Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are advocating an international pidgin, in case it could be implemented it would break into complex languages after certain amount of time.
Such was the case of how vulgar Latin, a very simple language that survived the collapse of the empire, became hundreds of different languages and dialects.
Humans are like that, if God had wanted to create semi-idiots that speak pidgin or only one simple language, he would have created a simpler brain.
They disrupt the flow, create idiosyncrasies, often by bookish influence. You know the affect latin had on modern european languages, so many of our sentences were literary in origin and not natural, the phrase "deprive someone of something" is a literal usage of a latin construction that we don't notice. The idiosyncratic usage of prepositions and cases as well, on one hand we have things like Korean or Vietnamese where there is no such thing (in Vietnamese, one says "I angry him" "He full cup" "He monday march nighttime go shop" with context being used, but we have "angry at" "full to me" "on monday in march at night" the latter usage of prepositions were devised by literary tradition and not vernacular speech).
Now we have useless prefixes like non-,in-,dis-,anti-,a-,an- etc when "un" is enough, the language doesn't always borrow them, they may create their own in imitation of a foreign languages, look at the Turkish language reform where 10,000 words were forcibly introduced all of which were made with idiosyncratic techniques. A language is harmful if it disrupts the flow of natural development, in this case we look way too much to highly specialized ancient written Latin and Greek (which were not how regular people spoke on the streets during those times). It's as if we have absolutely no mental economy whatsoever, everything must be flung around and made more and more grand and fancy; hard to naturally maintain without schoolrooms teaching us what is supposedly correct.
A syntactic structure like Asian languages would make no sense in any European language at best; your points ignore that every language has its own way to convey informations: Italian (like all other Romance languages and German) use articles and final letters (I don't understand the hatred towards gender of many people).
Plus, your same point of getting rid of all prefixes, verbal declinations etc is a forceful modification.
There's a reason why non-, in- etc are still used, that's the natural evolution of language.
No language at all is harmful in a linguistic point of view, your disdain towards inflected languages is something of yours but it doesn't mean anything linguistically.
I could find Asian languages like Vietnamese absolutely inefficient and too simple (which I do NOT), any language has its peculiarities.
One could say that SVO is the best word order as it best conveys the natural flow of information, but an Eskimo might affirm the contrary, as well as a German.
Spanish also can harm with demands that all forms be in two languages. Now entire forests have to be cut down to generate extra pages because Spanish speakers in the US refuse to learn English.
Something tells me you don't normally give a **** about the forests. And most Anglo Canadians don't speak French.
In Ireland (not here) all the road signs are in Irish but no one speaks Irish or even knows what the words mean. Another waste of money to promote nationalisitic views.
If I was ever to govern their country the first thing i'd do would be to tear all those signs straight down!
You already governed their country for centuries. They told you to **** off.
Tbh, I won't learn French because they are the arrogant ones and I refuse to give in. The French are the only country in the world to use their language in Air traffic control.
They never bother to learn English while every other country does. It is their own problem, they are going to be the isolated ones, not me.
I get your points, I never said we should get rid of all suffixes for verbs, just that almost of the prefixes I mentioned are not native but borrowed for the sake of sounding fancy. I don't have a disdain towards inflection, I have one to overly grandiose literary style pervading everything.
Bashkir word "хәүеф" (hәuef) - a danger, we see in the Arab word خوف (hәuefә) – an anxiety, an apprehension, a fear.
Why is Bashkir word in Arabic, but it isn't in Turkish?
On the pronunciation of the German word «Gefahr» - a danger, is closer (nearer) to the Arabic word قف (qafe) – stop, whoa.
The Arabic word, as well as German, are related Nogai word «кавыфлык» (kavyflyk) - the danger. In addition Uzbek «хавф» (havf) – a fear, a danger; Tatar «хәвеф» (hәuef) – a fear, a danger.
Bashkir word "хәүеф" (hәuef) - a danger, we see also in the Swahili (Africa) word «hofu» - a fear, awe.
In the English word "awe" the first and last letters are lost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
