that is no argument. I bet you also drive much worse than F1 racer, but you can make a distinction between two cars. You don't need to consult Danica Patrick to tell you which of 2 totally different vehicles feels better on the road.



However, English is a Subject-Verb-Object language, just like all Indo-European languages. "Bible God" is a poor example because you need a verb to make sense of it (Bible is about God or Bible talks about God or Bible is God). If you ask a native Englsih speaker what is "Bible God" he will think you are a foreigner or ignorant person. You always need a verb in English. "Blood Orange" is a poor example to use on children. It makes no sense. There is no connection between "blood" and "orange", so why use it???

That's exactly why I used it. Because there is no connection, and it makes no sense, but it somehow has meaning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_orange) in English.




"Watermelon" is good: it means: a "melon (fruit) that has a lot of water." I don't see what is the problem here. The reason why you think English is aweful is because you are not a native speaker. Period. If you think English is a language that sounds like Friday talking to Robinson Crusoe, then I am sorry, but I cannot argue with you -- find someone like Rethel -- he will argue until the end of time. :laughing:

We don't need to argue. That is my feeling about that language, and you can't change it. I just tried to explain it to you because you asked why. If you don't see it, I can't help it, I really tried my best to make it most coherent to you. BTW, I don't think English is awful, and never said that, but that it wold be an awful choice for certain usages (in the presence of other languages). English is perfectly fine, but there are other options that I like better.

Rethel
09-07-15, 01:14
Who cares how many times your name can be reproduced??? It is silly and useless. I don't even know what your nickname means. So I could not answer you. If you think that using words to mean many different or related things is a more advanced than using a more analytical method, then be my guest and use it.

So you really dont get it! Amazing.
Probably every one else on this forum who is reading
our disscusion already understad what I have in mind.
But you, lingust, dont... I'm shocked...

I showed you this time how many possibilites have other language - how many words can you create and give them meaning by your own.
In the place of retel you can put any other word, native or borrow, it doesn't matter. But from any word you can create millions new words.
That means, that language, who can do this, is more developed, and this one, who cannot do that, is more primitive.


But it won't change nothing. English will be the dominant language of the future. So get used to it.

This is very deep proof and mature answer :smile:
Somethink like: Why? Bacause. :smile:


is a more advanced than using a more analytical method, then be my guest

It was about possibilities of creating a new words.

But what is analitical method? Some think like that: John loves Mary

but when I write: Mary loves John, it means totally differt thing.

And when I write: Mary John loves or loves John Mary - that means nothing.


In fusional language, it is always very precize and almost always has meaning.

Jan kocha Marię.
Marię kocha Jan.
Kocha Jan Marię.
Kocha Marię Jan.
Jan Marię kocha.
Marię Jan kocha.

In russian the same:

Иван любит Марию.
Марию любит Иван.
Любит Иван Марию.
Любит Марию Иван.
Иван Марию любит.
Марию Иван любит.

Every construction has a meaning and in all cases means
exactly the same. There is no doubts: John loves Mary in
every cases. :smile: And we need for this only one vowel!

So which tounge is more usefull, developed, precise, rich,
clear, understandable and advanced? Analitic or fusional?:smile:


p.s. I remind you, that we are talking about this in context
"which language is better (as one language for all Europe)".

Angela
09-07-15, 02:03
So you really dont get it! Amazing.
Probably every one else on this forum who is reading
our disscusion already understad what I have in mind.
But you, lingust, dont... I'm shocked...

I showed you this time how many possibilites have other language - how many words can you create and give them meaning by your own.
In the place of retel you can put any other word, native or borrow, it doesn't matter. But from any word you can create millions new words.
That means, that language, who can do this, is more developed, and this one, who cannot do that, is more primitive.



This is very deep proof and mature answer :smile:
Somethink like: Why? Bacause. :smile:



It was about possibilities of creating a new words.

But what is analitical method? Some think like that: John loves Mary

but when I write: Mary loves John, it means totally differt thing.

And when I write: Mary John loves or loves John Mary - that means nothing.


In fusional language, it is always very precize and almost always has meaning.

Jan kocha Marię.
Marię kocha Jan.
Kocha Jan Marię.
Kocha Marię Jan.
Jan Marię kocha.
Marię Jan kocha.

In russian the same:

Иван любит Марию.
Марию любит Иван.
Любит Иван Марию.
Любит Марию Иван.
Иван Марию любит.
Марию Иван любит.

Every construction has a meaning and in all cases means
exactly the same. There is no doubts: John loves Mary in
every cases. :smile: And we need for this only one vowel!

So which tounge is more usefull, developed, precise, rich,
clear, understandable and advanced? Analitic or fusional?:smile:


p.s. I remind you, that we are talking about this in context
"which language is better (as one language for all Europe)".

Oh, I wouldn't assume that if I were you.

The answer to your question is...English.

Johannes
09-07-15, 02:23
We definitely do compared to native speakers, but that is no argument. I bet you also drive much worse than F1 racer, but you can make a distinction between two cars. You don't need to consult Danica Patrick to tell you which of 2 totally different vehicles feels better on the road.

That's exactly why I used it. Because there is no connection, and it makes no sense, but it somehow has meaning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_orange) in English.

We don't need to argue. That is my feeling about that language, and you can't change it. I just tried to explain it to you because you asked why. If you don't see it, I can't help it, I really tried my best to make it most coherent to you. BTW, I don't think English is awful, and never said that, but that it wold be an awful choice for certain usages (in the presence of other languages). English is perfectly fine, but there are other options that I like better.

Ok Ok Ok I think I understand where you are coming form. Yes "Blood Orange" can have meaning in English but it needs to be put into context or meaning. The way you put it had no context or relation or meaning to me. But if you gave me some background information then I would have understood. "Blood Orange" can mean the result of an explosion of napalm or atomic bomb or a morning sunrise or sunset. So if you use it in a sentence you need to have a connection. BUT you did not. You only gave the "Blood Orange" concept without any meaning or connection. Sorry but your example was very poor to make in the first place. You should have explained your thoughts or method. But now I see what you mean. Sorry for the criticism. Either way you can never use that kind of example with children because it will cause confusion. You need to explain to them what it means so they can understand.

Johannes
09-07-15, 03:16
So you really dont get it! Amazing.
Probably every one else on this forum who is reading
our disscusion already understad what I have in mind.
But you, lingust, dont... I'm shocked...

I showed you this time how many possibilites have other language - how many words can you create and give them meaning by your own.
In the place of retel you can put any other word, native or borrow, it doesn't matter. But from any word you can create millions new words.
That means, that language, who can do this, is more developed, and this one, who cannot do that, is more primitive.

This is very deep proof and mature answer :smile:
Somethink like: Why? Bacause. :smile:

It was about possibilities of creating a new words.

But what is analitical method? Some think like that: John loves Mary

but when I write: Mary loves John, it means totally differt thing.

And when I write: Mary John loves or loves John Mary - that means nothing.


In fusional language, it is always very precize and almost always has meaning.

Jan kocha Marię.
Marię kocha Jan.
Kocha Jan Marię.
Kocha Marię Jan.
Jan Marię kocha.
Marię Jan kocha.

In russian the same:

Иван любит Марию.
Марию любит Иван.
Любит Иван Марию.
Любит Марию Иван.
Иван Марию любит.
Марию Иван любит.

Every construction has a meaning and in all cases means
exactly the same. There is no doubts: John loves Mary in
every cases. :smile: And we need for this only one vowel!

So which tounge is more usefull, developed, precise, rich,
clear, understandable and advanced? Analitic or fusional?:smile:

p.s. I remind you, that we are talking about this in context
"which language is better (as one language for all Europe)".

I do get it but you don't express yourself well-enough for me to understand you. You seem to be some uber-linguist who knows more than everyone but you have a poor command of English. I see you like more "poetic" or "fusional" languages, but English is fusional!!! It became more analytical because of a culture shift from literary to business or economics -- I don't know. Either way English is fusinal, its just that it uses a more analytical approach that makes it more "efficient" in business or administration? Have you ever read English poets and writers, such as, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Pope, Byron, Lawrence, or Americans, such as, Whitman, Dreiser, Emerson, Hemingway, Faulkner, and Capote??? These are just a few. Or how come English and American music and movies dominates the world??? All businessmen around the world use English. I have never heard of any complaints like you do. So how can such a "primitive" language be so "usefull (sic), developed, precise, rich, clear, understandable, and advanced" if it's so primitive like you state??? If you want to go back to the old days of using poetic expressions or Biblical metaphors for religion or any other linguistic style, then use Polish, Russian, or whatever other language you think is more "fusional", but if you want to do business in the world you need a pragmatic language. Thus English is the choice.

If I was your teacher I would give you a B- because your are bright but stubborn and do not fully understand English, and therefore your arguments can be erroneous. For example, John loves Mary/Mary loves John are perfectly understandable -- they mean the same thing -- the difference is in the subject order. Mary John loves has meaning but it needs to be put in Subject (Mary) -- Verb (loves) -- Object (John) order. If in Slavic countries it can be put in many ways then great. But it does not change anything. English is the best for Europe.

LeBrok
09-07-15, 03:19
There must be a good reason we use English on Eupedia. There must be a super good reason whole world is learning English.

Rethel
09-07-15, 12:03
There must be a good reason we use English on Eupedia. There must be a super good reason whole world is learning English.

40 years ago sill in use was french.

Did this ment, that french was the best languge in the world? So why english now?

He did not change so much through last 60 years, really...

Did this mean that french should be one postulate language for Europe then? Why now would be worse?

The thread isn't about: "which language is most widespraed - so lets make him one language for Europe".

BUT: which language is the best for making him one for all Europe, for us, europeans, not whole world.

Do you see a difference?

Do you know Lebrok any other language than english in level C1-C2?

Rethel
09-07-15, 12:04
Ok Ok Ok I think I understand where you are coming form. Yes "Blood Orange" can have meaning in English but it needs to be put into context or meaning. The way you put it had no context or relation or meaning to me. But if you gave me some background information then I would have understood. "Blood Orange" can mean the result of an explosion of napalm or atomic bomb or a morning sunrise or sunset. So if you use it in a sentence you need to have a connection. BUT you did not. You only gave the "Blood Orange" concept without any meaning or connection. Sorry but your example was very poor to make in the first place. You should have explained your thoughts or method. But now I see what you mean. Sorry for the criticism. Either way you can never use that kind of example with children because it will cause confusion. You need to explain to them what it means so they can understand.

Thank you, thank you Johannes, you gave us next sample of english tounge poorness, and of this,
what I am talking about so long: words and union of words have no meaning - only reader is giving
them meaning when he read it. Because when you are writing only "blood orange" or "bible god" in
the words you have only mening of two sepatate subjects: "bible, god" and "blood, orange" - as Ike
was explaning to you - and he is of course right.


I do get it but you don't express yourself well-enough for me to understand you. You seem to be some uber-linguist who knows more than everyone but you have a poor command of English. I see you like more "poetic" or "fusional" languages, but English is fusional!!! It became more analytical because of a culture shift from literary to business or economics -- I don't know. Either way English is fusinal, its just that it uses a more analytical approach that makes it more "efficient" in business or administration? Have you ever read English poets and writers, such as, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Pope, Byron, Lawrence, or Americans, such as, Whitman, Dreiser, Emerson, Hemingway, Faulkner, and Capote??? These are just a few. Or how come English and American music and movies dominates the world??? All businessmen around the world use English. I have never heard of any complaints like you do. So how can such a "primitive" language be so "usefull (sic), developed, precise, rich, clear, understandable, and advanced" if it's so primitive like you state??? If you want to go back to the old days of using poetic expressions or Biblical metaphors for religion or any other linguistic style, then use Polish, Russian, or whatever other language you think is more "fusional", but if you want to do business in the world you need a pragmatic language. Thus English is the choice.

If I was your teacher I would give you a B- because your are bright but stubborn and do not fully understand English, and therefore your arguments can be erroneous. For example, John loves Mary/Mary loves John are perfectly understandable -- they mean the same thing -- the difference is in the subject order. Mary John loves has meaning but it needs to be put in Subject (Mary) -- Verb (loves) -- Object (John) order.

Johannes, you are very good in demagogy, but the case is different, tha you are talking.

Did I anywhere question that english is more widespread language? No.
so why you are talking about that? :)


If in Slavic countries it can be put in many ways then great. But it does not change anything. English is the best for Europe.

And this are this differences, which make one language better, and another worse.
And about this I am talking over and over again. In fusional language you don't
have such a situation, (or very rerly) when words means nothing, or you need
whole context for deciding what they mean. So, language who makes so many
confiusions in every sentence, isn't good language.

Btw, through millenia international languages were always complicated.
From greek to latin and german - every one is more precize than english.
I dont know how french, but I guess that too, because if he comes from
latin, he should have still more precize verbal useness than english...

And next thing - the facts, that you from childhood know english and he
is an international language, doesn't mean, that he is or must be the best.:smile:

Rethel
09-07-15, 12:26
Johannes, I gave you so many examples why fusional language is better than english.
In grammatical structure, in word formation, in precision of verbal useness, and some more.
And I am not a specialist at all... I am common user of fusional language, nothing more...

You, teacher - gave me nothing, what prooves, that analitical is better than fusional.

You only try talking over and over again, that I dont know
enough english, and that every languages are the same.
Very poor argumentation... or lacking of her at all...

So why do you think, that english is better?

Maybe this is the cause::smile:

https://thafreebird.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/h61073963.jpg

Ike
09-07-15, 14:38
Oh, I wouldn't assume that if I were you.
The answer to your question is...English.

Don't know why you're pushing this, because it's obviously wrong. It's like apples and oranges. They don't even fall into same category.



There must be a good reason we use English on Eupedia. There must be a super good reason whole world is learning English.

Cause it's super easy to learn? Missing many complicated finesses which could make it more precise and delicate.

Rethel
09-07-15, 15:44
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

Robert,
I forgot, about your samples, but they only proofed, what I and Ike are claiming. :)

Language, who is so unprecize and builts so unuderstandable senteces,
is primitv and similar rather to unary numeral system, than to advanced
complicated language, in which you can say exactly what you want to say. :)

This examples are showing, that such construcions are in the neandethal cave level :)
Simple enumerating words which have no meaning. You cannot of course understand this,
like a total daltonist cannot understand what is a colour. He thinks, that everything is ok,
because he can see everything as others... but he does not realize, that his seeing is not
the best, as it could be, and not so precize, rich and understandable as others seeing.

Angela
09-07-15, 16:06
Do you gentlemen know what "sour grapes" means? How about "fighting a losing battle"? Or "tilting at windmills"? Or "too bad, so sad"? How about "suck it up and get over it"? Or, "it's time to join the winning side"? Or "an exercise in futility"? I love the pragmatism and no nonsense attitude you can see in these kinds of phrases.

I thought it was time to interject a little sanity and have some fun with this.:)

More seriously...

"English has become a universal language. There are many reasons for its dominance: the heritage of the British Empire, and the post-world-war economic hegemony and cultural influence – ranging from Mickey Mouse and Marilyn Monroe to Elvis Presley and Snoop Dogg – of the United States.

But the main reason is the elasticity of the language and the broad-mindedness it communicates. If English grammar is rudimentary, the linguistic equivalent of rock’ n’ roll, the English vocabulary is huge. There are very few things that can’t be expressed in English, and if it can’t be said in English then a word is lifted from another language – like "kindergarten," for example. If it doesn’t exist in English and a word isn’t lifted from another language it’s because what it represents doesn’t make sense to thinking shaped by the English language: a case in point, "Schicksalsgemeinschaft" (companions in fate).The predominance of English in sciences, economy, culture and politics is overwhelming. In Palestine, in the days of Jesus of Nazareth, Latin was the language of the military and government. But to be considered educated you had to speak Greek; if you were Jewish you also had to speak Hebrew; and the language of the masses was Aramaic. In the Europe of the late Middle Ages, Latin was the language of the erudite, Italian the language of trade, and blossoming cultures used their own respective languages..."
http://carloz.newsvine.com/_news/2013/01/29/16755280-why-the-english-language-dominates-the-world

Keep your native languages by all means. Console yourselves with the thought that they are superior if it makes you feel better. The fact remains that in today's world you have to master English, not only for trade and commerce, science and technology and travel, but for diplomacy, and for culture. Learn it or get left behind. That may seem harsh, but it's true.

Another more productive area of discussion was alluded to in the above quote. Language not only reflects culture, it also shapes thinking and thereby creates culture. Certain words are indeed not adopted into English, such as "companions of fate", because the concept is antithetical to the positive, pro-active, individualistic and pragmatic culture of English speakers. Perhaps with the adoption of English some of the passive, resigned, ossified thinking of other groups of people will change.

Ike
09-07-15, 16:45
But the main reason is the elasticity of the language and the broad-mindedness it communicates. If English grammar is rudimentary, the linguistic equivalent of rock’ n’ roll, the English vocabulary is huge.

Exactly.
1. It's too elastic = imprecise.
2. It's too much primitive and not subtle enough.


Perhaps with the adoption of English some of the passive, resigned, ossified thinking of other groups of people will change.
They will change and it already happens everywhere, and that's the worse part of it. Especially when the mental change follows linguistic change - thinking pattern simplification.

Drac II
09-07-15, 17:09
40 years ago sill in use was french.

Did this ment, that french was the best languge in the world? So why english now?

He did not change so much through last 60 years, really...

Did this mean that french should be one postulate language for Europe then? Why now would be worse?


Yes, but 60 years ago technological developments did not affect people's lives as much as today. One of the main reasons why English has become so widespread all over the planet in the last decades has to do with technological developments, like computers for example, which took place mostly in the United States and from there spread to the rest of the world. The very fact that people from all over the planet are on Internet forums like this one conversing and communicating in English and not another language more than sufficiently illustrates the impact that this technology developed in an English-speaking country alone has had on the popularity of and acquaintance with the English language worldwide. Learning at least basic English has become practically a necessity for millions of people in the non-English-speaking world. Had a French-speaking (or of any other language for that matter) country developed these technologies and then spread them all over the globe, it would have retained more of its previous status and popularity.

Angela
09-07-15, 18:14
Exactly.
1. It's too elastic = imprecise.
2. It's too much primitive and not subtle enough.


They will change and it already happens everywhere, and that's the worse part of it. Especially when the mental change follows linguistic change - thinking pattern simplification.

On the contrary, because of its varied vocabulary it can be extremely subtle, and it has great expressive power. "No other language can boast such a rich vocabulary..In addition, the richness of the English vocabulary continues to be enhanced as words acquire new shades of meaning as the language is used in novel situations. The expressive power of English is also enhanced by its great adaptability, as words, roots, affixes and prepositions can be easily combined to make new words. This makes it a very productive language and well suited to be applied to new concepts and in new situations. It is a powerful tool in the hands of writers."

I would go further and say that it's an incomparable language in the hands of writers. Of course, you have barely educated people, even native speakers, on whom most of this richness is lost. That's also the case for many speakers of English as a second language. They don't see the subtleties because they haven't put in the effort to learn all the different words for various phenomena and how they differ and when they should and should not be used to convey not only visual information, but also emotional meaning. That's ok though because they can still use it for their purposes.

Just a small example...all these words have to do with the refraction of light. There are many, many more. The meanings are all different. You can't substitute one for another: dazzle, shimmer, glimmer, glint, glisten, sparkle, twinkle, spark, flicker, flash, glow. Just because a foreign speaker doesn't know the precise meaning of these words doesn't mean there isn't a precise meaning.

As to your second point, there is no up side to being passive and accepting in the face of life's challenges, either for individuals or nations. Saying it's God's Will and leaving it at that is counter-productive. Wallowing in depression is self-defeating. Believing that there is a solution and you can find it is how human society progresses. Do I like everything about modern culture as it is developing? No, I don't. I'm actually quite conservative on social matters, but most decidedly not in terms of science and technology. If some groups or countries want to retreat from the modern world, hugging to themselves ancient modes of living, of being, of thinking, refusing to learn the international language, then that's their choice. I think that in part that's what's going on in the Near East. I suppose on one level it just leaves more of the prosperity for others. It's not what I want for me or mine.

Ed. For what it's worth, I love my native language. I read it and hear it spoken (through the computer, and television, and radio) every day. I also still try to read French authors in French. That doesn't change anything that I said.

Ike
09-07-15, 20:09
On the contrary, because of its varied vocabulary it can be extremely subtle, and it has great expressive power. "No other language can boast such a rich vocabulary..In addition, the richness of the English vocabulary continues to be enhanced as words acquire new shades of meaning as the language is used in novel situations. The expressive power of English is also enhanced by its great adaptability, as words, roots, affixes and prepositions can be easily combined to make new words. This makes it a very productive language and well suited to be applied to new concepts and in new situations. It is a powerful tool in the hands of writers."

I would go further and say that it's an incomparable language in the hands of writers. Of course, you have barely educated people, even native speakers, on whom most of this richness is lost. That's also the case for many speakers of English as a second language. They don't see the subtleties because they haven't put in the effort to learn all the different words for various phenomena and how they differ and when they should and should not be used to convey not only visual information, but also emotional meaning. That's ok though because they can still use it for their purposes.

Just a small example...all these words have to do with the refraction of light. There are many, many more. The meanings are all different. You can't substitute one for another: dazzle, shimmer, glimmer, glint, glisten, sparkle, twinkle, spark, flicker, flash, glow. Just because a foreign speaker doesn't know the precise meaning of these words doesn't mean there isn't a precise meaning.

You somehow don't understand it. It's not the number of words, or adjectives. Yes, English is rich in them, but I'm not talking about that. The enormous vocabulary English has got may be very subtle, but the language itself is not. How do I put it better? Lets say I have a jackhammer. I can have 10.000 drill bits ranging from 1 millimeter to 10 cm (in 1 micron steps), and it still wouldn't help me make a better hole than you working with a hand drill with just 10 conventional drill bits.



As to your second point, there is no up side to being passive and accepting in the face of life's challenges, either for individuals or nations. Saying it's God's Will and leaving it at that is counter-productive. Wallowing in depression is self-defeating. Believing that there is a solution and you can find it is how human society progresses. Do I like everything about modern culture as it is developing? No, I don't. I'm actually quite conservative on social matters, but most decidedly not in terms of science and technology. If some groups or countries want to retreat from the modern world, hugging to themselves ancient modes of living, of being, of thinking, refusing to learn the international language, then that's their choice. I think that in part that's what's going on in the Near East. I suppose on one level it just leaves more of the prosperity for others. It's not what I want for me or mine.

The problem arises from the idea of prosperity you have. It is a classical worn-out Western mental concept :) Or as you've already said:


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

As you've mentioned, you do understand that there are cultures and people that do not want to compete and despise that form of living. Western countries pick up all talented, young, hard-working, competitive and ambitious people from around the world, but they are somehow now satisfied with that all that, but they also have a burning desire to convince everyone in the world to be as competitive as they are. Ok, I understand, if they manage there goes more potential human resources for them. They have managed to implant the concept of change so deep in your head, that you've mentioned it here just as if it a default state of mind. It is not. Competitiveness is the game they invented, and they are best at it, and now they try to full us all into playing it for our lives. I may like or not like the game but that's not the point, insisting on others playing that game exclusively is a form of cultural genocide.

I personally see no way that Italians, French, Finns or others are safe from that. They will all go down just like Indians did. Not to mention that there is certainly no place for Bushmans or Aborigines in that kind of world. If you ask, I'm not particularly worried about Yugoslavia, I have a strong faith in our Dinaric vacuousness. They're the last to go down (source (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHYTwap0X1k)).:grin:



Ed. For what it's worth, I love my native language. I read it and hear it spoken (through the computer, and television, and radio) every day. I also still try to read French authors in French. That doesn't change anything that I said.

Agreed. Never would I thought that you'd think different.

Angela
09-07-15, 21:23
Ike, I am very attached to my central heating, my washing machine, my stove, my bursting supermarkets, my quality medications should I need them, a wonderful education system for my children, media presenting every possible point of view, my car. my laptop, my I Phone, my silk blouses and high heels. :) I want them for my children too...well, so far it seems as if my son will pass on the high heels.

I would wager that if I spoke to the women of your country they'd want those things too. It's usually men, in my experience, who are far more impractical about life.

Has it been hard to keep hold of my rather more traditional values and my particular Italian sensibility? Yes, it has, but it can be done.

Ike
09-07-15, 23:08
Ike, I am very attached to my central heating, my washing machine, my stove, my bursting supermarkets, my quality medications should I need them, a wonderful education system for my children, media presenting every possible point of view, my car. my laptop, my I Phone, my silk blouses and high heels. :) I want them for my children too...well, so far it seems as if my son will pass on the high heels.

That would be a kind of reductio ad absurdum. Not accepting the change eagerly, doesn't mean one is against it.

As you know, you stove, washing machine etc. work on electricity, which looks like this (http://blogs.courier-journal.com/watchdogearth/files/2013/12/millcreek.jpg) and makes this (http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/001/cache/dead-spruce_133_600x450.jpg); your car battery and pharmaceutical industry leaves this (http://junctionhill.k12.mo.us/denisknight/images/chemical-waste.jpg) and supermarkets and megacities produce this (http://i2.wp.com/www.bioenergyconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Kuwait_Waste_Management.jpg). Don't know about you, but I am pretty aware that for every 10 kids not having a laptop, one of these (http://borgenproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Africa-Hunger-2025.jpg) kids would be still alive. It's not my point to make your stomach bad, so I'm choosing some random neutral google pics, with the appropriate message, but you can well imagine all aforementioned visual examples better represented in their total gruesomeness.

I guess it's easier to turn our heads away and look at what we've got, what we have gained. Yes, it's easier. I have everything I've ever wanted and imagined, and most of it was not a necessity. It's not the problem we have redundant implements of luxury, it's the self-destructive appetite we've developed for them. And that's a cultural thing.


I would wager that if I spoke to the women of your country they'd want those things too. It's usually men, in my experience, who are far more impractical about life.
We all want it, that is not the problem. The difference is that some are not willing to accept those commodities when they know what goes on the other side. You have a good system devised for a persons like you are, and for those who are not alike or were not gifted from god with any of the payable skills smiles the basement and lifetime of agony and despair. Anyway we are smarter than them, so we should do everything in our power to keep it this way? :)


Has it been hard to keep hold of my rather more traditional values and my particular Italian sensibility? Yes, it has, but it can be done.
Probably, but that is not the point. You, yourself (or you parents, doesn't matter) have chosen willingly to change the habitat and are acting according to the circumstances. I have no problem that people who want to leave have to accommodate to the new culture, the problem is that my position is jeopardized in my home. Cultural influences that we experience here in small countries can be simply interpreted as terror - both from West or Islam. Stripped of all contemporary makeup, the only thing it is good for,is to make us more alike so that we can be easier to manipulate for further military aggressions. That's what Macedonians and Romans did, that's what Islam does, that's what West does. They all have a different strategy, but the ultimate goal is the same.

RobertColumbia
11-07-15, 15:10
....There are very few things that can’t be expressed in English, and if it can’t be said in English then a word is lifted from another language – like "kindergarten," for example. If it doesn’t exist in English and a word isn’t lifted from another language it’s because what it represents doesn’t make sense to thinking shaped by the English language....

The concept of "kindergarten" could be expressed as "the school year immediately preceeding US first grade", "zeroth grade", or "the very first year of schooling for small children who have not yet advanced to the numbered school year system", but it is called kindergarten, iirc, because the idea of starting children in school earlier than was traditionally done in the US was popularized by German-speaking immigrants who naturally gave the "new" year a name from their own language. If sending younger children to school had instead been proposed or popularized by Mexicans, what is now kindergarten might instead have been called jovenes (youths) or floritos (little flowers).

RobertColumbia
11-07-15, 15:17
Robert,
of course this is understandable, and I uderstand this type of construction very well.
But this is understandable, not because of mening the words, but feeling about them.
If you take only this two words, thay describe only two (or more) separate subjects....but try to compere this with others, or look deeply in
the written words, and you see, what I am talking about. Bible God you understand,
but if I'll write... God Bible... what it means? :smile:

There are three critical concepts to consider here:

1) grammar
2) semantics
3) culture

You need at least the first two, if not all three, to "make sense" in any language. You may know, as Noam Chomsky observed, that colorless green ideas sleep furiously. You can't, in any language, simply take words and mash them up together and expect them to be understandable. Human language is about people communicating about complex, nuanced, and often vague human concepts, not about computers specifying a unique and unambiguous mathematical expression.

RobertColumbia
11-07-15, 15:20
...Bible God and examples alike. I agree that it is perfectly understandable to a proficient English speaker, but that is exactly the problem. It needs to be understandable to a non-proficient english speaker when he hears it for the first time. Every 5 year old can learn what 'blood' and 'orange' is, but deciphering what 'blood orange' is would be a hard task for it. Not to mention what he would get out of it, once he thinks he got it - a duck car (for taxi), a water mellon (for an eggplant)....

If you exclude English because it includes confusing grammar such as "Bible God", then you would have to exclude German as a candidate as well because it has the same grammatical concept. The German form of the concept is arguably even more confusing to non-native speakers because it mashes up all of the nouns, omitting all spaces between them. English at least tries to let you know where the boundaries of each component word are.

Johannes
12-07-15, 03:47
Johannes, I gave you so many examples why fusional language is better than english.
In grammatical structure, in word formation, in precision of verbal useness, and some more.
And I am not a specialist at all... I am common user of fusional language, nothing more...

You, teacher - gave me nothing, what prooves, that analitical is better than fusional.

You only try talking over and over again, that I dont know
enough english, and that every languages are the same.
Very poor argumentation... or lacking of her at all...

So why do you think, that english is better?

Maybe this is the cause::smile:

https://thafreebird.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/h61073963.jpg


Rethel: I don't think English is better. There is no such thing as one language being better than another. All languages are equally the same as long as they serve a function, and that is to allow communication between peoples. The real reason why one language dominates over others is power. It's all about power. Power determines which language will dominate the world.

Let's look at history: Greek became the dominant language in the 5th century BCE because the Greeks defeated the Persians and they eventually dominated the eastern Mediterranean. The Greeks also created a great culture; and during the Hellenistic Era, they conquered all of the known world at the time (except Western Europe, but had Alexander the Great not died so young, I am sure the Macedonians and Greeks would have conquered it). Then the Romans came in and conquered everyone in Western Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Thus Latin became the dominant language in both commerce and administration. Greek was still used in cultural matters and in administrating the eastern territories. Latin lasted for over 1500 years and Greek for about 2000 years. Both languages were dominant because of the power of their civilizations. If the Greeks and Romans had not become super powers then another language would have been used. During the Middle Ages Latin was used as an international language because people spoke different languages and they needed to communicate. Greek was used in the Eastern Roman Empire until the Turks conquered Constantinople. During the Renaissance nations in Europe began to feel that their languages were just as good as Latin and Latin was eventually replaced and relegated to religious matters. Spain then became the first modern super-power. Spain built such a huge empire and its power was such that everyone in Europe began to copy Spanish customs, dress, manners, and even began to learn Castilian. For example, Emperor Charles I, Queen Mary and Queen Elisabeth of England, Francis I, and Mary Queen of Scots all spoke Spanish. The reason for this was that Spain was not only a military but also an economic and cultural power. After Spain declined the French took over the number one position, and guess what? French became the dominant language in Europe for the next 150 years. When France lost almost all her colonies to England, then English started to become the dominant language, but Britain was always on shaky ground, and it took the defeat of Napoleon to secure English as the number one power. Thus English began to rise as the dominant language of the world. But French was still considered an important language in international diplomacy and culture. However, English did begin to be used more and more in commerce throughout the world. Germany should have taken over the number one spot and German would have become the top language in international relations and trade (even culture). However, Germany was too arrogant and was defeated twice and thus lost its potential number one position. Finally it took the rise of American power to make English the secure number one language of the world.

Thus it does not matter if "fusional" languages are superior to English. It is the power of the nation that determines what language will be the dominant language in the world. If Poland or Russia had become number one major world powers then most people today would be speaking Polish and/or Russian. But alas it never happened. There is also no explanation as to why one language becomes dominant over others. There is no teleological explanation. It just happens by chance. So even though most Europeans might not like English, they will have to learn it in order to do business. There is no other choice.

Johannes
13-07-15, 02:14
If you exclude English because it includes confusing grammar such as "Bible God", then you would have to exclude German as a candidate as well because it has the same grammatical concept. The German form of the concept is arguably even more confusing to non-native speakers because it mashes up all of the nouns, omitting all spaces between them. English at least tries to let you know where the boundaries of each component word are.

Excellent point. Thank you for this. I hope these non native speakers can finally understand English.

Ike
13-07-15, 03:37
How can that be a point? Heonly mentioned a worse example so that the other one would seem better. Why going in that direction....

RobertColumbia
13-07-15, 06:54
How can that be a point? Heonly mentioned a worse example so that the other one would seem better. Why going in that direction....

My point was that it is not fair to criticize English by pointing out potentially confusing aspects of its grammar without also mentioning that other languages have grammatical features that are as, if not more, confusing. Every natural language has quirks. You have to slog through them to learn the language. That's nothing new. Spanish has an interesting grammatical feature where a person doesn't generally speak about washing their hands, they actually say that they "lavarse las manos", that is, they "wash themselves the hands". Why not simply have people say that they "lavar sus manos"? It's just how Spanish does it.

Ike
13-07-15, 15:52
My point was that it is not fair to criticize English by pointing out potentially confusing aspects of its grammar without also mentioning that other languages have grammatical features that are as, if not more, confusing. Every natural language has quirks. You have to slog through them to learn the language. That's nothing new. Spanish has an interesting grammatical feature where a person doesn't generally speak about washing their hands, they actually say that they "lavarse las manos", that is, they "wash themselves the hands". Why not simply have people say that they "lavar sus manos"? It's just how Spanish does it.

I was not talking mainly about confusing grammar, but what could be best described in #66 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25665-European-Common-Language-The-Poll?p=461897&viewfull=1#post461897) and last paragraph of #81 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25665-European-Common-Language-The-Poll?p=461990&viewfull=1#post461990). That example with Bible God is just a consequence of that.



Don't know Spanish, but that example feels to me very as same as English. Los looks like it's covering English definite article. Correct me if I'm wrong - if you're sitting in the car, and police officer steps to you wanting to move the vehicle, he would not say "Drive a car", but "Drive the car" or even "Drive that car" but this last one has more authoritative connotation.

Same as that, when you say - Wash your hands (lavar sus manos) it sounds a bit like you're giving an order. On the other hand "Wash them/that/those hands" or "Wash the hands" (which should translate best as "lavar sus manos" ?) sounds more neutral. When I think of it, I wonder is that bolder th the source of definite article?

RobertColumbia
13-07-15, 17:12
...
Don't know Spanish, but that example feels to me very as same as English. Los looks like it's covering English definite article. Correct me if I'm wrong - if you're sitting in the car, and police officer steps to you wanting to move the vehicle, he would not say "Drive a car", but "Drive the car" or even "Drive that car" but this last one has more authoritative connotation.

Same as that, when you say - Wash your hands (lavar sus manos) it sounds a bit like you're giving an order. On the other hand "Wash them/that/those hands" or "Wash the hands" (which should translate best as "lavar sus manos" ?) sounds more neutral. When I think of it, I wonder is that bolder th the source of definite article?

Interesting idea, but no, "they" and related pronouns are loanwords from Old Norse while "the" is a native West Germanic definite article, cognate to the German "der", "das", and "die" and the Dutch article "de", based on the consonant shift "th"->"d" that most Germanic languages (but notably not English and Icelandic) underwent.

The Spanish concept of treating something done to a part of yourself as something that is fundamentally being done to you, with the exact part listed later as an omittable detail, is a standard and common feature of Spanish. You can brush yourself the teeth, comb yourself the hair, cut yourself the hair, or clean yourself the ears. If you are feeling angry at someone, you can even tell them, "Bésame el culo!", which is a command form that literally means "Kiss me the ass". In English, you tell someone to directly make contact with your ass and kiss it ("Kiss my ass!"). In Spanish, you tell them that you want to be kissed and then specify that you specifically wanted to be kissed on the ass. Lol. If you are having a romantic moment and want to be kissed, you can actually just ask your partner to "Bésame" ("kiss me") and allow the context of what is happening to tell them where to kiss you <3.

Angela
13-07-15, 17:21
Interesting idea, but no, "they" and related pronouns are loanwords from Old Norse while "the" is a native West Germanic definite article, cognate to the German "der", "das", and "die" and the Dutch article "de", based on the consonant shift "th"->"d" that most Germanic languages (but notably not English and Icelandic) underwent.

The Spanish concept of treating something done to a part of yourself as something that is fundamentally being done to you, with the exact part listed later as an omittable detail, is a standard and common feature of Spanish. You can brush yourself the teeth, comb yourself the hair, cut yourself the hair, or clean yourself the ears. If you are feeling angry at someone, you can even tell them, "Bésame el culo!", which is a command form that literally means "Kiss me the ass". In English, you tell someone to directly make contact with your ass and kiss it ("Kiss my ass!"). In Spanish, you tell them that you want to be kissed and then specify that you specifically wanted to be kissed on the ass. Lol. If you are having a romantic moment and want to be kissed, you can actually just ask your partner to "Bésame" ("kiss me") and allow the context of what is happening to tell them where to kiss you <3.

Yes, indeed, standard in Romance languages and difficult for Americans, for example, to understand.

RobertColumbia
13-07-15, 18:53
Yes, indeed, standard in Romance languages and difficult for Americans, for example, to understand.

Thank you.

In a way, the Spanish way can seem more complex at first to a native speaker of a Germanic language but it does allow one to remain consistent in certain contexts. For example, if your child is leaving home to go to school one morning, you might brush her the hair, check her the hands (to make sure they are clean), and hug her. English is inconsistent as to whether or not these things are being done to her or to a part of her. Spanish simply says you are doing all of these things to her and allows you to add more details if you wish.

This is just another piece of evidence that languages just are. All of them have quirks that make sense in certain ways and seem awkward in others.

Johannes
14-07-15, 03:23
My point was that it is not fair to criticize English by pointing out potentially confusing aspects of its grammar without also mentioning that other languages have grammatical features that are as, if not more, confusing. Every natural language has quirks. You have to slog through them to learn the language. That's nothing new. Spanish has an interesting grammatical feature where a person doesn't generally speak about washing their hands, they actually say that they "lavarse las manos", that is, they "wash themselves the hands". Why not simply have people say that they "lavar sus manos"? It's just how Spanish does it.

Woa there: your Spanish is a bit off: "lavarse las manos" does not mean "wash themselves the hands" it means "wash the hands." "lavar las manos" is the more proper way of saying "wash the hands." I am from California and I noticed that many Hispanics and Anglos who never learned Spanish and where elected to the legislature made all kinds of mistakes with Spanish because they never learned proper Spanish to begin with and caused a lot of confusion.

Rethel
27-07-15, 12:19
Hmmm.... so... which is more difficult to learn:
more primitive or more complicated language? :)



http://m.natemat.pl/752bfbd894a97adf248a87e72edb999d,640,0,0,0.jpg

Rethel
27-07-15, 12:31
"English has become a universal language. There are many reasons for its dominance: the heritage of the British Empire, and the post-world-war economic hegemony and cultural influence – ranging from Mickey Mouse and Marilyn Monroe to Elvis Presley and Snoop Dogg – of the United States.

Angela, noone is questioning that.
We are not talking about:
WHY english is international language,
but
WHICH language would be the best for Europe
(as one state or nation, I guess, for the benefit of all).


There are very few things that can’t be expressed in English,

As in any other language I guess... otherwise noone could do any transaltion of any book.


In Palestine, in the days of Jesus of Nazareth, Latin was the language of the military and government. But to be considered educated you had to speak Greek; if you were Jewish you also had to speak Hebrew; and the language of the masses was Aramaic. In the Europe of the late Middle Ages, Latin was the language of the erudite, Italian the language of trade, and blossoming cultures used their own respective languages..."

This sample is only showing, that international language, do not must be primirtive, and that about that which
language is international did not decide his internal wonderfullness, but political and cultural circumstances.

Rethel
27-07-15, 12:34
They will change and it already happens everywhere, and that's the worse part of it.
Especially when the mental change follows linguistic change - thinking pattern simplification.

:good_job:

Rethel
27-07-15, 12:37
Yes, but 60 years ago technological developments did not affect people's lives as much as today. One of the main reasons why English has become so widespread all over the planet in the last decades has to do with technological developments, like computers for example, which took place mostly in the United States and from there spread to the rest of the world. The very fact that people from all over the planet are on Internet forums like this one conversing and communicating in English and not another language more than sufficiently illustrates the impact that this technology developed in an English-speaking country alone has had on the popularity of and acquaintance with the English language worldwide. Learning at least basic English has become practically a necessity for millions of people in the non-English-speaking world. Had a French-speaking (or of any other language for that matter) country developed these technologies and then spread them all over the globe, it would have retained more of its previous status and popularity.

Yes Darc, of course.
But the reason why english is most popular language in the world does
not change the fact, that it isn't the best choice for language for Europe.:smile:

Rethel
27-07-15, 12:52
On the contrary, because of its varied vocabulary it can be extremely subtle, and it has great expressive power. "No other language can boast such a rich vocabulary..In addition, the richness of the English vocabulary continues to be enhanced as words acquire new shades of meaning as the language is used in novel situations. The expressive power of English is also enhanced by its great adaptability, as words, roots, affixes and prepositions can be easily combined to make new words. This makes it a very productive language and well suited to be applied to new concepts and in new situations. It is a powerful tool in the hands of writers."

As I showed before, fusional languages are much more adaptable.
Writer can create new words, but it does not mean, that some one
can understand thise words or they will be used.


I would go further and say that it's an incomparable language in the hands of writers. Of course, you have barely educated people, even native speakers, on whom most of this richness is lost.

:grin:



just a small example...all these words have to do with the refraction of light. There are many, many more. The meanings are all different. You can't substitute one for another: dazzle, shimmer, glimmer, glint, glisten, sparkle, twinkle, spark, flicker, flash, glow. Just because a foreign speaker doesn't know the precise meaning of these words doesn't mean there isn't a precise meaning.

In other languages are the same. In one language some things have more synonimous in another less...

For examle, in ancient greek you had minimum four words which are translate as love,
in polish minimum three (which has totaly different menaning as this in greek), in english
two (love and like), but in russian this two are translated as only one.

So in russian it is very difficult to say: I like you... :)

So, which one of thise languages in that particular case
are more developed, and which are more primitive?
The answer is obvious,


As to your second point, there is no up side to being passive and accepting in the face of life's challenges, either for individuals or nations. Saying it's God's Will and leaving it at that is counter-productive. Wallowing in depression is self-defeating. Believing that there is a solution and you can find it is how human society progresses. Do I like everything about modern culture as it is developing? No, I don't. I'm actually quite conservative on social matters, but most decidedly not in terms of science and technology. If some groups or countries want to retreat from the modern world, hugging to themselves ancient modes of living, of being, of thinking, refusing to learn the international language, then that's their choice. I think that in part that's what's going on in the Near East. I suppose on one level it just leaves more of the prosperity for others. It's not what I want for me or mine.

:petrified:

What all of this has to do with the question: which language is better, or wich language is the best for Europe?


Ed. For what it's worth, I love my native language. I read it and hear it spoken (through the computer, and television, and radio) every day. I also still try to read French authors in French. That doesn't change anything that I said.

But that what you like, doesn't change the fact, that some languages are better than others.
If you know this three languages, than I guess, that italian and french are more primitive than
english, becasue you fighting for betterness of english. But on my knoladge it doesn't should be
like that... but if know them and are telling us such a thing... :)

Rethel
27-07-15, 12:57
You somehow don't understand it.
It's not the number of words, or adjectives.
Yes, english is rich in them, but i'm not talking about that.
The enormous vocabulary english has got may be very subtle,
but the language itself is not.

YES, THIS IS THE EXACTLY THE POINT! :good_job:

Rethel
27-07-15, 13:00
Ike, I am very attached to my central heating, my washing machine, my stove, my bursting supermarkets, my quality medications should I need them, a wonderful education system for my children, media presenting every possible point of view, my car. my laptop, my I Phone, my silk blouses and high heels. :) I want them for my children too...well, so far it seems as if my son will pass on the high heels.

And only english, if he will be claiming as the best language of all, can do that? :petrified:

Rethel
27-07-15, 13:10
The concept of "kindergarten" could be expressed as "the school year immediately preceeding US first grade",

Maybe preschool?
In polish we call it like that :)
But it is, as in fusional language should be, a little changed.
Przed as pre + szkoła as schooll = przedszkole.
So, you cannoot be confused, what it means.
In speaking version it even evolved much more, because is pronaucing incorrectly as pshechkole - so you have totally new word.:smile:
This is the beauty and possibilites of any 100% fusional language.



"zeroth grade", or "the very first year of schooling for small children who have not yet advanced to the numbered school year system",

In fusional language on this particular year you can say for example: zerówka :smile:

Rethel
27-07-15, 13:23
There are three critical concepts to consider here:
1) grammar
2) semantics
3) culture
You need at least the first two, if not all three, to "make sense" in any language. You may know, as Noam Chomsky observed, that colorless green ideas sleep furiously. You can't, in any language, simply take words and mash them up together and expect them to be understandable. Human language is about people communicating about complex, nuanced, and often vague human concepts, not about computers specifying a unique and unambiguous mathematical expression.

Yes I can - in fusional or semi-fusional :)

O! I know, now how to show this.

Compare this:

1. Bible God
2. Bible's God
3. God of the Bible

Which version is more primitive and less understandable, and which is not?

For me and Ike, first version is like "Bible, God, etc..."
So it is gibberish.

Like...
Paris Boston Rome Warsaw - what this four words mean?
Nothing - exept, that every one has a different menaning.
If you want put them together as meaningfull unity in this
form, this will be something, what Neanderthals would do.
I'm seriously... it seems like that - maybe english speaking
person cannot see this, but every one else, can.

Rethel
27-07-15, 13:34
if you exclude english because it includes confusing grammar such as "bible god", then you would have to exclude german as a candidate as well because it has the same grammatical concept. The german form of the concept is arguably even more confusing to non-native speakers because it mashes up all of the nouns, omitting all spaces between them. English at least tries to let you know where the boundaries of each component word are.

No! No! No!

German is very precise language, even if he is semi-fusional.

You have ther still forur cases, couple of numbers and times, so, it is much better language than englisch.

Of course, things something like Hottentottenstottertrottelmutterbeutelrattenlatten gitterkofferattentäter
could be see as primitive if they are overexploid, but the semi-fusional structure, make him still not so bad.

It was very good language for philosophers, so...

Rethel
27-07-15, 15:39
Here, http://claritaslux.com/blog/polish-hardest-language-learn

I find very interesting blog about slavic languages.

This blog is a good exaple about what are the fusional languages indeed.
The comentators of this blog form many backgrouds are making good points too.

The author, made some intersting mention; he had wrote:

When it comes to pronunciation, I remember when I first started to study Polish, my own family, who understood
the context could not make out what I was saying. They were use to me still could not understand me. The Polish
ear is not accustom to foreigners speaking their languages so they reject any sound that is not precisely native. This
was not the case when I attempted to speak other languages like French, Spanish, Chinese with strangers.
Basically when you try to communicate with a Pole and your pronunciation is off by an increment, you will
be shut down. Therefore, pronunciation is interdependent on the cultural aspect of language. (...) Grammar
in Polish is hard but what makes it harder is similar to the above, if your grammar is less than exact you get a wall. It is
less so than with pronunciation, but think about how many foreigners speak English poorly and no one bats
an eye. Well in Poland you miss a case than you get a smirk. They are just not use to foreigners speaking Polish.


I cannot say that it is true, but it can explain, why one indoeuropean language going to be primitive, and other not.
My mention about slaves on plantation was similiar to that circumstances described by blogs author. If natives dont
care how foreigners speak, then they themselves are going to speak like they - this could be the cause of pidginisation.

And this picture is very accurate:

http://i2.wp.com/claritaslux.com/blog/images/Polish-language-hardest-on-earth.jpg?resize=500%2C362

...and could be more. In english it would be only one form: polish.
So, which one is more sufficient and developed: fusional of analitic?

Compare to this: analitic: http://claritaslux.com/blog/easiest-language-learn/ :)

I quote:

For similar reason to grammatical evolution, words in English are short. If you have the
average number of letters of in the English language it is like 3.8. That is a short language.
English is a one or two-syllable language and if you can use a three syllable Latin based word
than you are part of the intelligentsia.

:laughing:

RobertColumbia
27-07-15, 16:17
Here, http://claritaslux.com/blog/polish-hardest-language-learn
...
The author, made some intersting mention; he had wrote:

When it comes to pronunciation, I remember when I first started to study Polish, my own family, who understood
the context could not make out what I was saying. They were use to me still could not understand me. The Polish
ear is not accustom to foreigners speaking their languages so they reject any sound that is not precisely native. This
was not the case when I attempted to speak other languages like French, Spanish, Chinese with strangers.
Basically when you try to communicate with a Pole and your pronunciation is off by an increment, you will
be shut down. Therefore, pronunciation is interdependent on the cultural aspect of language. (...) Grammar
in Polish is hard but what makes it harder is similar to the above, if your grammar is less than exact you get a wall. It is
less so than with pronunciation, but think about how many foreigners speak English poorly and no one bats
an eye. Well in Poland you miss a case than you get a smirk. They are just not use to foreigners speaking Polish.
...
:laughing:

You are right about English. Over here in the USA, dealing with people who speak poor, but understandable, English is a fact of daily life and the cultural expectation is that proficient speakers will be patient and understanding. This even happens at the official level sometimes. A close friend of mine passed the English test for US citizenship (and subsequently became a citizen), despite the fact that his grammars in the Englishes is horribles atrociousing.

RobertColumbia
27-07-15, 16:25
...
For me and Ike, first version is like "Bible, God, etc..."
So it is gibberish.

Like...
Paris Boston Rome Warsaw - what this four words mean?
Nothing - exept, that every one has a different menaning.
If you want put them together as meaningfull unity in this
form, this will be something, what Neanderthals would do.
I'm seriously... it seems like that - maybe english speaking
person cannot see this, but every one else, can.

You are correct, the phrase "Paris Boston Rome Warsaw" is gibberish in English. You could, however, speak of a "Paris photographer" (a person who takes photographs in Paris and/or a person from Paris who is a photographer), the "Boston Massacre", the "Warsaw Ghetto", and other things like that.

One way to see if a hypothetical "compound noun" is likely to make sense is to convert it into an equivalent Romance-type phrase using "of". For example, a "Paris photographer" is a "photographer of Paris", which makes sense. A "Paris Boston Rome Warsaw" is a "Warsaw of Rome of Boston of Paris", which doesn't relate to anything in the real world and is likely nonsensical.

Rethel
31-07-15, 20:32
Rethel: I don't think English is better. There is no such thing as one language being better than another. All languages are equally the same as long as they serve a function, and that is to allow communication between peoples. The real reason why one language dominates over others is power. It's all about power. Power determines which language will dominate the world.

Let's look at history: Greek became the dominant language in the 5th century BCE because the Greeks defeated the Persians and they eventually dominated the eastern Mediterranean. The Greeks also created a great culture; and during the Hellenistic Era, they conquered all of the known world at the time (except Western Europe, but had Alexander the Great not died so young, I am sure the Macedonians and Greeks would have conquered it). Then the Romans came in and conquered everyone in Western Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Thus Latin became the dominant language in both commerce and administration. Greek was still used in cultural matters and in administrating the eastern territories. Latin lasted for over 1500 years and Greek for about 2000 years. Both languages were dominant because of the power of their civilizations. If the Greeks and Romans had not become super powers then another language would have been used. During the Middle Ages Latin was used as an international language because people spoke different languages and they needed to communicate. Greek was used in the Eastern Roman Empire until the Turks conquered Constantinople. During the Renaissance nations in Europe began to feel that their languages were just as good as Latin and Latin was eventually replaced and relegated to religious matters. Spain then became the first modern super-power. Spain built such a huge empire and its power was such that everyone in Europe began to copy Spanish customs, dress, manners, and even began to learn Castilian. For example, Emperor Charles I, Queen Mary and Queen Elisabeth of England, Francis I, and Mary Queen of Scots all spoke Spanish. The reason for this was that Spain was not only a military but also an economic and cultural power. After Spain declined the French took over the number one position, and guess what? French became the dominant language in Europe for the next 150 years. When France lost almost all her colonies to England, then English started to become the dominant language, but Britain was always on shaky ground, and it took the defeat of Napoleon to secure English as the number one power. Thus English began to rise as the dominant language of the world. But French was still considered an important language in international diplomacy and culture. However, English did begin to be used more and more in commerce throughout the world. Germany should have taken over the number one spot and German would have become the top language in international relations and trade (even culture). However, Germany was too arrogant and was defeated twice and thus lost its potential number one position. Finally it took the rise of American power to make English the secure number one language of the world.

Thus it does not matter if "fusional" languages are superior to English. It is the power of the nation that determines what language will be the dominant language in the world. If Poland or Russia had become number one major world powers then most people today would be speaking Polish and/or Russian. But alas it never happened. There is also no explanation as to why one language becomes dominant over others. There is no teleological explanation. It just happens by chance. So even though most Europeans might not like English, they will have to learn it in order to do business. There is no other choice.

It is all true Johannes, what you wrote above, but, we were and are (I am constantly convinced of that) talking not about WHY
one language is more spred among others, but which language will be better for Europe as one country. So I supose, that the
reason WHY some language was/is more popular than other is not important.

Try another way. Suppose you are living in the world, were every language has the same popularity, the same number of users,
and you are knowing noone or every one of them. There is no such thing as dominant language or several popular international
languages. There is no such a thing. And you must make a choice - which language would you chose to make him one for all?

RobertColumbia
31-07-15, 23:19
You are right about English. Over here in the USA, dealing with people who speak poor, but understandable, English is a fact of daily life and the cultural expectation is that proficient speakers will be patient and understanding. This even happens at the official level sometimes. A close friend of mine passed the English test for US citizenship (and subsequently became a citizen), despite the fact that his grammars in the Englishes is horribles atrociousing.

One of the features of human languages (as opposed to computer languages) is a built-in tolerance for error and variation. Some arguably "required" details can be omitted (or even misstated) without losing much, if any, actual meaning. For example, if someone walked into a clothing store in Florida, picked up a shirt, showed it to a clerk, and asked "What is this shirts is it credit card buying?", the clerk could reasonably conclude that the person wants to know if they can buy that shirt with a credit card and answer that question (as opposed to trying to obsessive-compulsively analyze the formal grammar and semantics of the question in order to answer a question other than what the customer intended).

RobertColumbia
31-07-15, 23:22
...
Try another way. Suppose you are living in the world, were every language has the same popularity, the same number of users,
and you are knowing noone or every one of them. There is no such thing as dominant language or several popular international
languages. There is no such a thing. And you must make a choice - which language would you chose to make him one for all?

That's an interesting question! If we can assume that the population is not 100% uniform, then I could see myself choosing a language that is associated with a culture, geography, economy, or political system that I am sympathetic toward. For example, if I like tropical beach weather, I could select whatever language is most common on tropical islands.

Rethel
31-07-15, 23:27
One of the features of human languages (as opposed to computer languages) is a built-in tolerance for error and variation. Some arguably "required" details can be omitted (or even misstated) without losing much, if any, actual meaning. For example, if someone walked into a clothing store in Florida, picked up a shirt, showed it to a clerk, and asked "What is this shirts is it credit card buying?", the clerk could reasonably conclude that the person wants to know if they can buy that shirt with a credit card and answer that question (as opposed to trying to obsessive-compulsively analyze the formal grammar and semantics of the question in order to answer a question other than what the customer intended).

Ok, but the thing is, that there was some factors, which changed very good PIE,
quite good pra-germanic language into present day english, which is something
like "Friday's" language from Robinson Crusoe compere to his predecessors... :)

Rethel
31-07-15, 23:31
That's an interesting question! If we can assume that the population is not 100% uniform, then I could see myself choosing a language that is associated with a culture, geography, economy, or political system that I am sympathetic toward. For example, if I like tropical beach weather, I could select whatever language is most common on tropical islands.

Yeah, that would be condition for Europe - and obvious choice is one from IE
languages or new one who based on that languages. I wanted mention this,
but I had thought, that it could be to complicate. So, if we are taking only
languages for consideration, which one? Analitic or fusional? Aglutinative? :)

Johannes
02-08-15, 03:20
It is all true Johannes, what you wrote above, but, we were and are (I am constantly convinced of that) talking not about WHY
one language is more spred among others, but which language will be better for Europe as one country. So I supose, that the
reason WHY some language was/is more popular than other is not important.

Try another way. Suppose you are living in the world, were every language has the same popularity, the same number of users,
and you are knowing noone or every one of them. There is no such thing as dominant language or several popular international
languages. There is no such a thing. And you must make a choice - which language would you chose to make him one for all?

OK Rethel: then in your opinion what language will be the best for Europe? Polish? Slavic languages have very little power. I doubt it anyone will accept them. How about French? What about German? It's the most powerful economy in Europe? What about Italian or Spanish? What will be a good compromise?

I have a question: If German is a fusional language, then why is English primitive? I know English made a change in the 19th century into a more analytical form. So why did it become "non-fusional" or primitive in your opinon??? I am still not convinced that English is so primitive as you state.

Johannes
02-08-15, 03:37
Hmmm.... so... which is more difficult to learn: more primitive or more complicated language? :)



http://m.natemat.pl/752bfbd894a97adf248a87e72edb999d,640,0,0,0.jpg

First of all I dont know where you got this pyramid. It is probably from Poland? From what I know Chinese is the most difficult language, followed by Russian (which will include most Slavic languages), then Greek, Arabic, and Scandinavian. I would imagine Hungarian, Estonian, and Finnish are next. As far as "primitive" I think all Slavic, Hungrian, Japanese, and Chinese languages sound very primitive. So why are they so advanced?

RobertColumbia
02-08-15, 14:59
First of all I dont know where you got this pyramid. It is probably from Poland? From what I know Chinese is the most difficult language, followed by Russian (which will include most Slavic languages), then Greek, Arabic, and Scandinavian. I would imagine Hungarian, Estonian, and Finnish are next. As far as "primitive" I think all Slavic, Hungrian, Japanese, and Chinese languages sound very primitive. So why are they so advanced?

They probably sound "primitive" to you because you do not understand them.

Johannes
02-08-15, 15:13
They probably sound "primitive" to you because you do not understand them.

Yes of course: but I have had many Chinese, Japanese, Russian/Ukrainian, and other students/teachers tell me that English has a beautiful sound (also French). Those other languages sound primitive to me. Have you heard Hungarian spoken?

Rethel
08-08-15, 00:03
OK Rethel: then in your opinion what language will be the best for Europe? Polish?

It could be a new creating language based on some good developed indoeuropean language(s).
The more causes, times, inflections, phonemes, numerals, tenses etc the better. :smile:

If you asking of already known languages: latin, polish, lithuanian, churchslavonic.

But polish it seems that has the most developed phonetic and inflection.
Mabe Tomenable can better compare him to lithuanian...


Slavic languages have very little power.

Almost 50% of european polulation... very little... :laughing:


I doubt it anyone will accept them. How about French? What about German? It's the most powerful economy in Europe? What about Italian or Spanish? What will be a good compromise?

As you show us, romanic languages are on the same level as english.

Germanic is very last from the best... :smile:


I have a question: If German is a fusional language, then why is English primitive?

German is halffusional, but still have some good qualities, maybe beacause of
philosofers, who need a good and precise language in preavious centuries.

Why english not? Because he is not so developed as German. This is simple :smile:


I know English made a change in the 19th century into a more analytical form. So why did it become "non-fusional" or primitive in your opinon??? I am still not convinced that English is so primitive as you state.

We allready expalined it to you - I, Ike and
Robert. I don't know how to explain it better.
As I said before - this is like explaining colours
to some one, who never saw them. Return to
previous posts and read them again, maybe
you get it, if you will not try defend english by
any cost :) You probaby read Robinson Crusoe.
So... read it again and focuse on "Fryday" and
his english - for us english seems like that :smile:

Rethel
08-08-15, 00:07
First of all I dont know where you got this pyramid. It is probably from Poland?

Not at all... :smile:

From here: http://claritaslux.com/blog/the-hardest-language-to-learn/

This is english native speaking man. :smile:


From what I know Chinese is the most difficult language, followed by Russian (which will include most Slavic languages), then Greek, Arabic, and Scandinavian. I would imagine Hungarian, Estonian, and Finnish are next. As far as "primitive" I think all Slavic, Hungrian, Japanese, and Chinese languages sound very primitive. So why are they so advanced?

You describe the defficulty of languages by defficulties of alphabets... :smile:


As far as "primitive" I think all Slavic, Hungrian, Japanese, and Chinese languages sound very primitive. So why are they so advanced?

What it means "soud primitive"?:thinking:

Polish (and probably every slavic) has more phonems than english... so how can sound primitive?

Hawayan can sound primitive because has something between 12 and 15 phonems at all...

Arabic has only 3 vowels... so can sound primitive...

RobertColumbia
09-08-15, 05:05
...I know English made a change in the 19th century into a more analytical form. So why did it become "non-fusional" or primitive in your opinon??? I am still not convinced that English is so primitive as you state.

English underwent nearly no changes in the 19th and 20th centuries. Late 18th and early 19th century books can be picked up and read by nearly anyone who can read ordinary 21st century English. The synthetic to analytical shift that you are thinking of, I believe, happened in the 11th and 12th centuries as Old English became Middle English, a language with a grammar that is very similar to today's English and even more similar to Elizabethan/Shakespearean English.

Johannes
11-08-15, 02:18
English underwent nearly no changes in the 19th and 20th centuries. Late 18th and early 19th century books can be picked up and read by nearly anyone who can read ordinary 21st century English. The synthetic to analytical shift that you are thinking of, I believe, happened in the 11th and 12th centuries as Old English became Middle English, a language with a grammar that is very similar to today's English and even more similar to Elizabethan/Shakespearean English.

It could not have been 11th or 12th centuries because the Normans invaded and English was the same as Old Anglo-Saxon. It took 300 years for Anglo-Saxon and Norman French to develop into what we know as English. It would have been more towards the 15th-16th centuries that English began to change into what is it is today. If you read Chaucer it is still heavy with old Germanic mixed with French.

Johannes
11-08-15, 02:56
It could be a new creating language based on some good developed indoeuropean language(s). The more causes, times, inflections, phonemes, numerals, tenses etc the better. :smile: If you asking of already known languages: latin, polish, lithuanian, churchslavonic.

But polish it seems that has the most developed phonetic and inflection. Mabe Tomenable can better compare him to lithuanian...

As you show us, romanic languages are on the same level as english. Germanic is very last from the best... :smile: German is halffusional, but still have some good qualities, maybe beacause of philosofers, who need a good and precise language in preavious centuries. Why english not? Because he is not so developed as German. This is simple :smile:


This post clearly shows that you are biased and nationalistic. It is clear that no one in Europe would adopt Latin or Slavic (Polish) languages in our modern era. Even if you had a platform where you could try to convince Europeans to adopt a Slavonic language you would lose. :laughing:

Germanic is the best of the worst? What kind of logic do you have in your head? Spanish, French, and English are far better than German or Scandinavian as far as international or diplomatic languages.

German language has caused big problems in the history of ideas because of it's -- as you say, "fusional" structure --, which causes confusion when describing complex concepts or ideas. German philosophers have traditionally been misunderstood because they were poor writers; and I suspect the reason for this is because of the way the German language is structured. :grin:

RobertColumbia
14-08-15, 14:52
...
German language has caused big problems in the history of ideas because of it's -- as you say, "fusional" structure --, which causes confusion when describing complex concepts or ideas. German philosophers have traditionally been misunderstood because they were poor writers; and I suspect the reason for this is because of the way the German language is structured. :grin:

That's an interesting idea, but clearly the German language is "good enough" to keep a society going. If it was literally unusable, then we would either see a societal collapse or a large-scale transition to another language. Do we see this happening? I don't think so. English and French language fluency is common within the German-speaking world, but most people there consider themselves to be primarily German speakers who intend to raise their children with German as their first language.

Johannes
16-08-15, 02:52
That's an interesting idea, but clearly the German language is "good enough" to keep a society going. If it was literally unusable, then we would either see a societal collapse or a large-scale transition to another language. Do we see this happening? I don't think so. English and French language fluency is common within the German-speaking world, but most people there consider themselves to be primarily German speakers who intend to raise their children with German as their first language.

German is perfectly fine if used in every day situations. The problem is when it deals with idealistic concepts or ideas that have a tentative relation to the real world. For example, God, the soul, the after-life, religion, morality, freedom versus determinism, will.

RobertColumbia
16-08-15, 18:52
German is perfectly fine if used in every day situations. The problem is when it deals with idealistic concepts or ideas that have a tentative relation to the real world. For example, God, the soul, the after-life, religion, morality, freedom versus determinism, will.

Interesting. Do you think that the German language could be reasonably reformed to correct those deficiencies, or do you think the problems are serious enough that serious writing should be done in another language? One of the interesting changes that has been introduced into English recently is the adoption of the Spanish adjective libre to help correct the historic difficulty in English of distinguishing things that are free in cost from things that are free in terms of civil rights, in other words, the "free speech vs. free beer" controversy. This means that nowadays one can speak of a town hall meeting with a libre forum (anyone can say whatever they want, free of censorship) and with free beer downstairs (no payment required, but the beer doesn't come with any specific rights attached). The problem has made it difficult to adequately interpret seemingly simple phrases like "free game", which could mean either a game that doesn't cost any money to play or a game that has unusually loose rules on who can play, what game moves or actions are permitted, or what political, social, or religious messages may be used as player or team slogans.

Johannes
19-08-15, 01:31
Interesting. Do you think that the German language could be reasonably reformed to correct those deficiencies, or do you think the problems are serious enough that serious writing should be done in another language?

I dont speak German so I cannot tell you exactly what will be needed to be reformed. But I have read books on German philosophers and translators had almost 100 pages to explain what certain German words would mean in certain contexts in English (a Germanic language!!!).

German is highly complex language and you need to be a native speaker or expert to decipher the meanings. Already in the 19th century Nietzsche claimed that language was the biggest problem in philosophy. He thought that people believed in words that actually had no meaning in the real world, such as, God, hell, heaven, cause, or the after life. God, heaven or hell, or cause simply meant nothing. Why? because we dont know it (we are not cognitive of it). We just believe in it because it is has an emotional construct (comfort). Then after Nietzsche Wittgenstein and the Austrian Circle created Logical Positivism, which tried to get rid of a much words that had no real meaning (such as metaphors or emotional language) to reality and to try to use the most precise words in the use of language. This in turn influenced Analytical Philosophy. All this influenced British and American philosophers and in turn it influenced the English language to become "analytical."

I am sure present German philosophers are more careful in their use of language when describing phenomena that has a tentative relationship to the real world. I see now that Germans are becoming less idealistic (Germans were traditionally extremely idealistic) and are becoming more pragmatic. Whether this is good or bad we will see. However, if a German philosopher will write a book on metaphysics, religion, God, will, or freedom versus determinism, I would be highly suspect unless he uses a rigorous method of eliminating metaphors or emotional language. But then again this seems impossible to do because humans need metaphors!

A. Papadimitriou
17-03-16, 19:17
English would be the most logical choice for many reasons but I would vote Spanish. One thing that I don't like about English is the relatively large number of vowel phonemes and its complex orthography. I was always good at orthography because my native language (modern Greek) also has unnecessarily complex orthography for historical reasons*. But I consider it a disadvantage. Spanish has a simpler vowel system and simpler orthography with a considerable amount of speakers worldwide.

*Ancient Greek had a complex vowel system (5 short vowel phonemes and 7 long vowel phonemes without the diphthongs). Modern Greek has only 5 vowel phonemes (a, e, i, o, u) and a few dipthongs. The changes started when a Greek dialect (Koine) became lingua franca. By the 4th century AD most of those changes had already taken place (the vowel phonemes were 6 at the time) but we kept writing according to each world's etymology. So now we have 12 letters and combination of letters for 5 "sounds".

A. Papadimitriou
17-03-16, 19:23
I meant *word's

LeBrok
17-03-16, 19:48
English would be the most logical choice for many reasons but I would vote Spanish. One thing that I don't like about English is the relatively large number of vowel phonemes and its complex orthography. I was always good at orthography because my native language (modern Greek) also has unnecessarily complex orthography for historical reasons*. But I consider it a disadvantage. Spanish has a simpler vowel system and simpler orthography with a considerable amount of speakers worldwide.

*Ancient Greek had a complex vowel system (5 short vowel phonemes and 7 long vowel phonemes without the diphthongs). Modern Greek has only 5 vowel phonemes (a, e, i, o, u) and a few dipthongs. The changes started when a Greek dialect (Koine) became lingua franca. By the 4th century AD most of those changes had already taken place (the vowel phonemes were 6 at the time) but we kept writing according to each world's etymology. So now we have 12 letters and combination of letters for 5 "sounds".
Well, time for a reform then, and not only in economy. :)
Welcome to Eupedia Papadimitriou.

LeBrok
17-03-16, 19:50
Looking at the poll results, Latin is in second place. Quite surprising, isn't it?

Angela
17-03-16, 20:26
Looking at the poll results, Latin is in second place. Quite surprising, isn't it?


I would say delusional, and I speak as someone who sat through Latin classes for six years. Oh my word, DECLENSIONS, ABLATIVES, DATIVES! Caesar's Wars! (By the end I hated him almost as much as Bicicleur does, if that's possible!) The Confessions of Augustine! I detested that saintly man long before I got to the end of his blasted Confessions. Of course, they hid most of Ovid from us, although that made those works more attractive.

Plus, has anyone stopped to think that there's no vocabulary for much of modern life?

The only sensible answer is English, since it's already the language of the internet, science, even aviation. But then, I'm the pragmatic sort.

A. Papadimitriou
17-03-16, 21:49
Well, time for a reform then, and not only in economy. :)
Welcome to Eupedia Papadimitriou.

It's almost impossible to make that kind of reforms. Because the common people in all counties is nationalistic and resistant to change.
Try to tell, for example, to English and French speakers that the 'silent letters' in their language should be removed. They will not accept it. Changes to written language happen very slowly.
A simple example. We write "through"* and pronounce /θru/ (thru). But although there's no functional reason for that most people would resist to a change in the orthography of the word.
Or we write "write" and pronounce it /rait/. And the list of similar examples is endless.

Languages with smaller history usually have fewer problems of that kind.

*That's a clear case of trying to cheat at Scrabble ;P I am referring to the following youtube video (I can't post links): 1hJQsvoY6VU

Garrick
21-04-16, 17:08
It's almost impossible to make that kind of reforms. Because the common people in all counties is nationalistic and resistant to change.
Try to tell, for example, to English and French speakers that the 'silent letters' in their language should be removed. They will not accept it. Changes to written language happen very slowly.
A simple example. We write "through"* and pronounce /θru/ (thru). But although there's no functional reason for that most people would resist to a change in the orthography of the word.
Or we write "write" and pronounce it /rait/. And the list of similar examples is endless.

Languages with smaller history usually have fewer problems of that kind.

*That's a clear case of trying to cheat at Scrabble ;P I am referring to the following youtube video (I can't post links): 1hJQsvoY6VU

Yes, languages have evolved differently and they have their own history of development and reforms.

For example Serbian language was reformed in the first half of 19th century.

Serbian adopted strict 100% rule: one letter = one voice.

Everyone who knows letters can read Serbian, even he or she don't know any word.

Some languages after that attempting to introduce similar rules, maybe other languages carry forward that way.

LeBrok
21-04-16, 17:17
Yes, languages have evolved differently and they have their own history of development and reforms.

For example Serbian language was reformed in the first half of 19th century.

Serbian adopted strict 100% rule: one letter = one voice.

Everyone who knows letters can read Serbian, even he or she don't know any word.

Some languages after that attempting to introduce similar rules, maybe other languages carry forward that way.
Some languages might be updated on regular bases. I think Polish is such. Every year top scholars update orthography if most people start mispronouncing a word. It becomes a norm, and spelling is corrected to acknowledge it.

Milan
21-04-16, 17:34
Yes, languages have evolved differently and they have their own history of development and reforms.

For example Serbian language was reformed in the first half of 19th century.

Serbian adopted strict 100% rule: one letter = one voice.

Everyone who knows letters can read Serbian, even he or she don't know any word.

Some languages after that attempting to introduce similar rules, maybe other languages carry forward that way.
This kind of reformation was done since Cyril and Methodious 9th century,later with creation of Cyrilic alphabet by their disciples.
The Cyrillic alphabet was very well suited for the writing of Old Church Slavic, generally following a principle of “one letter for one significant sound”, with some arbitrary or phonotactically-based exceptions.
They did great job for the preservation and even spread of language in those turbulent times of European history.

Garrick
21-04-16, 18:00
This kind of reformation or kind of close was done since Cyril and Methodious 9th century,later with creation of Cyrilic alphabet by their disciples,they did great job for the preservation and even spread of language in those turbulent times of European history,when Latin,Greek and Hebrew was known as religious languages,they raised the Slavic language to same status of course with our struggle for it.

Yes, but all Slavic languages have no strictly 100% rule one letter = one voice.

Even some languages have rules for consonants which can be pronounced as soft and hard. For example 20 consonant letters of the Russian alphabet can have 37 distinct consonant sounds

Milan
21-04-16, 23:31
Yes, but all Slavic languages have no strictly 100% rule one letter = one voice.

Even some languages have rules for consonants which can be pronounced as soft and hard. For example 20 consonant letters of the Russian alphabet can have 37 distinct consonant sounds


Early Cyrilic was perfectly suitable for Old Slavic,which even if you spoke today you will choose to write with it,in Serbian those letters that had two sound meaning Latin was added to separate them.
some silent letters were removed in reformation in case of Serbian,Macedonian later i believe,in Russian alphabet they have couple of letters that represents two sounds,Bulgarian Cyrillic is similar.

In case of our Latin alphabet the situation is same one letter one sound.

Garrick
22-04-16, 00:47
Early Cyrilic was perfectly suitable for Old Slavic,which even if you spoke today you will choose to write with it,in Serbian those letters that had two sound meaning Latin was added to separate them.
some silent letters were removed in reformation in case of Serbian,Macedonian later i believe,in Russian alphabet they have couple of letters that represents two sounds,Bulgarian Cyrillic is similar.

In case of our Latin alphabet the situation is same one letter one sound.

Yes, in Serbian/Croatian Latin alphabet is same.

Only difference is what 3 voices in Latin alphabet are 2 letters, not one.

Serbian/Croatian Latin alphabet:

nj, lj, dž

Serbian Cyrillic alphabet

љ, њ, џ

Situations are rare in practice where someone who reads Serbian/Croatian Latin alphabet and does not know good language can come in confusion.

For example:

поджанр

In Latin alphabet someone can read:

podžanr as поџанр what is wrong.

Strictly in Cyrillic written Serbian is 100% rule one voice = one sound but not in Latin written Serbian, but fortunately there is very few exceptions in Latin written Serbian, so it comes down to the same.

Rethel
01-04-17, 12:17
.................................................. ..............

AdeoF
12-04-17, 01:50
I chose English, because as what Maciamo said about the language. It kind of acts like a bridge between Romance and Germanic.

spartan owl
13-04-17, 16:33
Could you explain why? Imagine the amount of words that would have to be incorporated into it to fit with the modern world. I would guess quite a few would have to be borrowed from English. What would you do for television, half from greek, half from latin? Call it a proculvision for it to be precise?
television is actually a half greek- half latin word. "tele" (τηλε-tile)means distant in greek and vision that derives from latin "visio".
So your example is wrong

Diomedes
22-04-17, 16:19
English. The most important parts of our current civilization--science, academic journals, education, business--are using English. Plus the language is very easy.

LeBrok
23-04-17, 01:19
English. The most important parts of our current civilization--science, academic journals, education, business--are using English. Plus the language is very easy.Exactly my thoughts, and half the world speaks English already.

IronSide
23-04-17, 10:42
hybrid. What are the prospects of reviving Proto-Indo-European ? I guess more difficult than reviving Hebrew, much more difficult, but if we take the example of modern Hebrew in not claiming to be an exact replica of it's ancient form, and construct an Indo-European language combining the properties of daughter languages, not necessarily PIE, but close enough, name it Neo-Indo-European, or common European, or the common tongue like in game of thrones.

but seriously though no one is going to implement my fantastical solution, so if there would be any common tongue it would probably be English. I imagine English to be the language of humans if they were to colonise a new planet, or if there was a unified world government. my mind slips into fantasy quite easily these days, must be the exams ...

LeBrok
23-04-17, 22:54
hybrid. What are the prospects of reviving Proto-Indo-European ? I guess more difficult than reviving Hebrew, much more difficult, but if we take the example of modern Hebrew in not claiming to be an exact replica of it's ancient form, and construct an Indo-European language combining the properties of daughter languages, not necessarily PIE, but close enough, name it Neo-Indo-European, or common European, or the common tongue like in game of thrones.

but seriously though no one is going to implement my fantastical solution, so if there would be any common tongue it would probably be English. I imagine English to be the language of humans if they were to colonise a new planet, or if there was a unified world government. my mind slips into fantasy quite easily these days, must be the exams ...
Good luck on exams,,... soon will be over.

ROS
23-04-17, 23:46
Another possibility would be a hybrid between the second Indo-European language of the planet, Spanish which is also a Romance language and German is a Germanic language, although it may already be invented something similar to the English language, as has been said before.

Angela
24-04-17, 01:01
The language of the dominant culture becomes the dominant language. It's the way it's always been, whether it was the Indo-Europeans, the Greeks in the east, the Romans in the west, the Arabs, the Bantus or whomever. It's already happened with English and there's no going back for the foreseeable future.

Coriolan
24-04-17, 05:52
The language of the dominant culture becomes the dominant language. It's the way it's always been, whether it was the Indo-Europeans, the Greeks in the east, the Romans in the west, the Arabs, the Bantus or whomever. It's already happened with English and there's no going back for the foreseeable future.
I agree. The question is, is there one culture in Europe that is dominant over the others? Back in the times of Louis XIV it was France and all European courts copied Versailles and adopted French for two centuries. Then the Germans tried to prove that they could do better than France and could become the dominant culture and that led to two world wars. Now, thanks to America, English is the dominant language, but the UK is not the core of European culture, and indeed the British see themselves as different enough from the rest of Europe to leave the EU at a time of peace, solidarity and common European struggle against Islamic extremism and Putin's Russia. That brings back French and German as the only two dominant cultures, and the only languages with an official status in at least four EU countries + Switzerland (a Schengen member nonetheless, which is more than the UK after Brexit).

Coriolan
24-04-17, 05:56
Another possibility would be a hybrid between the second Indo-European language of the planet, Spanish which is also a Romance language and German is a Germanic language, although it may already be invented something similar to the English language, as has been said before.

Creating a hybrid language is a long and arduous process that comes naturally over centuries. Artificial languages never catch up. Look at Esperanto. Then English is already a good Romance-Germanic hybrid.

And why would any European outside Spain want to adopt Spanish? Castillan as it's called in Spain is just a regional language even in Spain, and the Basques and Catalans could drop it for another second language (perhaps French) if they got their long awaited independence.

ROS
24-04-17, 10:33
Creating a hybrid language is a long and arduous process that comes naturally over centuries. Artificial languages never catch up. Look at Esperanto. Then English is already a good Romance-Germanic hybrid.

And why would any European outside Spain want to adopt Spanish? Castillan as it's called in Spain is just a regional language even in Spain, and the Basques and Catalans could drop it for another second language (perhaps French) if they got their long awaited independence.

I agree that creating a hybrid language is an arduous and even unnatural process, the idea was only spcultive, to discuss about it, it is clear that English and its culture are dominant today and this has no backward, like Says Angela.


The Spanish / Castellano if you want is a language that for some century has stopped being regional to speak on different continents and is currently the second most widely spoken European language after the English on the planet and is therefore a global language.


The speculative idea is not that Spanish is spoken throughout Europe, but that of creating a hybrid between Spanish and the most widely spoken language in Europe today that is German.


As for the internal nationalist confilcts of the countries not only occur in Spain and also I do not understand that they have to do with the above.

Angela
24-04-17, 19:07
I agree. The question is, is there one culture in Europe that is dominant over the others? Back in the times of Louis XIV it was France and all European courts copied Versailles and adopted French for two centuries. Then the Germans tried to prove that they could do better than France and could become the dominant culture and that led to two world wars. Now, thanks to America, English is the dominant language, but the UK is not the core of European culture, and indeed the British see themselves as different enough from the rest of Europe to leave the EU at a time of peace, solidarity and common European struggle against Islamic extremism and Putin's Russia. That brings back French and German as the only two dominant cultures, and the only languages with an official status in at least four EU countries + Switzerland (a Schengen member nonetheless, which is more than the UK after Brexit).

It doesn't matter imo. America is still the dominant force in the world. In the heydey of Rome you spoke Latin whether you lived in Britain or North Africa or Israel.

The world is even more inter-connected and global now. You need English for aviation, the internet, science, medicine, business, the academic world etc. Asians, Africans, Latin Americans aren't going to learn English and a European language, even supposing the Europeans could stop squabbling and agree on one.

This ship has sailed unless and until a new superpower takes over.

Coriolan
24-04-17, 20:42
It doesn't matter imo. America is still the dominant force in the world. In the heydey of Rome you spoke Latin whether you lived in Britain or North Africa or Israel.

The world is even more inter-connected and global now. You need English for aviation, the internet, science, medicine, business, the academic world etc. Asians, Africans, Latin Americans aren't going to learn English and a European language, even supposing the Europeans could stop squabbling and agree on one.

This ship has sailed unless and until a new superpower takes over.
People in the Roman Empire spoke Latin, but Europe is not an American colony yet. And in fact Latin wasn't spoken much in the Eastern Roman Empire, where Greek was the dominant language for administration, and neither were spoken by common Middle Eastern folk.

I don't see the problem with three languages. Everybody does it in Switzerland or Scandinavia, and it didn't turn out too bad for the people.

French is as widespread in Africa as English is. And Indian people have over 20 official languages, so one more one less...

English can remain the international language but that doesn't mean that countries cannot have their own official language(s), even the EU.

In my opinion, speaking many languages is an opportunity and makes culture richer and people more open-minded. We should a name is having a single language replace all other languages. That would be a huge loss for humanity.

Daemon2017
15-07-17, 13:46
I think, that international pan-European language must be Eurōpājóm.

yvesson
25-12-17, 23:23
Hej,
I didn't vote, I don't want a common language for the european union. I want the european union dead and every country or group of people speaking their own languages.

Alcuin
18-05-18, 23:02
I was shocked, that such usefull words, are not useing - but everything is "you" and "your".
thou and thy

Thou and thy mean the same as you and your. What difference would a greater prevalence of two archaic synonyms in spoken English make?


That's exactly why I used it. Because there is no connection, and it makes no sense, but it somehow has meaning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_orange) in English

In Portuguese it is 'laranja sanguínea'
In French it is 'orange sanguine'

Are Portuguese and French primitive languages too?

Most languages have nouns, particularly those pertaining to animals, geographical features, etc that appear to be compounds of unrelated words. A butterfly is not a fly coated in butter. If you are so intellectually-lacking that combinations of familiar letters/words render you incapable of comprehending a new term, particularly something as simple as 'blood orange', then I'm afraid it is you that is primitive.


I showed you this time how many possibilites have other language - how many words can you create and give them meaning by your own.
In the place of retel you can put any other word, native or borrow, it doesn't matter. But from any word you can create millions new words.
That means, that language, who can do this, is more developed, and this one, who cannot do that, is more primitive.

But what is analitical method? Some think like that: John loves Mary

but when I write: Mary loves John, it means totally differt thing.

And when I write: Mary John loves or loves John Mary - that means nothing.

In fusional language, it is always very precize and almost always has meaning.

Jan kocha Marię.
Marię kocha Jan.
Kocha Jan Marię.
Kocha Marię Jan.
Jan Marię kocha.
Marię Jan kocha.

Every construction has a meaning and in all cases means
exactly the same. There is no doubts: John loves Mary in
every cases. And we need for this only one vowel!

So which tounge is more usefull, developed, precise, rich,
clear, understandable and advanced? Analitic or fusional?

If your language allows you to rearrange words in sentences in any form, without the meaning ever changing, then that would strike me as a primitive feature.

Mary loves John - this informs us of Mary's feelings for John
John loves Mary - this informs us of John's feelings for Mary
John and Mary love each other - both Mary and John love each other (platonic)
John and Mary are in love - both Mary and John love each other (sexual overtones)

It's not hard to understand.


This examples are showing, that such construcions are in the neandethal cave level :)
Simple enumerating words which have no meaning

Neanderthals appear to have been rather intelligent and capable of abstract thought. Perhaps that explains why Anglophones are capable of perfectly understanding meaning through intonation, context and the many nuanced words in our huge vocabulary (with its many near synonyms). In England, a person who needs everything spelling out to them in the simplest, most-mathematical of forms would be considered childlike, cretinous or, in your words, 'primitive'.

Perhaps, one day, Poland will achieve relevancy and its language will supplant English as mankind's lingua franca. Fingers crossed!