• BigNote@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is bullshit. Anyone who knows anything about linguistics can tell you that languages aren’t objectively easier or more difficult to learn. What makes a language easy is its similarity to a learner’s native language, or other languages they’ve already learned. Furthermore, there’s a myth that certain things or ideas can be said or expressed in some languages but not in others, and this too is objectively untrue. All languages do the same thing, they just do it differently. If one language doesn’t have a word for something, that doesn’t mean it can’t express the concept, just that it has to do so through other means, typically in a sentence or phrase.

      • uberrice@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The thing about ‘not being able to be expressed in another language’ is that one language might have a shortcut word for something another doesn’t. That shortcut word might also be culturally charged, not that easily explained. Yes, you can explain anything in any language - for some languages you can just take shortcuts

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, you can explain anything in any language - for some languages you can just take shortcuts

          Along these lines, some languages have a preference for longer or shorter words. There’s an oft repeated factoid that the Inuit language has something like 50 words for snow. That’s not entirely untrue, but it ignores that the language tends to have unique words that encompass more concepts. So whereas English would combine other words in a phrase to produce concepts like “soft deep snow”, the Inuit language has an entire word. It’s not like Inuit has special descriptive powers. It just takes up vocabulary space for concepts that could be mix-and-match instead.

        • BigNote@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Agreed. That said, what you’re ultimately talking about is culture, of which language is only one among many aspects that impart meaning.

        • uberrice@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Were you though, or did you just think you were?

          It’s also ‘easy’ to communicate in English. ‘I want eat’ ‘where go this place’ and so on. People understand, and probably will answer you. It’s easier for something like that in Chinese to be grammatically correct - but did you master pitch accents and never mixed them up after ‘a few weeks’? We’re you able to read hanzi?

          The thing is that with European languages, it’s easy to fall into the trap of trying to express ideas that are too complex for your language ability if you are native in an European language. I don’t remember French for shit anymore, but say I were to ask some French guy that doesn’t speak English for a good restaurant to eat in, I’d probably go something like ‘je veux mange, tu sais un bon Restaurant ici?’ I doubt that’s grammatically correct whatsoever, and sounds weird as fuck, but you’d probably get my point. It’s probable you sound similar when speaking Chinese only for a few weeks.

      • margaritox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Haha, that’s exactly what I just posted. 100% agree

        I also feel like there often is a temptation for people to believe that one’s native language is hard.

    • Gork@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      English verbiage can also a source of frustration for English learners.

      For instance, you can chop a tree down. Once you’re done, you can chop a tree up.

      Imagine the confusion this causes lol.

      I do agree though that the general lack of gender for most uses are really useful. It makes learning other languages more difficult though (basically all other languages).

      • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s just you.
        In Germany we need to think about the position of the peer and if professional or casual.

        • Gork@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, the word “you” is a good example as well.

          The only issue with “you” is that it lacks a plural version so we have to use the Southern “y’all” instead. Some people go even further with a mass plural “all y’all”.

        • BigNote@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Virtually all known languages do this, only some do it through the use of grammar.

          This thread is full of bad linguistics.

        • uberrice@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This also happens in English, by selection of the words you use. Using Du und Sie is fairly simple in comparison. Strangers, last name basis, or professional? Sie. Kids, friends, talking to people out drinking on a friendly basis? Du.

          The whole ‘position of peer’ thing has a lot more nuances in Japanese, and even that’s not too hard once you get the hang of it.

      • yata@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        For instance, you can chop a tree down. Once you’re done, you can chop a tree up.

        Imagine the confusion this causes lol.

        This is an absolutely minor thing, and it is also a phenomenon which occurs in basically all other languages.

        • Gork@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Minor, yes, but there are quite a few of them.

          • Break a leg

          • It’s raining cats and dogs

          • Bite the bullet

          • Piece of cake

          • Hold your horses

          • Spill the beans

          • Hit the nail on the head

          • Let the cat out of the bag

          • It costs an arm and a leg

          • Can’t have your cake and eat it too

          • ByteJunk@lemmy.pt
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            These are just idioms, all languages have their own.

            Learning English has it’s snags, but it’s not a hard language. That’s a good thing btw.

            • margaritox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are no objectively “hard” or “easy” languages. What makes certain languages “hard” is their difference from one’s native language.

              • ByteJunk@lemmy.pt
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ah, we disagree my friend. I think languages can be easier or harder based on other criteria too, and not only familiarity.

                Suppose an alien, the kind from outer space, crashes on earth and now needs to learn a language to communicate with humans.

                It’s not a stretch to consider that all human languages are so far removed from his own as to be considered equally hard to learn if looking only at familiarity. In this scenario, surely there are features of individual languages that make them harder to learn - stuff like gendered articles as mentioned before, as there’s no logic to them and have to memorized.

                • margaritox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I understand your point and opinion, but I think that, for us humans, it has more to do with similarity to our native language.

          • uberrice@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Idioms. Present in all languages.

            Example from Japanese, transliterated:

            Rain falls, the ground hardens.

            So, is the meaning instantly obvious to you?

    • geissi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s just not comparable to having to memorize arbitrary gender for every noun in the language

      Yes, instead of having to memorize one of up to three possible genders for every noun, you only have to memorize an infinity of arbitrary pronunciations for every word.
      Much easier.

      • ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Those pronunciations are not arbitrary. Consistent spelling was not always important to English writers, so some of that may be arbitrary. The words though have diverse etymologies reflecting multiculturalism born from brutal imperialism spanning centuries. It is often a system of language evolved from violent colonial expansion. Every weird word and spelling that breaks the rule has a story. It may not be a perfectly ordered system because it lives and breathes while some parts grow and others whither and die, but nothing about it arbitrary. Maybe I’ve been listening to too much of The Allusionist podcast.

        • geissi@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, but we’re not talking about the linguistic history of how words developed.
          We’re talking about learning a language and the lack of consistent rules can make that quite difficult.

          • ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You brought up history, not me, by ignoring it through your claim about arbitrary pronunciations. Such a claim ignores history to make a weak argument for language learning difficulty. Pronunciations are not arbitrary.

            • geissi@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m saying that there are no consistent rules so language learners have to learn each word individually.
              If you learn languages by memorizing every singe vowel shift since proto-indo-european then be my guest but for someone who just wants to speak the language and has to learn the difference between plough, through, though etc, it seems pretty damn arbitrary.