English words that conflict with your language.

[TinCow]

This is a very interesting conversation. It's a particularly odd one for me, because I put a great deal of effort into mastering the English language, but am very poor at speaking other languages. I very much agree that grammar is less important in English than in other languages, or at least in the Romance languages, which are the only other ones I am familiar with. There is a great deal of grammar in English, but most of it is not necessary. Even with improper grammar usage, it is very easy to understand what someone is saying.

One of the main differences, as far as I am aware, is the depth of the Enlish vocabulary. I have seen statistics indicating that English has approximately 3 times as many words as German and approximately 6 times as many words as French. In most other languages, words tend to be combined together to explain a more specific or nuanced concept. While this can also be done easily in English, most of these concepts seem to have their own very specific word as well. In my experience, what separates and experienced English speaker from an inexperienced speaker is not so much the grammar, but the depth of the vocabulary. Those who are considered 'expert' speakers of English tend to achieve that perception based on the words they use, not how they arrange them.

[ajaxfetish]

Those who are considered 'expert' speakers of English tend to achieve that perception based on the words they use, not how they arrange them.

I think this is a good point. Pretty much every native speaker (except those with language disabilities) is going to arrange their words correctly. With the exception of a few prescriptive rules (unnecessary, as you pointed out), the most noticeable difference is likely to be word choice. With English's extensive borrowing from other languages, and its highly productive derivational system, we've got an awfully large set of words to choose from. Mastering the nuances of each term and reliably recalling the best word for each situation takes both talent and work.

Ajax

edit:

Even with improper grammar usage, it is very easy to understand what someone is saying.

This, on the other hand, I can't really agree with. If we take all the words in your post and arrange them without proper grammar usage, the result is incomprehensible, at least to me. I even kept each word in the same sentence to make it easier, but while I might get a vague idea of the topic from some of the words used, I wouldn't have a clue what was being said about it.

Conversation this is interesting very a. Me languages effort mastering but very am other it's particularly poor English the a a odd into for speaking put of deal I great because one at am language. Least am is grammar agree I than the which Romance other in very familiar with are languages languages I at in or in much ones only important English that less the other. In but necessary there grammar English is not great most is it a of deal of. Easy someone with is very improper grammar understand is what saying usage even to it.


Vocabulary differences aware depth English main far I is of the one as of am the the as. Times 6 as I indicating French German English approximately and 3 have approximately words seen many statistics has times many that as words as as. A to be to most or in more other languages combined words tend explain concept specific together nuanced. Have concepts this can in English specific their most easily also done be of seem word these while very as own to well. Separates experience English experienced speaker inexperienced in my grammar depth but what the vocabulary speaker from so much the an and is not of the. Considered to based words on 'expert' English achieve perception how those speakers of tend who use not arrange they the are that they them.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Why do I think of Scandinavia when I read that garbled post??

(Or more precisely: why does the cadence of the garbled post make me think of Scandinavian languages?)

[Viking]

Why do I think of Scandinavia when I read that garbled post??

(Or more precisely: why does the cadence of the garbled post make me think of Scandinavian languages?)

I can't think of any reason..

[Fragony]

Why do I think of Scandinavia when I read that garbled post??

Same reason I do, think of Scandinavian women all the time.

[Ironside]

Why do I think of Scandinavia when I read that garbled post??

(Or more precisely: why does the cadence of the garbled post make me think of Scandinavian languages?)

Most likely is that it reminds you of the parodied versions they have in English speaking media.

The only thing I can think of is that scandinavian grammar is often the same as the English one, but using constant direct translations would occationally give sentences with odd grammar.

[TinCow]

This, on the other hand, I can't really agree with. If we take all the words in your post and arrange them without proper grammar usage, the result is incomprehensible, at least to me. I even kept each word in the same sentence to make it easier, but while I might get a vague idea of the topic from some of the words used, I wouldn't have a clue what was being said about it.

LOL, you've got me there. Clearly there are some levels of grammatical butchery which make English essentially incomprehensible. What I was imagining were the numerous grammatical errors which are common in people who are still in the early phases of learning or who have otherwise not learned the language properly. It seems like it would be almost impossible to know enough English words to actually use the proper ones, yet know so little of the structure that you speak gibberish. The paragraph you altered seems like something that would only be encountered in someone who had suffered damage to the language section of the brain, not something that would ever be encountered in an otherwise normal person.

That said, I don't have a lot of experience to base any of this on. One of my friends teaches adult literacy, and he's told me about some amazing difficulties that his students encounter which are almost inconceivable for those of us who learned to read when we were young.

[ajaxfetish]

The paragraph you altered seems like something that would only be encountered in someone who had suffered damage to the language section of the brain, not something that would ever be encountered in an otherwise normal person.

Very true. You're really only ever going to run into that kind of serious grammatical deficiency in people who never learned a first language (deaf people not exposed to signing until teenagers or later, abused children isolated until the same age), people who've suffered strokes or otherwise damaged the language-related parts of the brain, and people with (probably heritable) language impairments.

What I was imagining were the numerous grammatical errors which are common in people who are still in the early phases of learning or who have otherwise not learned the language properly.

I know what you mean here, but I'd argue that those aren't errors, but features of non-standard dialects/ideolects. When it comes to language, the early phases of learning are 1.5 to 2.5 years. By 3 years old, the grammar is pretty much known. Rules that have to be drilled later are not a part of the language itself, but artificial add-ons. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not important to observe them in certain social settings, because a lot of how we judge people depends on whether they've learned those little add-ons.

Ajax