Live data from Hacker News

The Unsuitability of English (2015)

chronicle.com

121–130 of 319 posts

Re: The Unsuitability of English (2015)

#121

Language is a tool to facilitate information exchange. It doesn't matter how "superior" one language is to another for any given reason, if a language provides limited opportunity to exchange information then it is not valuable. The incentives to learn English exist because the value of exchanging information in English is strong in the present-day sociopolitical context, and the malleability of the language played a…

My main beef is that English is, for lack of better words, imprecise. This leads to many examples of miscommunication that take so longer to unravel.

I speak 8 languages and can tell you it's the same in every single one of them...

Re: The Unsuitability of English (2015)

#123
As my professor once said, "Modern English was invented in the year 1066 for Norman conquerors to pick up Saxon barmaids".

Some history. Old English was a Germanic language (or a loose confederation of Germanic languages), best remembered today for Beowulf. It is a well and truly foreign language for English speakers, as different as modern German is from modern English.

Then, in the year 1066, William the Conqueror invaded England from Normandy, and quickly conquered most of it. A trade patois formed almost instantaneously to facilitate communication between the Germanic-speaking English and the French-speaking Normans. This was Middle English. Unlike Old English, this is cleary English to modern speakers. A reasonably well educated English speaker can learn to read Middle English in a couple of weeks. "Translations" of Canterbury Tales can be found with the Middle English on one page, and a modern English translation on the other. (As an aside, I highly recommend Canterbury Tales. It's one of the most hilarious things I've ever read!) Middle English was the big step toward the messy, hodge-podge grammar and spelling we all know and perhaps love today.

The shift from Middle English to modern English took place during the reign of Henry VIII, famous for lopping off his wives' heads and establishing the Church of England (Henry VIII was the first monarch to reject Catholicism and embrace Protestantism, partly so he could get divorces and partly due to shifting power in Europe at this time due to technical innovations, but that's another story.). King Henry demanded that Oxford and Cambridge, the premier universities in England, start teaching in English rather than the Latin they had used for centuries. Professors were horrified. Give up the beauty and elegant perfection of Latin for that crappy trade patois the peasants use to sell fish and hurl insults? But they had no choice (Henry was, after all, fond of beheadings). So they did next best thing, which was to impose the beauty and consistency of Latin grammar on this crappy French-German trade patois.

("But didn't the Latin roots come from the Roman conquest of England?", some of you wonder out loud. No, it did not. Roman culture had little impact on England during their brief stay.)

One of the key results of this admittedly messy and violent history is that English is an extraordinarily flexible language. It is easy to learn a little, although a challenge to master. For all its terrible spelling, pronunciation, and grammar, English is very tolerant of error.

Another benefit is that English can and does absorb words from other languages, simply by mispronouncing them. Even grammar from other languages can be folded in. It still forms trade patois today - Creole, Chinglish, Spanglish, and other hybrids form whenever English encounters some less promiscuous language. Eventually, these work their way into the mainstream.

It's fascinating. You see disaster? You're welcome to learn Esperanto, a language scientifically designed to facilitate clean communication, that is spoken by no one but nerdy hobbyists. As for me, I'll be celebrating this glorious hot mess of a trade patois, a language that celebrates the complicated and always evolving nature of human cultures in its very bones.

Re: The Unsuitability of English (2015)

#124
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> conjugation and gender are just as complicated Perhaps introducing and pushing a gender-neutral and conjugation-simplified variant of Spanish would've been the way to make it more successful than Esperanto. Los Vegos anyone?

Eliminate gender, simplify the conjugations, deprecate usted to avoid the social awkwardness of using the wrong level of formality . Throw in some loan words from English to expand the vocabulary and keep the Anglos happy (with regularised orthography and conjugations, naturally). And encourage people to slow down when they speak Do all this, and you'll have a very user friendly language that half the world's populat…

>deprecate usted to avoid the social awkwardness of using the wrong level of formality

I'm Spanish and I think it has been months since I have heard "usted". When you are writing to someone you are not very familiar and you want to sound more formal the way to go is to use a "implicit usted", which means you refer to the other person by name but use the third instead of the second person. Anyway, better avoid using "usted" directly, it sounds awkward in almost any situation.

Re: The Unsuitability of English (2015)

#125
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spanish speakers love to tout the simplicity of pronunciation but I'd argue conjugation and gender are just as complicated because they add additional memorization and dimension in order to speak correctly. This is the main complexity of romance languages and was an immediate turn off to me.

Gender is actually a useful layer of redundancy when listening to someone speak. If you miss a syllable or two you can fill in the blanks sometime if you caught the article.

For most situations, having the verb matching in person and number with the subject is enough redundancy. Conjugating also the gender bring the problem that every single thing you can name needs to carry a gender even if the concept of "gender" do not have any meaning.

Re: The Unsuitability of English (2015)

#126
post #8

As a native English speaker who has never learned another language beyond high school Spanish, I often feel sympathy for the plight of those who are forced to learn English later in life. I see many native English speakers with a tenuous grasp on the language, and from that and anecdotal evidence I know that it's a hard language. I remember how difficult Spanish, ostensibly an 'easy' language, was for me to learn. I'…

The one that baffles me is how Chinese speakers (and other tone-language speakers) ever learn to speak and understand spoken English effectively. In English, tones (changes in pitch) are used to imply emotional shadings like sarcasm and surprise. In Chinese, tones are actually different words. It's hard for an English speaker to learn to pronounce tonal langauges (I did one year of Chinese, and my wife has a master's degree in it), but I'm amazed that Chinese people ever wrap their heads around all the unspoken, untaught meaning hidden in spoken English.

Re: The Unsuitability of English (2015)

#127
post #70
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> English overtook French for the banal reason that more people saw more individual benefit of learning it over a long period of time. Add to that the fact that French doesn't tick all that many boxes in the "ideal language" test either. It takes its romantic roots and adds a lot more complexity than does Spanish, Italian or Romanian (and a bit more than Portuguese too). Spanish seems like it would've been the best c…

Spanish speakers love to tout the simplicity of pronunciation but I'd argue conjugation and gender are just as complicated because they add additional memorization and dimension in order to speak correctly. This is the main complexity of romance languages and was an immediate turn off to me.

> I'd argue conjugation and gender are just as complicated because they add additional memorization and dimension in order to speak correctly

I don't think conjugation is such a problem. I'm learning Spanish at the moment and learning the various endings is actually quite easy. What I find more difficult are all the irregular verbs.

On the other hand, I've been learning English for decades and oral communication is still difficult at times.

Re: The Unsuitability of English (2015)

#128
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main beef is that English is, for lack of better words, imprecise. This leads to many examples of miscommunication that take so longer to unravel.

I speak 8 languages and can tell you it's the same in every single one of them...

I speak a couple languages and also noticed imprecision in each of them. What is interesting is where in the languages the imprecision occurs. It often seems to be a reflection of cultural values. In some Asian languages there is great importance placed on age-based social status. So the English pronouns he/she are replaced by pronouns that reflect age rather than gender. So on the one hand they are less precise because they don't indicate gender but more precise because they indicate age. And the titles for family members have many gradations. For example the English word "uncle" - there are different words for father's older brother, father's younger brother, mother's older brother, mother's younger brother.

Re: The Unsuitability of English (2015)

#129
is this even an argument against english? i can't really find the point he harps on about chinese and japanese for a bit (both objectively worse at being a lingua franca in so many ways) and then talks about spelling and pronunciation which i think misses the point entirely as these can be easily fixed with a modified simple english.

what language in widespread use is objectively better than english?

Re: The Unsuitability of English (2015)

#130
post #117
post #106

The central axiom of linguistics is that no language is inherently more expressive than another. Yes, that means that conjugation and declension is no more complicated than strict word order. Grammatical gender provides redundancy, and conjugation allows for subject pro-drop. Orthography has nothing to do with the actual spoken language and things like "phonetic" pronunciation are not really an intrinsic feature of a…

Let's say we pick a random person and make them learn a completely unrelated language. Sometimes they will learn faster than others, like Spanish or Swahili vs English or Mandarin. Why would we expect them all to be the same difficulty?

It's not a question of inherent difficulty, which doesn't make sense to quantify absolutely. It's all about how similar it is to the random person's native language, phonologically, morphologically, syntactically etc... Obviously Portuguese would be faster for a Spanish speaker to learn, since they are very similar in many aspects (in fact, they are both very conservative Iberian Romance languages) than it would be for a Spanish speaker to learn Polish. On the other hand, Polish would be easier to learn than Spanish for a Czech speaker. None of these are objectively more "difficult" or "complex" than one another. They are just "different".
Post reply on HN