Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 87

Thread: Are analytic (or synthetic) languages harder to learn?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Vietnam
    Native language
    English
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Outsider View Post
    Why that one? Shouldn't monosyllables be simpler than polysyllables?
    I agree with Flaminius' observation in post #19. I have consistently found that languages that have mostly polysyllables are easier for a learner to comprehend aurally than languages with a lot of monosyllables. It's one reason why English speakers consider Spanish to be "easy."

    Quote Originally Posted by Outsider View Post
    I don't think the problem there is the size of the word, so much as the vowels that make it up, which do not exist in Japanese.
    I don't think I understand your point, Outsider. It sounds as if you're saying that Japanese has no vowels.
    Last edited by Frank06; 11th June 2008 at 7:55 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Native language
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Posts
    28,006
    Quote Originally Posted by palomnik View Post
    I agree with Flaminius' observation in post #19. I have consistently found that languages that have mostly polysyllables are easier for a learner to comprehend aurally than languages with a lot of monosyllables.
    Even when it's a language with mile-long polysyllables, like German?

    Quote Originally Posted by palomnik View Post
    I don't think I understand your point, Outsider. It sounds as if you're saying that Japanese has no vowels.
    The English words that Flaminius mentioned have vowels that do not exist in Japanese. At least, one of them does ("stuck"), and the other ("stack") has an "a" which may be more front than the Japanese /a/.

    Quote Originally Posted by Athaulf View Post
    When it comes to all objective measures I can think of -- for example, how long it takes native children to master the language, or how long it takes adult learners speaking unrelated languages to reach near-native fluency -- the results, to the best of my knowledge, turn out to be roughly the same for both analytical and synthetic languages.
    That would indeed settle the discussion, as far as I'm concerned. I would be interested if you could list a couple of references.
    Last edited by Frank06; 11th June 2008 at 8:26 PM.
    Deuparth gwaith yw ei ddechrau.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; raised in Upper Austria
    Native language
    Austrian (as opposed to Australian)
    Age
    48
    Posts
    10,790

    Synthetic or analytic languages easier?

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardJ View Post
    Let me put it in the clearest possible terms, maybe then you will be able to grasp it. Let's compare the conjugations of the verb "to love", in english and in portuguese:
    (... cut - click to original post if you like ...)
    The English variation comprises 3 different endings. The Portuguese variation comprises 18 endings. 18 > 3. Hence the Portuguese conjugation is harder.
    Let me put it in most simple terms:

    - YES, the Portuguese endings are harder to learn, because there are more of them
    - NO, the English tenses are not easier to learn, because easiness depends on wether the tense system of the language you intend to learn roughly corresponds to the tense system of your mother tongue or other languages you already speak very well

    Easy to learn always is what is not quite new but known to you from your mother tongue (or other languages you already know).

    For speakers with Slavic mother tongues (to don't complicate things I should probably exclude here Bulgarian and Macedonian, but that just as a sidenote) it is very easy to learn the conjugation and declension of other Slavic languages. This is due to the fact that they are rather similar up to even some fine details. They mainly will have to substitute the endings of their mother tongue with the ones of the Slavic language they intend to learn (except BG+MK) and adjust to some irregularities and specialities of the language they intend to learn.

    For speakers with Slavic mother tongues, which are quite synthetic (except for BG+MK), this however does not mean that for them it would be much easier to learn Sanskrit than English; I would expect that this were not the case. Nevertheless, for Slavic language speakers it would be much easier to learn Sanskrit as it would be for German or English language speakers, because in Slavic languages quite some of the old Indoeuropean declension system which of course is present in Sanskrit has survived.

    So it is not 'just' synthetic or analytic languages being easier - it's not as simple as that.
    And I would ask you to please not refer to grammatical categories as being 'richer' or 'poorer' because this brings biased thinking into this discussion even if it weren't intended by you.

    Grammatical structures have no 'moral' value as such; they have only syntactical value. So let us please keep emotions out of this, yes?


    Quote Originally Posted by Athaulf View Post
    There is more to language than just inflectional morphology.
    I only can support this opinion.
    Concerning the comparison with Latin you made, for what it's worth*) I still think that for people with Slavic mother tongues (except BG+MK) it is easier to cope with the five cases of Latin than for native speakers of German where technically we have four cases of which in some dialect regions only two to three are actually used in colloquial speech.
    *) Of course, as I am no native speaker of a Slavic language I can only guess here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Outsider View Post
    Even when it's a language with mile-long polysyllables, like German?
    Oh, but they're dead easy!
    Last edited by sokol; 11th June 2008 at 11:43 PM.
    "An esoteric may claim more nonsense in 5 minutes than a scientist may be able to disprove in his entire life." Vince Ebert, about fighting sciolism.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Antwerp
    Native language
    Belgian Dutch
    Posts
    1,357

    Re: Are analytic (or synthetic) languages harder to learn?

    Quote Originally Posted by Outsider View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Athaulf View Post
    When it comes to all objective measures I can think of -- for example, how long it takes native children to master the language, or how long it takes adult learners speaking unrelated languages to reach near-native fluency -- the results, to the best of my knowledge, turn out to be roughly the same for both analytical and synthetic languages.
    That would indeed settle the discussion, as far as I'm concerned. I would be interested if you could list a couple of references.
    I agree , although I don't quite like the idea of reaching "near-native fluency" in that matter because it's hard to define. It had struck me before in threads with similar topics, btw, that Athaulf's idea of proficiency in a language must be a quite firm one. The fact that he seems to be a terrible gambler illustrated this to me once more :
    Quote Originally Posted by Athaulf View Post
    I still wouldn't bet $50 that I got the articles right in the English sentence I just wrote?
    (I just called at [a certain bookmaker's office - snipped by Joannes, before Frank does] and they calculated that the rate for Athaulf making articles mistakes in English in WRF in his next 15 posts is 1.1, i.e. you'd have to bet $500 to win only $50 if he does make such mistake. )

    I think an assessment in terms of the possibility to perform certain speech acts would be a better one - but I'm afraid we'll just have to settle with the research that has been done. I know little about language learning (L1 or L2), and even less about 'empirical data' in it (which seems to be very necessary in this thread), so I'll go back to 'reading and learning' modus.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Native language
    Português
    Posts
    15

    Re: Synthetic or analytic languages easier?

    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    Let me put it in most simple terms:

    - YES, the Portuguese endings are harder to learn, because there are more of them
    - NO, the English tenses are not easier to learn, because easiness depends on wether the tense system of the language you intend to learn roughly corresponds to the tense system of your mother tongue or other languages you already speak very well
    The argument you are trying to advance here is very old - namely that the difficulty of any language depends upon your previously known languages.
    That is only partly true. Remember: eighteen is greater than three. If an alien landed here from outer space (completely ignorant of any earthly language - just to make sure ) and had to learn English and Portuguese verbs he would still find the Portuguese conjugation harder because, remember, 18 > 3. I have a couple of Japanese friends who speak flawless English but less than perfect Russian and german. Their first tongue didn't help them to learn these languages (that is what I heard from their mouths). They agree with me that Russian and German are harder than English, even taking into account the fact that they grew up surrounded by English.

    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    Easy to learn always is what is not quite new but known to you from your mother tongue (or other languages you already know).
    So do you think that English is easy, but only compared to German? No need to reply...

    See above... I of course agree with this point. The English speaker grows up without a clue of what declensions are and hence when he has to speak German he encounters difficulties. The German speaker, on the other hand, just shoves the declensions off his head when he has to speak English. Modern English doesn't add a whole lot to German (or to any other European language, for that matter). English phonetics, perhaps, could be considered harder than German phonetics.



    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    For speakers with Slavic mother tongues (to don't complicate things I should probably exclude here Bulgarian and Macedonian, but that just as a sidenote) it is very easy to learn the conjugation and declension of other Slavic languages. This is due to the fact that they are rather similar up to even some fine details. They mainly will have to substitute the endings of their mother tongue with the ones of the Slavic language they intend to learn (except BG+MK) and adjust to some irregularities and specialities of the language they intend to learn.


    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    For speakers with Slavic mother tongues, which are quite synthetic (except for BG+MK), this however does not mean that for them it would be much easier to learn Sanskrit than English; I would expect that this were not the case.
    Certainly not!



    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    Nevertheless, for Slavic language speakers it would be much easier to learn Sanskrit as it would be for German or English language speakers, because in Slavic languages quite some of the old Indoeuropean declension system which of course is present in Sanskrit has survived.


    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    So it is not 'just' synthetic or analytic languages being easier - it's not as simple as that.
    Huh? This sentence doesn't seem, to me, to follow logically. Maybe I misunderstood, could you explain? So it is not 'just' synthetic or analytic languages being easier -- but rather "the more synthetic they are, the harder". Would that be it?

    As for the "ratings" of languages, it is as simple as that in a given point: declension, for example. It could be the case that some non declined language has another aspect that is harder than the declined language's and thus balances things out. But I don't think this happens often! Almost all declined languages are harder overall, in my opinion.

    Slavic languages are even more synthetic than German and thus are harder than German.

    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    And I would ask you to please not refer to grammatical categories as being 'richer' or 'poorer' because this brings biased thinking into this discussion even if it weren't intended by you.
    To say that grammatical categories are "richer" or "poorer" does not necessarily imply bias. But I will comply with your wish.

    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    Grammatical structures have no 'moral' value as such;
    Uh? No I guess not.

    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    they have only syntactical value. So let us please keep emotions out of this, yes?
    I'm not the one bringing emotions into this, but yes let's drop it.

    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    I only can support this opinion.
    Concerning the comparison with Latin you made, for what it's worth*) I still think that for people with Slavic mother tongues (except BG+MK) it is easier to cope with the five cases of Latin than for native speakers of German where technically we have four cases of which in some dialect regions only two to three are actually used in colloquial speech.
    *) Of course, as I am no native speaker of a Slavic language I can only guess here.
    I think you are right here, too. We agree on many points.



    Kind Regards to All

    PS: Frank06: I am sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. I do use capitals and they seem fine here.
    Last edited by EdwardJ; 12th June 2008 at 8:41 PM. Reason: Capitals, please. <shift>+<letter> on most keyboards.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; raised in Upper Austria
    Native language
    Austrian (as opposed to Australian)
    Age
    48
    Posts
    10,790

    Re: Synthetic or analytic languages easier?

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardJ View Post
    The argument you are trying to advance here is very old - namely that the difficulty of any language depends upon your previously known languages.
    That is only partly true. Remember: eighteen is greater than three. If an alien landed here from outer space (completely ignorant of any earthly language - just to make sure ) and had to learn English and Portuguese verbs he would still find the Portuguese conjugation harder because, remember, 18 > 3. I have a couple of Japanese friends who speak flawless English but less than perfect Russian and german. Their first tongue didn't help them to learn these languages (that is what I heard from their mouths). They agree with me that Russian and German are harder than English, even taking into account the fact that they grew up surrounded by English.
    But it is true.

    Would your Japanese friends not have been surrounded by English in many parts of everyday life, but instead the language of modern pop culture there would have been Russian, or Chinese, or whatever, then certainly for them it would be much easier to acquire proficiency in Russian, or Chinese, or whatever.
    Proficiency in a language is very much about using (and getting used to using) a language; this nowadays is rather easy with English, in Western society countries, but rather difficult with German or Russian (unless you live permanently or at least for some years in one of the German or Russian speaking nations).

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardJ View Post
    So do you think that English is easy, but only compared to German?
    No I don't, not at all.

    English is especially easy to native speakers of German, but this is mainly because both languages are closely related.
    Same goes for Scandinavian languages.
    But for Berbers in Algeria, for example, who will be used to Arabian and (if they are educated) French English won't be that easy - would be my guess.

    Apart from that, yes there are some factors which contribute to English being not so difficult to learn as quite some other languages, but don't you ever forget that English has a huge vocabulary which compensates for the loss of inflection.

    There's some compensation, you know, for the sheer number of endings with substantive declension and also derivative suffixes in languages like English where you do have to learn more phrasal verbs and vocabulary to express the same meanings. (And then some additional vocabulary, in the case of English, like with food: two names for a) the flesh still walking on its two or four legs: flesh and b) the meat on your plate: beef, pork, etc. one with Germanic origin - the walking one - and the other one with Romance origin.)
    Oh, you can get by with a basic English vocabulary and grammar, that's the beauty of international languages like English: you do not have to acquire proficiency for being able to communicate with sufficient success.

    So, to cut a long story short, a predominantly analytic language may be easier to learn - especially to acquire only basic knowledge - even if it is not related to your mother tongue and not an international language like English, but synthetic languages also have an element of easiness: you learn a declension paradigm and it is essentially the same for all substantives (with the odd exceptions of the rules as they do exist in all languages) - so with a paradigm of endings which, admittedly, is at first easier to learn you cover much more meanings.
    This becomes even more obvious if you know a Slavic language and have learned at least the basics of the Slavic verbal aspect: it is extremely difficult to learn for anyone not knowing the principle from his mother tongue, but if you have achieved it you can cover more meanings with it than a rather analytic language like German (let alone Enlish) can. (The English progressive form is not quite the same as verbal aspect, by the way.) In more analytic languages you need much more vocabulary to express the same.



    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardJ View Post
    So it is not 'just' synthetic or analytic languages being easier -- but rather "the more synthetic they are, the harder". Would that be it?
    No, it's not.
    It also depends on what level you do compare.
    On a level of basic knowledge analytic languages most likely always will be the easiest to learn; on a level of proficiency this may not be so and may depend on other factors (as described above).


    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardJ View Post
    But I don't think this happens often! Almost all declined languages are harder overall, in my opinion. (...) Slavic languages are even more synthetic than German and thus are harder than German.
    They are for me, and they are for you.
    But this may not be true for speakers of other languages.

    For me Slavic languages are very hard to learn, which I know from experience (I tried very hard with Slovene and only acquired slightly above basic knowledge).
    But for a hypothetical Old Aryan (Sanskrit) speaker Slavic languages would be rather easy except probably concerning phonetics.
    And for speakers of Finnish and Hungarian probably a Slavic language wouldn't be too difficult too even though structures between both language families differ vastly; but Finnish and Hungarian are languages with even more grammatical cases, so probably the six ('and-a-half' with vocativ) Slavic cases would be neither unfamiliiar nor (probably) unwelcome to them (because if you are familiar with the concept of putting new meanings to words with putting endings to them then you may appreciate learning a paradigm of be it even 25 endings to use on several thousands of words). However, of course, Finns and Hungarians would have to answer this point, I can only guess here.
    "An esoteric may claim more nonsense in 5 minutes than a scientist may be able to disprove in his entire life." Vince Ebert, about fighting sciolism.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Native language
    Croatian/Bosnia, Croatia
    Posts
    1,654

    Re: Are analytic (or synthetic) languages harder to learn?

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardJ View Post
    What experts are those? What "objective facts"? Where is the data?

    What exactly are you measuring? What is a "reasonable measure of complexity" to you?
    I have already mentioned two reasonable measures: the average time that native children take to acquire the language, and the time that adult learners who speak unrelated languages take on average to reach near-native fluency. If there is indeed a significant difference in the overall complexity of two languages, then it would be reasonable to expect a drastic difference in these times across them. Of course, both definitions are fuzzy and imprecise, and it's difficult to establish what counts as roughly the same level of proficiency across different languages, but still, if there are really significant differences in language complexity, then some measurable effect should exist. So far, however, as far as I know, none has been found.

    Now of course, this by itself is hardly a conclusive argument, but at least it indicates that the mental effort necessary to learn and use any human language is roughly the same if one is starting from scratch, which could be taken as a reasonable definition of "equal complexity".

    On the other hand, you have claimed that "an inflected language, like German, is harder than a non-inflected one like English" and that "this goes without saying". However, you have neither provided a useful definition of "hardness", nor any evidence for this claim.

    This is not my field of research, but I have more than a casual interest in languages. I have written and spoken fluency in 3 languages, and I can read in another 2. I can distinctively tell that some of the languages I know are harder than others. Many people agree with me (some of them apparently inhabit this forum).
    I don't know what languages these are, but people's experiences with learning foreign languages are usually heavily biased. For example, if some of these languages have greater similarities to your native one or other languages you've learned previously, or even if you're just studying your second foreign language after the first one has taught you to think outside the box of your native one, your impressions of difficulty will likely be very skewed.

    Where exactly did I "jump to an unjustified conclusion?"
    I had in mind your above cited claim that supposedly "goes without saying", and your other statements in which you assumend that it's plainly obvious that analytic languages must be easier/less complex overall.

    I don't think that verb conjugation is a "minuscule part of the overall complexity" of a given language. In fact, it is one of the points that I would take into account if I were to "quantify" the complexity of a language.
    But the conjugation tables in Romance languages comprise a relatively small amount of information, which can be learned by heart and drilled to perfection in a time that is certainly much, much shorter than the time necessary to start speaking anywhere near native level. Therefore, it seems obvious to me that they can't contribute much to the overall difficulty of the language.

    There will be things that even native speakers will still be tripping over - these are the really difficult ones.
    Not necessarily. Native speakers usually trip over things where prescriptivist standards are different from the actual spoken language, while foreigners will often be taught according to the prescriptivist standard in the first place. But that's beside the point - I had in mind things where even very advanced non-native speakers will make mistakes that sound ridiculous to any native speaker, such as e.g. articles in English or verbal aspects in Slavic languages. These are the very hardest ones, and even in highly inflected languages, people will trip over them long after they've mastered all the inflection tables.

    Maybe you could give me some "empirical data" to back up this one? [that immigrants and foreigners in Canada on average speak English equally broken as German spoken by immigrants and foreigners in Germany]
    You're right that there is no objective measure there, but I really didn't see any significant differences.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Native language
    Croatian/Bosnia, Croatia
    Posts
    1,654

    Re: Are analytic (or synthetic) languages harder to learn?

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardJ View Post
    Just because someone is German, has learned German declensions from his youth and thus by now they seem to him ridiculously easy, it doesn't detract from the fact that non-declined languages are easier (at least on this aspect - declension). Is that clear?
    This is what I had in mind in my above post when I used the C-major scale as a metaphor. The key words in the above paragraph are "at least on this aspect". Of course that if language A has complicated noun declensions, and language B does not, then B is easier when it comes to declensions. That's just a tautology. But to conclude that B is easier than A overall, you have to make two additional assumptions:

    (1) That B doesn't have other issues, some of which may be entirely outside of inflectional morphology, that are more complicated than the corresponding issues in A and therefore compensate for the simplicity of B in the issue of declensions.

    (2) That declensions, or inflections in general, are a significant part of the overall language complexity, i.e. that they stand out significantly alongside other (especially syntactic) issues. Because if they don't, and the main difficulty lies outside of them in both languages, then simpler inflections are no more significant for someone who aims at near-native proficiency than the fact that playing a scale on the piano is simpler compared to violin for someone who aims at being a virtuoso player.

    In my opinion, and in my experience, both these assumptions are likely to be false. So far, you haven't offered any arguments to the contrary.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    capita Iaponiae
    Native language
    日本語 / japāniski / יפנית
    Posts
    8,527

    Re: Are analytic (or synthetic) languages harder to learn?

    Hello EdwardJ,

    Here are the results of an empirical research by a US government agency regarding learning difficulty levels for English native speakers. Not surprisingly, the smaller the linguistic and cultural distance between English and the target language, the shorter time learners to take to achieve intermediate proficiency. Comparing the study with my experience in Japan, it seems that Indonesian and Swahili are easier languages independent of learners' background (Until one hits the glass ceiling, that is. For near-native level of Indonesian proficiency, distinction of very subtle vocabulary nuance is indispensable). However, I wouldn't rate Chinese as "exceptionally difficult," nor would a Chinese rate Japanese as such. This is presumably due to a large common ground that the CJK languages share in regard to vocabulary and writing system. As Athaulf has noted immediately above, measuring learning difficulty or distance between languages isn't an easy job. The only conclusion that at present looks plausible is that language learning is influenced by languages that one knows already. In other words, cognition is largely subject to experience.

    Correct me if I am committing gross generalisation but I seem to hear you say that complex morphology enables richer expression by the language. Latin has 10 tense/aspect categories for active voice paradigm. I am not really familiar with Portuguese, but I hear it has some 18 categories. If having more categories means having more nuances and, therefore, a stronger expressive power, can we not conclude Portuguese achieved this richness by simplifying verbal conjugations that it must have inherited from Latin? Here, a shift from synthetic to analytical means a few more items for students to learn.
    Always give as much context as you think unnecessary. How do you like your lamb leg steak? — Medium, right leg!

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Native language
    Croatian/Bosnia, Croatia
    Posts
    1,654

    Re: Are analytic (or synthetic) languages harder to learn?

    Quote Originally Posted by Outsider View Post
    Originally Posted by Athaulf:
    When it comes to all objective measures I can think of -- for example, how long it takes native children to master the language, or how long it takes adult learners speaking unrelated languages to reach near-native fluency -- the results, to the best of my knowledge, turn out to be roughly the same for both analytical and synthetic languages.
    That would indeed settle the discussion, as far as I'm concerned. I would be interested if you could list a couple of references.
    Well, whenever I read anything written by real linguists on this topic, I always find these facts mentioned casually in passing as a well known matter of consensus. For example, I just did a Google search with a few relevant keywords, and here is the first serious reference that came up:
    Studies comparing acquisition rates of children learning different languages show slight differences for certain kinds of structures, but all kids still turn out to be fluent speakers of their native tongue by age 7 or so. [13]
    The only time I encountered an opposite claim from a serious source was in a thread on this forum, but unfortuntely, I was unable to obtain any further references. In any case, I have yet to see a concrete account of a language whose speakers still grapple with morphology and syntax -- of their native dialect, of course, not the official prescriptive standard -- when they've already reached elementary school age. (Of course, when it comes to finer points of semantics and pragmatics, one learns until much older ages, perhaps as long as one is alive, but this has nothing to do with synthetic/analytic oppositions.)

    The author of the above cited book chapter admits at one point that "[u]ltimately, statements about the equal complexity of languages may owe more to political correctness than they do to any empirical evidence", arguing that "a fundamental quantitative problem with the claim [of equal complexity] remains: we have no established way to measure complexity within a single language or across multiple languages." Still, I believe that even just by a priori reasoning, it's possible to establish that human languages should have equal complexity by any reasonable measure, absent some strong evidence to the contrary. I have written extensively on this topic in this old thread. And the reason for my opinion is certainly not political correctness -- anyone who has read my old posts on this forum knows that I have huge quarrels with many fashionable PC attitudes , but in this case, it really seems to me that the available evidence does support the equal complexity hypothesis.
    Last edited by Athaulf; 14th June 2008 at 2:38 AM.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Native language
    Croatian/Bosnia, Croatia
    Posts
    1,654

    Re: Are analytic (or synthetic) languages harder to learn?

    Here is another interesting reference that I dug out during the above mentioned Google search (don't be put off by the silly-sounding URL -- it's someone's personal website, but the document is an actual collection of abstracts of academic papers and theses):
    http://www.seek-fun.com/thoughts/lan...xity_panel.pdf

    Particularly interesting is the abstract 2.4., in which the author measured rates of accidental errors in the speech of native speakers of several languages as a complexity metric. The rationale is that in a truly more difficult language, even native speakers can be expected to produce a greater number of accidental errors. The conclusion: "No overall differences were found in the numbers of errors made by speakers of the five languages in the study [English, Hindi, Japanese, Spanish and Turkish]."

    It would certainly be very interesting to perform a similar experiment on groups of foreign learners of different languages while carefully controlling for various confounding factors.
    Last edited by Athaulf; 14th June 2008 at 2:48 AM.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Native language
    Croatian/Bosnia, Croatia
    Posts
    1,654

    Re: Synthetic or analytic languages easier?

    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    I only can support this opinion.
    Concerning the comparison with Latin you made, for what it's worth*) I still think that for people with Slavic mother tongues (except BG+MK) it is easier to cope with the five cases of Latin than for native speakers of German where technically we have four cases of which in some dialect regions only two to three are actually used in colloquial speech.
    *) Of course, as I am no native speaker of a Slavic language I can only guess here.
    I can certainly confirm this. Getting the intuition for Latin cases is indeed relatively easy for (non-Eastern Balkan ) Slavic speakers; after all, they all have pretty much the same old set of PIE cases. I had two years of Latin in high school, in which we never got very far, and it's been many years since then, but even nowadays, I can usually spot mistakes with cases in misquoted Latin proverbs.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Native language
    Croatian/Bosnia, Croatia
    Posts
    1,654

    Re: Are analytic (or synthetic) languages harder to learn?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joannes View Post
    I agree , although I don't quite like the idea of reaching "near-native fluency" in that matter because it's hard to define. It had struck me before in threads with similar topics, btw, that Athaulf's idea of proficiency in a language must be a quite firm one.
    Not really. I'll readily admit that you have near-native proficiency if you can -- with a chance of success of over, say, 90% -- talk to Joe Sixpack for 10-15 minutes about some trivial everyday topic without either (1) having such horrible pronunciation that he has to make extra effort to be able to understand you, or (2) saying anything that's going to make him think that you made a mistake in grammar or choice of words that sounds just plain weird and/or ridiculous. Of course, it's harder than it might sound.

    (By the way, I still couldn't pass this test in English, at least when it comes to No. 2. So much for the venerable simplicity of its analytic grammar. )

    (I just called at [a certain bookmaker's office - snipped by Joannes, before Frank does] and they calculated that the rate for Athaulf making articles mistakes in English in WRF in his next 15 posts is 1.1, i.e. you'd have to bet $500 to win only $50 if he does make such mistake. )
    That would depend on how well I'm proofreading what I write. When I'm writing anything in English, including my posts here, I often stop and think where to put the articles, and sometimes I even google for similar phrases to resolve my doubts. The reason is not (well, not only ) perfectionist vanity, but rather hope to improve my language skills further.

    In any case, when speaking, I still make ridiculous mistakes with prepositions and articles all the time. Frankly, I have yet to see an example of a synthetic language whose morphology would be so complex to come even remotely close to the difficulty of syntactic issues such as English articles or Croatian clitics (although I've read that Georgian and Navajo might be candidates).

  14. #34
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Native language
    Português
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    But it is true.
    That being submersed in an English pop culture helped them? Of course it is true, I said they took that into account. But even then they said they find German and Russian harder (one of them had spent some time in Germany, but never in an English speaking country).

    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    Would your Japanese friends not have been surrounded by English in many parts of everyday life, but instead the language of modern pop culture there would have been Russian, or Chinese, or whatever, then certainly for them it would be mucheasier to acquire proficiency in Russian, or Chinese, or whatever.
    Of course. But it would still be much harder than to acquire proficiency in English. I do think that the simplicity of the Modern English language helped the USA to attain the position it has today.

    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    Proficiency in a language is very much about using (and getting used to using) a language; this nowadays is rather easy with English, in Western society countries, but rather difficult with German or Russian (unless you live permanently or at least for some years in one of the German or Russian speaking nations).
    Yes... I would say that spoken proficiency is even more dependant on this, obviously.


    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    No I don't, not at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    English is especially easy to native speakers of German, but this is mainly because both languages are closely related.
    Same goes for Scandinavian languages.
    Oh is that so? Then I will let you on a secret - Modern English is not exactly a "Germanic Language" (as I'm sure you know!). The huge masses of French/Latin comprise about 80% of the vocabulary, or so I read. Take my own relationship with the English language as an example: I am a Brazilian of German ancestry and I grew up bilingual (Portuguese/German). I am pretty sure that most of my English vocabulary is drawn from my Portuguese, NOT from my German!


    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    But for Berbers in Algeria, for example, who will be used to Arabian and (if they are educated) French English won't be that easy - would be my guess.
    Don't know a whole lot of Berbers. But I would tend to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    Apart from that, yes there are some factors which contribute to English being not so difficult to learn as quite some other languages,
    OOOOOH, thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    but don't you ever forget that English has a huge vocabulary which compensates for the loss of inflection.
    Hehe, that is what is usually said, that English is the simplest European language in terms of grammar, but has the largest vocabulary "to compensate". It is usually said that there is always a "compensation" for any simplification that languages go through... That is hard to measure, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    There's some compensation, you know, for the sheer number of endings with substantive declension and also derivative suffixes in languages like English where you do have to learn more phrasal verbs and vocabulary to express the same meanings.
    Well, to me, the necessity of having to learn more phrasal verbs and vocabulary to express the same meanings only denotes lack of expressive potential, it doesn't make it harder than other languages.



    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    (And then some additional vocabulary, in the case of English, like with food: two names for a) the flesh still walking on its two or four legs: flesh and b) the meat on your plate: beef, pork, etc. one with Germanic origin - the walking one - and the other one with Romance origin.)
    This is also the case for any language whose nation has been subjected to foreign invasions. Portuguese, for example, has many words of Arabic origin. It also has many words of Germanic origin.





    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    Oh, you can get by with a basic English vocabulary and grammar, that's the beauty of international languages like English: you do not have to acquire proficiency for being able to communicate with sufficient success.
    I think you do have to acquire a certain level of proficiency to be able to communicate with any success. It's not impossible to speak incomprehensible english, you know. It's just that to acquire a certain level of proficiency in English is not as hard as it is in other languages.

    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    So, to cut a long story short, a predominantly analytic language may be easier to learn- especially to acquire only basic knowledge - even if it is not related to your mother tongue and not an international language like English,
    Oooooh okay!


    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    but synthetic languages also have an element of easiness: you learn a declension paradigm and it is essentially the same for all substantives (with the odd exceptions of the rules as they do exist in all languages) - so with a paradigm of endings which, admittedly, is at first easier to learn you cover much more meanings.
    Well, again, in non-declined languages this "element of easiness" does not exist for the simple fact that there aren't even any declensions in the first place. If the error rate regarding declensions for Germans is 0,001% for English speakers it is zero because there are no declensions.



    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    This becomes even more obvious if you know a Slavic language and have learned at least the basics of the Slavic verbal aspect: it is extremely difficult to learn for anyone not knowing the principle from his mother tongue, but if you have achieved it you can cover more meanings with it than a rather analytic language like German (let alone Enlish) can.
    I agree, but I fail to see how this favors your side of the argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    (The English progressive form is not quite the same as verbal aspect, by the way.) In more analytic languages you need much more vocabulary to express the same.
    And you think this is good?


    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    No, it's not.
    It also depends on what level you do compare. On a level of basic knowledge analytic languages most likely always will be the easiest to learn; on a level of proficiency this may not be so
    Please elaborate further on this. Thanks.


    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    They are for me, and they are for you.
    But this may not be true for speakers of other languages.
    It depends on where they are on the ladder?

    Quote Originally Posted by sokol View Post
    For me Slavic languages are very hard to learn, which I know from experience (I tried very hard with Slovene and only acquired slightly above basic knowledge).
    But for a hypothetical Old Aryan (Sanskrit) speaker Slavic languages would be rather easy except probably concerning phonetics.
    That is the basic point I'm trying to make in all my posts: for a hypothetical Sanskrit speaker all European languages would be rather easy, excepting, probably, what concerns phonetics! I realize where I am going here - but I can't help but think that all european languages could be arranged in a hierarchichal fashion with PIE on top and perhaps English at the bottom. This is what I was talking about in my first post: it seems that languages, left by themselves, follow a ‘downhill’ simplification process.

    But who "made" PIE? Questions along that line are what I find fascinating. If anyone has any interesting links/articles and would like to contribute to my education, please message them to me.

    As someone who comes from an area with many "endangered species" I sure can appreciate sokol's position. I think everything should be preserved.



    Thank for the replies folks.

    Kind Regards to All

    Quote Originally Posted by Athaulf View Post
    Well, whenever I read anything written by real linguists on this topic, I always find these facts mentioned casually in passing as a well known matter of consensus.

    Lol, of course! You sure are not going to find any "scientific" article stating that language X is more complex than language Y!

    Quote Originally Posted by Athaulf View Post
    And the reason for my opinion is certainly not political correctness -- anyone who has read my old posts on this forum knows that I have huge quarrels with many fashionable PC attitudes , but in this case, it really seems to me that the available evidence does support the equal complexity hypothesis.
    Well the author of the article you just posted (the only solid reference you have posted so far) hints that he disagrees with you. He is probably more knowledgeable than you or me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Athaulf View Post
    Particularly interesting is the abstract 2.4., in which the author measured rates of accidental errors in the speech of native speakers of several languages as a complexity metric. The rationale is that in a truly more difficult language, even native speakers can be expected to produce a greater number of accidental errors. The conclusion: "No overall differences were found in the numbers of errors made by speakers of the five languages in the study [English, Hindi, Japanese, Spanish and Turkish]."
    Again, Athaulf, just because someone is trained in something hard, and somebody else is trained on something easy, and by measuring the error rate of these 2 groups you can't find any significant discrepancy, it does not follow that if you pick one of the people who had initially been trained in something hard and put him/her to execute the easy task, that he will present the same error rate that the people from the second group had been presenting.

    The quality of the research that has been conducted in this area is very questionable by scientific standards.

    Take a look at "Hypothesis B", from that abstract, Athaulf.
    Last edited by Frank06; 15th June 2008 at 1:23 AM.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; raised in Upper Austria
    Native language
    Austrian (as opposed to Australian)
    Age
    48
    Posts
    10,790

    Re: Are analytic (or synthetic) languages harder to learn?

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardJ View Post
    Oh is that so? Then I will let you on a secret - Modern English is not exactly a "Germanic Language" (as I'm sure you know!). The huge masses of French/Latin comprise about 80% of the vocabulary, or so I read.
    I do know that English has a huge amount of Romance vocabulary, but it is not nearly 80% - or it only could be anywhere near this percentage if you include all scientific vocabulary which predominantly is of Romance origin.
    If you count basic English vocabulary (probably about the 10.000 words used most) then this would be closer 50%:50% would be my guess - but anyway: this would be splitting hairs, and is off topic here anyway.

    One thing however certainly is true: English is really rather easy to learn for speakers with German mother tongue, much easier than for speakers of Romance or Slavic mother tongues.
    And certainly French or Italian is so much more difficult for speakers with German mother tongue than English, and Slavic languages even more.

    (Concerning compensating lack of declension and other means of expressions with more vocabulary in analytic languages)
    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardJ View Post
    And you think this is good?
    I didn't say anywhere that this is good or bad.
    It's neither.
    It is only different. Meaning: different types of languages mean different means of expression. This makes for differencies concerning easiness. If you are accustomed to the one type (synthetic languages) then you easily adopt to another one of that type (another synthetic language). If you are more accustomed to analytic languages then it is especially difficult for you to adopt to any synthetic language.
    And if your mother tongue is rather synthetic and you are learning an analytic language then typical faults in expressivity occur (especially with vocabulary and phrasal verbs and, if you take English, especially with the progressive forms); thing is that these errors usually are not so grave as far as communication is concerned as errors with declension and conjugation with synthetic languages.

    This is one of the main causes why to most people synthetic languages look so very difficult, the other main reason (and probably the most important one) is that the most important languages of our times are rather analytic (like most Germanic and Romance languages) or extremely analytic (like English and Chinese), so naturally there are more people speaking rather analytic languages.

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardJ View Post
    This is what I was talking about in my first post: it seems that languages, left by themselves, follow a ‘downhill’ simplification process.
    No they aren't!
    And I really have to admit that I won't reply my arguments over and over again.

    It is not just 'downhill' development synthetic towards analytic.
    The whole concept is wrong from the beginnning: first, development away from synthetic is not 'downhill' at all, but only just 'change'.
    Secondly, there are developments of new synthetic elements in European languages - in French already shown above, and I could show further examples from colloquial Austrian German.

    But really I don't see the point of repeating the same all over again if you do not want to see the point.
    "An esoteric may claim more nonsense in 5 minutes than a scientist may be able to disprove in his entire life." Vince Ebert, about fighting sciolism.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Native language
    Croatian/Bosnia, Croatia
    Posts
    1,654

    Re: Are analytic (or synthetic) languages harder to learn?

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardJ View Post
    Hehe, that is what is usually said, that English is the simplest European language in terms of grammar, but has the largest vocabulary "to compensate". It is usually said that there is always a "compensation" for any simplification that languages go through... That is hard to measure, though.
    [...]
    Well, to me, the necessity of having to learn more phrasal verbs and vocabulary to express the same meanings only denotes lack of expressive potential, it doesn't make it harder than other languages.
    But you keep ignoring one particular area that is, in my opinion and in my experience, the greatest source of difficulty in the grammar of any language: syntax. My favorite example are English articles: how many non-native English speakers do you know who are able to write five pages of text or speak for several minutes without making a single mistake with articles that will sound awful to a native speaker? I'm not sure I know a single one, and I live and work surrounded by highly proficient non-native English speakers. Do you really think that mastering this particular area of English grammar is not vastly more difficult than, say, mastering Portuguese conjugations?

    The problem with syntactic rules is that unlike inflections, they often can't be presented and explained fully and precisely at all. Even the most complicated and irregular inflections still comprise a finite amount of information, which can be learned and drilled in a finite period of time with enough work and dedication. Compare that to the issue of e.g. articles: you can give only an approximate set of simplified rules that will always have exceptions, because the real rules are not just mindblowingly complicated, but in fact unknown. Even though native speakers will agree on what is correct and what not, their feeling for what's correct is totally subconscious, and linguists are capable of reverse-engineering it only partially. You can learn only by very long constant practice, and even then, you're unlikely to ever learn to mimic a native speaker with full accuracy.

    That is the basic point I'm trying to make in all my posts: for a hypothetical Sanskrit speaker all European languages would be rather easy, excepting, probably, what concerns phonetics! I realize where I am going here - but I can't help but think that all european languages could be arranged in a hierarchichal fashion with PIE on top and perhaps English at the bottom. This is what I was talking about in my first post: it seems that languages, left by themselves, follow a ‘downhill’ simplification process.
    If that were true, then all the world's languages would have become analytic many thousands of years before the first inscriptions were made in ancient Sumer and Egypt. And your generalization isn't true even for Indo-European languages. For example, Tocharian language had reworked and expanded the PIE noun case system to nine cases, which probably wouldn't be that easy to master for a speaker of Sanskrit or Latin.

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardJ View Post
    Lol, of course! You sure are not going to find any "scientific" article stating that language X is more complex than language Y!
    Why not? If you think that the reason is political correctness, I'm sure one could find a language spoken by a group that the PC-inclined academics are so fond of that they wouldn't mind extolling its superiority.

    Well the author of the article you just posted (the only solid reference you have posted so far) hints that he disagrees with you. He is probably more knowledgeable than you or me.
    But he doesn't mention any measure of overall complexity except the time it takes native children to acquire the language, and in this regard he mentions no evidence to the contrary. I wouldn't say that the disagrees with my opinion - my impression is that he merely argues that it's a shame that we're losing languages that have unprecedented (and thus highly interesting) levels of complexity in some particular areas, not in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwardJ View Post
    Again, Athaulf, just because someone is trained in something hard, and somebody else is trained on something easy, and by measuring the error rate of these 2 groups you can't find any significant discrepancy, it does not follow that if you pick one of the people who had initially been trained in something hard and put him/her to execute the easy task, that he will present the same error rate that the people from the second group had been presenting.
    But at least the author is trying to come up with some reasonable metric of complexity. You just keep repeating your claim that synthetic languages are "harder" and that this is supposed to be plainly obvious, but you propose neither a useful metric of hardness/complexity nor any arguments except your personal experience.

    People's personal experiences with learning languages are usually so skewed as to be worthless for any objective metric. When I tried learning Spanish -- and I did it as a hobby to which I dedicated a very small amount of time -- I got further in a few months than in the first several years of learning English. But of course that my perspective is skewed, because of many factors -- English was the first foreign language I ever learned, I started Spanish with a much larger Romance vocabulary base, I had learned some Latin in high school, Croatian pronunciation is surprisingly similar to Spanish but horribly different from English, etc. Of course that it would be worthless to use this experience as an argument that Spanish is overall much easier than English.

    Take a look at "Hypothesis B", from that abstract, Athaulf.
    Hypothesis B: “The patterns of distribution of different types of errors will be distinct from one language to another.”
    Well, duh. You can't make errors with articles in Croatian, because there are none. How does this refute the author's main point in any way?

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
    Native language
    Português - Brasil
    Age
    27
    Posts
    1,076

    Re: Are analytic (or synthetic) languages harder to learn?

    Hi,

    Athaulf, please, explain better this kind of English articles errors?
    I'm not saying that they're easy or hard, it's just that I'm not understanding what kind of error you're talking about.

    Good bye.:
    "Em boca fechada não entra mosca" - sabedoria popular

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Native language
    Croatian/Bosnia, Croatia
    Posts
    1,654

    Re: Are analytic (or synthetic) languages harder to learn?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tagarela View Post
    Athaulf, please, explain better this kind of English articles errors?
    I'm not saying that they're easy or hard, it's just that I'm not understanding what kind of error you're talking about.
    I mean simply omitting "the" where it should be used and using it where it shouldn't be. And I don't have in mind nitpicking, but mistakes that really sound awful and/or ridiculous to native speakers.

    In my experience, it takes many years of practice before you can get the English articles even approximately right, and I have yet to meet a non-native speaker of English who never makes mistakes with them. In fact, my very first post on this forum was about one particular sort of English phrases where the logic behind article placement was completely eluding me (which I realized only after a native speaker warned me that my usage sounded awful!).

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
    Native language
    Português - Brasil
    Age
    27
    Posts
    1,076

    Re: Are analytic (or synthetic) languages harder to learn?

    Hi,

    Thank you, Athaulf. Well, I must confess that I bother myself very little about it - sometimes I stop and think a little, but in general I use or do not use without thiking, and I cannot say if in most of times I am right or wrong.

    But, for sure, my relation to article is a little bit difference from yours, since your mother tongue has none of them.
    Anyway, I'm sorry to disagree, but I wouldn't say that it's much more harder to master than Portuguese conjugations. Not that Portuguese conjugations are one of the hardest things on languages, but this English article thing, I guess, isn't that much also.

    And, as Athaulf has said, telling which languages are hard to learn without concerning the origing language of the learner, may be dangerous, although, analysing many different groups of learners, we could tell which languages usually are easier for different origins.

    Good bye.:
    "Em boca fechada não entra mosca" - sabedoria popular

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Native language
    USA; English
    Age
    26
    Posts
    66

    Re: Are analytic (or synthetic) languages harder to learn?

    I agree with several posters above that determing and comparing languages' overall difficulties based on varying degrees of synthesis is an oversimplification. The goal of language is expression, and there are countless factors that make communication between two people easier of more difficult. For example, one that hasn't been mentioned is the degree to which native speakers, with whom non-native speakers would presumably be trying to communicate, are accustomed to hearing their language mis-pronounced. I've heard English speakers who have a good command of Spanish grammar and vocabulary communicate easily in Spanish with native speakers while making no attempt to de-anglicize their pronunciation (no rolled r's, no soft consonants, nothing). Try saying Norwegian words to a less-than-cosmopolitan Norwegian with English-style pronunciation and you won't get anywhere, even if your listener is trying to be accomodating. I believe many Spanish speakers may just be more accustomed to hearing their language mispronounced by Americans than Norwegian speakers would be, although there are clearly other factors involved as well. Anyway, we could go on forever trying to account for all of these factors, but I don't think anything can be conclusively proven.

    I would like, however, to respond briefly to a few of the above entries:

    It has been stated several times that childhood acquisition of a first language, under normal circumstances, generally takes about seven years, regardless of the language. This seems fairly obvious to me, though I know little of cognitive linguistics, because conscious awareness of grammatical structures is totally unnecessary for communication in any primary language. The study of a second language, however, particularly in adulthood, is governed by completely different rules. So we should at least clarify what hypotheses our arguments are attempting to defend, as citing studies of phenomena related to acquisition of natural language in a comparison of languages learned later in life makes little sense, at least to me.

    It also seem self-evident to me that a language with greater similarities to one's natural tongue will be easier to pick up than a totally unrelated one, just as all humans who use some formal of verbal speech would find the transition to a complex communication system based on, for example, eye twitching, rather more challenging than the study of any other human language.

    While synthetic vs. analytic morphology has been the focus of this debate, my understanding (gleaned only recently from readings on wikipedia) is that these classifications of languages along the spectrum of synthesis, with isolating languages on one end and polysynthetic languages on the other, are based on a simple ratio of morphemes to words, with isolating languages containing words with just one morpheme (e.g. girl) and synthetic languages employing single words comprising many morphemes (e.g. suicidal, egalitarianism). While English doesn't have the complex fusional morphology of, for example, Latin or Lithuanian, its varied lexical influences have created countless words that comprise smaller morphemes joined together from Latin roots. In this sense, English is far from an isolating language. This is also true to a large extent in the Romance languages, but in my studies of Spanish, I have found that the formations of an enormous number of vocabulary words follow fairly obvious patterns, and complex concepts can be expressed using consistent combinations of simpler, familiar vocabulary. This is the case in any language where the more technical, complicated terminology is formed from simpler, native roots, e.g. Icelandic, or, to a lesser extent (though in a language with which I am more familiar), Norwegian. The average English speaker may have a fairly large vocabulary of polysyllabic words, but the etymololgies of these words may be a total mystery without significant study of the various and completely haphazard ways in which Latin and French prefixes and suffixes were cobbled together to form new English words. So, while a student of Portuguese may have to spend hours studying conjugation tables and memorizing a handful of irregular verbs, the synthesis in English, if I may use that term here, found in its polysyllabic vocabulary, is far less regular and must be memorized almost on a word-by-word basis.

    Finally, a brief, perhaps slightly off-topic comment on the classification of English as a Germanic language, which has been called several times into question here: I have never seen any figure stating that English comprises anywhere near 80 percent Latinate vocabulary (contrary to Edward J's claims above). The highest number I've seen from any respectable study is close to 60%, and that includes vast numbers of literary and even technical words (a computerized sample of 80,000 words). In studies of the 1,000 most commonly-used English words, the figure I've seen is ~85 percent Germanic, and of the 100 most frequently used words, all are of Germanic origin. I can think of many things we say daily that have only English words in them, but I would say that speaking with only Latin words in English likely can't be done. (That last sentence, by the way, used only Germanic vocabulary with little effort or compromise.) So I think we have less grounds to doubt the "Germanicness" of English that many believe. All the above information, which I've seen in various sources, is summarized well by the following Wikipedia article:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English...y#Word_origins


    Thanks, by the way, for a very interesting discussion.

    Cheers,

    James

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •