Live data from Hacker News

The Awful German Language (1880)

cs.utah.edu

301–310 of 317 posts

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#301
post #140
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 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…

>To make English spelling more "logical" (so people need to remember less useless information!), we should again look to Mark Twain:

>> Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld. (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/twain.htm)

And we should also look to George Bernard Shaw. He proved that, in English, "fish" can be spelled "ghoti":

gh (= f) as in "laugh"

o (= i) as in "women"

ti (= sh) as in "nation"

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's an awesome language An awesome language to learn easily or to express yourself with full capacity? Those could be different qualities...

To continue with my coding analogy... German is like Java (huge, sprawling, full of conceptsextendedwaypastthepointofsanity), English is like C++ (mashed together out of two different languages and made to work, mostly), Khmer is like Go (favouring simplicity over expressiveness).

I wonder Sanskrit would be positioned in that analogy - like Lisp, maybe? Heh. I admit to bias about it, as an Indian and one who likes the language.

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#303
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…

English pronounciation is so irregular it looks like it's written in a wrong alphabet and would benefit greatly from some Cyrillic equivalent.

In Ukraine, we sometimes have these discussions about moving to a Latin-based alphabet. Some even try to come up with their version of it.

It always winds up either as something ugly with a lot of diacritics (like Polish/Hungarian) or having a lot of double/triple-letter sounds (e.g. `sh` instead of 'ш', `ye` instead of `є`, `shch` instead of `щ' and so on).

Thanks, but no, I'll take our 33 funny Cyrillic letters over a Latin alphabet.

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#304
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a native speaker of Slavic language, I've never understood the need for differentiating between "THE table" and "A table" This was a common sentiment I heard from Russian students when teaching them English. The concept of articles is absolutely maddening, I think, when your native language does not have it. I recall trying to teach it with a simple explanation. “I heard a dog walking outside. The dog pushed the…

> “I heard a dog walking outside. The dog pushed the door open and entered.” "THE door"? Which door? Why is "the" there? Seems as yet another case of "tautological article", as the answer is "that exact door that was opened by the dog", so why not just write "[The] dog pushed door open and entered."? No extra information is conveyed by "the". Of course it's maddening since no explanation makes full sense. > I then as…

I’m curious your native language so I can better understand your perspective. Articles convey meaning to me - relatively, perhaps, or specificity. How to use “a” vs. “the” is not taught in schools to native speakers of English. It’s not something that is prescribed by rules. A speaker selects “a” or “the” by what they are trying to convey and a native speaker does not ever question when he should use one or their other based on grammar or rules. Instead, he chooses based on what he is trying to express.

I wonder how the native language you learn as a child impacts the way your brain not only expresses concepts but how it even perceives them.

If I walked up to a my friend, a native speaker of English and said “I like dogs” he’d probably respond with “that’s nice”. If I walked up and said “I like the dogs” he’d probably ask “which dogs?” because the use of “the” conveys that it is a specific group of dogs. In a language without articles you might use “I like those dogs” or “I like these dogs” to call out specificity among dogs in general. That’s great. There’s lots of different ways to express the same concept in virtually all languages. Redundancy in expression doesn’t remove meaning from any method.

My whole point was there is no requirement for articles, many languages work without articles, but just because they don’t convey meaning to you doesn’t mean they don’t convey meaning to someone else. They add specificity and relatively that is subtle yet important within the language, even if it could be accomplished by other means.

I heard another example last night when watching sport news and am curious your thoughts. The announcer said:

“This is not the story of the night but it definitely is a story.” If I drop the articles, it seems I have to re-word that sentence to convey what is being expressed.

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"simple" is not synonymous with "easy to learn". There is some research that suggests that it is easier for adults to learn isolating languages, like English and Mandarin, than it is for adults to learn synthetic languages like German, Russian, or Arabic. In other words, adults are better at learning lists of words than systems for constructing words. The fewer grammatical morphemes they need to learn, the faster the…

> "simple" is not synonymous with "easy to learn". I used simple in reference to "gender+conjugation+declension system of many languages". In that specific context, it does make it easier to learn english than german or spanish. > There is some research that suggests that it is easier for adults to learn isolating languages, like English and Mandarin, than it is for adults to learn synthetic languages like German, Ru…

> English is a germanic language and hence a synthetic language

This is nonsense. Morphological strategy is not a strictly genetic trait. This is like saying "your name is Baker so you can't be a barista". Every other Germanic language is far more synthetic than English, and English is the most analytic language in the Indo-European family.

> and their writing system is notoriously difficult.

Writing is not language. One is an invention, the other is a natural phenomenon.

> In other words "simple is easier to learn"?

No, simple morphology makes a language easier to learn for adults. Complexity can come in many forms.

Mandarin is easy to learn for the same reason that English is easy to learn: the bulk of the linguistic complexity is in the vocabulary, which is easy for adults to learn, not the morphology, which is easy for kids but hard for adults.

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#306
post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"simple" is not synonymous with "easy to learn". There is some research that suggests that it is easier for adults to learn isolating languages, like English and Mandarin, than it is for adults to learn synthetic languages like German, Russian, or Arabic. In other words, adults are better at learning lists of words than systems for constructing words. The fewer grammatical morphemes they need to learn, the faster the…

Interesting! Can you recommend papers on that?

I learned this from a linguistic typology course a few years back, and that professor didn't use slides, so I had to do some digging on my own, and this paper seems to cover all the bases, with a nice literature review to boot:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.0114...

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#307
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…

> As a native speaker of Slavic language, I've never understood the need for differentiating between "THE table" and "A table" This was a common sentiment I heard from Russian students when teaching them English. The concept of articles is absolutely maddening, I think, when your native language does not have it. I recall trying to teach it with a simple explanation. “I heard a dog walking outside. The dog pushed the…

I would add that so many tenses in other languages also feel excessive (there are only three in Russian). And so does using the verb "to be" for the present tense: in Russian it's enough to say "I developer". This and the wide range of diminutives are the best parts of the Russian grammar, everything else is overly complex.

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#308
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “I heard a dog walking outside. The dog pushed the door open and entered.” "THE door"? Which door? Why is "the" there? Seems as yet another case of "tautological article", as the answer is "that exact door that was opened by the dog", so why not just write "[The] dog pushed door open and entered."? No extra information is conveyed by "the". Of course it's maddening since no explanation makes full sense. > I then as…

I’m curious your native language so I can better understand your perspective. Articles convey meaning to me - relatively, perhaps, or specificity. How to use “a” vs. “the” is not taught in schools to native speakers of English. It’s not something that is prescribed by rules. A speaker selects “a” or “the” by what they are trying to convey and a native speaker does not ever question when he should use one or their oth…

I'm not disputing that articles are sometimes useful, indeed sometimes you need "the" or "that" for disambiguation. But in most cases it's [a?] noise that I can't make sense of as in your previous example.

[I seriously cannot decide whether "it's noise" or "it's a noise" is correct in the previous sentence because it makes sense to put "some" in front but putting "a" "feels" wrong.]

> "The dog opened the door and entered."

Why "THE" door? It's not been previously introduced and it refers to the very door being opened by the dog. SUCH use of articles is confusing and nonsensical when set against all of the examples where "the" _does_ make a difference.

Similar examples: "I'm on the phone", "I'm in the shower", "The food is in the fridge", etc. By the same "rule" that requires "the" in these examples, you should be supposed to say "I'm at the home", which is for some reason wrong.

Next, should one use "the" / "a" or nothing here: "I'm at the post office." [Which one? There are tens if not hundreds in a large city.]

I've learned those and many others as expressions by heart, but use of "the" is a mystery to me.

As for "a", I have two simple rules: nouns (usually) cannot stand naked, and "a" is appropriate if "some" would be appropriate as well.

Or, if I imagine a teacher saying: "Today, we're going to learn about the animals that ruled the Earth 100 million years ago."

Why "the" animals? Why did I put it there in the first place? Because if I read the sentence silently, it feels "wrong" without an article before "animals", yet I cannot put "a" since it's in plural.

Or, even more amusingly: why "THE Earth"? We only have one.

Or, contrast with: "that ruled planet Earth 100 million years ago". No "THE planet Earth". Why? Or is it correct to say "THE planet Earth"? I seriously have no idea.

> “This is not the story of the night but it definitely is a story.” If I drop the articles, it seems I have to re-word that sentence to convey what is being expressed.

If you drop articles, it'd be ambiguous in English because it could be interpreted as "This is not (story of night) [i.e., story _about_ night] but it definitely is story."

The ambiguity in Croatian is resolved by declension; "night" would be in genitive case which seems to be the role of "the" in that sentence.

"A" in "a story" doesn't seem to have any purpose (to me).

EDIT: So, that's my perspective. I can't describe it in a better way than listing examples where "THE"/"A" is somehow required (or, worse, it must NOT be there), yet the use doesn't have anything to do with "specificity".

As an amusing anecdote: A couple of years ago I attended a course on scientific writing in English and we had to write an essay. The teacher returned the essay to me, it was full of red ink, and the vast majority of the errors (like >80%) were wrong use of articles (missing or wrong).

EDIT2: As for my native language (Croatian), definiteness is mostly implied. When you feel that specificity is needed because there are multiple potential subjects/objects, you use "THAT/THIS". For example, say you were at an animal shelter and you wanted to take some animal home. If there only were one dog among the animals, and you liked that dog of all animals, you'd say "I like dog, I'll take it home." If there were multiple dogs, you'd point and say "I like THAT dog, I'll take it home."

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#309
post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious your native language so I can better understand your perspective. Articles convey meaning to me - relatively, perhaps, or specificity. How to use “a” vs. “the” is not taught in schools to native speakers of English. It’s not something that is prescribed by rules. A speaker selects “a” or “the” by what they are trying to convey and a native speaker does not ever question when he should use one or their oth…

I'm not disputing that articles are sometimes useful, indeed sometimes you need "the" or "that" for disambiguation. But in most cases it's [a?] noise that I can't make sense of as in your previous example. [I seriously cannot decide whether "it's noise" or "it's a noise" is correct in the previous sentence because it makes sense to put "some" in front but putting "a" "feels" wrong.] > "The dog opened the door and ent…

As an addition to the shelter example: if there were many dogs, and there were only one white dog, you would say "I'll take white dog." And so on...

Re: The Awful German Language (1880)

#310
post #284
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…

For English, aside from do/does useless distinguishment, the lack of a gender neutral noun for a person usually make people write in a way "he/she". You could say, "the person" but it's long. And months should be represented as numbers instead of names in spoken languages too which is easier to use and remember to have a globally common form. Also, as a Japanese, I'm not sure if singular and plural forms make much se…

> For English, aside from do/does useless distinguishment, the lack of a gender neutral noun for a person usually make people write in a way "he/she". You could say, "the person" but it's long.

You mean "they", used as far back as Shakespear?

Post reply on HN