English words that conflict with your language.

[ajaxfetish]

[*]the grammar is so simple, it suffices to learn it at age 90, no need to start as a baby[*]English native speakers normally don't care if anyone uses the language right, leading to an incredibly high amount of bad grammar and orthography among speakers, even native ones[*]English native speakers normally have no clue about vowels thanks to the incredibly ridiculous pronounciation of their mother tongue[*]due to the limited English grammar, it must be really hard for native speakers to learn a foreign language, since these normally tend to have grammar

*English grammar is just as complex as that of any human language.
*English native speakers definitely care about correct use of the language, and are as unlikely to make genuine grammatical mistakes as native speakers of any language.
*English vowels experienced a shift in the early modern period. If the orthography hadn't already been fixed, there'd probably be no confusion between English's and other languages' vowels. It's an artifact of the orthography, as English has basically the same vowels as most other European languages (though our mid vowels are universally diphthongized, and we've got a particularly rich lax vowel inventory).
*Again, English grammar is as rich as any natural language's. The greatest problem faced by English speakers learning other languages is the worldwide prevalence of English. If English speakers felt a greater need to learn other languages, and especially if we started learning them much younger, it would be much easier for us.

It could still drop the inflection of verbs according to grammatical person:

I am
you am
we am
he, she, it am
they am
you am

English syntax is sufficiently rigid that it doesn't require a richer morphology. Most verbs have only one present-tense variant (the 3rd person singular), a random relic, and would be just as clear if that form were the same as all the others. Because be is still highly inflected, it looks weirder to level it, but it would do no more to inhibit meaning.

Ajax

[Azathoth]

*English grammar is just as complex as that of any human language.
*English native speakers definitely care about correct use of the language, and are as unlikely to make genuine grammatical mistakes as native speakers of any language.
*English vowels experienced a shift in the early modern period. If the orthography hadn't already been fixed, there'd probably be no confusion between English's and other languages' vowels. It's an artifact of the orthography, as English has basically the same vowels as most other European languages (though our mid vowels are universally diphthongized, and we've got a particularly rich lax vowel inventory).
*Again, English grammar is as rich as any natural language's. The greatest problem faced by English speakers learning other languages is the worldwide prevalence of English. If English speakers felt a greater need to learn other languages, and especially if we started learning them much younger, it would be much easier for us.



English syntax is sufficiently rigid that it doesn't require a richer morphology. Most verbs have only one present-tense variant (the 3rd person singular), a random relic, and would be just as clear if that form were the same as all the others. Because be is still highly inflected, it looks weirder to level it, but it would do no more to inhibit meaning.

Ajax

God, I need to study linguistics or something.

[pevergreen]

Gaol?

Seriously, what is that!

Guernsey?

What. the. hell.

[Major Robert Dump]

"Drunk Cherokee"

"Frat boy with homosexual tendencies"

"Bingo players in sweatpants"

No, wait, those are redundancies, never mind.

[InsaneApache]

It's a 'soft' G, as in Geoffrey. Not a 'hard' G as in goal.

Anyroad, these days I have all on speaking in Yorksheer. Ecky thump.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

*English grammar is just as complex as that of any human language.

How that? You * don't inflect, conjugate or do other things...

*almost

[ajaxfetish]

How that? You * don't inflect, conjugate or do other things...

*almost

What's your point?

Ajax

[Owen Glyndwr]

Weird has always been a funny word to me. Doesn't it just look so weird?

What I have learned over the years is that there is no most difficult/easiest language to learn in the world. All recognized languages have some facets to them that are incredibly easy to learn, and others that are exceedingly difficult.

For example, grammar and conjugation are for the most part simple in English, however pronunciation and learning to read/spell are both supposed to be rather difficult.

Compare that to Spanish, which has fairly simple and rigid pronunciation, but has a rather difficult grammar riddled with tons of rules and even more exceptions.

French, on the other hand, has a much simpler grammar, (only one subjunctive wut?) but pronunciation and spelling can be rather difficult.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

What's your point?

Ajax

The point is that if I don't have to learn any grammar, there is no grammar, no matter what you say.

It's really strange that I seem to be able to communicate in this language fairly well although I have never made any effort to learn its grammar, whereas my French skills are zero, although I have put the double effort into learning it's ridiculously difficult grammar and orthography.

Compare that to Spanish, which has fairly simple and rigid pronunciation, but has a rather difficult grammar riddled with tons of rules and even more exceptions.

Yeah but the RRRRRRR still gives me headaches even after eight years... the grammar is not that difficult. OK, it's very difficult to be honest, but "riddled with tons of rules and even more exceptions" is a little strong. I mean, their they're there are like no exceptions at all.

French, on the other hand, has a much simpler grammar, (only one subjunctive wut?) but pronunciation and spelling can be rather difficult.

Really? I remember it as the epitome of difficulty. Man how I hated it. Their weird constructions with apostrophs made me sick regularly.

[A Very Super Market]

l'apostrophes? As far as my mandatory French lessons go, I haven't seen them used except for words that start with vowels. Don't start me on "H" being a vowel. That's just weird.

[Owen Glyndwr]

I mean, their they're there are like no exceptions at all.

Look up the rules on the usage of por and para, or the subjunctive, or preterite vs imperfect. I guarantee you, your head will explode.

[CCRunner]

Look up the rules on the usage of por and para, or the subjunctive, or preterite vs imperfect. I guarantee you, your head will explode.

Or the sheer number of different conjugations.... I hate you ir, ser, ar verbs, er verbs, ir verbs, haber, saber, decir, dar, car/gar/zar verbs, 2vv verbs, o-> ue, e->ie, e->i, o->u, ir sole verbs, informal commands, go verbs, and any other verbs I may have missed

[Azathoth]

Look up the rules on the usage of por and para, or the subjunctive, or preterite vs imperfect. I guarantee you, your head will explode.

Or the sheer number of different conjugations.... I hate you ir, ser, ar verbs, er verbs, ir verbs, haber, saber, decir, dar, car/gar/zar verbs, 2vv verbs, o-> ue, e->ie, e->i, o->u, ir sole verbs, informal commands, go verbs, and any other verbs I may have missed

It's not that bad. But I guess that's why I got a hundred in Spanish OHHHH SNAAPPP

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Corro ~~ Corremos
Corres ~~ Corréis
Corre ~~ Corren

Always keep an eye on the accent.

Or the sheer number of different conjugations.... I hate you ir, ser, ar verbs, er verbs, ir verbs, haber, saber, decir, dar, car/gar/zar verbs, 2vv verbs, o-> ue, e->ie, e->i, o->u, ir sole verbs, informal commands, go verbs, and any other verbs I may have missed

There are fairly simple rules concerning that. The great thing about Spanish is that it's logical. The orthography is completely logical, the use of the accents, even the conjugations. The shift between indicative and subjunctive is logical... Once you have seen and revised all the grammar (morphological changes ;)), you'll suddenly understand and be deeply satisfied.

Look up the rules on the usage of por and para, or the subjunctive, or preterite vs imperfect. I guarantee you, your head will explode.

I *know* all this rules. It's the four great dualisms of Spanish, you forgot ser vs. estar. I don't know if there are so many exceptions to the rules. As stated above, it's really quite logical. Also, I believe you can't learn them all, you better get a feeling to when to use what.

l'apostrophes? As far as my mandatory French lessons go, I haven't seen them used except for words that start with vowels. Don't start me on "H" being a vowel. That's just weird.

Qu'est-ce que c'est? (What's that?)
Est-ce que c'est? (Is that...?)
How can you invent such combinations...

[CCRunner]

Always keep an eye on the accent.

I tried to input it directly but that didn't work on the browser, and I'm to lazy to open up word to do it

[ajaxfetish]

The point is that if I don't have to learn any grammar, there is no grammar, no matter what you say.

It's really strange that I seem to be able to communicate in this language fairly well although I have never made any effort to learn its grammar, whereas my French skills are zero, although I have put the double effort into learning it's ridiculously difficult grammar and orthography.

You seem to be equating grammar with morphological complexity. Do you think Mandarin Chinese is an easy language to learn? If so, more power to you, but most of us westerners would not agree. I, for one, struggle tremendously distinguishing tonal differences. Yet English has much more morphological complexity than Chinese, and much more phonotactic complexity, especially in syllable codas. English does not have the morphological complexity that some languages do (including older varieties of English), but like all languages, it makes up for lack of complexity in some areas with greater complexity in others. English phonology is quite complex, including interdental fricatives and highly complex syllable codas and onsets (a single syllable may have three segments in both its onset and its coda), and its syntax is quite complex as well. Word paradigms may be quite easy to pick up; correct word order is likely to cause more problems.

The point of language is communication. To accomplish this it must have a fine balance of complexity, or you won't be able to communicate. Your statement that you are able to communicate fairly well in English is a testament to the complexity of the language's grammar. (edit: and by the way, your written grammar is quite impressive, probably indistinguishable from a native speaker. I'd have to hear you speak to know whether you've mastered English phonology as well as its syntax and morphology)

Ajax

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

You seem to be equating grammar with morphological complexity.
[...]

Yes I was. I didn't know there was a difference. Thank your for explaining that.

(edit: and by the way, your written grammar is quite impressive, probably indistinguishable from a native speaker. I'd have to hear you speak to know whether you've mastered English phonology as well as its syntax and morphology)

Ajax

Wow, thank you very much! Though if you would hear me speak you would be disappointed I think, I haven't actually spoken English a long time. All my practice basically comes from the .Org!

If I were to have been being helped, I wouldn't have come to complain

I must confess that I probably get the meaning of your sentence just 75%. You beat my English skills.

[ajaxfetish]

Yes I was. I didn't know there was a difference. Thank your for explaining that.

No problem. I just tend to get a little excitable on this topic, since I'm making the study of grammar, and especially the history of English, my pursuit in life. Incidentally, German's one of the other languages I'm working on picking up, though I'm nowhere near fluent yet (and I'm not exactly surrounded by German speakers I can practice using it with over here).

Ajax

[ajaxfetish]

How that? You * don't inflect, conjugate or do other things...

*almost

By the way, you're absolutely right that English has an impoverished inflectional morphology. Most of our verbs have just four distinct forms (for instance, jump, jumps, jumped, jumping), though some of our strong verbs have slightly more or fewer. By contrast, classical Latin, a language with a rich inflectional morphology, has I believe about 100 distinct forms for each verb. Other languages blow Latin out of the water. (edit: I understand that Kivunjo has about 500,000 distinct forms for each verb)

But the lack of complexity in that part of the English grammar is made up for in the syntax, with our especially rich system of auxiliary verbs. I can throw out a sentence like

If I were to have been being helped, I wouldn't have come to complain

with a string of five auxiliaries and a main verb in the first subordinate clause. Between them all, I know the verb is subjunctive, non-finite, perfective, passive, and progressive. Replace any of them with a differently inflected form, or change the order, and the sentence would immediately become incorrect. Furthermore, because overt subjects are obligatory in English and the verb and subject agree, I also know the verb is first-person singular. That's some serious complexity. Even with 100 different inflected forms, Latin can't encode more verbal information in a single clause than that.

Ajax