The hardest language to learn

[Corpse Cruncher]

I would think Chinese was the a hardest. One tone wrong and you could be - bashed about.

I feel my weak point and would struggle with the written side of language. If a language is spoken and written as it sounds I may well be able to speak it. I would love to learn another language or more but I feel I may find it too stressful in my frustration.

 

[timhau]

I feel my weak point and would struggle with the written side of language. If a language is spoken and written as it sounds I may well be able to speak it.

Finnish would be your kind of language then.

Of course, some people say it's hard, with the 15 cases and all; I suspect it's just a sign that you damn furriners ain't none too bright.

 

[Langis]

I think it's difficult to learn any language.

Though latin languages are similar enough that learning one gives you a big advantage when learning another.

 

[Elind]

Tell me about it. Is there any other way?

I do see your point on this, it just upsets me when people dump on those with English problems...probably because it's often so closely linked to racism, in my experience at least. i.e. "Those stupid Asians who can't speak English should go home".

I have met people who try so, so hard to learn languages and just can't do it. Some people just don't have the aptitude for it, for whatever reason. What a lot of people don't realise is that it's a lot harder for them to be so isolated in their community than it is for us to have to repeat things a few times in the McDonalds line.

As I said our system takes some blame for this because we pander too much to the issue; and, respectfully, so do you.

However many people seem to think that to learn a language functionally one needs to understand grammar well and all the nuances, and how to write it, which demands much better skills than reading or speaking or listening.

That's not true and even old people can learn a new language to a functional level if given some help.

It's hard to say whether the social segregation leads to language deficiency or the other way around. Probably both are true, but we create the former by allowing young children, who can learn English in a matter of months if they have to, be taught in their native tongue.

 

[Vitalstatistix]

... but we create the former by allowing young children, who can learn English in a matter of months if they have to, be taught in their native tongue.

I totally agree (although i doubt that it will be possible in a few months). At a number of European universities, they're investigating the benefits of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). This means that subject matter is being taught in a language other than the mother tongue. Some schools have been applying this for a few years now, with amazing results. Not only do the pupils pick up the foreign language much easier, neurologists are also investigating other protential benefits. fMRI scans have indicated that bi- or multilingualism influences brain organization in a way that still needs further exploring. But one thing's for sure though, there have not been any negative side effects yet. So the often heard argument that multilingualism messes up the child's brain cuts no ice...

 

[Harpoon]

American Sign Language, ASL, is a completely separate language from English. Speakers of British Sign Language and ASL cannot understand each other unless they resort to the written word.

There are dozens of other sign language systems in other cultures -- all legitimate languages on their own.

I wonder if any of these could give the most complicated spoken language a run for the OP title.

 

[Elind]

So the often heard argument that multilingualism messes up the child's brain cuts no ice...

I can't believe anyone with an education would say that. Must be people who failed a course in language somewhere.

Personally, I think any child under 10, maybe more, put into a school system with only one language, English in this case, will be fluent in 6 months or less, and will be better than a native who has always taken the language for granted.

 

[lula]

It's hard to say whether the social segregation leads to language deficiency or the other way around. Probably both are true, but we create the former by allowing young children, who can learn English in a matter of months if they have to, be taught in their native tongue.

Okay ... except for until they have a decent knowledge of English they should be denied an education? I hardly agree with that.

Perhaps their classes should be split 50/50 (language wise I mean), like they do in some South African schools.

 

[Vitalstatistix]

I can't believe anyone with an education would say that. Must be people who failed a course in language somewhere.

Personally, I think any child under 10, maybe more, put into a school system with only one language, English in this case, will be fluent in 6 months or less, and will be better than a native who has always taken the language for granted.

Well, it's often used in the CLIL case. Some people fear that the foreign language will interfere with the ability to understand subject matter. Which is not the case.
More than people who failed a language course, i'm afraid the argument is used in an emotional-political context. In multilingual societies where one language has been dominating another one in the past it's not always easy to keep the debate on a scientific level. Simply because the mere idea of raising your children in that other language seems to increase the fear that they will lose their mother tongue again. Whereas in reality, they will keep it, they are even likely to improve it and they will gain another language.

 

[BPScooter]

Hey all, just must chime in esp. as I just changed a crapped-out hard drive and it took me some time. I remember AndyAndy as being really interested in language so I followed the 3 pages thus far and it's really fun.

I think I will answer the poll "English" but that's only because I think I understand it and yet don't. I'm about a third of the way through the 1970's version of Mencken's "The American Language" and I'm way smarter now since I read it. I had no idea that literary people from England, at least up until WWII, had a really nasty and condescending attitude toward "Americanisms" in print or voice. Stuff I thought was plain good talk turns out to be not so good, but then you can find it in Chaucer or Shakespeare (sometimes not). Mark Twain wrote so many great words that everybody had to fold their cards and admit the slang, and even admire it.

So maybe it's not the phonology or grammar, that is OK, but the syntax and vocabulary that makes something hard to learn. As I go back, I just used the phrases: "chime in" "crapped out" "way smarter" "good talk" "fold cards"...as if I would even understand the Finnish! But I bet the sentiments are easily expressible. Maybe I could learn them. English supposedly has a vast vocabulary compared to other languages and a flexible way of coming up with new-wordisms (neologisms).

 

[blobru]

...
So maybe it's not the phonology or grammar, that is OK, but the syntax and vocabulary that makes something hard to learn. As I go back, I just used the phrases: "chime in" "crapped out" "way smarter" "good talk" "fold cards"...as if I would even understand the Finnish! But I bet the sentiments are easily expressible. Maybe I could learn them. English supposedly has a vast vocabulary compared to other languages and a flexible way of coming up with new-wordisms (neologisms).

I think you hit the nail on the head (whoops, English idiom), the target bullseye ('nother idiom), struck gold (damn!), are bang on mad... what I'm tryin' to say is -- ya done good, BP, real good, with that post of your'n.

English's vast vocabulary and flexibility (its strengths), and eccentric pronunciation and grammar (weaknesses, except for poets), come right of out of England's history.
The Gaelic then the Bretons settle the islands. The Bretons are conquered by the Romans. As soon as they leave, the Anglo-Saxons show up. They are in turn invaded by the Danes, and then conquered by the Normans. The English then tackle France, mix a bit, and then finally thank god show some spine and sink the Spanish. This seems to give 'em a right kick in the trousers and off they go to conquer the world -- Hong Kong, India, Thailand, a third of Africa, Egypt, Persia, Gibraltar, Ireland, North America, Australia, etal. And then as they leave they leave dialects behind. Even before the internet age, there was hardly a language anywhere English wasn't either derived from or influenced by.

So all that mixing explains the vocab, flex, odd spelling and syntax. And also why it's become the global language of choice: it's a mongrel, and purebreds these days I'm afraid just can't cut it (aaa -- another idiom!)

 

[jhunter1163]

My wife speaks fluent Hungarian. She's tried to teach it to me but all I've picked up are a few words and phrases. However, I have to give them credit for some of the most creative curses known to man. Google "Hungarian swear words" to see how they express really complex things in a word or two.

ETA: Actually, do that at your peril.

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

Finnish would be your kind of language then.

Of course, some people say it's hard, with the 15 cases and all; I suspect it's just a sign that you damn furriners ain't none too bright.

Then I will attempt to learn to speak Finnish and probably kill a few of the inhabitants of that part of the world through my attempts. Does clapping restore them back to life?

 

[Gurdur]

Bantu languages (subsaharan Africa) are relatively easy to learn for English speakers as long as they are not too tonal (Bantu languages vary in tonality extant). Swahili, for example, strikes many English speakers as being beautifully logical. Not coincidentally, Swahili has no tones at all. In epic poetry from the 14th-17th centuries, Swahili sounds quite beautiful.

Zulu adopted a couple of phonemes from the KhoiSan (Bushmen etc.) languages, but the underlying grammatical structure is very Bantu.

One major underlying unrecognised premise on this thread is tonality -- English speakers very often can't or won't get their ears trained for tones, though basically most people can if they really try. Another one is cultural assumptions -- Navaho and Lakota (Sioux) are easier to learn if you're willing to train yourself to make differences in classes of things, rather than demanding everyone be like English speakers.

That goes, in a different direction, for Bantu languages as well -- students will often scream when they hear that Swahili has 22 different genders, but in fact the gender system of Swahili is amazingly easy to understand if explained well and if you're willing to listen. Grammatical gender of course has bugger all to do with sex gender --- even in German, with its theoretical masculine / feminine / neutral, you can detect a much more complex underlying system, which makes life difficult for those learning German as a second language, and in French grammatical gender is often at wild variance with apparent sex gender.

Even English has hidden genders -- for example, to refer to a child as "it" is very rude, but to refer to a dog as "it" is not rude; all ships are "she" except for oil tankers and dinghies, which are "it".

 

[Meadmaker]

I know a tiny bit of several languages. French is the only one in which I can actually sit down and read a book.

I thought that having a different alphabet would make things very, very hard. I had learned a bit of Russian, and didn't found it too difficult, but really after a bit you realize that the alphabets aren't as difficult as they look. Then, I tried Hebrew, with an extremely different alphabet, and found that it wasn't all that hard at all. I never really learned to read Hebrew, but I can transliterate fine.

The hardest of the languages I ever really tried to learn a little bit of was Irish. The problem is that, like English, it has irregular spelling. I never realized how weird our spelling was until I tried learning something that also was irregular.

 

[malbui]

The hardest of the languages I ever really tried to learn a little bit of was Irish. The problem is that, like English, it has irregular spelling. I never realized how weird our spelling was until I tried learning something that also was irregular.

Irish spelling is pretty regular now - one of the reasons for the massive language reform of the 1940s was to weed out the ludicrous strings of characters that used to pass for single sounds and replace them with something shorter and more consistent. As a result of that, my wife, who doesn't speak a word of the language but has an exceptional ear, can read aloud from one of our kid's books and be completely understandable.

 

[illogical]

assembler is important. i believe it's used in kernels, device drivers, and boot loaders. i've also seen it used, in moderation, in scientific computing.

it depends on the chipset. i have an old MP1312 which is easy to program. certainly Brainf*ck and Intercal are hard.

 

[illogical]

i believe the DOD ranked languages from 1 to 4. Russian was a 3, and Mandarin and Cantonese were 4. i personally found German much harder than Spanish. of course, i am referring to native speakers of English learning something new.

anything tonal, with thousands of kangi, or OSV/OVS structure should be hard for Americans.

 

[Elind]

Okay ... except for until they have a decent knowledge of English they should be denied an education? I hardly agree with that.

Perhaps their classes should be split 50/50 (language wise I mean), like they do in some South African schools.

But you aren't addressing, or listening to, what I say. Compromise on principle in this matter for PC principles is more damaging than anything else.

Who is denying an education and do you think that 3 or 6 months behind for elementary or middle school kids will be damaging to their lives? I am saying they will be able to catch that up in less time than it took them to learn the language. Hell give them one year, and will make zero difference by the time they get to college; but I'll bet you, because it was harder for a while for them, the majority will speak better English than the native speakers.

In any case, they would have initially what is called remedial special classes.

Ever watch those spelling bee shows on TV? have you noticed where most of the stars come from? Everywhere except the US.

I learned English when I was about 8, knowing nothing before, but I've found I know it better than 90+ percent of native speakers since; although I'm getting older and slipping a bit these days.

There is no point in coddling to native language in school. They will get plenty of that at home anyway, so nothing is lost.

 

[Elind]

I know a tiny bit of several languages. French is the only one in which I can actually sit down and read a book.

I thought that having a different alphabet would make things very, very hard. I had learned a bit of Russian, and didn't found it too difficult, but really after a bit you realize that the alphabets aren't as difficult as they look. Then, I tried Hebrew, with an extremely different alphabet, and found that it wasn't all that hard at all. I never really learned to read Hebrew, but I can transliterate fine.

The hardest of the languages I ever really tried to learn a little bit of was Irish. The problem is that, like English, it has irregular spelling. I never realized how weird our spelling was until I tried learning something that also was irregular.

You are way ahead of me, in the sense that all I've ever done is absorb; not study. Well, that is not entirely true, but the point is significant, and in my earlier comments I never mentioned the 5 or more years cruel cruel people made me go to classes in Latin. I suspect it had an unconscious benefit for understanding the roots of other languages, but I would fail any test on grammar in anything I can speak or read, but who cares?