The world’s hardest (for native English speakers) languages
economist.com
economist.com
UPDATE: I mean 30 people outside the navajo tribe.
Also, single words literally translate into English phrases or sentences.
The language hasn't done much for me these past few years, until I started learning Chinese. It is freaky how similar the languages sound. And I don't mean linguistically, of course. Learning Chinese is thankfully easier for me since I can replicate the phonetics without trouble.
That's a nice skill you have, did it take you long?
Chomsky's theory is usually presented as all languages work the same in the brain. I think the later versions of the Chomskian theory are more like, all languages allow one to accomplish the same thing - especially, all languages have recursion (despite the counter-claims around the Peraha, I think that's actually demonstrated pretty well).
This makes sense, given the idea that there is only one truth ("the" truth) but any number of falsehoods (each being "a" falsehood).
Perhaps the hardest language studied by many
Anglophones is Latin.
The pronounciation in latin is also easy, and the spelling, and the vocab has similiarities that helps with learning.
I suspect part of what makes Latin more difficult to learn than some indo-European languages is that it's very disconnected from practical considerations. (see http://www.frcoulter.com/latin/foster/foster6.html) The ability to learn like that is a practical skill in its own right though.
Compared to all this memorization, getting the feel of the language, even though it was very alien to my mind, seemed easy.
Studying Japanese, I often resented the need to be aware of social hierarchy. By contrast, I would love to develop my directional awareness, and I think I would appreciate the discipline imposed by Kuuk Thaayorre! I naturally mentally lay places out on a grid which is much straighter in my mind than in reality. I "know" a place when my mind automatically fixes the mismatch between grid orientation and reality.
By the way, is anybody besides me ridiculously linguistically impressionable? The latest thing for me is getting my singulars and plurals mixed up, and spitting out tiny sentence fragments that can be completed from context but which sound childish in English, all because of the influence of my Korean girlfriend. I got an 800 on my verbal SATs, and this is horribly embarrassing and traumatic for me.
As far as I can tell the only non-native speaker who is actually fluent is Daniel Everett. Given that the language is the subject of a fair amount of linguistic interest because of its uniqueness, it's pretty amazing that he is the only one.
Not only that, but even with a natural aptitude for languages and desire to learn, it took him 7 years of living with them to get to that point.
The languages that add on information not required in English reminds me of type declaration for variables versus languages where you don't have to declare a type, for instance.
What computer languages are the hardest to learn (for a C speaker?). How does the design of the language influence the thoughts one has or can easily express in that language? (We know it does matter, Whorf or no Whorf!)
I remember that when I began speaking English coloquially my maxilar muscles and tongue would get very tired. That was when I realized that English is way more oral than my native nasal Portuguese.
> A truly boggling language is one that requires English speakers to think about things they otherwise ignore entirely.
Portuguese and Spanish have 2 different verbs to entail the meaning of the verb "to be"; they are the verbs "ser" and "estar", with very different meanings. Depending on where and how you use it can mean very different things. E.g.: "estar" sick means that you have a temporary desease like stomach sickness, a cold or a flu; "ser" sick means that you either have an incurable genetic desease or you are a psycopath.
Also, when it comes to the grammar I totally agree: English grammar is a blessing, a wonder of simplicity. Portuguese and Spanish have lots of tenses for past and future, each with a different verb conjugation.
I am wondering if those Whorfianist theories are correct and that feature of the language makes me and my co-patriots especially sarcastic.
(That and the very basic greetings are the only Bulgarian I retain - I will have to go and investigate the "re-narrative" in my copious free time. Thanks.)
So it can definitely be done (as with any other language), although you need strong motivation and a bit love of the language. But I think there are not many people in the world who has the motivation for learning an obscure language that is only spoken in one Eastern European country.
I'm American, but I can speak Hungarian. The language is like legos. You build words out of little blocks. I love it.
The author specifically says he is talking about hard for english speakers, so the new title is correct.
Specifically:
"Languages tend to get “harder” the farther one moves from English and its relatives. Assessing how languages are tricky for English-speakers gives a guide to how the world’s languages differ overall."
and
"A truly boggling language is one that requires English speakers to think about things they otherwise ignore entirely."
as two examples.
However I think putting a number on the difficulty of becoming a fluent, capable speaker of any foreign language is much more difficult. I'm not sure if it's any easier for an English speaker to become an idiomatic, witty, eloquent speaker of German than Chinese.
On the other hand, you might have a language with difficult basics, but relatively simple mastery once you have the basics down - I don't know enough languages to give an example, but it seems plausible.
So, yes, you'd likely get different results if you're comparing languages at different proficiency levels, but a rough comparison should still be possible.
My impression, as a native English speaker who has learned German, is that German is much more like this than English. You have to know quite a bit to say fairly simple sentences. But once you know the basics, there are only a couple of advanced concepts to get you to mastery.
[maybe this depends on how you learn. My approach was, roughly, first learn to communicate, then learn to communicate correctly]
To correctly form simple German sentences you need to learn 90% of the non-vocabulary elements of the language. To get to mastery, you have to learn the other 10%.
To correctly form simple English sentences you need to learn 10% of the non-vocabulary elements of the language. To get to mastery, you have to learn the other 90%.
Ranking human language complexity is a much more difficult task than you might imagine.
Still, my native language is Romanian, and I found English verbs easier to learn than French conjugation, even though French is very similar to Romanian in the first place.
For example, comparing English and German:
- English has simple plurals. In regular cases you add an s or es, and the number of exceptions is limited. Chair, chairs. Book, books. Jacket, jackets. In German plurals are, for all practical purposes, completely irregular: Stuhl, Stühle. Buch, Bücher. Jacke, Jacken.
- English does not generally have gendered nouns, nor an equivalently complex replacement.
- English does not have cases, nor an equivalently complex replacement.
- As a result of those two, the English words a and an correspond in German to ein, eine, einen, einem, einer and eines.
- English has almost the same tenses as German, but let's take the verb to run in the present tense: I run, you run, he runs, we run, they run. In German, laufen: Ich laufe, du läufst, er läuft, wir laufen, ihr lauft. Rather then two forms, there are five.
- English does not have formality encoded in its grammar.
It's pretty hard to say that German isn't objectively harder than English.
I could say that in English and in Chinese, and with effort in German.
The participant here who submitted the article is dubious about any one language being harder than any other language. I was exposed to that doubt as part of the standard dogma of linguistics while studying linguistics, and I have observed difficult features in many of the languages I have studied.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=963415
That said, I have also read in the linguistics literature a hypothesis that there is a language-universal process of forming creoles and koineization,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koin%C3%A9_language#Process_of_...
and my educated guess would be that English (having spread around the world, and spoken in the country with the most native speakers, the United States, mostly by people whose traceable ancestors were NOT native speakers of English) might be a more koineized language than, say, Twi. So perhaps on a truly worldwide, pancultural basis, English is somewhat easier to learn to communicate with other speakers of English than most languages are to communicate with other speakers of those languages.
And if you can argue that for Chinese, you could argue it for the romance languages, for English after the Norman invasion, etc.
There’s also I do run, I did run, I will run, I shall run, I can run, I could run, I should run, I must run, I might run, I would run, I may run. And all their negations (“I shouldn’t run” is OK but “I mayn’t run” is not). And the special rules for conjugating them: the past tense of “I run” is “I ran”, but the past tense of “I can run” is “I could run”, not “I canned run” or “I can ran”.
These are not complex to native English speakers because we learned most of them without being formally taught, but an adult learning English as a foreign language is not so lucky.
(I see from Googling that German also has modal verbs; I don’t know if the whole set is easier or harder to learn than the English set, from the point of view of someone who knows neither.)
The funny bit with your example? Despite the similar usage, German complicates things further by splitting the primary and auxiliary verbs, with the primary being transported to the end of the clause:
Ich sollte nach Hause laufen.
Literally:
I should to home run.
This is no coincidence, since English grammar is basically a simplified version of German grammar. There's a clear continuum from German to English via Frisian and Dutch where the grammar is continually simplified relative to its Germanic root. You can see the same sort of progression in the Romance languages. Modern Italian is pretty much uncontroversially simpler than Latin.
No, instead it's in the vocabulary. ;)
Many of the most basic words of English exist in more formal and less formal versions. Compare horseman and equestrian, or eat and dine, or smell and fragrance, or hug and embrace.
Many of these apparent redundancies derive from the period when Britain was ruled by native French speakers, who tended to use a lot of French- or Latin-derived words.
I certainly wouldn't claim that spoken English doesn't encode plenty of formality:
*Sir, would you care for an aperitif?*
*No, I ain't hungry.*
The point is that in English the additional semantics do not require additional syntax. To make a programming analogy, this is like the difference between C++ having overloadable operators and Java using methods to achieve the same. C++'s grammar is more complicated than Java's, because C++ uses additional syntax to achieve the same semantic ends.
The dual French / Germanic roots to English vocabulary does however hint at one of its distinctively complicated features: English pronunciation and spelling is bewildering because of that lineage.
Also, when you start addressing someone using formal forms it is very hard to switch to informal 'you'. Using these forms affect human thinking and after you have already addressed someone formally (because it was in a professional situation for instance) you are not likely to become friends. In some cultures there is a special complex social protocol for switching from formal 'you' to informal one. This ceremony is sometimes called using a German word 'Bruderschaft' and for some peculiar reason it often involves kissing and drinking alcohol. This, rather unfortunate, photo captures such situation: http://imgur.com/pmf57.jpg
As I find it significantly easier to develop social relationships in English, I often wonder whether this lack of formal 'you' contributes to the economical prosperity of the English-speaking countries (and esp. the even less formal US).
But then, the formal 'you' contributes to professional relationships. Think of it as a safeguard against overstepping an invisible line of proper conduct.
It is really more difficult to say "Sie Arschloch" than "Du Arschloch" because the formal 'you' clashes with vulgar language one would use around drinking buddies.
try{ assert ! relationship.isCustomerOrBoss() say."You asshole!" } catch(VulgarLanguageException e){ say."That's not acceptable." }
That's not to say Finnish is an easier language than English -- even if our writing system is strictly superior, as a fenno-ugric language we've got boatloads of other crap that drags us down :).
There's plenty of interesting history in how Finnish got this way. In a nutshell, the protestant reformation hit Finland before there was a written Finnish language. Since everyone being able to read the bible on their own was kind of important for the Lutherans, this posed a problem for the clergy. So, to fix it, one particularly active scribe named Michael Agricola went and defined the basic form of written Finnish on his own. He wanted to make it easy to learn to read, and so made it very simple. However, as spoken Finnish was an old language, much of it didn't fit in the straightjacket of a language he had created. His solution? By then he had become the bishop of Turku, and could pretty much dictate anything church-related in Finland. He chose to simply ignore the parts of the language that didn't fit, and in a few decades spoken Finnish shed the features that couldn't be represented in writing. The end result is probably the simplest writing system anyone anywhere uses as their first language.
This is a lie-to-children that I too was taught in school, but it's not even remotely true. Consider:
herne(k)keitto leu(v)an rei(j)än isän (=m)maa sydäm(m)en
You'd sound like a robot if you just pronounced them "as written". Computer phonetic analysis of the language reveals even more patterns where the written language indisputably deviates from the spoken one, but these at least should be easy to verify without specialist knowledge or equipment.
Here's a long but relatively easy-to-follow article on the subject http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/orto.html (in Finnish).
As the other comment mentioned Finnish isn't that phonetic at all. Even the simple "tervetuloa" is actually pronounced as "tÄrvetuloa".
But out of all languages I've learned/tried to learn, Finnish definitely is relatively more rule-abiding. And it has a huge bonus of being very obscure as to be used as a secret language :)
Also, would point out that Greek and Latin are not "cousins" to English, more like great-grandfathers, given the large amount of borrowing from both.
Second cousins or great grand uncles would be the proper analogy. They share a common ancestor is all.
The borrowings are a later artifact following millennia of independent development.
(I should note, though, that while Farsi and Arabic use the same writing system, they are from different language families.)
You learn the word "read" & you immediately know all the verb tenses (read, reading), the nouns (food) the adjectives (written). Inconsistencies & exceptions make going from conversational to fluent a nightmare, but getting to conversational is not too bad.
Affixes, like an new alphabet are a bit of a hurdle, but once you're over it it's not hard any more.
The writing system's a bit of a pain --- short vowels aren't indicated, and it preserves etymological spelling for Arabic loanwords even though a lot of these sound distinctions have been lost in speech. (Tajik --- the variant of Farsi spoken in Tajikistan, ex-USSR country --- largely eliminated that problem, though, by writing in Cyrillic instead of Arabic script).
You're not alone. The US Defense Language Institute teaches many languages, mostly to native English speakers. Of the languages they teach, Arabic takes the longest.
It's a shame the article didn't list the number of weeks the DLI spends on each of the languages. It "only" covers a few dozen languages, but course length would be an excellent proxy for language difficulty for English speakers.
DLI 'ranked' languages according to difficulty...categories (cats) I-V. Russian was a III. Arabic was cat IV. The only two cat V languages were English (for non-natives) and Japanese.