Live data from Hacker News

The Awful German Language (1880)

cs.utah.edu

221–230 of 317 posts

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#221
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I scratch my head at a society that makes its members memorize such useless information. Such a weird perspective on language and on the agency of societies. There are tons of "useless" things in any language. For instance, why not get rid of all the tenses in English? Do we really need the past progressive? To make English spelling more "logical" (so people need to remember less useless information!), we should ag…

You're attacking a straw man. Language is dynamic and cannot be controlled. Writing needs to be adapted to fit that. In English, the writing has become detached from the writing to the point where it is not possible to write a word upon hearing it the first time or to pronounce it upon reading it. This is unnecessary and could be fixed.

> This is unnecessary and could be fixed.

Fixed how? By revising the orthography to accurately reflect pronunciation? (If so, whose?) Some English words have major variations in pronunciation in different regions (of the world, or indeed just of England). Should the revised spellings differ between regions?

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#222
post #145
post #73

English grammar is far simpler than German grammar. Eliminating noun genders, declensions, and cases (as English does) is a great simplification over German. I've never understood the need for noun genders and I scratch my head at a society that makes its members memorize such useless information. That said, German pronunciation is more regular than English pronunciation. Every letter combination is in most cases pro…

> I've never understood the need for noun genders As a native speaker of Slavic language, I've never understood the need for differentiating between "THE table" and "A table". It's useless and clear from the context what is meant (note that both are different from "THIS/THAT table", which I do NOT deem useless.) For English and Norwegian, I've learned grammatical rules that cover ca 80% of use-cases, the rest is gues…

I'm a German learning czech and have the opposite problem: the czech (and probably other slavic languages) still have those articles but mostly leave them away. I'm never really sure, when you still need to use them:

* ten/ta/to = der/die/das (the)

* nějaký/nějaká/nějaké = (irgend-)ein/eine/ein (a, some)

In my course there's the example “nějaká paní se ptá na cestu" (A woman asks for the way). Not sure what is different if the nějaká is left out.

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#223
post #182

As a native speaker I can confirm the observations of Mark Twain. What is ignored in such humorous tirades is that every human speaker will push information density to the very limit of understandability. In every language. They will use all the tools available. Sure, the German case system is getting weaker as the centuries go by. And in some situations you will wonder why it's used still. But that doesn't mean the…

There are definitely languages which are a lot easier to learn than English or German, like Malay. It has a simple grammar and no intonations, so you should be able to speak properly after 2 months full time study. I'm pretty sure you can learn most of the language within a year, faster if you are exposed to other native speakers.

Most of the effort spent in learning a language isn't mastery of pronunciation or grammar, but memorization of vocabulary.

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#224
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm curious how you can figure out from context whether you can figure out something from context. Erm, memory? You remember whether something has been introduced or not. Take a hypothetical phone conversation, an example that nobody has managed to explain to me satisfactorily: A: "Where are you?" B: "I'm in [the/a/(nothing)] shower." People tell me that "the" is the correct thing to use. But A is none the wiser; B…

> Erm, memory? You remember whether something has been introduced or not. Not a very reliable tool. At least "bring THE table" introduces some error correction in the sentence. - "Come by the shop tomorrow. And bring THE table". (confused by the explicit "THE", the error correction kicks in:) - "Huh? What table?" - "The one we talked about last week on the phone", - "A, yes!"

> Not a very reliable tool.

Exactly. Alternatively (note the missing "THE")

> "Come by the shop tomorrow. And bring table"

then, confused by seemingly nonsensical request of bringing some table along [why "some" -- because he doesn't remember the earlier conversation]: "Huh? Why, what table?"

As rytis pointed out, if the "sender" wants to emphasize the context, he'd say "And bring THAT table."

On the other hand, if the sender and receiver are thinking of a particular, but _different_ table, neither "table", nor "THE table", nor "THAT table" helps. (E.g., the receiver has one table that needs painting and one that needs to have its leg replaced, where "the" for the sender is the first and for the receiver the second table.)

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#225
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I scratch my head at a society that makes its members memorize such useless information. Such a weird perspective on language and on the agency of societies. There are tons of "useless" things in any language. For instance, why not get rid of all the tenses in English? Do we really need the past progressive? To make English spelling more "logical" (so people need to remember less useless information!), we should ag…

It's the “agency of societies” that helped English lose its gendered nouns. One theory is that Old English society found them useless because there was overlap between endings, causing noun ending inflection to “collapse” into a single neutral form, which started in the North of England and progressed to the South.[1] Societal changes are already influencing gendered nouns in Germany[2]. Some dialects of German (Nied…

> "I've spoken with Austrian natives [...] who admit that it feels increasingly old fashioned to them. "

I can guarantee you, that your sample of Austrian natives is not representative of the majority of native speakers. Not even remotely. As a native speaker you will barely notice it, unless foreigners remind you of it.

> "To me it seems entirely reasonable to call gendered nouns “useless”, and to see them as a burden on a language and a society."

I can hardly imagine a force strong enough to change the way people speak to such a fundamental degree, as would be the removal of noun genders in German.

Advocating such force comes with a stench: It may have more todo with projecting power over the people you interact with and less with interacting itself. Which is why proponents of gender-neutral language in German often fail to not come across as snobbish. Which is why the only people in German speaking countries that speak gender-neutral are politicians or ideologues in academia.

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#226
post #73

English grammar is far simpler than German grammar. Eliminating noun genders, declensions, and cases (as English does) is a great simplification over German. I've never understood the need for noun genders and I scratch my head at a society that makes its members memorize such useless information. That said, German pronunciation is more regular than English pronunciation. Every letter combination is in most cases pro…

[deleted]

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#227
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "THE table" and "A table". It's useless and clear from the context what is meant "Bring the table", "Bring a table". Do I ask you to bring some table we've already talked about or I can expect you to remember the reference to, or do I ask you to bring any table because any table will do? "Clear from the context" is a low bar. In languages, as in parsers, we should avoid it if we can.

Careful what you wish for. Many languages are much more specific than English, but you don't think that English has a problem there, do you? For example, why not introduce gendered nouns - they often help to clarify references? "The door and the window are open." - "Well, close es (= das window)" vs "Well, close sie (= die door)". Other languages indicate evidentiality (that is, how a speaker learned about something)…

>Careful what you wish for. Many languages are much more specific than English, but you don't think that English has a problem there, do you?

I might do. But I don't wish to add my static preconceptions upon an evolutionary evolving thing like language and its linguistic community.

That said, I speak a language with gendered nouns, and they're fine.

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#228
post #182

As a native speaker I can confirm the observations of Mark Twain. What is ignored in such humorous tirades is that every human speaker will push information density to the very limit of understandability. In every language. They will use all the tools available. Sure, the German case system is getting weaker as the centuries go by. And in some situations you will wonder why it's used still. But that doesn't mean the…

English is not easy:

Dearest creature in creation, Study English pronunciation. I will teach you in my verse Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse. I will keep you, Suzy, busy, Make your head with heat grow dizzy. Tear in eye, your dress will tear. So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.

Just compare heart, beard, and heard, Dies and diet, lord and word, Sword and sward, retain and Britain. (Mind the latter, how it’s written.) Now I surely will not plague you With such words as plaque and ague. But be careful how you speak: Say break and steak, but bleak and streak; Cloven, oven, how and low, Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.

Hear me say, devoid of trickery, Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore, Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles, Exiles, similes, and reviles; Scholar, vicar, and cigar, Solar, mica, war and far; One, anemone, Balmoral, Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel; Gertrude, German, wind and mind, Scene, Melpomene, mankind.

Billet does not rhyme with ballet, Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet. Blood and flood are not like food, Nor is mould like should and would. Viscous, viscount, load and broad, Toward, to forward, to reward. And your pronunciation’s OK When you correctly say croquet, Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve, Friend and fiend, alive and live.

Ivy, privy, famous; clamour And enamour rhyme with hammer. River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb, Doll and roll and some and home. Stranger does not rhyme with anger, Neither does devour with clangour. Souls but foul, haunt but aunt, Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant, Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger, And then singer, ginger, linger, Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge, Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age.

Query does not rhyme with very, Nor does fury sound like bury. Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth. Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath. Though the differences seem little, We say actual but victual. Refer does not rhyme with deafer. Foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer. Mint, pint, senate and sedate; Dull, bull, and George ate late. Scenic, Arabic, Pacific, Science, conscience, scientific.

Liberty, library, heave and heaven, Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven. We say hallowed, but allowed, People, leopard, towed, but vowed. Mark the differences, moreover, Between mover, cover, clover; Leeches, breeches, wise, precise, Chalice, but police and lice; Camel, constable, unstable, Principle, disciple, label.

Petal, panel, and canal, Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal. Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair, Senator, spectator, mayor. Tour, but our and succour, four. Gas, alas, and Arkansas. Sea, idea, Korea, area, Psalm, Maria, but malaria. Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean. Doctrine, turpentine, marine.

Compare alien with Italian, Dandelion and battalion. Sally with ally, yea, ye, Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key. Say aver, but ever, fever, Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver. Heron, granary, canary. Crevice and device and aerie.

Face, but preface, not efface. Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass. Large, but target, gin, give, verging, Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging. Ear, but earn and wear and tear Do not rhyme with here but ere. Seven is right, but so is even, Hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen, Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk, Ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.

Pronunciation — think of Psyche! Is a paling stout and spikey? Won’t it make you lose your wits, Writing groats and saying grits? It’s a dark abyss or tunnel: Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale, Islington and Isle of Wight, Housewife, verdict and indict.

Finally, which rhymes with enough — Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough? Hiccough has the sound of cup. My advice is to give up!!!

(Apparently excerpted from The Chaos by Gerard Nolst Trenité.)

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#229
post #222
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've never understood the need for noun genders As a native speaker of Slavic language, I've never understood the need for differentiating between "THE table" and "A table". It's useless and clear from the context what is meant (note that both are different from "THIS/THAT table", which I do NOT deem useless.) For English and Norwegian, I've learned grammatical rules that cover ca 80% of use-cases, the rest is gues…

I'm a German learning czech and have the opposite problem: the czech (and probably other slavic languages) still have those articles but mostly leave them away. I'm never really sure, when you still need to use them: * ten/ta/to = der/die/das (the) * nějaký/nějaká/nějaké = (irgend-)ein/eine/ein (a, some) In my course there's the example “nějaká paní se ptá na cestu" (A woman asks for the way). Not sure what is differ…

My native language is Croatian, but...

> ten/ta/to

are you sure it's not "that" (dies(e,es,er)) instead of "the"?

> Not sure what is different if the nějaká is left out.

I'd interpret it as "The woman asks for the way.", i.e., a particular person is contextually implied. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

EDIT: alternately, it describes an abstract event of woman asking for directions. Putting it as "paní se ptá na cestu" would make perfect sense in, say, a movie script.

Say a friend observed you from the other side of the street talking with her, approached you and asked what was that about.

You could say "[nějaká] paní se ptá na cestu" both with and without "nějaká". WITH "nějaká" you'd be emphasizing it was a random woman. WITHOUT "nějaká" it'd be that particular woman he saw you talking with. though, I'd use "she" for describing the event, i.e., "she asked for the way".

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#230
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're attacking a straw man. Language is dynamic and cannot be controlled. Writing needs to be adapted to fit that. In English, the writing has become detached from the writing to the point where it is not possible to write a word upon hearing it the first time or to pronounce it upon reading it. This is unnecessary and could be fixed.

> This is unnecessary and could be fixed. Fixed how? By revising the orthography to accurately reflect pronunciation? (If so, whose?) Some English words have major variations in pronunciation in different regions (of the world, or indeed just of England). Should the revised spellings differ between regions?

> By revising the orthography to accurately reflect pronunciation?

Yes. That's a normal thing that most languages do every century or so.

Of course you have to compromise between dialects, but that's doable.

You could also start by just removing some of the worst insanities.

Post reply on HN