Reasons some languages are harder to learn
economist.com
Reasons some languages are harder to learn
1–10 of 215 posts
Re: Reasons some languages are harder to learn
#2Decades ago when I got a degree in anthropology, we learned about a Native American language that didn't share our concepts of space and time. I don't remember the details except they used the same tense for future and dreams, and distances were always expressed as travel time. (That might not sound all that significant but there was more to it.)
Also they tended not to use nouns. They wouldn't say "lightning flashed," just "flashed."
Seems like it was Mojave, not sure.
Re: Reasons some languages are harder to learn
#3Archive.is: https://archive.is/shK4D
Re: Reasons some languages are harder to learn
#4Re: Reasons some languages are harder to learn
#5Decades ago when I got a degree in anthropology, we learned about a Native American language that didn't share our concepts of space and time. I don't remember the details except they used the same tense for future and dreams, and distances were always expressed as travel time. (That might not sound all that significant but there was more to it.) Also they tended not to use nouns. They wouldn't say "lightning flashed…
> a Native American language that didn't share our concepts of space and time
Is this actually true? From a quick look at Wikipedia, it doesn't seem to be.
Re: Reasons some languages are harder to learn
#6Decades ago when I got a degree in anthropology, we learned about a Native American language that didn't share our concepts of space and time. I don't remember the details except they used the same tense for future and dreams, and distances were always expressed as travel time. (That might not sound all that significant but there was more to it.) Also they tended not to use nouns. They wouldn't say "lightning flashed…
There are a fair amount of langages which interestingly break western assumptions about langage logic and reasoning.
A pretty famous example is Aboriginal Australian langages where directions are always absolute (cardinal), not relative. So in e.g. Guugu Yimithirr you'd tell a guest that the food is in the living room on the southern table, rather than e.g. the table to the left of the entrance, or the table in front of the balcony.
In at least some of these langages, time is also cardinal: where most western cultures order timelines left to right, Kuuk Thaayorre speakers do so east to west.
IIRC there are also cultures where time goes back to front (because you can see the past so it’s obviously in front of you).
Re: Reasons some languages are harder to learn
#7When I started learning Chinese the grammar really made think hard about what I needed to say first. Then put it in the right grammar order, then translate the words, which is like a inverted 3D lookup table, sounds/tone/meaning. Memorizing the lookup table which people say is the hard part is actually the easy bit. It’s the restructuring of my thoughts to fit in the grammar. I find English I get you can get away with a lot of thinking while you talk..example; I would generally make up a sentence like this.. “hey why don’t we go for a run, somewhere next Monday maybe around noon, just the two of us. I think there’s a nice track close to my place.” I though of the activity first then the time then the person. Generally that’s how I come up with how to plan activities. In Chinese its subjects, time location, verb. I’m just beginning, but that has been the hardest part for my brain in particular.
Re: Reasons some languages are harder to learn
#8Decades ago when I got a degree in anthropology, we learned about a Native American language that didn't share our concepts of space and time. I don't remember the details except they used the same tense for future and dreams, and distances were always expressed as travel time. (That might not sound all that significant but there was more to it.) Also they tended not to use nouns. They wouldn't say "lightning flashed…
Seems like that language would be incompatible with a modern society and would only really work for a primitive one.
As soon as you can have multiple things that flash or multiple modes of transportation your language would become too ambiguous.
That's not to say the native Americans that speak it couldn't evolve the language to accommodate modern society, I'm sure they could.
Re: Reasons some languages are harder to learn
#9Some examples of language features alien to English speakers:
* Conjugated adjectives, as in Japanese. To say "it was delicious", you need to say "it is delicious-ed" (oishikatta desu).
* Agglutinative languages, like Finnish or Hungarian, where word order is largely irrelevant and conjugations, not word order, determine meaning.
* Topic/subject languages, like Japanese, where previously defined context can radically alter meaning. "Watashi wa hamburger desu" can mean "I'm a hamburger", "I'll have a hamburger", "If you ask me, it's a hamburger", etc.
* Grammatical gender, as in a whole lot of European languages.
* Tones, as in Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.
Here's a fun survey of the "weirdest languages", defines as those that exhibit the most features from the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS):
https://corplinguistics.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/the-weirdes...
Re: Reasons some languages are harder to learn
#10Decades ago when I got a degree in anthropology, we learned about a Native American language that didn't share our concepts of space and time. I don't remember the details except they used the same tense for future and dreams, and distances were always expressed as travel time. (That might not sound all that significant but there was more to it.) Also they tended not to use nouns. They wouldn't say "lightning flashed…
Seems like that language would be incompatible with a modern society and would only really work for a primitive one. As soon as you can have multiple things that flash or multiple modes of transportation your language would become too ambiguous. That's not to say the native Americans that speak it couldn't evolve the language to accommodate modern society, I'm sure they could.
Although it's not quite the same, _pro_noun dropping[0] is fairly common in some languages and even happens in English under some circumstances (generally in either very informal or highly technical communications). In contexts where inference is easy there's a certain logic to dropping nonessential fillers.