European Common Language - The Poll

[Johannes]

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]

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.

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...

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...

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

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

 

[Rethel]

First of all I dont know where you got this pyramid. It is probably from Poland?

Not at all...

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

This is english native speaking man.

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...

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"?

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]

...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]

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]

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. 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... 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

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.

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]

...
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I meant *word's

 

[LeBrok]

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]

Looking at the poll results, Latin is in second place. Quite surprising, isn't it?

 

[Angela]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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