Two of my favourites:
- Why do we have guarantee and warrantee that mean essentially the same thing? (Because one word was imported into English from French at two different periods in history)
- Why do we have child -> children, brother -> bretheren (obv archaic but still would be understood by most people) but no other plurals that work that way? You can't say one sister many sistren for example. Even though that word existed in Old English it didn't survive into modern English.
I have heard, I think from a user on here, that crimes are often listed as a pair of synonyms (e.g. "aiding and abetting") because one word was Norman French and the other was English, and the law required both to be understood.
On a similar note, I've heard that the words for animals, like cow or pig, tend to be Germanic while the words for their meat, like beef or pork tend to be Latin.
The food/meat words are actually from French because that was what the aristocratic classes would have spoken in England in the late middle ages/early Rennaisance and they were the people eating the meat for the most part.
Beef <- Boeuf
Pork <- Porc
Poultry <- Poulet
Salmon <- Saumon
Venison <- Venaison
Mutton <- Mouton
The latin words are in some cases the root of the French but it's not as clear or consistent.
Indeed. I greatly enjoyed the recent Jeopardy category, "BOOK TITLES EN FRANCAIS". Essentially, "What is the English name of the novel when given the French title?" I aced it. Can I speak French? Hardly. Has enough Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and other bits of Romantic verbiage seeped into my brain seemingly via osmosis over the course of my 3.5 decades to allow me to read basic French? Surprisingly, even to me, the answer is yes.
Many European languages are interlinked like that. I found learning a bit of Latin on top of my passable English and my native Swedish opened up romance languages to a honestly pretty crazy degree.
Knowing the simple glue-words like demonstratives, pronouns and interrogatives means I can get the gist of it in a way I couldn't before. In a strange way looking at these languages feels like looking like the close relatives of my native Swedish does (i.e. Norwegian and Danish). It's different, but in many cases I have so many of the basic pieces the rest can be inferred from context with reasonable accuracy.
Swedish brought in a big corpus of words from French though (native English, passable Swedish, school French), due to diplomatic relations in the 1700s. So, e.g.
Army: Danish hær, Norwegian hær, Swedish armé, French armée
Ice-cream: Danish is, Norwegian is, Swedish glass, French glace
Arm-chair: Danish lænestol, Norwegian lenestol, Swedish fåtölj, French fauteuil
Window: Danish vindue, Norwegian vindu, Swedish fönster, French fenêtre
(of course, a bunch of French also made its way into Danish and Norwegian as well. And the pronunciation is not always obvious either with French loanwords. I shocked my partner once while waiting at Postnord by saying out loud “Säger man kön (hard k) eller kön (soft k)?”)
Nitpick - some of the variations between Swedish and Norwegian is because Swedish and Norwegian ended up with different words from Middle Low German, i.e. the differences stem back from the Hansa period, and not as late as the French relations of the 1700s. So, "fönster", for example, didn't get picked from French, it's from Middle Low German "vinster" (which became "finster, fynster" and then "fönster" in Swedish). In this case the Middle Low German word replaced the older Swedish word (which did have the same origin as the current Danish and Norwegian words for "window"), but that replacement didn't happen in Norwegian/Danish (in other cases one or both did pick up a word from Middle Low German, but it may have been a different word because the traders in Bergen weren't the same ones which operated in Sweden).
> And the pronunciation is not always obvious either with French loanwords.
Or the spelling. I mean, I know how the letters are pronounced, so I can see that fåtölj is actually a good transcription, but visually it bears no resemblance whatsoever with fauteuil.
I have found that French words that ended up in English were actually quite difficult to recognise in a conversation, even though they are written exactly as in French most of the time.
I guess it’s related to the great vowel shift (but not only, even consonants are weird), but English really is weird compared to a lot of continental European languages. For example, a /r/ sounds like a /r/ in anything from Spanish to Finnish. Granted, there are differences in prononciation, but it is still not distorted beyond recognition. Nothing that comes close to the utterly bizarre prononciation of the /r/ in /iron/.
A lot of it is also due to French pronunciation changes. There are many "french" loan words where the english version is much closer to the original french than the modern french pronunciation is -oyster for example.
Then again several of the more obviously "french" words are drifting the other way as people assume they should be pronounced like modern french - valet is a great example here where most english people now drop the final 't'
Also highly recommended, John McWhorter's podcast, Lexicon Valley. Not only English, but also dives into other languages and why they are so. Edit: add older episode archives at Slate,
Would like to “fix” the issue with the first few numbers after 10. They make it much harder to teach a young child the concept of base ten counting. Would be much easier if we would replace “ten” by “teny” then “eleven” -> “teny-one” etc.
I — a native English speaker — conlang as a hobby. I do it simply because I find exploring linguistics fun. I also want to learn another language one day. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the best conlangers I know are all intensely multilingual, even those who are native English speakers.
(TV shows are a totally different thing, of course. They definitely try to create something new, but that’s because they’re TV shows, not because they don’t like other languages. It’s the same reason they’re set in outer space instead of being set on Earth.)
Tolkien also invented at least three full languages (Elvish, Orkish, Dwarvish). Though I believe he was well-versed in languages in the world so it's not learning laziness from his side.
Incoming pedantry: IIRC, Tolkien "only" invented two full languages, Sindarin ("Grey Elvish") and Quenya ("High Elvish"), if "full" means you could write a letter or have a conversation in it. He did create the foundations and some vocabulary for several others, like (as you mentioned) Dwarvish, and the Black Speech of Mordor, and Westron (a.k.a. the Common Speech), the language represented in the books by English (with "real" Westron words, names, etc. confined to the appendices): but I don't think he fleshed these out to the same degree he did the Elvish languages.
Many of these were influenced by real languages: Sindarin by Welsh, Quenya by Finnish, and Dwarvish by (I think) Semitic languages. As you pointed out, he knew a lot about linguistics.
As for Orkish: I'm sure Tolkien makes a point of saying orcs had no language of their own; rather, they used a particularly crude form of the Common Speech, often peppered with words from the Black Speech. (This is the in-story reason why the protagonists in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are able to understand and be understood by goblins and orcs.)
Anyway, none of this detracts from your point: invention of fictional languages does not imply a reluctance to get to grips with actual non-English languages, at least not in the case of J.R.R. Tolkien.
He created Quenya and Sindarin as more or less complete languages, with detailed grammar, extensive vocabulary and several writing systems. They are both Elvish languages, descending from "proto-Elvish", so he carefully tracked their evolutions, sound changes. The other Elvish languages and dialects were mentioned and/or alluded to, but not developed in detail.
Next, there is a series of languages he has developed to a far smaller extent than the previous two. The best known examples are:
1. Khuzdul, or Dwarvish, which exists as only a few words and phrases, spoken and/or written in his works, plus some general grammar rules. The explanation for it not being more known is that the Dwarves were keeping it secret, and used other languages for talking to any non-Dwarves.
2. Black Speech, used by Orcs and other Sauron's minions. Developed by Sauron and also only present in a few sentences and words -- as well as, of course, the Ring inscription.
3. Adunaic, or Numenorean - the most detailed described human language, similar to Khuzdul in some grammar aspects.
And finally, he has used real world languages to "represent" Middle-earth languages. The best examples are English representing Westron - the lingua franca of the western Middle-earth - and Anglo-Saxon representing language of the Rohirrim, to show its relation to Westron. That said, in later years ye has started "developing" those languages more, inventing e.g. Westron words to replace the English ones used in the books (e.g. "Suza" for "Shire").
He was a philologist, and by all accounts a decent one. He played a lot with the evolution of his languages (how they turn into new languages and how languages interact within a multi-lingual population), not only with the languages themselves. He couldn’t have done that with a single language.
As an aside, I don’t think we could call his rough sketch of dwarvish as “full”. AFAIK we only know a couple of words of it. He did develop 2 elvish languages quite extensively, though (Quenya and Sindarin), and worked on several other dialects.
I wouldn't really call Orcish / Dwarvish 'full languages' - they aren't developed that much. However, the two major Elvish languages (Quenya and Sindarin) are both a lot fuller.
Wouldn't it break the illusion if Klingons and Dothraki just happened to speak a real Earth language?
And Belter is meant to be an English-based creole, reflecting the in-book/in-show history of the Belters as the descendants of speakers of several different languages who needed a lingua franca.
>And Belter is meant to be an English-based creole, reflecting the in-book/in-show history of the Belters as the descendants of speakers of several different languages who needed a lingua franca.
Heinlein did something similar with the Luna patois in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
I'm sure it's been done many times, both in literature and in fact.
But implied translation into the language of the audience is a long-standing convention. We don't watch Ben Hur or Spartacus or I, Claudius and wonder why the Romans are all speaking English instead of Classical Latin.
But it might jar to hear a group of aliens natively speaking Dutch, for example. (Unless it's a Dutch film for a Dutch audience, of course, in which case it might equally jar to hear them speaking English.)
It was commonly done at the time by having people with different accents. See the queen’s Latin trope. It would not be any weirder intrinsically, we’re just not used to it.
Done to (arguably) comic effect in the BBC sitcom 'Allo 'Allo!, about the French Resistance in WW2, where English, French and German are all indicated by outrageous caricatures of the relevant accents.
I am really not, and I am an actual speaker of a couple of those languages. The fact that we have to suspend disbelief and pretend the main characters are actually not speaking English is just a convention.
My biggest English language peeve of the moment is the rise in prevalence of "have a nice rest of your day", which appears to be a mashup of "have a nice day" and "enjoy the rest of your day". No matter how much I hear it, it sounds disfluent due to the mismatched particle ("a rest of"). What seems like it started as an honest flub has taken root and is now used intentionally and extensively, especially by grocery checkers.
(I argue this rant is on-topic because it's a "weird", i.e. grammatically inconsistent, turn of phrase.
It's no different from "a nice time in the islands," "a runty pick of the litter," etc.
What's probably tripping you up is that "rest" is usually a noun that takes predicative adjective rather than an attributive adjective. It's more common to hear "The rest of my day was nice," but less common to hear "the nice rest of my day."
But despite the ostensible grammaticality of the noun phrase here, frequency still plays a huge role in determining what we deem acceptable, so it's not sufficient to argue as a counterpoint e.g. "a nice rest of your day" is perfectly fine like these other analogously formed noun phrases, checkmate ... Language doesn't work like that.
I'd argue that your point is actually best articulated simply as "it just sounds weird," rather than calling it any kind of flub, grammatical or otherwise.
I'm amazed at how many different words UK and USA English have for the same thing. Even though I started watching UK tv shows on PBS in the 80s, I started watching Taskmaster on youtube and I hear unfamiliar words for things all the time. The one from last night was "pedal bin." Before they showed what it was I was imagining some kind of bicycle with a trash can on it but it was a trash can whose lid opens when you step on the pedal. I don't think we have a separate name for that in the USA.
Apparently it's usually "step trash can". I have to credit the Brits once again for their wordsmithery, as pedal bin is substantially more mellifluous imo. "Bin it" is also a lot more efficient than "throw it out" and less harsh than "trash it." (Although we do also use "toss it", that seems less common.)
We have a 2yo we're trying to teach both Finnish (which has near-perfect letter/sound correspondence) and English (barf). But many English words are learned purely by sight ("one", "two", and myriad others), so I want to teach English spelling by using the correct letters but with visual cues (i.e. letter-level CSS styling) about which letters are not pronounced, or pronounced not as they look. Has anyone else tried this ? Would love to trade notes.
People always seem to complain about the etymological spelling of English but I love it. I love being able to look at a word and quickly know what its likely origin language was and get an idea of its meaning.
N.B. I'm not a prescriptivist and I don't really care how you spell something as long as I can make it out. I'm just interested in languages and think it's really cool that looking at English words is like peering into history.
Fair, it makes it more difficult for learners, but I'm not sure how relevant that is for a language unless you debase languages to being simply brutal ways of conveying meaning.
Does that make you especially dislike the "intentional meddling" of "snobs" on English?
Look at the word "island" and you might think it comes from the Latin "isle". This is a false etymology created by "snobs" who considered "yland" to be a corruption of the Latin, rather than a word with Proto-Germanic roots.
>This is a false etymology created by "snobs" who considered "yland" to be a corruption of the Latin, rather than a word with Proto-Germanic roots.
Do you have a reference for the top-down-because-of-snob-ness rather than more organic cross-polination/interference of similar words? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/island#Etymology gives it as being due to interference from the French-derived 'isle' (rather than from Latin, i.e. 'insula'), as does https://www.etymonline.com/word/island.
I used the term "snob" in quotes because that's the term used in the linked-to article. Here are the relevant parts:
> Okrent mostly attributes English’s idiosyncrasies to the barbarians, the French, the printing press, and what she calls “the snobs.” ...
> At other times, standardization was deliberate. Those whom Okrent labels “snobs,” primarily 18th-century linguists, publishers, and pedants addicted to “intentional meddling,” consciously manipulated the language. Their meddling included the introduction of the supposedly sophisticated silent letters in doubt, indict, receipt, and salmon, as well as the Hellenized spellings of medical terms that originated as diaria, asma¸ and fleume.
Nearly all sources I can find point to that same Etymonline entry.
> British pedants, making a wrong guess, as they often did. Surprisingly, isle and island do not have the same origin. ...
> Isle comes from the French île (courtesy of the Normans). In Middle English it was spelled ile or ille. ..
> This ultimately comes from the Latin insula, and in Renaissance France some pedants tried to change it to isle, but ultimately failed. ...
> British pedants had more success, having decided that spellings should indicate classical origins at the expense of pronunciation. This had the advantage that it made spelling harder for those without the benefit of a classical education, and provided an opportunity for schoolboys to mock their lesser colleagues.
> They had some justification for isle (though it was a stupid rule). However, they also changed iland to island, incorrectly assuming common origins.
The "indicate classical origins" is from the (false) belief that this word came from Latin.
> The ordinary Middle English and early modern English form was iland, yland. ... In 15th cent. the first part of the word began to be associated with the synonymous ile, yle (of French origin), and sometimes analytically written ile-land; and when ile was spelt isle, iland erroneously followed it as isle-land, island; the latter spelling became established as the current form before 1700.
I don't know about the person who started this thread, but I find that confused, throat-clearing, "We messed up, but with the best of intentions" mess absolutely delightful. As a child, I got very into etymology, and my father loved bursting my bubble by doubting that anyone knew any of it for sure. I think we were both enjoying different sides of that fanciful, egotistical guesswork.
You might also like Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage.
Ad copy: "A handy guide to problems of confused or disputed usage based on the critically acclaimed Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. Over 2,000 entries explain the background and basis of usage controversies and offer expert advice and recommendations."
> Fair, it makes it more difficult for learners, but I'm not sure how relevant that is for a language unless you debase languages to being simply brutal ways of conveying meaning.
It makes it difficult for everyone. So many hours of L1 and L2 speakers are sunk for no good reason just because someone finds it cool to have “p” in “receipt”.
English is a beautiful slow motion car crash of multiple languages & influences and the result is a great language but I do pity anyone trying to learn it. When I was having difficulty learning the rules & oddities of another language, it really helped me to look back at English and remember that there are so many oddities, inconsistencies and variances, that most other European languages are easy to master in comparison.
I sympathise with the view (non-native English speaker from Europe).
While it's true English has a ton of inconsistencies, complications etc. they tend to happen at a slightly higher level I think. There is a reasonably big subset of English that is quite easy.
French and German, not to mention Polish, are much harder to learn IMO, since the difficulties are up-front. Some examples:
- French conjugation of verbs is a whole world of its own
- German has noun cases, and you have to remember what verb comes with which cases
- Tenses in English are quite nicely organised into a Cartesian product of {past, present, future} x {simple, perfect, continuous}. It's fiddly to learn which one to use, but it's a plug-and-play use after that. By contrast, French has similar tenses, but spread around (not homomorphic to the nice Cartesian product, if you like). Plus, agreeing tenses ("sequence of tenses" apparently), OMG
- Nouns are non-gendered in English, and gendered in most European languages. Yes, a ship is a she, and referring to people or animals you use he/she etc. but in Polish and French, every word has a hidden, often undeducible gender you just have to know. Can't remember if German has rules for noun gender.
- English is very economical with words; nouns, derived verbs and adjectives are often the same word (e.g. "speed" the noun and "to speed", i.e. drive too fast). No such luck other side of the Channel. Similarly, "mouse"+"trap" -> "mousetrap". In French -> "piege a souris" ("trap for mouse").
- Comparing to Polish is a bit futile, but let's just mention nasty things English doesn't have: double numbers, in addition to singular and plural (one hen, two hens, ten hens will be "[one] kura", "[two] kury", "[ten] kur"), verb aspect (whether an action is completed or not), 7 noun cases, 22 conjugation groups, stem mutation on conjugation and inflection), nouns conjugate differently by gender, and of course genders have to be agreed between nouns and adjectives... just to name a few :)
- auxiliary verb will for predictions/statements of fact ("The sun will rise at 6.30 tomorrow")
- auxiliary verb going to for intentions ("We're going to buy a new car next month.")
- present continuous for arrangements; arrangement = a plan for the future that you have already thought about and discussed with someone else. ("I'm meeting my mother at the airport tomorrow")
- present simple for scheduled events ("The train departs in 10 minutes.")
That's in addition to the future continuous ("Don't call me after 10 o'clock. I'll be sleeping." and future perfect ("I hope my mother will have finished cooking dinner by the time I get home.")
Your Cartesian doesn't include negatives, where English uses the auxiliary verb do. (Compare "I do not know Spanish." with "I know not Spanish".)
True, but also seems like a pretty minor mistake? I feel that I've heard worse offenses from native English speakers. Maybe I feel exceptionally tolerant having lived a year in eastern Kentucky.
Also, "The movie will start when you sit down" is probably better form all 'round.
> Tenses in English are quite nicely organised into a Cartesian product of {past, present, future} x {simple, perfect, continuous}
Alas, they are not. You can have a perfect continuous, for instance: ‘I had been waiting’. Furthermore, the future doesn’t fit into the same paradigm as the other two tenses, both syntactically and semantically. I prefer to think of it as follows, at least in the realis case: {non-prospective, prospective} × {non-perfect, perfect} × {simple, continuous} × {past, present}. (The irrealis is more difficult, and overlaps somewhat with the realis.)
> Polish … double numbers
This is usually called the ‘dual’.
> … verb aspect (whether an action is completed or not)
English has this too (simple vs continuous is fundamentally an aspectual distinction), though not quite as pervasively as Polish or other Slavic languages.
> Alas, they are not. You can have a perfect continuous, for instance: ‘I had been waiting’. Furthermore, the future doesn’t fit into the same paradigm as the other two tenses, both syntactically and semantically. I prefer to think of it as follows, at least in the realis case: {non-prospective, prospective} × {non-perfect, perfect} × {simple, continuous} × {past, present}. (The irrealis is more difficult, and overlaps somewhat with the realis.)
It's all true, and I'm not pretending English is a trivial language. My point is, you can speak fairly good English with no knowledge of any of these complications. You simply cannot escape from fundamental complexities in all the European languages I know, that need to be navigated for even simple communication. It helps that the tenses are at least somewhat organised. This "Cartesian" model is much clearer to me than e.g. the French "bag of tenses".
Of course you can argue what's "basic communication". Something like "I go train Manchester tomorrow" is fairly unambigous, but very poor use of language. My impression and point is that it's much easier to speak simple, correct English than it is to speak simple, correct {French,German,Polish}.
> you can speak fairly good English with no knowledge of any of these complications
Well, this is very dependent on exactly what you mean by ‘fairly good English’. I’d say that getting to this level is hardly trivial — I’ve seen many non-native speakers whose writing is nearly unreadable. Though then again, there are a fair number of native English speakers who also have terrible writing. As a monolingual speaker I can’t personally compare this aspect of English to other languages.
The way I've always understood this is that you can speak surprisingly bad English and still be understood. To a large extent you can just throw most of the right words in a sentence together and be largely understood - even if it sounds fantastically wrong.
I'm thinking of things like .. in Slovak, spoon vs teaspoon is lyžiča vs lyžička. If you don't understand how they mutate the word endings - and as far as I can tell, memorise them all on a case-by-case basis, this is easily lost. small spoon, little spoon, tea spoon, there's not many ways in English for it not to be understood.
So my understanding is not so much that it's easy to learn, but the MVP of being able to communicate is a surprisingly small subset of the full language.
Other commenters have noted that French verbs are messy. But there are a couple of shortcuts for new learners. Future can be expressed by aller (present tense) + inf. (e.g. "I am going to [verb]"), and past can be expressed by venir (present tense) de + inf. (e.g. "I just [verb]ed").
> double numbers, in addition to singular and plural (one hen, two hens, ten hens will be "[one] kura", "[two] kury", "[ten] kur")
Actually Polish does not have dual number, just singular and plural. What you are refering to is just different noun case - use plural genitive when numeral ends in 5,6,7,8,9 or multiple of 10.
> - French conjugation of verbs is a whole world of its own
> - Nouns are non-gendered in English, and gendered in most European languages. Yes, a ship is a she, and referring to people or animals you use he/she etc. but in Polish and French, every word has a hidden, often undeducible gender you just have to know. Can't remember if German has rules for noun gender.
French conjugation isn't as bad as its reputation suggests. Gender's what dissuaded me from trying to keep up with it, after getting pretty damn good in four fairly-rigorous semesters of French study in college. I never got a feel for guessing gender, because there are lots of rules and way too many exceptions to them. For that and other reasons it ends up being hard to drill French nouns out of context—and actually, drilling adjectives out of context isn't all that useful either, for similar reasons. You kinda have to study the whole thing at once to really internalize all the transformations words undergo due to gender, so using them correctly becomes quick & natural. So much for simple Anki decks and reclaiming otherwise-lost time to work on vocab.
Spanish is so much easier. I barely paid attention for a couple semesters of very half-assed Spanish instruction in high school, but I bet I could correctly guess noun gender in Spanish at a much higher rate than I could French nouns, which language I studied both more recently and probably got ~100x as good at as I ever was with Spanish.
Every person I’ve talked to who’s learned English as a second language told me it was pretty easy. There’s lots of weird shit to learn to truly master it, but to learn enough to speak conversationally is easy, I’ve been told. When I was in Costa Rica learning Spanish, the folks there pitied me since they thought learning Spanish would be difficult. Funnily enough, in contrast I thought it wasn’t so hard: having clear rules for verb conjugation and tenses, few irregular words I needed to learn, and very regular pronunciation. If I wasn’t so rusty I might still even remember all 14 tenses.
Oddly enough, I actually learned more about the mechanics of English through learning Spanish than I did through high school English class. The English curriculum was geared towards reading literature and summarizing the morals and themes rather than learning the rules of English language.
Having to understand the concept of grammatical tense through conjugating verbs in Spanish made me actually think about things like past tense, the present participle, the fact that English does not have a future tense, and much more. I’m really thankful for the realization but a little disappointed now that I realize our English curriculum in the United States is basically a culture class more than it is a language class.
I've always thought that "English" class was a misnomer.
There are really two different pedagogical goals:
- Learn to read and write accurately and clearly in the English language (what would, in Spain, Germany or China also be "English Class")
- Practice a REPL regarding things that other people have written (in the context of a larger corpus of things that people have written), by happenstance in English because that's what the students are most familiar with[0]. This could better be called "Language Arts" because presumably they do similar things in Germany, Spain and China but they (also presumably) don't call it "English Class".
[0] I had an angry moment in high school (among many) when I found out that my English class would be spending an entire year reading translated works.
Those aren't separate goals; the thing you call a REPL for Literature that happens to be in English is exactly for learning to read (the Read part of REPL) and write (the Print part) English accurately.
There are different components (the REPL part is called “Literature" when separated out, and other major, though conceptually lower-level, parts are called “Composition” and “Grammar”, and there are probably more; equal with Literature, and also a kind of REPL, are “Conversation” or “Speech”, where the P and, in the former case, the R of the REPL are oral rather than written.)
Foreign languages are often taught similarly, including the REPL parts.
Studying Latin is great for that purpose, since mostly you get to skip the "Good evening! My passport is in the fishpond. Where is the bathroom?" lessons. I think the biggest a-ha moment there for me was realizing when an entire clause is acting as a given part of speech.
> The English curriculum was geared towards reading literature and summarizing the morals and themes rather than learning the rules of English language.
English class is usually a bunch of things. There's a reason they've moved away from just calling it "English", now. Comprehension is a huge part of literacy, yet most adults are pretty bad at it despite all the time schools spend trying to teach it to them.
Yeah, english is pretty easy if you're coming from a Romance language, simpler tenses, articles, prefixes, less use of gendered language (so you don't have to remember a tree is female in portuguese but male in spanish).
My main issue with the language was pronunciation and orthography, the fact the way you write is not the way you read for many words was just bonkers for my brain used to read any word in Portuguese and know how to pronounce it but now that I see even natives struggling i don't mind it that much anymore HAHAHA!
You made me remember that one time I tried to pronounce the word “facade” during a call. I knew the word and the meaning, since I had read it before several times in different situations. But, I had never heard the pronunciation before and that was the first time I had to use it in conversation. Hopefully people understood by context. Coming from Spanish spelling has been a headache while learning English.
Try "segue"! I was either in my late teens or early 20s before I learned that was pronounced "seg-way". It didn't help at all that Segway transportation devices were getting lots of news coverage at the time.
The flip-side of that pronunciation thing is that we're flexible on how things are pronounced. Just listen to the differences between British and American English or even regional differences in those countries. Us native English speakers know all the different ways our letters can sound, so differing pronunciations tend to remain recognizable as long as you don't form a homophone with another word that would work in context.
Brazilian Portuguese and Portugal's Portuguese have very different pronunciation rules (and accents) but you, as a speaker of any of these languages, would know how to pronounce any word you haven't seen before because the phonetics are consistent inside your accent, if you can read a word in Portuguese you know how it's going to be pronounced _in your accent_.
And this just doesn't exist in English as there are multiple words that are written the same but are pronounced differently. So while there are some rules as to how English is spoken the written language does not encode them, mostly because someone somewhere decided to use an orthography that would link the word to its source word in latin or french or whatever.
And in that sense, English to some degree resembles written Chinese. Not only do spellings often not indicate pronunciation, but also pronunciations of words can vary drastically from area to area.
Along these lines, there is a wonderful quote from James D. Nicoll from back in the days of Usenet:
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.”
From my perspective, despite inconsistencies it's one of the easier languages to learn at a basic level as you can ramp up and start using a working subset of it pretty quickly. German in comparison has a steep up-front learning curve and requires a lot of investment to get anything out of.
I'd just like to point out that everyone saying English is easy to learn in this thread is from a self-selecting population that's good enough at the language to participate on this forum.
For this example specifically though, I do agree with other comments saying the "MVP" of English is quite small, but frankly English is just everywhere. Comme quelqu'en qui apprend le français maintenant, it's just hard to find content to immerse myself with in America, and that's with one of the most popular languages in the world. Could you say the same of English, in almost anywhere else in the world?
Yep. It's an easy language to speak on a functional level, but very difficult to master on a native level. Lots of native speakers never master all the nuances.
The same can be said for all of the languages being discussed in this thread. I'm skeptical that English is any harder to learn at a native level than French, German or Polish.
I say, on the phonological level at least, French, German, and even Polish are easy. Their phonetics, both the consonants and the vowels, are straightforward. English, in contrast, is out of this world. (Its origin lies in the language of an island nation, after all.) So much so that it looks like their neighbors, the French, have huge difficulty with English pronunciation (and native English speakers, especially the Americans, seem all too happy to return the favor - their atrocious French pronunciation is, in fact, what they are taught, just look at the transcription of French words in conversation guides, it is amazing how bad it is, ‘é’ is transcribed as ‘ay’, etc.)
It doesn't help that we screw with the pronunciation of loan words and then label anyone who pronounces them properly pretentious.
One of the worst destructions of foreign pronunciation has to be Notre Dame. It hurts me to say "noter dayme". More recently, having to pronounce La Croix as "lah croy" has also been annoying. But unfortunately for both of those it's objectively wrong to pronounce them the French way since they are proper nouns and whoever is using that proper noun defines how it is pronounced when referring to them.
Depends on the age of the learner and the duration of the instruction. If you start learning a second language in elementary school or even in kindergarten and spread it out over the rest of the school years, then there's nothing to it. If, on the other hand, you start as an adult and want to learn a language over a short period of time, then my pity goes to you regardless of which language you are learning.
I think English is actually not that hard to master. What's difficult is writing it down.
For every common word, English has a version derived from Celtic, Germanic and early French. Sometimes there are also versions with Latin or Greek descent. If you know any European language (stemming from Indo-European, languages like Hungarian and Finnish are something else entirely) then you'll quickly find words that you can link back to your own language.
Learning all the different words meaning the exact same thing is kind of a chore to really master it, but it's really not a bad language to quickly get started in and have a conversation in for a native speaker of many European languages.
The writing rules are completely arbitrary, though. Written English and spoken English rarely corresponds in any way that makes sense. The easiest example is that you can't tell if "read" is past or present tense, because -ea- has two entirely different pronunciations that are used arbitrarily. There's a good reason for many of these problems (the great vowel shift comes to mind) but that doesn't make the language any more usable in practice. This makes the learning experience a lot more challenging, because without the ability to somewhat reasonably sound out the words you're reading on paper, the learning process takes a lot more time and resources. Languages with easier to grasp spellings just come with better tools.
Every language has is peculiarities and inconsistencies. Even Latin, which at some point in history was standardized as much as possible has exemptions on exemptions to its many rules upon rules. As people speak a language, the language changes, so the older then language, the weirder it becomes. I don't think there are (natural, not invented) languages that are "hard" or "easy" to learn from a general standpoint, because if the language was actually hard and illogical, humans would've changed the way they used the language automatically already. From what I can tell, all languages can be easy to learn as long as your mother tongue is related to them in some way. It could be the grammar structure (like featuring nominative, accusative, etc.) or the way verbs are used, but as long as you can fine some match between your own language and the one you're trying to learn, you'll have an advantage.
I would think English is nearly impossible to teach to a Chinese person, but shouldn't be hard to teach to a French or German person at all. The same goes the other way around: there is much more overlap between Japanese and Chinese then there possibly could be between English and Chinese, so learning those languages becomes terribly complicated for many westerners.
As much as I despised having to learn different languages in middle/high school, I do think that everyone should be taught at least one other language. It'd help the students if that language was something similar to the local language, but for American or English kids it wouldn't matter if that second language was Spanish, German, French or Italian. What matters is the insight you get when you start thinking about language rather than using it. You start to get a feeling for why certain parts of the language are like they are, rather than just being told that this is just how the language works and you should deal with it. For example, explaining the use of "who" and "whom" to someone without an understanding of grammatical cases, which many Indo-European languages still feature today, might be an impossible task even native speakers sometimes struggle with. You could go it about another way and teach Middle English in English-speaking countries to explain these systems, but I don't think anyone would be interested in that.
>Written English and spoken English rarely corresponds in any way that makes sense. The easiest example is that you can't tell if "read" is past or present tense, because -ea- has two entirely different pronunciations that are used arbitrarily
That's a good example, but since regardless of tense, both pronunciations have the same essential meaning (to consume/have consumed written material), it's not hard to pick up the meaning from context.
Incorrect usage can be much more problematic. The lose <--> loose issue is a really egregious example.
Lose (luz) is to "not win" or to "no longer have something", while loose (lew-se) can be "not tight" or "freed from some constraint."[0]
I imagine that sort of incorrect usage confuses non-native English users more than differences in pronunciation.
[0] Definitions and pronunciation are inexact, but close enough IMHO.
As it happens, grammatically Chinese is much closer to English that Japanese, they're both SVO languages so basic sentences can be translated word by word. Today I eat apples = 今天 我 吃 苹果.
Japanese is SOV and has a topic/subject distinction foreign to English. 今日 りんご を 食べる = Today apples (object marker) eat, the subject is implicit.