Live data from Hacker News

English is relatively easy to learn, but not to master (2018)

christopherwink.com

111–120 of 330 posts

Re: English is relatively easy to learn, but not to master (2018)

#111
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first language is Russian. I learned English from 12 to 14 to a basic level and from then came to the US and learned the rest of what I know here. Some thoughts: 1. English has a very simple, pre-defined sentence structure. Run-on sentence are discouraged. The language has almost logical decisions regarding the use of the verb “be”. Words are rarely skipped because they are implied. By contrast Russian is much mor…

In English why do you need to say “exacerbate” when you can say “make worse”? Or “defenestrate” when you mean “toss out the window”? The usual answer I hear is that it’s because it makes the language more beautiful and precise. I think it makes it inflexible and inconvenient in the same way that it’s easier to have 26 letters combined in arbitrary patterns than 5000 kanji that each represent one or more things. You h…

Bah, we have this in Greek also. How "cultured" one is can be seen in their speech. In Greek it's not speaking with big words ("exacerbate" vs. "make worse") but how many old Greek words one uses. For instance, pretentious twats that fancy themselves to be educated above the common folk will use words that sound like something Solon would have said to his slaves or Konstantine II to his horse.

Then there's the matter of diacritics. Hellenistic Greek used to have a panoply of diacritics, of two kinds, one kind to change the pitch of vowels and one to indicate a soft or hard sound (occasionally used on consontants, particularly rho, ρ). These could even be combined together to make Greek text something that looked a little like a vim regex. With time, Greek pronounciation lost its pitch accent and the diacritics became irrelevant to spoken Greek. Yet they were kept on in written text until the early 1980's when they were finally abolished from the school curriculum so most people today don't know how to use those. Unless of course they make a point of writing in the "polytonic" system that includes the diacritics, which they will invariably tell you is because "that's more correct". In truth, it's not more correct, it's anachronistic and archaic, but it marks the person out as someone who is e r u d i t e.

So it's not just English, sorry to say. In fact it's easier to see how you'd have classism in the UK, which is, after all, a United Kingdom, with a monarch and hereditary (?) lords and all. In a place like Greece it's harder to justify because there everyone is basically middle class, with small variations- and we booted our last king out in the 1970's. So here it's even more pathetic when people put on airs. In the UK it's more a political thing, they're trying to put you in your place. But in the UK, it's not the language that's the problem, it's that society is rigidly stratified and language is only the symptom of the awful inequalities.

______________

[1] Wikipedia has the works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_diacritics

Re: English is relatively easy to learn, but not to master (2018)

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first language is Russian. I learned English from 12 to 14 to a basic level and from then came to the US and learned the rest of what I know here. Some thoughts: 1. English has a very simple, pre-defined sentence structure. Run-on sentence are discouraged. The language has almost logical decisions regarding the use of the verb “be”. Words are rarely skipped because they are implied. By contrast Russian is much mor…

> In English why do you need to say “exacerbate” when you can say “make worse”? Or “defenestrate” when you mean “toss out the window”? This is the thing about English. Everyone can learn intermediate English, but there's a long tail of vocabulary that comes from other languages. Often you find there's an English word, a French work, and a Latin word for something. You'll then discover that there's some subtlety of me…

You only get defenestrate in quite pretentious literary essays. I'm English and only came across it recently. I think the availability of Google has made that sort of stuff more common writers can use obscure words and rather than have 90% of their readers not understand, now they can google it. English has a vast stock of words like that that some writer probably made up a centuries ago - there's a lot of old literature out there.

Re: English is relatively easy to learn, but not to master (2018)

#113

After talking to people from a lot of other countries (inc. europeans who use English as their "lingua franca"), the main benefit of English is that it's incredibly fault tolerant. It's difficult to learn well enough to sound like a native speaker, but even if you are very far from it, you're still understandable. Think about these phrases: * I go store now * I hungry * I wash car later * I cook food grill tomorrow i…

Not much different than any other language... You can still get get quite a bit wrong and still be understood no matter what you're speaking. You dont even need to conjugate verbs necessarily.

Reminds me of my dad, when he taught Norwegian to Vietnamese immigrants. First time and he was checking attendance.

He called out a name, looked up and saw 20 hands in the air.

He was very surprised because due to the way it was written it should have been only one...

Re: English is relatively easy to learn, but not to master (2018)

#114
post #24
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem that non-native speakers face with English is the pronunciation. There are no consistent rules which can be applied to letter combinations; and that alone makes it hard to master. English is not my native language, but I've been using it for decades. Still have to look up pronunciation. OTOH, my native language Malayalam (and other Indian languages) doesn't really have the pronunciation problem. T…

It's a definite advantage if a language is phonetic (eg German, Turkish) but there are also worse than English. French springs to mind. English pronunciation inconsistencies are really a product of how many loan words there are, when they entered the language (ie they tend to become more regular over time) and what language they came from (eg you see consistencies in words of Latin origin vs Greek origin). Also, at l…

French pronunciation is more consistent than English, by far. Not that it is a high bar. There are more rules (digraph, silent letters and such), which is more complicated initially, but English is particularly inconsistent.

I don’t think words become more regular with time, actually. There are plenty of irregular words of Saxon origin much older than the Norman conquest. This can be seen easily in lists of irregular verbs: there is almost no Latin root there.

Re: English is relatively easy to learn, but not to master (2018)

#115
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first language is Russian. I learned English from 12 to 14 to a basic level and from then came to the US and learned the rest of what I know here. Some thoughts: 1. English has a very simple, pre-defined sentence structure. Run-on sentence are discouraged. The language has almost logical decisions regarding the use of the verb “be”. Words are rarely skipped because they are implied. By contrast Russian is much mor…

The hardest things I found in Russian were the mobile stress - the way the stress on the noun or verb moves around depending on tense/case etc - and the sheer amount of irregularity in the inflections. The vocabulary is smaller though and it's also shared among other Slavic languages - I can get at least the gist of a newspaper headline in Polish or Bulgarian based on my knowledge of Russian, and I can imagine if you…

I'm Greek, so not a Slav, technically, but once I was in Plovdiv in Bulgaria and I realised I could read all the store signs. Not only where they in an alphabete very similar to the Greek alphabet (compared to the Latin one anyway), the words themselves were also often similar. For instance, I remember looking at a grocer's shop and the sign that said "Oranges", which looked very much like "Πορτοκάλια" in Greek.

Normally Slavic languages don't have Greek roots or vice-versa, so I was a bit surprised by those similarities.

>> That all said I found Finnish far easier, consistent and logical, even though it's not even in the same Indo-European family.

Isn't Finnish the language with 50 noun declensions or something mad like that?

Re: English is relatively easy to learn, but not to master (2018)

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first language is Russian. I learned English from 12 to 14 to a basic level and from then came to the US and learned the rest of what I know here. Some thoughts: 1. English has a very simple, pre-defined sentence structure. Run-on sentence are discouraged. The language has almost logical decisions regarding the use of the verb “be”. Words are rarely skipped because they are implied. By contrast Russian is much mor…

> Where the drudgery of English comes in is vocabulary. Anyone that tells you that the SATs are not biased towards native speakers is full of putrescible waste. How much of Russian's vocabulary is "native"? My understanding it that English's vocabulary is pretty messed up because it's a mongrel language: Germanic substrate with substantial portions replaced or augmented by medieval French, with lots of Greek/Latinate…

> How much of Russian's vocabulary is "native"?

I don't know either percentage estimation or comparison with other languages, but significant portion of Russian common vocabulary comes from other languages. Major influences are Greek, Tatar, Turkish, latter, French, and, most recent, English.

Re: English is relatively easy to learn, but not to master (2018)

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Angloexceptionalism" really gets on my nerves to no end, and the worst part of it is that it seems it's mainly anglophone monolinguals that are making these outrageous claims, like English being intrinsically superior to other languages or being exceptionally easy to learn. Sure, English is really damn useful, but the grand scheme of things it's no more fit to be the global lingua franca than say Mandarin or Hungari…

As a Hungarian speaker who also knows other languages, I think there is indeed a difference. To construct even quite basic sentences in Hungarian you have to learn much more rules than to do the same for English. At a basic level English feels like just putting words next to one another. I mean basics like "I go in the house. You eat dinner." To say these in Hungarian as a beginner you'd have to either rote learn stu…

As a learner of Hungarian: the Hungarian syntax feels like you take a sentence in English and then read it word by word backwards.

Re: English is relatively easy to learn, but not to master (2018)

#118
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can kind of do the same thing in English: Those fuckers fucked everything up and then promptly fucked off to fuck knows where.

Can you make it with other words? Like "cunt". Эти распиздяи много пиздят, надо их отпиздить. Those lazy guys talk too much, we have to beat them. Btw fuck = ебать. Эти ебанутые совсем ебанулись, я бы их ёбнул, заебали они меня. Those crazy guys have gone completely mad, I would beat them, they annoyed me. Russian filthy language is like a sub-language inside a language, I don't think that normal words could be used…

> Эти распиздяи много пиздят, надо их отпиздить.

BTW, the meaning of phrase above completely changes, depending on where you put stress in the highlighted word. :) With both readings completely legit.

Re: English is relatively easy to learn, but not to master (2018)

#119
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can kind of do the same thing in English: Those fuckers fucked everything up and then promptly fucked off to fuck knows where.

Can you make it with other words? Like "cunt". Эти распиздяи много пиздят, надо их отпиздить. Those lazy guys talk too much, we have to beat them. Btw fuck = ебать. Эти ебанутые совсем ебанулись, я бы их ёбнул, заебали они меня. Those crazy guys have gone completely mad, I would beat them, they annoyed me. Russian filthy language is like a sub-language inside a language, I don't think that normal words could be used…

Those buggers buggered everything up and then buggered off to buggery. (Australian here, this version sounds slightly more natural than the 'fuck' version.)

Re: English is relatively easy to learn, but not to master (2018)

#120

> The “-ing” progressive form of present tense (“I am reading”) is unique to English from other European languages (in French “Je mange” can be translated as both “I eat” and “I am eating.”) Huh? We have the same construction in Spanish, which is another European language. "I read" -> "[yo] leo"; "I am reading" -> "[yo] estoy leyendo".

It didn't say you can't express the same thing. Of course you can. The point was the present progressive tense is unique to English. Also, the translation of present progressive in English is more often than not simple present in Romance languages. I only know French but, example "I am eating" would be "je mange" in most contexts. The French way to express progressive, as "je suis en train de manger" is relatively uncommon.

I typed the following out in reply to a similar and now deleted comment about German having "Ich bin am essen" etc.:

It's not a boring detail and you're missing the point.

In the examples given in French, German and Spanish, the primary verb is "to be". That is to say, you are primarily expressing your current state. The tense is present. You are expressing your current state and in particular what you are currently doing.

In English, present progressive is a first-class tense. When I say "I'm eating a sandwich", the primary verb is "to eat". I'm telling you my current state as a side effect only. The correct translation in French would be "je mange un sandwich". If the sentence was "I can't come because I'm eating a sandwich", the translation would probably be different.

We also use the same tense to express future or an intention, e.g. "I'm going to town tomorrow", and more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_continuous

It's odd to to see people disputing the uniqueness of the present progressive tense in English. It's very well known amongst scholars and teachers. It's one of the very first things anyone learning English has to learn and, conversely, one of the first things an English speaker needs unlearn when learning a foreign language.

Post reply on HN