[HN Gopher] Finnish as a world language? ___________________________________________________________________ Finnish as a world language? Author : JetSetWilly Score : 248 points Date : 2022-08-26 17:19 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.hagen-schmidt.de) (TXT) w3m dump (www.hagen-schmidt.de) | [deleted] | yongjik wrote: | > Finnish has longer and better swear words than any other | language. | | Great, trying to sell it as a World Language and they managed to | insult 99.95% of the world with one line! | | (Well maybe less than 99.95%. We can all agree that English swear | words aren't that great.) | bookofjoe wrote: | Sanna Marin FTW! | URfejk wrote: | No thanks. | keepquestioning wrote: | Is Finnish Proto Indo European? | Tor3 wrote: | No, Finnish is from a different language group: Uralic. | keepquestioning wrote: | That is a mysterious fact. | darkhorn wrote: | No. Finnish, Hungarian, Turkish, Mongolian, Korean, Japanese | are so called Uralic Altaic languages. They all share same | grammatical structures. | jcranmer wrote: | Note that Altaic itself is considered discredited among | linguists, to say nothing of the Uralic-Altaic (which never | found serious purchase). | darkhorn wrote: | If you look from Indo-European perspective, in other words | if you look only at the common words, yes, they share very | little common words. And then no one explains all those | same grammatical structures shared between those languages. | In the article replace Finnish with Turkish, Mongolian, | Hungarian or Japanese and again that article will be | correct again. | PLMUV9A4UP27D wrote: | It can be noted that Finnish and Hungarian are more distant | than English and Persian. | darkhorn wrote: | In terms of words or grammatical structures? | PLMUV9A4UP27D wrote: | In terms of words https://histdoc.net/sounds/hungary.html | keepquestioning wrote: | Is there a genetic link between Koreans and Finns? | weberer wrote: | Well Finland and North Korea are only separated by one | country. | darkhorn wrote: | I have found this one | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N-M231 | morjom wrote: | No. It's Proto-Uralic. | skrebbel wrote: | I feel the need to defend Finnish cases. Yes, they have a | gazillion, but unlike other languages you might know (eg Latin or | German), there's nothing difficult about Finnish cases. | | Most cases are simply used where English would use prepositions. | In Finnish those are postfixes instead, a bunch of letters tacked | onto the end of a word. It's a case and not a word because | there's no space between the two, that's it. | | Eg "talo" means house. Talossa means "in the house". Talon means | "of the house" (actually, "the house's" - omg English has cases | too, super difficult). Talolla means "on (top of) the house". | That's not harder than prepositions is it? | | I did cheat a bit, because with some words you first got to find | the root before you can tack on "-ssa". The root of talo is also | talo, but for some words you got to apply a (simple, purely | letter-based) rule. Eg the root of "ankka" (duck) is "anka" so | "the duck's house" becomes "ankan talo". There's a bunch of rules | to find the root of a noun and you can learn them in half an hour | or so. | | There's plenty stuff that's harder about Finnish (notably the | vocabulary), but the cases are peanuts. | lynguist wrote: | I want to add to it that Finnish doesn't actually have _cases_. | | It's just the _equivalent of cases_ which takes the shape of | suffixes. | | Note that our personal pronouns also take the shape of suffixes | in Finnish: | | taloni (my house) talossani (in my house) | | They're really not cases. | LudwigNagasena wrote: | Why shouldn't they be considered cases? | lynguist wrote: | Because the grammatical case is a morpho-syntactical | category of _flexion_. | | Suffixes are not inflections. | canjobear wrote: | I've never encountered this definition of "case" before. | In standard descriptive linguistic terminology, these | Finnish suffixes are certainly case markers. | LudwigNagasena wrote: | Inflection is when the grammatical role of a word is | expressed through word formation, eg suffix, prefix, | ablaut. Suffixation is a very common way to express | inflection in languages. | gumby wrote: | > Most cases are simply used where English would use | prepositions. In Finnish those are postfixes instead, a bunch | of letters tacked onto the end of a word. It's a case and not a | word because there's no space between the two, that's it. | | Unless linguistics has advanced since I learnt this (which is | quite possible), the theory is that case (and conjugation? I | can't remember) came from disambiguating particles that later | fused into the base noun (/verb). And of course languages can | subsequently go the other way (like English or French which | have been shedding conjugation for a few hundred years and case | for even longer, and gender too (French still has two but | abandoned neuter a while ago). | geniium wrote: | kthxbye | canjobear wrote: | The difference between Finnish case markers and separate words | is deeper than whether it's written with a space: case markers | have to agree in vowel harmony with the stem whereas separate | words don't. | | It's still incredibly easy compared to the fusional case | systems in languages like Latin or Russian. | sedeki wrote: | What does "fusional" mean here? | [deleted] | skyyler wrote: | A simple web search can bring you to | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusional_language | | >Another illustration of fusionality is the Latin word | bonus ("good"). The ending -us denotes masculine gender, | nominative case, and singular number. Changing any one of | these features requires replacing the suffix -us with a | different one. In the form bonum, the ending -um denotes | masculine accusative singular, neuter accusative singular, | or neuter nominative singular. | canjobear wrote: | Fusional means that, in the morphological system of a | language, a single wordform encodes multiple parts of the | meaning in a way that is opaque and can't be predicted from | the parts. | | That's very abstract but an example makes it clear. | Consider some Latin words with their English translations: | | mensa -- table (singular, nominative) | | mensae -- tables (plural, nominative) | | mensae -- to the table (singular, dative) | | mensis -- to the tables (plural, dative) | | There are two parts of meaning (whether it's singular vs. | plural, and whether it's nominative vs. dative) which are | expressed in these forms, but the way this is done is | opaque. You can't look at "mensis" and break it into a part | that corresponds to plurality, and a part that corresponds | to dative: the suffix -is conveys both of those features | simultaneously. That's a fusional language. | | Compare with the Hungarian equivalents: (Finnish is | similar, but I know Hungarian and not Finnish) | | asztal -- table (singular, nominative) | | asztalok -- tables (plural, nominative) | | asztalnak -- to the table (singular, dative) | | asztaloknak -- to the tables (plural, dative) | | Here you can identify that the suffux -ok corresponds to | plural and the suffix -nak corresponds to dative. So the | Hungarian paradigm here is agglutinative, not fusional. The | upshot is that the Hungarian paradigm will be easier to | learn and to extend to a very large number of cases | compared to the Latin paradigm. | [deleted] | thaumasiotes wrote: | > The difference between Finnish case markers and separate | words is deeper than whether it's written with a space: case | markers have to agree in vowel harmony with the stem whereas | separate words don't. | | That is not evidence that they are case affixes rather than | separate words. The English articles adjust their | pronunciation based on the word that follows them, but they | are considered separate words rather than inflectional | definiteness markers. | | There is a special term for lexical items which are | independent words in a syntactic sense without simultaneously | being independent words in a phonological sense; they are | called clitics, not affixes. | skrebbel wrote: | Ahyes forgot about that. | | Just to continue the explainer, vowel harmony means that "in | the house" is "talossa" but "in the forest" is "metsassa". | Notice that it's "-ssa" and not "-ssa". This depends on which | vowels are in the root. There's two groups of vowels and | Finnish words helpfully never mix the two in a single (non | compound) word. | | In other words, "vowel harmony" sounds fancy, but it's a | single if root.match(/a|u|o/) then "ssa" | else "ssa" | thaumasiotes wrote: | > Most cases are simply used where English would use | prepositions. In Finnish those are postfixes instead, a bunch | of letters tacked onto the end of a word. It's a case and not a | word because there's no space between the two, that's it. | | That's not how the terminology works. Nobody is out there | claiming that Latin should be considered to have conjunctive | and disjunctive cases ( _-que_ , _-ve_ ) in addition to its | actual cases. They're especially not claiming that we should | recognize an "interrogative case" ( _-ne_ ) that isn't even | restricted to nouns. | tomrod wrote: | Whoa, that's like the exact opposite of Filipino languages | (and, Austronesian in general, to my understanding). In | Visayan, 'Sa' is a general preposition, it is a kindness to add | whether that is over/under/around/inside/far from/near from the | object it references. | | Verb conjugations are where things get super interesting. | vikaveri wrote: | Well, "talolla" can actually mean "at the house" or "the house | has", depending on context. "On the house" would usually add | "on top" or "talon paalla", or possibly "on the roof of" or | "talon katolla". In theory you're right, but in practice the | clarification is added. If it was table (poyta) it would be | correct and common | vikaveri wrote: | I forgot to include a link to blog post that demonstrates the | ease, simplicity, beauty and clear logic of Finnish, so here | you go. | | https://depressingfinland.tumblr.com/post/65222506844/what-d. | .. | skrebbel wrote: | Ah yeah thanks. My Finnish is super rusty but I still like to | geek out on its grammar every once in a while. | | That said, but this sort of contextual stuff happens with | languages with prepositions too (eg "on the table" vs "on the | job"). It's not special about Finnish. | dmitriid wrote: | I feel like calling them cases (while technically correct) make | them more complex than they are. | | I had the same experience with Turkish, which also has the same | "issue" with cases. As long as you try to learn them _cases_ , | you'll give up. If you learn them as "this ending means _at_ , | this ending means _in_ ", you'll learn them in half a day. | miohtama wrote: | Finnish is ranked as category 4 language out from 5 as how hard | it is to learn, for English speakers | | https://effectivelanguagelearning.com/language-guide/languag... | JadeNB wrote: | Where a higher category means harder to learn, just to be | clear. (44 weeks for Finnish, according to your link.) | cqfd wrote: | I totally agree that the cases themselves aren't so bad | conceptually (as you say, most of them are basically just | prepositions turned into post-positions/endings); I don't think | it's any worse than German or Russian. But I have to say that | the mechanics of calculating consonant gradations etc. is | decently painful--I think you might be overselling the lack of | difficulty haha. | | I enjoy studying languages and have learned enough Finnish to | get midway through the Harry Potter series, and even just | getting to the point where I could smoothly _look up_ words, | let alone remember them, took a fair amount of practice. (The | form you see on the page often needs to be un-consonant- | gradated before you can find it in the dictionary, and the | rules are somewhat complicated, though very regular.) | | One funny aspect of Finnish pronunciation is that the | ubiquitous long sounds give it a bit of a herky-jerky rhythm. | It's always sounded to me as if the speaker is trying to figure | out the grammar too :) | [deleted] | samstave wrote: | If there is anyone I would trust on Finnish as a language would | be Suussu Lacksonen (blair) A famous finnish translator and movie | maker... | | Also you should pleasure your ears by listening to this if you | think Finnish is a global language... | | (ALSO I See Torvalds behind this) | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz_uq7ypZnc | | I have never been so beautifully scolded in a language I cannot | understand | NeutralForest wrote: | Mualimaan napa! | phtrivier wrote: | At the beginning of the article, I though this was a spoof of all | the "why you should use programming language X in your next | project." | c-smile wrote: | > I'm not sure if this article is a joke | | Of course not. There is even a book about it: | | https://sciter.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/master-finnish... | bergenty wrote: | Is this satire? | ur-whale wrote: | > Is this satire? | | https://youtu.be/SPmxsRDSmTc?t=108 | treeman79 wrote: | One of the things I love about this community is that satire | can go completely over the head of many members here. | | https://scholarworks.smith.edu/theses/1504/ | | Seen many funny instances were blatant satire gets hilarious | responses from people that treat it as real. | | Of course Autistic Savants often takes things far to literally. | Took me ages when younger to get the hang of it. | ternaryoperator wrote: | Well done satire will fool any community. That's the | definition of good satire. I don't think HN is any more | easily fooled than other communities. And frequently HN finds | some aspect being ridiculed and shows that in fact it's not | nearly as dismissable as the satire would have one believe. | qumpis wrote: | I think the confusion is often because people (like myself) | don't read the content past the headline | wizofaus wrote: | I'm fairly sure 90% of comments on HN are written by people | who haven't even clicked on the link to the article | supposedly under discussion. Disclaimer: including myself, | though not on this particular occasion. | not2b wrote: | Which would be fine, no one has to read everything, but for | some reason people who only read the headline feel | qualified to comment, and this particularly shows with | satirical pieces. | akprasad wrote: | Yes, there are quite a few tip-offs that this is satire. Some | examples: | | > The rules are absolute and reliable in all situations, except | exceptions. | | > Learning Finnish builds confidence. If you can learn Finnish, | then you can learn anything. | | > and shifts the burden of labour over to the person you are | talking to. | samizdis wrote: | More clues can be found higher up in the site. See _Something | about ... Finnish!_ [1] | | > First let's have fun. There are two texts about Finnish | language: the English original and a German translation. | Don't take them too serious: | | > Finnish as a world language? | | > Finnisch, die Weltsprache | | I love the site; great fun to explore. | | [1] https://www.hagen-schmidt.de/suomi/ | renewiltord wrote: | English is the Javascript of languages. JS will tell you what | market fit is about. Neither will die. | Koshkin wrote: | I like the sound and the grammar of the Finnish language, if only | they had an alphabet more suitable for it: _paamaara_ is too much | for me. (Anteeksi.) | zocoi wrote: | Neither Finnish or English is my mother tongue. I spent 8 years | in Finland and the rest in the US as an adult. It's really hard | to learn both languages at the same time because of little | similarity. My English suffers while I can start conversation in | Finnish. Now English is my main language and I couldn't remember | much Finnish. | | Overall it's all about where I call home | bfung wrote: | "Finnish has longer and better swear words than any other | language." | | That already makes adoption of the language doomed, hahaha. | Swearing also needs no logic, I dun give a fuck. Fuck yeah? | fuuuuuuck. "fuck" as the universal language and word. | _zamorano_ wrote: | It is spanish! ;-) | | I remember my younger days when Hristo Stoichkov came to play | with Barcelona FC. A very aggresive and sweary player, a few | years later he left to play for Parma FC, and while playing in | Italy, he kept swearing in spanish! | | I even saw him doing the same while playing for Bulgaria. | danwee wrote: | English is the perfect world language... I wish only words were | pronounced as they are written. | buzer wrote: | Let's just switch to ralli englanti | Koshkin wrote: | I just pronounced your comment the way it is written, and I did | not like what I heard. | timbit42 wrote: | "Be the change you want to see in the world." | koolala wrote: | 'Toki Pona' has been slowly making strides as a good world | language. Not as a replacement for English of course but as a | modern Esperanto. | Toutouxc wrote: | Has it? I thought the language was built non-extendable and | essentially frozen. | koolala wrote: | Some people say writing and computers and law have frozen | English as well. At least relatively. It really depends on | your own goals and opinions of language and what kind of | world-wide-web of communication you'd be wanting. I'm | thinking in terms of world-wide cyberspace where word- | language is just a tiny fraction of the total universal | mediums people can communicate it. | xena wrote: | mi sona ala e ni. toki pona li toki lili. toki sike li wile | nimi mute. toki pona li jo ala e nimi mute. toki pona li jo | nimi moku. toki pona li jo ala nimi "consume". sona suli li | wile e nimi mute. toki siki li wile ala toki pona. | bmacho wrote: | "siki" li seme? | dvh wrote: | Sorry, can't translate, toki pona language specs is | copyrighted. | gnubison wrote: | The dictionary is released into the public domain :) | koolala wrote: | I don't think there is validity to that though I do | appreciate the humor and sentiment. A book can be copy- | written sure but many have re-created the spec and | dictionary. | | Recreating a spec is the entire idea of teaching something | from scratch. It's too fundamental for law like that. | Unless you know examples of actual legal threats and | aggressive positioning, maybe like what happened around | Lojban. | leke wrote: | Fun fact, the creator of TP is a Finnish fan and a fair bit of | the vocab is from Finnish words. | flipcoder wrote: | I found Toki Pona to be way too simple and there's too much | ambiguity. It's a neat idea though. I like Esperanto better. | stew-j wrote: | I like Couturat et al.'s Ido even better. I can't "think" in | it yet, but it is very regular and easy to learn. The main | (irrational, personal) issue I have with it is the monotony | of endings, -o is always a singular noun, etc. Plus it is | Eurocentric. It does have pan-gender words like lu, saving | having to say he/she/it. Tradeoffs. | koolala wrote: | Do you find Esperanto is closer to a full language? Does it | avoid the burden of learning a full language? To me I am | excited by the potential to learn a whole language in a day. | Like learning the entire syntax of C vs. C++. To at least | know the words well enough to enter into a language world and | begin writing and parsing programs with the full syntax. | Maybe we are not at the '1 day' learning stage yet but the | potential seems there. | | The big question is really if its possible to 'think' in the | language. Have you been able to get into the stage where its | like thinking? But then your thought feels limited? I feel | like people have proven its possible to think in it though | I'm not there yet. I am still at the puzzle stage. Thinking | it in unlocks abilities like how AI are now are able to think | in terms of human language. | bmn__ wrote: | https://i.imgur.com/ixEBdwf.jpg | | "Koira, koiran, koiraa, koiran again" | jamal-kumar wrote: | That's part of an old joke: | | What do you mean Finnish is difficult? | | English: A dog | | Swedish: What | | English: The dog | | English: Two dogs | | Swedish: | | Swedish: | | Swedish: En hund, hunden | | Swedish: Tva hundar, hundarna | | German: | | English: No, go away | | Swedish: No one invited you | | German: Der Hund | | English: I said go away | | German: Ein Hund, zwei Hunde | | Swedish: Stop it | | German: Den Hund, einen Hund, dem Hund, einem Hund, des Hundes, | eines Hundes, den Hunden, der Hunden | | Finnish: Sup | | English: NO | | Swedish: NO | | German: NO | | Finnish: | | English: | | German: | | Swedish: | | Finnish: Koira, koiran, koiraa, koiran again, koirassa, | koirasta, koiraan, koiralla, koiralta, koiralle, koirana, | koiraksi, koiratta, koirineen, koirin German: Swedish: Finnish: | English: Finnish: Aaaand... koirasi, koirani, koiransa, | koiramme, koiranne, koiraani, koiraasi, koiraansa, koiraamme, | koiraanne, koirassani, koirassasi, koirassansa, koirassamme, | koirassanne, koirastani, koirastasi, koirastansa, koirastamme, | koirastanne, koirallani, koirallasi, koirallansa, koirallamme, | koirallanne, koiranani, koiranasi, koiranansa, koiranamme, | koirananne, koirakseni, koiraksesi, koiraksensa, koiraksemme, | koiraksenne, koirattani, koirattasi, koirattansa, koirattamme, | koirattanne, koirineni, koirinesi, koirinensa, koirinemme, | koirinenne English: Swedish: German: Finnish: Wait! then theres | koirakaan, koirankaan, koiraakaan, koirassakaan, koirastakaan, | koiraankaan, koirallakaan, koiraltakaan, koirallekaan, | koiranakaan, koiraksikaan, koirattakaan, koirineenkaan, | koirinkaan, koirako, koiranko, koiraako, koirassako, | koirastako, koiraanko, koirallako, koiraltako, koiralleko, | koiranako, koiraksiko, koirattako, koirineenko, koirinko, | koirasikaan, koiranikaan, koiransakaan, koirammekaan, | koirannekaan, koiraanikaan, koiraasikaan, koiraansakaan, | koiraammekaan, koiraannekaan, koirassanikaan, koirassasikaan, | koirassansakaan, koirassammekaan, koirassannekaan, | koirastanikaan, koirastasikaan, koirastansakaan, | koirastammekaan, koirastannekaan, koirallanikaan, | koirallasikaan, koirallansakaan, koirallammekaan, | koirallannekaan, koirananikaan, koiranasikaan, koiranansakaan, | koiranammekaan, koiranannekaan, koiraksenikaan, koiraksesikaan, | koiraksensakaan, koiraksemmekaan, koiraksennekaan, | koirattanikaan, koirattasikaan, koirattansakaan, | koirattammekaan, koirattannekaan, koirinenikaan, koirinesikaan, | koirinensakaan, koirinemmekaan, koirinennekaan, koirasiko, | koiraniko, koiransako, koirammeko, koiranneko, koiraaniko, | koiraasiko, koiraansako, koiraammeko, koiraanneko, | koirassaniko, koirassasiko, koirassansako, koirassammeko, | koirassanneko, koirastaniko, koirastasiko, koirastansako, | koirastammeko, koirastanneko, koirallaniko, koirallasiko, | koirallansako, koirallammeko, koirallanneko, koirananiko, | koiranasiko, koiranansako, koiranammeko, koirananneko, | koirakseniko, koiraksesiko, koiraksensako, koiraksemmeko, | koiraksenneko, koirattaniko, koirattasiko, koirattansako, | koirattammeko, koirattanneko, koirineniko, koirinesiko, | koirinensako, koirinemmeko, koirinenneko, koirasikaanko, | koiranikaanko, koiransakaanko, koirammekaanko, koirannekaanko, | koiraanikaanko, koiraasikaanko, koiraansakaanko, | koiraammekaanko, koiraannekaanko, koirassanikaanko, | koirassasikaanko, koirassansakaanko, koirassammekaanko, | koirassannekaanko, koirastanikaanko, koirastasikaanko, | koirastansakaanko, koirastammekaanko, koirastannekaanko, | koirallanikaanko, koirallasikaanko, koirallansakaanko, | koirallammekaanko, koirallannekaanko, koirananikaanko, | koiranasikaanko, koiranansakaanko, koiranammekaanko, | koiranannekaanko, koiraksenikaanko, koiraksesikaanko, | koiraksensakaanko, koiraksemmekaanko, koiraksennekaanko, | koirattanikaanko, koirattasikaanko, koirattansakaanko, | koirattammekaanko, koirattannekaanko, koirinenikaanko, | koirinesikaanko, koirinensakaanko, koirinemmekaanko, | koirinennekaanko, koirasikokaan, koiranikokaan, koiransakokaan, | koirammekokaan, koirannekokaan, koiraanikokaan, koiraasikokaan, | koiraansakokaan, koiraammekokaan, koiraannekokaan, | koirassanikokaan, koirassasikokaan, koirassansakokaan, | koirassammekokaan, koirassannekokaan, koirastanikokaan, | koirastasikokaan, koirastansakokaan, koirastammekokaan, | koirastannekokaan, koirallanikokaan, koirallasikokaan, | koirallansakokaan, koirallammekokaan, koirallannekokaan, | koirananikokaan, koiranasikokaan, koiranansakokaan, | koiranammekokaan, koiranannekokaan, koiraksenikokaan, | koiraksesikokaan, koiraksensakokaan, koiraksemmekokaan, | koiraksennekokaan, koirattanikokaan, koirattasikokaan, | koirattansakokaan, koirattammekokaan, koirattannekokaan, | koirinenikokaan, koirinesikokaan, koirinensakokaan, | koirinemmekokaan, koirinennekokaan Swedish: | | German: | | English: Okay, now you're just making things up! | | Finnish: | | Finnish: And now the plural forms... | Kkoala wrote: | Haha, haven't laughed out loud in a while, thanks for sharing! | Don't know why I haven't seen this before | java-man wrote: | perkele! | thaumasiotes wrote: | > It is a good sounding language; in other words, it is pleasing | to the ear. This has to do with its wealth of vowels, which rules | out ugly consonant clusters. It was recently suggested that some | vowels should be exported to Czechoslovakia, where a shortage of | vowels is imminent, and that some Czech consonants should be | imported to Finland. However, negotiations collapsed at an early | stage. The Finns would not deal with a language that calls ice- | cream 'zrmzlina,' | | It's always surprising how many people believe that spelling is | somehow linguistically significant. There is no real difference | between Czech 'zrm' and English 'zerm', but somehow the Czechs | are dealing with an unpronounceable vowel shortage. | kebman wrote: | I have only one thing to add to this: Kippis! | pier25 wrote: | > _what case? Nominative, accusative, genitive, essive, | partitive, translative, inessive, elative, illative, adessive, | ablative, allative, abessive, comitative or instructive?_ | | Jesus... I studied Latin in high school and this triggered some | PTSD. And Latin only has 6 cases! | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_case#Latin | docandrew wrote: | Why not bring back Latin? The alphabet is already in wide use, | many languages evolved from it making it easy-ish for them to | learn, and Latin was already in wide use as the lingua franca for | academia and the church up until the 1700s. | droobles wrote: | Latin never went anywhere! Carpe Diem, ad hoc, et al. I love | learning more about Latin, and while it would be cool to be as | fluent as possible as a speaker, I really love parsing and | consuming Latin texts, I learn so much not only about history | or religion but also just about our current society and | language habits. | | The answer with Latin is obviously the cases, imho Spanish | would be my vote for a lingua franca - simple, phonetic, sounds | beautiful with any accent sung or spoken, and already has | massive influence and history. | mynegation wrote: | Seriously though. I found myself once on Interlingua TikTok and | had a shocking experience of understanding the speaker almost | entirely but not recognizing the language. Vocabulary was close | to Spanish (that I have basic knowledge of), but declension and | overall flow was more like Italian (that I do not speak). I | also could speak French long ago, but not anymore so that may | have helped as well. | leoc wrote: | If you want to try your luck with Latin: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C77anb2DJGk . Or you could | head straight to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09L7bge0w4Q | or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7hd799IznU&list=PLU1WuLg4 | 5S... ! | option wrote: | English is the world language. Time to formalize that and move | on. | freetonik wrote: | The weirdest thing about Finnish cases is the counter-intuitive | nature (to a speaker of almost any indo-european language). For | example: "dog" is "koira", "I like" is "pidan"; "I like the dog"? | -- "Pidan koirasta", which is using the "-sta/sta" ending of the | elative case, which usually means "from". So, it's "I like from | the dog". It doesn't end here... | | * Tulin Norjasta -- I came from Norway. | | * Pidan Norjasta -- I like Norway. | | * Puhu Norjasta -- Talk about Norway. | | How come the same case is used in these?! | | "Loytyy apteekista" -- "Can be found at the pharmacy", literally | "Find from the pharmacy". Saying "Loytyy apteekissa", which would | literally mean "find at the pharmacy" is grammatically incorrect. | | So, yeah, Finnish grammar is nicely structured and consistent, | but sometimes it just goes against intuition of speakers of other | languages. | makach wrote: | You got me until the first point | | "It is an essentially logical language. The rules are absolute | and reliable in all situations, except exceptions." | | "except exceptions?!" whoa..! the brought back memories from | learning German. | | perkele! | skrebbel wrote: | There's extremely few exceptions though, very much unlike other | languages. | | Pronunciation is extremely systematic too. You could record the | sound of each character as an audio file and put each file in | order of a word/sentence and it'll sound like (bad, robotic) | Finnish. | | This also means that you can hear a spoken word (or a name!) | and just know how it's spelled, even if you have no idea what | it means. Compare that to English! | | This article is clearly satire, but it's a delightful language, | especially for nerds who think learning consistent grammar | rules is easier than endless lists of exceptions (Hi there, | French!) | | The only practical downside is that just about every word is | unique to the Finnish language group, except recent imports (eg | bussi, teatteri). Eg "mom" is a word with an "m" in every other | language I'm familiar with, but it's "aiti" in Finnish. | gordaco wrote: | This is something I really like about Finnish. Being a native | Spanish speaker, I am accustomed to knowing how a word is | spelled just by hearing it, although there are some cases | where there might be doubt (like the homophones _b_ and _v_ , | or the always silent _h_ ). But the letters are not always | pronounced the same. For example, _c_ and _g_ are pronounced | differently, depending on what the following vowel is. Even | worse, _u_ is silent after a _q_ , or when between a _g_ and | an _e_ or _i_. I mean, I don 't have any problem with all of | this, since I've been dealing with it for all my life :) . | But I can understand how annoying it can be for a foreign | learner, even if it's not as infuriating as English. | | Now, Finnish? It's way, way more regular. Each letter is | pronounced always the same, no matter the context or the | letters surrounding it (there aren't even consonant groups | like _ch_ ). The grammar might be more complex, and the | vocabulary might be difficult because it lacks the indo- | european roots from all the other languages I know. But | phonetics? Yeah, it's one of the simplest languages out | there, in this sense. I love Finnish because of that, and I | actually listen to a lot of Finnish music (despite not | understanding almost anything), just because I love the way | it sounds. | | Still, I with I had fewer issues with _a_ and _a_... I can | pronounce both separately, but when I hear someone speaking, | I still have trouble when I need to differentiate between | these two. | [deleted] | drno123 wrote: | German exceptions are nothing compared to French exceptions. | French is basically all exceptions and no rules! And some math | (in French when you want to say 99, you literally say four | twentieths and 10 and 9). | shakow wrote: | Let's rather talk about German adjective declensions, a much | more pregnant problem in German than having to memorize a | weird number. | kingofpandora wrote: | People make a big deal about "quatre-vingt", but no French | speaker thinks about that _word_ as anything except "80". No | one is doing multiplication in real time. | stephc_int13 wrote: | In my opinion, Finnish is almost a joke. | | This language was created by a Bishop and was later promoted by | Russians for political reasons (to piss off the Swedes). | PLMUV9A4UP27D wrote: | I'm part of the Swedish speaking minority in Finland, and spent 7 | years in school trying to learn Finnish. I spent 3 years learning | German, and got about as far with that. Or as a friend of mine | said who moved to Germany: German just feels like a dialect | compared to Finnish. | mongol wrote: | But you must be immersed with Finnish? Do you struggle with it? | PLMUV9A4UP27D wrote: | It's reasonable to think I'm immersed with Finnish, but I | live in a part of Finland that is Swedish speaking, even by | law (https://satwcomic.com/difficult-love). I have a Finnish | speaking manager since 6 years back. We've never spoken | anything else than English. | umanwizard wrote: | Swedish and German are very closely related languages, so you | probably had tons of implicit intuition about how Germanic | languages work that didn't have to be studied. | PLMUV9A4UP27D wrote: | Yep, Swedish and German is as closely related as English and | German. It's possible that English and German are even closer | as they share the same Germanic branch (west Germanic), which | Swedish does not share. I bring this up since it can be | easier for the English speaking community of HN to relate to | the closeness of German, and for a while consider being "easy | as a dialect of English" to understand, in contrast to | Finnish which is really difficult. | JasonFruit wrote: | Finnish is a beautiful language, and I love to hear it sung -- | there's a _wealth_ of Finnish folk groups doing great music that | melds tradition and innovation, borrowing from musics from all | over the world. But that 's the drawback in learning Finnish: | what if, understanding the language, I no longer wished to hear | the music? The great advantage of Finnish, for me, is that I am | unlikely to ruin a song by accidentally becoming aware of its | meaning, since it apparently completely lacks cognates with | English. | kebman wrote: | > b. what case? Nominative, accusative, genitive, essive, | partitive, translative, inessive, elative, illative, adessive, | ablative, allative, abessive, comitative or instructive? | | > c. is it possible to avoid using the noun? | | And now you know why the most extroverted Finns are the ones who | look at your shoes instead of on the ground in front of you! | naltun wrote: | > I think I do not misspeak myself by saying that the work of | this article should settle the matter clearly and finally. | | Perkele, consider the matter closed. | euroderf wrote: | Selva | PanosJee wrote: | Let's stick with Greek. | Koshkin wrote: | Modern Greek sounds much like Spanish to me. It is interesting, | then, that having arisen, one from Latin and the other from | Ancient Greek - quite different sounding languages - they | somehow converged. | pelasaco wrote: | I would vote for "old tupi", an extinct Tupian language which was | spoken by the aboriginal Tupi people of Brazil and in the early | colonial period, Tupi was used as a lingua franca throughout | Brazil by Europeans and aboriginal Americans. I'm probably one of | the last "speakers", and probably the only one in Germany :) | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupi_language | jmclnx wrote: | I was thinking as I read this. For a world wider lang. we | should pick an easy to learn and pronounce extinct lang. That | way everyone would have to learn a new language :) | | old tupi I guess is as good and any Extinct Language. | retrac wrote: | It should be Japanese, of course! | | Japanese can be written using either the Latin alphabet, or | Chinese characters. The two most common writing systems in the | world. It can also be written with its own elegant and purely | phonetic writing system. There's even Braille, Morse code, and | sign language encodings. It is truly media agnostic. | | Japanese has a regular grammar. From a linguist's perspective, | aside from the politeness system, it's really quite _normal_ for | a language. Very little in it to surprise a Finnish, Turkish or | Korean speaker. (Unlike English, which if first discovered today | spoken by a people in the interior of New Guinea, would lead to | accusations of a linguistic hoax.) | | Finally, some 40% of Japanese vocabulary is based on Chinese, and | Chinese and Japanese technical terms flow freely between the | languages to this day. Another ~20% of Japanese vocabulary is | borrowed from European languages like English or Portuguese. The | majority of the world already speaks a significant amount of | Japanese and they don't even know it! For this reason, Chinese, | European, and American, alike, usually find it quite easy to | learn. | leke wrote: | A lot of Finnish people learn Japanese for some reason. | vesinisa wrote: | > Unlike English, which if first discovered today spoken by a | people in the interior of New Guinea, would lead to accusations | of a linguistic hoax. | | English grammar is actually _very_ regular. It has lost most of | the complexity of its Germanic substrate due to the repeated | historic pidginization. For a learner, the lack of grammatical | gender is godsent and a turbo hack to producing grammatically | correct sentences. | canjobear wrote: | You're right that English grammar is fairly simple in terms | of things like morphology and grammatical gender. | | Where I think English would be surprising, if discovered as a | new language, is the phonology: we have lots of extremely | unusual and hard-to-pronounce consonant and vowel sounds. You | can take whole classes just to learn how to pronounce the | English /r/ in a way that sounds right. Which makes it | especially unfortunate as a world language. | johannes1234321 wrote: | > You can take whole classes just to learn how to pronounce | the English /r/ in a way that sounds right. Which makes it | especially unfortunate as a world language. | | While true that is "solved" by having very distinct | accents. Somebody from Oxford, Melbourne, Delhi and Houston | ( all pronounce the /r/ and other sounds quite different, | but will still understand each other (given a little will | on both sides) | notahacker wrote: | Tolerance of different pronunciations is helpful for | people learning to _speak_ English, but not so much for | following what they 're saying. Plus of course we have a | significant number of words where an attempted phonetic | pronunciation might not be _a bit unusual_ so much as | completely unintelligible. At least we 're not that fussy | about stress and apart from implied questions don't | really convey much important meaning with tone. | xhevahir wrote: | I don't know about you, but I have a very hard time | understanding a lot of Indian accents specifically | because of the unfamiliar stress patterns. (That, and | their avoidance of aspirated consonants, which drives me | crazy.) | [deleted] | umanwizard wrote: | English verb and noun morphology are simple. English | phonology and syntax are extremely complex. This is why | people say "English has simple grammar": they're thinking | only about morphology, which is the hard part of Latin, | Greek, Russian, etc. | usernameak wrote: | As a native Russian speaker, I would say that getting the | morphology wrong won't prevent you from being understood. | You _will_ sound pretty weird, but people will still | understand you. | kriro wrote: | I think Koran is quite interesting. The symbols were designed | from scratch iirc. and they are extremly logical. I'd argue | that most people will be able to read and correctly pronounce | Korean in a couple of days (even if they don't understand a | single word the are saying) which is quite astonishing. I was | pleasently surprised at the logical structure. When I first saw | the symbols my western brain said "oh my, this is complex and | hard". I was shocked how wrong I was. | jhvkjhk wrote: | yurishimo wrote: | In the 15th century, the Korean king at the time decided to | revamp the entire alphabet. It's consistent and phonetic. | There are 24 basic "letters" and 27 complex "letters" that | are a combination of the basic letters. | | You can read more about it here: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_language | | I've been tempted to learn Korean since I discovered this | factoid, but haven't found a program or the time that I can | stick to. | | Anecdotally, I'm learning Dutch right now to prepare to move | overseas next month, and the basics haven't been that | difficult. I feel pretty confident that I can order food and | exchange daily phrases after only a few dozen hours of | practice. Lucky for me, the Dutch also speak excellent | English, but I'm trying to learn anyway! | bitwize wrote: | > Unlike English, which if first discovered today spoken by a | people in the interior of New Guinea, would lead to accusations | of a linguistic hoax. | | English is a mess _because_ it is a mixture of languages from | different ethnic groups: Anglo-Saxon, Norse, Celtic, and | Norman. It 's been used for cross-cultural communication ever | since it was identifiable as English. | | Hackernews armchair linguists seem to think an ideal language | for world communication can somehow be engineered from some | small set of primitives, like Scheme -- resulting in | suggestions like that we all start speaking Toki Pona -- but | the reality is that human communication is messy and the most | practical languages tend to be messy ones. Some linguists have | observed that trade pidgins develop English-like morphologies, | even when English is not one of the contributing languages. | | (And even Scheme got messy; see R6RS and R7RS...) | | As for Japanese, I love it, it's beautiful, but as even any | weeaboo knows, Japanese language is very bound up with Japanese | culture. You can't simply ignore or elide the politeness bits; | where you stand in society very strongly influences what you | say. The fact that English is largely free of this baggage | helps make it an effective language that people around the | world pick up and use for trade, especially when different | ethnic groups are involved. | koolala wrote: | A world were everyone could speak scheme is a beautiful idea. | Like if we were cyborgs. I'd hope there is still value in | learning the thought patterns of Scheme 1.0. | bitwize wrote: | I once fancied a girl who was doing postgrad work in | linguistics, and one time she made a remark like "I love | lambda calculus!" And I was like, really? That's a | programming/CS thing, how does it apply in your field? | Turns out LC is used as a representation to normalize | semantics in linguistics. | | It would be interesting to see a Scheme-like underpinning | to the semantics of any language -- maybe not to be used | for communication in its own right, but to achieve things | like more intelligent translation, or NLP machine-learning | applications that extract meaning from a text. I don't see | much interest in something like this emerging, however, | with the current trend in AI being "throw more statistics | at the problem". | nine_k wrote: | Domination of English has more to do with British empire | bringing it to large swaths of the world (India, Africa), and | the US being the principal winner of WWII and expanding its | industrial, scientific, and cultural might around the world. | | English language is like Chinese: while simple structurally | (no cases, constructive verb forms, etc) has a terribly | complicated writing and pronunciation system, where there | sort of are rules, but you never know when you hit an | exception. Despite that, people take it up, because the | important communication happens in English. (People who study | areas like ML, or who work a lot with industrial production, | likely pick up some Chinese, out of the same necessity.) | rcarr wrote: | I don't doubt that the Empire and America had a lot to do | with English dominance. However I do feel there is | something inherently fun about English that is lacking in | other languages I've encountered. Maybe it's just because | it's my native language but I can't help but feel this | sense of playfulness is picked up on by non native speakers | as well. The article below is really interesting; it's by | non English stand up comedians who have started performing | in English. The general feel is that they prefer | writing/performing in English and can have more fun with it | than their native languages. | | https://www.vulture.com/2020/01/stand-up-comedy-english- | lang... | Bakary wrote: | I'd say each language has pockets of playfulness that | aren't found in others. Sometimes you find pockets that | coincide to a surprising extent. It's like stacking | layers of Swiss cheese. | | For instance, Gad mentions in the article the expression | "Got it" that doesn't have great equivalents in French. | But French also has sentences that don't have great | equivalents in English, or if they do have one it's not | nearly as playful. | | The one thing English has that most languages don't is a | massive body of work and a dominant grip on international | culture, and I think that's what the comics in the | article are interpreting as higher overall playfulness. | linguistbreaker wrote: | Japanese is a very high context language which instantly | disqualifies it in my opinion. | kyleamazza wrote: | There's one reason (of many) that Japanese still uses kanji: it | has a lot of homophones due to the lack of different sounds in | the language (relative to Mandarin, which still has a lot of | homophones). Even more, it has pitch intonation which differs | the meaning of words. The simplicity of the sounds and grammar | belies the difficulty of the language. There have been | movements to try and romanize the Japanese language, and for | the most part, none have caught on. | | Korean has a much simpler writing system, but similarly suffers | from a lot of homophones, and in addition with no | characters/kanji to differentiate them. Neither of these are | magically simpler languages: like any language, there's a lot | of legwork that goes into learning them, particularly if you | come from a language with little in common | | (Edit: I'm not a linguist, I just happen to like both of these | languages as a hobbyist; feel free to point out any | inaccuracies) | stardenburden wrote: | Now I need to know if this is also satire or if I need to start | learning Japanese | teddyh wrote: | _So You Want To Learn Japanese_ | | http://www.stmoroky.com/links/sywtlj.htm | amyjess wrote: | Japanese grammar is starkly minimalist. It's not hard to | learn at all, the basic structure is almost purely | agglutinative, and the word order is consistently head-final | in _all_ cases (e.g. SOV for sentence and modifier-modified | for not only adjectives but also relative and appositive | clauses), and it helps that Japanese doesn 't grammatically | track several things that other languages do, such as person, | number, or gender. | | There are only two real problems: | | 1. The writing system is ridiculously complex, and even if | you just vow to only write in romaji you also have to deal | with the problem that kanji acts as a huge source of both | puns and compound words. You can invent new compound words | just by jamming together the _on_ readings of a couple of | kanji and most Japanese people will understand you. It 's | also not unheard of in, for example, songs, to pronounce a | word one way when singing but write it in the official lyrics | sheet using kanji that's normally associated with a | completely different word. The closest I can compare to this | in other languages would be like if you were talking and | using sign language at the same time and you were | deliberately signing different words than what you were | speaking in order to add subtext. | | 2. Because a) so many features aren't grammatically tracked | and b) Japanese is aggressively pro-drop, a lot of sentences | are extremely ambiguous without context. For example, you | often can't tell just from hearing the words if someone is | saying "I go", "you go", "they go", "he goes", or "she goes" | (in Japanese these are all just _iku_ / _ikimasu_... unless | you 're going out of your way to put a pronoun in there, but | most people don't); you have to parse the sentence in the | context of what else is being said in the conversation or by | what's going on around you. | golemiprague wrote: | xhevahir wrote: | You're forgetting the difficulty of learning the elaborate | system of honorifics, without which you'll be unable to | talk to a native speaker without insulting them. The title | of this book gives some idea: https://www.amazon.com/exec/o | bidos/ASIN/4770016247/ref=nosim... | checkyoursudo wrote: | Just to relate back to the original point of adopting a | universal language, I would guess that if any language | were adopted as a world-wide language, then things like | honorifics and formal-informal distinctions and gendered | articles/nouns would be dropped pretty quickly. | cyphar wrote: | While that is technically true standard Jing Yu | /honorifics (desu/masu and a few word choices) aren't | really that complicated. | | There are additional levels of honorifics which can be | far more complicated but (outside of workplace honorifics | -- which you will need to practice if you will work at a | Japanese company) native speakers usually get some kind | of training in how to speak in that exceptionally formal | way (the kind of keigo used in restaurants is sometimes | criticised for being "incorrect" Japanese and is called | baitoJing Yu -- usually service workers literally get | handed a manual which explains how to interact with | customers using this form of Jing Yu ). If you or I had | an audience with the queen we would probably also get | some kind of training in how to politely speak to her. | | Finally, if it's obvious you're studying Japanese and you | drop a desu or masu the person is quite unlikely to be | insulted. Especially if it's not someone who is your | superior at work. | sbierwagen wrote: | Japanese uses Chinese characters heavily, but they're | obviously pronounced nothing like they are in Mandarin, and | their contextual meaning has drifted over the last thousand | years. Japan and China have also made _many_ different | choices in technical loanwords-- Japanese tends to transcribe | loanwords directly but English is often lightly mangled by | Japanese phonology: you can puzzle over kibodo (kiiboodo) for | a while but unless it 's in context the English word | "keyboard" won't jump out. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | I had to work with some code from a Japanese manufacturer | and translated some of the comments. I got stuck on | debadora (debadora) for a while. It was clearly Japanized | English but it took a while to realize it is "device | driver". | [deleted] | bryondowd wrote: | Man, I had a similar experience working with code from a | French manufacturer. The comments were mostly | translatable, but the variable names were hell. It's bad | enough trying to figure out in English whether acc is an | abbreviation of acceleration, or accuracy, or some | acronym, etc. Trying to expand a three letter | abbreviations in a language you don't know it's nearly | impossible. | | Made me really lean towards never abbreviating in | variable names unless it was extremely necessary for | brevity, and also provide good comments. | cyphar wrote: | They like four-character abbreviations a lot (obviously | you have Si Zi Shou Yu , but most onomatopoeia are four | kana, and a lot of other emphatic words are four kana). I | was watching a let's play YouTuber who started referring | to Breath of the Wild as burewai (burewai). | BlargMcLarg wrote: | It's a language with over 2k common characters of which most | have two pronunciations, and the language is immensely | context-dependent. | | If that doesn't scare you, go ahead. | contravariant wrote: | It's not that bad, most sequences of kanji have just a | single (common) way to pronounce them. | | Although some sequences are completely new, so you need to | figure out which word ends where. | | And the most commonly used kanji also have the highest | number of different pronunciations, sometimes in several | ways that are _impossible_ to tell apart grammatically (or | even semantically, obviously this is almost never | annotated, because adding the pronunciation is for words | the author thinks you don 't know, even when the | pronunciation is entirely unambiguous*) | | *: No I'm not bitter I had way too much trouble figuring | out how to annotate Japanese text with the pronunciation to | make it vaguely readable, why do you ask? | nine_k wrote: | Kanji are fun to learn, because they are constructive to | some degree, and actually pictorial to some degree. | | If you can imagine a language where 2k+ emoji are used as | parts of words, with all the combination rules which emoji | have, that would give you some idea. | | But it does tax your memory (nothing compared to Chinese, | though!), and takes time when writing by hand. Typing is | significantly easier because a reasonable IME gives you | variants to choose from when you type the pronunciation. | Judgmentality wrote: | > Kanji are fun to learn, because they are constructive | to some degree, and actually pictorial to some degree | | > actually pictorial to some degree | | Only in the same sense that star constellations are | pictorial. | | https://youtu.be/unKrseRCOKo | | I really feel like this is appropriate. | Izkata wrote: | There are some that are kinda funny when you first see | them, for example: | | Tree: Mu | | Forest: Sen | minikomi wrote: | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uD0NOhrPyEM | | I thought you were going to link this guy but both work | :) | Asraelite wrote: | It is literally _the_ hardest language to learn for English | speakers. Regardless of what you hear about the elegance of | its grammar, this is a real fact backed up with evidence from | past learners. Know what you 're getting yourself into. | United857 wrote: | > speaks a significant amount of Japanese and they don't even | know it | | Only for a very loose definition of "speaking" | | A Chinese without knowledge of Japanese reading it or vice | versa would be like a English speaker reading French or vice | versa. You'd recognize some vocabulary, but the grammar and | pronounciation is significantly different and most of the | overall sentence is still foreign. | | Even English loanwords are significantly altered by shortening | and mapping to Japanese tones. Most English speakers wouldn't | recognize "terebi" (television) or "konbini" (convenience | store) for example. | cyphar wrote: | Not to mention some words like patan (pataan/pattern) have | either very specific meanings that an English speaker would | not understand naturally or other words like tenshiyon | (tenshon/tension) have completely different meanings that an | English speaker would not recognise as English. | m1117 wrote: | Korean is like japanese, minus the kanji. | hota_mazi wrote: | Hangul is a marvel of an alphabet, especially when you | realize it was created from scratch six centuries ago. | skrebbel wrote: | By the king! | bitwize wrote: | Reminds me of Peter the Great's influence on Russian | Cyrillic. Among other contributions, he happened to like | the shape of the Latin letter R, so he just bunged a | backwards one into the alphabet where it represents the | sound 'ya'. | | Hangul is far less capricious, though, a marvel of | careful design. | sofixa wrote: | > Reminds me of Peter the Great's influence on Russian | Cyrillic. Among other contributions, he happened to like | the shape of the Latin letter R, so he just bunged a | backwards one into the alphabet where it represents the | sound 'ya' | | Do you have a source on that? As a Bulgarian (where | Cyrillic comes from) i had never heard anything of the | like, and a short Google, in Bulgarian or Russian, found | nothing. | nine_k wrote: | IDK about Ia, but Peter I definitely reshaped, along the | European typesetting guidelines, some letters like | lowercase a (which traditionally looked more like the | Greek alpha, a), and most drastically the t (t) which for | the best part of 17th century looked like Latin m. (This | shape still remains in Cyrillic cursive.) | codesnik wrote: | sometimes when I visit twitter, browser or whatever | starts to think that Russian twits are actually | Bulgarian, and this changes shape of some Cyrillic | letters, making text looking somewhat funny to russian | eye. T is one of them, IIRC. | inawarminister wrote: | I have heard that hangul and Mongolic script are related, | which might explain how the king was able to create a fully | featured beautiful script like that in one go. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Hangul | | "However the character Gu gu also functions as a phonetic | component of Meng Gu Menggu "Mongol". Indeed, records from | Sejong's day played with this ambiguity, joking that "no | one is older (more Gu gu) than the Meng Gu Meng-gu". From | palace records that Gu Zhuan Zi gu zhuanzi was a veiled | reference to the Meng Gu Zhuan Zi menggu zhuanzi "Mongol | Seal Script", that is, a formal variant of the Mongol | 'Phags-pa alphabet of the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368) that had | been modified to look like the Chinese seal script, and | which had been an official script of the empire." | | Might be true, might be not. Still interesting to see. And | the Mongols themselves mostly stopped using their script to | write in Cyrillic and Hanzi (?) now so. | | We have another example of such great men creating a new | script by himself after exposure to another script. | Cherokee by Sequayah. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_syllabary | nine_k wrote: | There are three really great, logical and legible writing | systems known to me. | | First is, of course, tengwar, but no real spoken language | uses it. | | Second if hangul, which is great overall and has an easy | structure [2], with just a few historic warts. | | Third, there's Cree syllabary. Just look at the logic: | [3]. | | [1]: https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Tengwar#Spelling_and_pr | onunciat... [2]: https://sites.google.com/site/hangulanat | ionallanguage/photo-... [3]: | https://fineartamerica.com/featured/plains-cree- | syllabics-tr... | lswank wrote: | Korean is the correct answer for world language. Revive the | hangul triangle and other characters to represent sounds | not present in Korea and you're good! Highly efficient. | Beautiful. Calligraphy is art. | deltasevennine wrote: | I find it inelegant. Two alphabets and a borrowed character | system from chinese which is entirely different. | | An elegant language that is easy to learn should be based off | of consistent primitives. Similar to math where an entire | mathematical language can be derived from a few axioms. For a | language you should have a single alphabet and consistent | grammar rules. | | Such a language is not only more elegant, but much more | practical to learn as well. And Practicality is by far more | important then elegance. | ur-whale wrote: | Japanese, the language that has an entire sub-alphabet | dedicated to segregating gaijin words - lest they somehow taint | the original language. | cyphar wrote: | Katakana are used for far more than loan words, loan words is | just the first example you learn when you first start | learning Japanese. | | Among many other stylistic uses, katakana are often used for | native onomatopoeia and are used to write native words all | the time (usually in cases where the kanji is either not | well-known or to give a different feeling to the sentence -- | zurui is a good example of this). | nine_k wrote: | Latin fonts also have italic forms, sometimes materially | different in shape from the straight forms. | | This is largely similar. | TulliusCicero wrote: | It's not similar, people mostly just use foreign words in | English without italics. | mathgorges wrote: | My understanding is that katakana I used for tons of other | uses like providing emphasis. | | The reason borrowed words are written in katakana is too | provide a clue that the word may have a non-standard | pronunciation. | | It functions similarly to how italicization does in English | jhanschoo wrote: | Japanese, the language that has an entire sub-alphabet of | broken Chinese letterforms dedicated to segregating native | Japanese particles and inflections - lest they somehow taint | the original kanbun. | ternaryoperator wrote: | Japanese is a language with no future tense and a very choppy | system of plurals (many of which have to be inferred). I don't | think it's a good candidate. | wl wrote: | English lacking a future tense hasn't stopped it from | becoming _the_ international language. | thfuran wrote: | What? English has several future tenses: | | I will go | | I will be going | | I will have gone | | I will have been going | Veen wrote: | When people say English doesn't have a future tense, they | mean it doesn't have an inflectional future tense like | other languages. It uses modal auxiliaries instead, as in | your examples. | | Compare "I walked" (inflection) with the simple future "I | will walk" ("will" as a modal auxiliary). | FabHK wrote: | You forgot: | | I'm going to go | | I'm going to be going (?) | | I'm going to have gone (??) | | I'm going to have been going (??) | SilasX wrote: | Heh, I sometimes think that in 30 years, "to be gonna" | will be the "official" future tense helper verb. | thfuran wrote: | I'm gonna of gone? | jcranmer wrote: | In a strict linguistic sense, these are not tenses, they | are... aspects, I think. | | In practice, you can lump tense, aspect, and mood | together and call them all "tenses." Especially because | many languages can end up partially conflating them, | insisting on a formal dichotomy based on the specific | information being conveyed in verb forms or based on how | it is grammatically represented (inflection versus modal | verbs versus what have you). | msbarnett wrote: | Those are modal auxiliaries. If English had a true future | "tense", there would be some inflection to the word "go" | itself that would mean "go-but-in-the-future" | retrac wrote: | Many descriptions of future events can use the present | tense. For example: "He's fixing that tomorrow." If | English has a distinct future tense, that should sound | just as wrong as "He fixed that tomorrow" does. But it | doesn't. This suggests the future tense in English is | marginal, and constructed optionally, out of verbs and | verb modifiers that are fundamentally expressed in the | present tense. | dorchadas wrote: | There's an argument to be made that that isn't a true | future tense, as it's not an inflected verb form. Thus | English doesn't have a future tense in the same way it | has a past tense (-ed for regular verbs) or a present | tense (-s for third person singular verbs), .i. marked by | inflection of a verb. Instead, it uses an auxiliary verb | to express the future. Now, whether that counts as | 'tense' or not is a matter for linguistic debate. | vgel wrote: | This is my syntax bias for sure, and you're not wrong it | _is_ a debate for some reason, but I find it very silly. | An inflectional rule or an auxiliary word can assign a | `TENSE fut` feature, just like an inflectional ending or | an adposition can assign a case feature. They 're just | different mechanisms. | umanwizard wrote: | Those are semantically future but not syntactically so. | yongjik wrote: | Disclaimer: IANAL(inguist). | | Unlike school grammar, most linguists consider English | tense as just present and past, or "non-past" and "past", | to be precise. There are several arguments for that: | | * The auxiliary verbs "will" and "shall" don't behave | like present/past tense markers ("-ed"), but behave more | like "can", "may", "must", etc., which are grouped as | verbs affecting _modality_. See: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_verb | | * More importantly, you can actually take the past tense | of "will"! | | > He would frequently go out for dinner. | | Hard to tell what's its tense, if "will" marked the | future tense. It's much cleaner to consider it as a past | tense of the modal verb "will". | | * English does use present tense in many cases to denote | an event in the future, e.g., "We depart at five a.m. | tomorrow," or "When does it start today?" Contrast this | with the past tense, where nobody says "We depart at five | a.m. yesterday," or "When does it start last evening?" | wl wrote: | go = infinitive | | going = present | | gone = preterite | | No future tense there. | | You're using "will" as an auxiliary verb to talk about | the future. It accomplishes the same thing as a present | tense, but it is not the same thing. | ghaff wrote: | English has basically most (all?) the tenses that a | language like French has but may lean on pairing the verb | with additional words. (Though it's been way too long | since I studied French to even remember the names for all | these tenses much less the French forms.) | fvdessen wrote: | french has a lot more tenses, behold: avoir, tu avais, tu | as eu, tu as, tu auras, tu auras eu, tu aurais, tu aurais | eu, tu eus, tu eus eu, que tu aies, que tu aies eu, que | tu eusses, que tu eusses eu, aie, aie eu | ghaff wrote: | How many of them express concepts that you actually can't | express in other ways in English? | fvdessen wrote: | Some of them have mostly the same meaning as others but | are only used in written form to express that you feel | really intellectually superior to your audience. Such | levels of snobbery do not translate to english. | plorkyeran wrote: | English uses an auxiliary word (will) to express things | happening in the future rather than having a distinct | future tense. | [deleted] | muffinman26 wrote: | Not having a future tense is an advantage, not a | disadvantage. | | There's no reason that something happening in the future | needs to be encoded with weird grammar/verb conjugation. It's | simpler to denote something happening in the future with a | phrase describing when it happens, which often needs to be | included anyway. Fewer tenses means less to learn. | | 'I go tomorrow' vs. 'I will go tomorrow' | | 'I go later' vs. 'I will go later' | | Note that I don't speak Japanese. I'm basing this off of my | very limited understanding of how Mandarin denotes the | future. It's very possible I misunderstood what you mean by | "no future tense". | java-man wrote: | You Ling Wen Zi | nine_k wrote: | A beautifully simple language with the world's hardest | writing system. | ian-g wrote: | I opened this up fully expecting it to just be "It's a weird | language without many relatives. We'll all be equally miserable | learning it except those weirdo Finns. A level playing field for | us all" | rhacker wrote: | It's right there smack in your face, the entire page has a .de | domain and is written in english without Google translation help. | English is and always will be the international language, for | better or worse. Dare to fight it? You'll have to present your | argument in English! | tragomaskhalos wrote: | I know this piece is tongue in cheek, but I nevertheless bridled | at the 'ugly consonant clusters' accusation; I think these add | richness and character to a language, and as an English speaker, | anyone who disagrees can prise the latchstring from my cold dead | hand ... | xbar wrote: | I am convinced. | stevekemp wrote: | Speaking as somebody who moved to Finland, and struggles with the | language, that's some good satire. | Ekaros wrote: | As native speaker it is perfectly logical and sane compared to | English. Then again I suppose that is not exactly high bar. | java-man wrote: | > It is an essentially logical language. The rules are | absolute and reliable in all situations, except exceptions. | | I love it! except exceptions. | Crespyl wrote: | At least you know to expect them! | rocket_surgeron wrote: | English is the superior language because of its infinite | number of states. | | It will beat and humiliate the learner, leading them to feel | accomplished when they have finally attained proficiency. | | By the master, English can be beaten and humiliated into | submission and used to accomplish amazing feats of literary | insanity. | | Think rules matter? In some languages grammar rules (and | their exceptions) are strict. When you start to mess around, | things fall apart. Meaning evaporates. People don't | understand you. | | In English? Verbing weirds language. | | Logic and reason are the refuge of the unimaginative and | dispassionate. The people who don't understand or appreciate | the satirical nature of the above article. | | The insanity of English is what makes it awesome. | mynegation wrote: | Come on, English is not that bad. No real verb conjugation in | response to gender, person, or (to an extent) number. There | are irregular verbs, sure, but due to a simpler conjugation | you have to memorize way less than for eg Spanish or French. | Simpler morphology - no significant agglutination, prefixes | or suffixes. Only 26 glyphs. One downside is complicated | phonetics though. Not just the sounds, but all the | inconsistencies (like "dough", "through", "rough", or "head", | "heat", "read"). | kaba0 wrote: | I believe English has an easier to reach basic level, but | it is perhaps the hardest language to master out of all of | them. | | Comparatively, learning German to a level where you can get | by is a bit harder, but building on top of that to master | the language is not an extraordinary amount of work. | | Like, one would get much further with natural language | processing based on a purely mechanistic approach targeting | German, while English would have more exceptions than | contenders where a rule applies. | narag wrote: | _Not just the sounds, but all the inconsistencies..._ | | Coming from Spanish and our irregular verbs, memorizing the | inconsistencies is a piece of cake. The sounds though... | tzot wrote: | Nobody expects the Spanish exceptions, you surely mean. | docandrew wrote: | I think English is generally under-rated but the phonetics | are a mess, something I appreciate more now that I'm | teaching my sons to read. | | This poem is a classic example: | https://icaltefl.com/dearest-creature-in-creation/ | stevekemp wrote: | Those inconsistencies you mention are pretty good, but of | of course you missed those that are more fun: | | "read" vs "read" (I have read this book/I will read this | book). | | "bow" vs "bow" (At the end of the opera everybody takes a | bow/We shoot the arrows with a bow). | | etc. | jjav wrote: | > We shoot the arrows with a bow | | while standing on the bow (of a boat). | ch33zer wrote: | Don't be ridiculous 'bow' (of a boat) can't be confusing | at all: that's a word that's pronounced differently, but | spelled the same :D | | How bout 'A bowed bow fired from the bow requires that we | take a bow to receive a bow' | jamiek88 wrote: | Wow you wrapped that up in a neat bow! | mynegation wrote: | "Read" - lol I did not miss that one, just did not | elaborate. I really could go on and on :-) I personally | struggled with "bear" vs "hear" (and "heard" vs "beard"), | voicing of "th" ("this" vs "thin", "than" va "thanks"), | accent change in verb vs noun ("prOgress" vs | ""progrEss"). But not with silent letters as in | "psychology" or "bomb" because compared to Russian and | French that is a piece of cake. | enlyth wrote: | Yeah English pronunciation is probably the only part I'd | say is difficult or annoying to learn. As a fluent speaker | for more than 20 years, I still have to look up how to | pronounce different words multiple times a week. | | Overall it feels like a simple language though, none of the | annoying stuff such as gendered nouns and declension. | jjav wrote: | > As a fluent speaker for more than 20 years, I still | have to look up how to pronounce different words multiple | times a week. | | And even more tellingly, there's so many words in english | where native speakers don't even agree how it's | pronounced since there's no consistent pattern. Just | depends how each person first heard it and got used to | it. | | In finnish pronounciation and spelling are 1:1, competely | predictable with no exceptions. The english language game | of a spelling bee would be extremely boring in finnish as | there are no trick spellings. It's always written the way | it is said. | noneeeed wrote: | Is that not just regional accents? Don't most countries | with a reasonably sized population have differences in | punctuation? Or are you referring to something different? | | As an English person, there are parts of my own country | where it will take me a bit of time to get my ear tuned | to the local accent and dialect (just this evening my | wife's mother, from south yorkshire, used a word I'd | never heard). But I was under the impression this is | pretty common, at least across Europe. I've heard French | people complaining about how people from some other part | of France speak, the same for Germany. Is Finnish unusual | in having a more homogeneous pronunciation? | | I'm not being defensive or anything, this is a genuine | question. As someone who struggled to spell at school I'm | well aware of what a mess English is. | wenderen wrote: | Love this satire. Especially the ominous but completely unhelpful | "be very, very careful with this one." | RajT88 wrote: | Yes, I think some have missed that this is a dig against | English being one of the top "World Languages". English, of | course, being illogical, inconsistent and hard to learn. | vnorilo wrote: | no niin. | codebook wrote: | We have logical language already. Esperanto. Don't we? :) | karaterobot wrote: | > It is an essentially logical language. The rules are absolute | and reliable in all situations, except exceptions. | | Then English is obviously more logical, since the rules can be | applied just as reliably in all situations as Finnish, and has | even _more_ exceptions. | | Tongue is in cheek here, as it is in the original article. | dhosek wrote: | For an extremely logical language, I would nominate Hebrew. The | way that verbs are conjugated from three-letter roots and those | same roots can become related nouns with regular patterns of | adding suffixes is just amazing. | | The Rabbinic tradition is that the original language before Babel | was Hebrew and after my studies of the language in college, I can | totally buy that. | mtalantikite wrote: | Arabic, like all Semitic languages, has this feature as well | and I agree it's amazing! There are a few examples on wikipedia | for those that haven't encountered this before [1]. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfix | maratc wrote: | I second this motion. | | "The Complete Dictionary of Hebrew Language" has about 35,000 | words in total. I bet that over a half of that aren't used, and | would sound completely new to anyone except Hebrew linguists. | | Hebrew is a "tabular" language that can be represented as a | (sparsely populated) table with the roots as rows and | "morphemes" (construction patterns) as columns. If a word | exists, it will be in its proper place at an appropriate row | and column. | | Here's an example of a construction pattern for the category of | "tools": | | maXXeXa | | The X denotes a place to put the root letters. Most of the | roots are composed of three letters, and so there are three | places. | | When you combine it with the root S.R.T which has a meaning of | "ribbon" (and also, film), you get "maSReTa" -- "a tool for | making films" (video camera). | | If you combine it with the root Ts.L.M which has a meaning of | "image", you get "maTsLeMa" -- "a tool for making images" | (still camera). | | Even if you never heard the word "maVReGa" but are able to | separate it into the morpheme of "tools" and the root V.R.G | (which has a meaning of clock-wise motion), you can use that to | understand the word as "a tool for making clock-wise motion" -- | a screwdriver. | Cyph0n wrote: | Yep, either Hebrew or Arabic would be my choice. Both are | relatively well-structured and have existed for a very long | time. Arabic has the advantage of having a larger number of | users/speakers. | Koshkin wrote: | At the other extreme, there's Yiddish, it is full of idioms and | it's more fun for that! | Maursault wrote: | I'm not all that against it, Finnish is quite beautiful. | Practically, however, it is too late. English is already the de | facto international language with 1.5B speakers and is the most | spoken language on the planet followed by Mandarin with 1.3B | speakers. I suspect English's international popularity is mostly | due to two factors, namely, 17th century British imperialism and | that English has been the international language of aviation | since the 1950's. | TulliusCicero wrote: | It's the dominance of the British Empire followed immediately | by the dominance of the American Empire. | dvh wrote: | Czech/Slovak word for ice cream is "zmrzlina" not "zrmzlina". | | https://translate.google.com/?sl=sk&tl=en&text=zmrzlina&op=t... | rvba wrote: | Written Czech/Slovak language is like Polish language where | someone deleted all the vowels. | mynegation wrote: | If they wanted to find an example of a word with highest | density of consonants, there is a Russian word "vzbzdnut'" | ("vzbzdnut'" meaning approximately "to fart unexpectedly a tiny | bit") with one vowel, seven consonants and one letter that | palatalizes the last consonant. | Toutouxc wrote: | I'm gonna strike right back with the Czech, perfectly valid, | words "vchrstls" and "smrskls" (roughly "you have | splashed/thrown/hurled" and "you have shrunk", respectively). | smcl wrote: | That's a great word. You might enjoy the Czech word for | "fart" - it also has no consonants and it's almost | onomatopoeia: "prd" | | prrrrrrrrrd | dvh wrote: | Chrt prv zhlt hrst zrn (grayhound first swallowed fistful | of seeds) | Koshkin wrote: | Or the Polish _chrzaszcz_ [1] | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrz%C4%85szcz | jmclnx wrote: | For this I thing Welsh wins, I have seen some of their words | and I cannot even begin to pronounce the words I have seen. | ur-whale wrote: | There's a difference? | | My eyes can tell, gotta use diff. | chizhik-pyzhik wrote: | Nice try, finland | justapassenger wrote: | It's part of an elaborate scheme to convince people that | Finland exists. We all know it doesn't. | leke wrote: | I'm a British guy living in Finland and am of course learning the | language. I'm not sure if this article is a joke, but Finnish is | quite a difficult language to learn quickly. However, it is true | that Finnish has some great features, and I'm very lucky to be | learning this than some other language. | | I'm also a fan of auxiliary languages and think some of these | constructed languages are a much better choice for a "world | language" because of just how fast one can learn them. My | personal favourite being Interlingue (aka Occidental). | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingue | | Related to both these points, there is a savant called Daniel | Tammet, who is a polyglot amongst other things. I hear his | favourite language is Finnish and he has constructed a language | based on it (and other Finnic languages) called Manti. I haven't | checked it out yet, but it sounds appealing to me at least. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet | aaroninsf wrote: | When I studied syntax as part of linguistics at the college | level, | | Finnish was often a go-to example because it more or less had | every feature enabled. | | Case and declination? Sure. Tenses? Yes. Agglutinative? Yes. | | It was asserted that there a disproportionate number of linguists | are Finnish because their language is a superset of many others, | and by necessity almost all Finns are multilingual, and that when | they are, the language families they tend to learn (Germanic, | Romance, and Slavic) are all distinctly different. So by the time | Finnish academics get an advanced degree their language faculties | can be extraordinary. | | EDIT oh yeah gender was the exception to the feature flags | ghaff wrote: | >It was asserted that there a disproportionate number of | linguists are Finnish because their language is a superset of | many others | | ?? | | Finnish isn't Indo-European. It's a Uralic language of which | their are only about 25 million speakers collectively, mostly | in Finland, Hungary, and Estonia. | | ADDED: Perhaps the intended point is that the language has many | language features. But the language itself isn't a superset. | forgotpwd16 wrote: | >had every feature enabled | | Is there any list for what those features can be? (Not | constrained to Fin.) | mostlylurks wrote: | Not a complete list of every feature and language, but WALS | [0] would probably be of interest to you. It has a decent | list of language features you can browse and read about, | shows you a map with the occurrence of each feature with | languages placed on that map for each feature, and lists | which languages have each feature (to the extent that is | recorded in that particular database). | | [0]: https://wals.info/ | forgotpwd16 wrote: | That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! | danjac wrote: | Finnish does not have grammatical gender. | egiboy wrote: | Because it's a bug, not a feature. | wizofaus wrote: | Not even gendered pronouns? | chousuke wrote: | Nope. Even better: Many dialects of Finnish use "it" for | everything in informal speech, so we're not just ahead in | gender equality, but animal rights as well. | wizofaus wrote: | How do you say it was a "he-said-she-said argument" then? | ;) Actually it's often occurred to me pronouns didn't | need to be gendered but we _should_ have different | pronouns for "the 1st aforementioned person" and "the | 2nd aforementioned person". Not sure if any languages do. | | Edit: maybe ASL? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w | eb&rct=j&url=https:/... | Ndymium wrote: | I would use the idiom "sana sanaa vastaan", i.e. "word | against word" for that situation. | mostlylurks wrote: | It's very informal and I'm not sure how widely spread it | is outside of the Helsinki region, but at least least | here in the Helsinki region, you can also use | demonstrative pronouns (taa (= this), toi (= that)) as | third person pronouns in certain specific circumstances | to further specify how the people referred to in the | conversation relate to you, the speaker, and whoever the | listener happens to be. So you can have people A,B,C | conversing, with D present but not participating in the | conversation, and E not present but being discussed, and | A can tell B " _this_ told _that_ that _it /he/she_ did | something" and it will be understood as "C told D that E | did something". Not the exact distinction you were asking | about, but it's another related axis of distinction in | pronouns that I thought might be interesting enough to | mention here. | housecarpenter wrote: | There are languages like that---the distinction is | referred to as "proximative" vs. "obviative". (Though | strictly speaking, it differentiates between "more | topical" and "less topical" third persons, which might | not necessarily correspond with the order in which | they're mentioned.) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obviative Apparently, | there's even an Algonquian language which has a "further | obviative" too, thus distinguishing three different | levels of topicality. | ardacinar wrote: | Not Finnish, but in Turkish (another language without | gendered pronouns) I'd use something like "o ne dedi bu | ne dedi" (what did that say, what did this say) | | I'd guess Finnish has more than one demonstrative | pronoun, too :) | brnt wrote: | Polish _actually_ had every grammatic feature known to man, and | as a bonus tons of inconsistenties andere exceptions (which | Finish does bot, at least that's my impression from here). | thriftwy wrote: | Does Polish actually have articles? I know Bulgarian does. | mzs wrote: | Ha, fantastic to contrast with English as logical and world | language :) | | Anyway, one thing that the post did not touch on was word stress. | Finnish is awesomely simple and consistent! (again, especially | compared to English) | boredemployee wrote: | Why not Esperanto? | UnpossibleJim wrote: | I was waiting for it! Thank you. I knew the most educated, | elite among us would arise. All hail Esperanto. Duly elected | leader of the post industrial, constructed languages =) | flipcoder wrote: | I actually like Esperanto and the concept of constructed | languages in general a lot. Esperanto's grammar is very logical | and easy to learn. Its a shame there's not much online content | in it and the community is fairly small in comparison to what | is often claimed. They actually have a Duolingo course and | Google Translate works with it, so that's something. | Terretta wrote: | Your sense of satire is quite evolved. | stew-j wrote: | It might have been more interesting to watch Aki Kaurismaki's | movies, including the _Proletariat Trilogy_ if I understood | Finnish. I 'd like to know a very different language from my | native English like Japanese, too. (Akira Kurosawa?) You just | never know what you miss in translation. | ahtavarasmus wrote: | nneonneo wrote: | _Spoken_ Mandarin would be a great basis for a logical world | language. Although it shares roughly zero words in common with | English or other European languages (aside from the occasional | loan word, like coffee or sofa), the language itself is concise, | expressive and grammatically simple: no conjugation, no | inflection, consistent pronunciation and minimal "politeness". | The only "weird" parts are tonality and those darned counting | words. | | Too bad the _written_ language is a disaster for learners. 10000 | unique characters to learn (30000 for literary fluency), and | inconsistent and often unpredictable pronunciation. | jefftk wrote: | _> The only "weird" parts are tonality and those darned | counting words._ | | Tonality, which is famously hard for speakers of non-tonal | languages to pick up? | FabHK wrote: | I'd say you're off by a factor of 3 to 10? | | 1000 characters suffices for basic literacy. HSK 6 (the highest | level of the Chinese as a second language exam) includes fewer | than 3000 characters. A highly educated person allegedly knows | 8000+ characters, though I'd take that with a grain of salt. | jhvkjhk wrote: | I think you miss typed a zero for literary fluency. There are | only 2500 most frequent used characters and 1000 second | frequent characters (from <<Xian Dai Yi Yu Chang Yong Zi Biao | >> , frequent standard Chinese characters list) | | Moreover, they are not unique, but composed from common | radicals, like prefix/suffix in English. | Bakary wrote: | One way to "solve" the tonality issue with Mandarin would be to | increase the number of permitted phonemes or phoneme pairs and | turn as many monosyllabic words as possible into polysyllabic | ones. To some extent, the latter process has already taken | place in the real world with the transition from classical | Chinese. Pair this with a Hangul-like script or Bopomofo | redesigned from the ground up and you've indeed got yourself a | hypothetical tool of communicative beauty. | | Amusingly enough, English has its own tonal-equivalent learning | problem in the form of phoneme stress. One of the final bosses | for non-native but highly fluent speakers is the ability to | never mess up the stress on certain words. | bfung wrote: | As a speaker of Mandarin and knowing phrases from inside | mainland China and the phrases outside (ex: Taiwan), there's | already phrases and words of the same spoken language that's | mutually unintelligible: [credit card, ice cream] - completely | different phrases used for the same ideas/objects. | | And the only way to express these ideas is with phrases | (combination of characters), as Chinese characters (spoken) on | their own already are overloaded. | jhanschoo wrote: | The comment you are replying to isn't claiming that | letters/characters (Zi zi4) correspond 1-1 to words/terms | (Ci ci2, what you call phrases) | [deleted] | CamogliX wrote: | As a huge fan of Scandinavia And The World comics I agree. Note | that in that comic all characters speak, apart Finland that | express himself by waving in the air a beer and a rusty knife. | theshrike79 wrote: | Torille? | atkbrah wrote: | Tortilla avataan? | [deleted] | rendall wrote: | One annoying thing about Finnish is that you have to say the | whole year, no shortcuts. 1975 is "one thousand, nine hundred and | seventy five" None of this _nineteen-seventy-five_ efficiency | nonsense. And, of course, you have to say it in Finnish numerals | which are all looooong: _vuosi yksi-tuhat-yhdeksansataa- | seitsemankymmenta-viisi_ | | _Saatanan kyrpa, kun saavun numeron loppuun, en muista vitun | alkun._ | Ndymium wrote: | Just a note, you wouldn't say yksi-tuhat, as just tuhat already | implies "one". So rather | tuhatyhdeksansataaseitsemankymmentaviisi or as I'd say it out | loud, tuhatyheksansataaseitkytviis. | Tor3 wrote: | You do exactly the same in Italian - I never found it | inconvenient or annoying. | vikaveri wrote: | Finns do commonly use nineteen-seventyfive, or even seiskaviis | or seven-five, when it's clear what year it means. There are | plenty of shortcuts. Only if you want to be "official" the | whole number is said | tzot wrote: | There's a legend that no Finnish ever says what the current | year is; by the time they... finish, they're wrong. | rendall wrote: | Yes, you _can_ shorten it, by deploying a kind of semi- | sanctified mumbling they call _puhekieli_ : | _tuhatyhekssataaseiskytviis_ | | I make fun because I love | lawlorino wrote: | You can absolutely shorten pronunciation of numbers, including | years, when speaking Finnish https://uusikielemme.fi/finnish- | vocabulary/vocabulary-lists/... | wilihybrid wrote: | Nah, doesn't work like that in practical (spoken) Finnish. | Someone born in 1975 would be "seiskafemma", someone in 1984 | "kasinelonen" and so forth. Even spelling the whole word out | would be along the lines of "ysitoista seitenviis" (19 75). No- | one would ever say "yksi-tuhat..." | mostlylurks wrote: | There are shortcuts, they're just different than those you have | in English. 1975 for me would be _vuos seittenviis_ , _vuos | seitkytviis_ , or _vuos tuhatysiseittenviis_. And if I wanted | to say _in the year _____ , I'd just have to change _vuos_ to | _vuon_. The set of shortcuts you could use when writing in the | literary variety is more constrained, however. | Bakary wrote: | In Mandarin you can just say "one nine seven five"! Though you | usually have to add "year" after that. | Asraelite wrote: | I remember a joke question from the conlanging subreddit asking | what real language looks the most like it was constructed, and | one of the top answers was Finnish. | | It really does look like that, it's unnaturally systematic in a | lot of ways. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-26 23:00 UTC)