Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Olowkow]

Well, lexical borrowing and particular "loanwords" have more to do with the dominating cultural factors than anything else. Computer terms, for instance often don't lend themselves to any good translations, so the word is borrowed and modified from the culture/language of origin.

I still would love to know in what way English is more "complex" than Spanish, or French, or Swahili.

ETA: I can't help myself. "Cigarette" is "cigarillo/cigarro" in Spanish. One of my favorite words is "desperado", which is not the Spanish word. The word in Spanish is "desesperado" (des+esperar+ado) [hopeless one]. I have no idea where "hoosegow" comes from. I will try to find it.

Of course: [hoosegow] juzgao...juzgado "judged" Never knew that!

 

[Christian]

armada
armadillo
adobe
aficionado
alligator
arroyo
banana
bandolier
barbecue
barracuda
barrio
bolero
bonanza
bronco
burro
cabana
café
cafeteria
calaboose
caldera
canyon
chaparral
chicle
chocolate
cigarette
cigar
cocoa
corral
patio
coyote
hoosegow (my personal favorite)
rodeo
lariat
lasso
crusade
desperado
embargo
fiesta
guerrilla
mesa (the geological formation)
etc.

The only difference is that these words (and many more) have been in the English language for a long time, and Spanish is now borrowing some new words from English.

Be careful when you start listing words. Café comes from Italian. Cigarrette comes from French. And lets look at calaboose. It comes from French if you see it one way and from Spanish if you see it another way, because French and Spanish both got it from a combination of Roman and Latin.

I haven't looked at all the words, most of these word are at least one or two centuries old. English has got a lot more complex since then.

 

[Christian]

Well, lexical borrowing and particular "loanwords" have more to do with the dominating cultural factors than anything else. Computer terms, for instance often don't lend themselves to any good translations, so the word is borrowed and modified from the culture/language of origin.

I still would love to know in what way English is more "complex" than Spanish, or French, or Swahili.

ETA: I can't help myself. "Cigarette" is "cigarillo/cigarro" in Spanish. One of my favorite words is "desperado", which is not the Spanish word. The word in Spanish is "desesperado" (des+esperar+ado) [hopeless one]. I have no idea where "hoosegow" comes from. I will try to find it.

Of course: [hoosegow] juzgao...juzgado "judged" Never knew that!

Please read #661.

 

[Olowkow]

Please read #661.

OMFG! Now that is good humor. Not even wrong.

Desesperado!

 

[Olowkow]

Who said any about pronunciation? The problem here is that I assume you know what I'm talking about. Now, I see you don't. I said: In Spanish, one pronounces how it is written.

Do you understand what that means? Ok, let me try again. Spanish is more phonetic language than English. The more phonetic a language is, the easier it is to read. The Latin languages (like Spanish) are the most phonetic (I think). I'm certain that Spanish is much more phonetic than English.

Where's that laughing dog?

 

[Elizabeth I]

I haven't looked at all the words, most of these word are at least one or two centuries old.

Yes, that's what I said:

The only difference is that these words (and many more) have been in the English language for a long time, and Spanish is now borrowing some new words from English.

English has got a lot more complex since then.

If by that you mean that English has added more words, a lot of those words were borrowed from other languages, and many more have roots from other languages.

 

[Christian]

Maybe a quote might do a better job:

English is messy, but not difficult. Yes, its phonetics is complex, but French, for example, is not really straightforward, too. English grammar is quite simple, compared to German, French (again) or Scandinavian languages.
The only real issue is vocabulary: English vocabulary is extremely rich and comes from very different origins, which makes "structured" learning difficult (i.e. etymology is complex). However, if you stick to basic, everyday vocabulary, it's easy, and moreover, you just have to know a few common phrasal verbs (what you call "compounds words").

Some languages are easier to learn than others, because of shared origins. For example, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and French are Romance languages. If you speak one, learning another one is easy. You can even decipher a (not too complex) written text without having learned the language.

For somebody speaking a really different language (Asian, for instance), English is not more difficult to learn than other common European languages.

From
http://www.neatorama.com/2010/01/02/what-is-the-most-complex-language-in-the-world/

 

[Helen]

And I say you are wrong.



Who said any about pronunciation? The problem here is that I assume you know what I'm talking about. Now, I see you don't. I said: In Spanish, one pronounces how it is written.

Do you understand what that means? Ok, let me try again. Spanish is more phonetic language than English. The more phonetic a language is, the easier it is to read. The Latin languages (like Spanish) are the most phonetic (I think). I'm certain that Spanish is much more phonetic than English.

I agreed with your point to some extent, didn't I? But what reading has to do with it eludes me. The more phonetic a language is, the easier it is to read? If you know the words, it doesn't matter how strange the spelling is, you can read them anyway, if you don't know them, they can be phonetic till the cows come home, you can't read them anyway.

I thought naming them would be enough. Ok, here we go. Technology creates words, lots of words. Depending on the industry or area, words are created more quickly or not. Have you heard of "industry jargon". Because most technological advances come from English speaking countries, more words are created and layers of complexity are added to the language. New technologies create more layers of complexity in language. This should be evident.

I'll give one simple example. The word cookie (the language code inserted to local computers for tracking) does not exist in Spanish. We use the same English word. All the word we adopt from English are called "anglicismos" and many of the additions we get (like "internet") stay exactly as in the original English.

http://www.languagemonitor.com/number-of-words/number-of-words-in-the-english-language-1005366/

This is the same in many languages, which adds to their complexity, according to your very strange definition; more words. And makes English even easier to learn which adds to its complexity, according to your very strange definition, some of it will be familiar from the start.

Your facts are wrong.

The stats have changed. This is the current information.

http://www.languagemonitor.com/no-of-words/.

You do understand that these numbers include auxiliary speakers, and those who use the language for business purposes, do you? And I would be very interested to hear why the number of speakers add to the complexity of a language. Swedish, with its very few speakers, must be incredibly unsophisticated, then. And Spanish far, far more complex than Swedish or Finnish, for instance.

English is a lingua franca . One of the reasons for that is that people in general find it easy t pick up a smattering of it. And according to your very strange view of language complexity, that would make it the less complex language.

And as for English versus Spanish grammar, well, I don't think you really know that much about grammar, if you say that English is more complex than Spanish.

And Christian, no need to insult my intelligence. It's quite adequate for this discussion. I'm beginning to feel that you think arrogance is an argument in itself.

 

[Helen]

Maybe a quote might do a better job:



From
http://www.neatorama.com/2010/01/02/what-is-the-most-complex-language-in-the-world/

Thank you, Christian, it's kind of you to quote some completely unknown people on the Inernet who agree with me.

 

[Sun Countess]

Maybe a quote might do a better job:

You might want to check your sources before posting them. Not only to these guys think that Asian is a language, they also mangled basic syntax with this doozy:
[QUOTE="expert" language source]Yes, its phonetics is complex, but French, for example, is not really straightforward, too.[/QUOTE]

It also concluded by stating that English is as easy to learn as other European languages, which I'm guessing includes Spanish.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Christian,
Desperado is not Spanish. It is not in any Spanish dictionary, it is a made up Western American mixup, In Spanish the word is "desesperado", which means desperate or hopeless.

"why don't you come to your senses?
You been out ridin' fences for so long now
Oh, you're a hard one
I know that you got your reasons
These things that are pleasin' you
Can hurt you somehow."

 

[Helen]

Christian,
Desperado is not Spanish. It is not in any Spanish dictionary, it is a made up Western American mixup, In Spanish the word is "desesperado", which means desperate or hopeless.

"why don't you come to your senses?
You been out ridin' fences for so long now
Oh, you're a hard one
I know that you got your reasons
These things that are pleasin' you
Can hurt you somehow."

 

[elipse]

1. "Sophisticated" does not really mean the same thing as "complex". You're the one talkin' about how nuanced the English language is, so you should understand that "sophisticated" does not, in practice, mean "complex". Indeed, sometimes "sophistication" is more closely linked to "simplicity".

Also, it's very...bold...to claim, with no evidence, that because of an (unidentified and unexplained) "fault" with their language, a particular people don't mean what they say they mean, or what the people who have taken the time to learn their language and culture think they mean, but instead mean what YOU think they mean.


This whole thing is a derail, though, so I'm gonna try to bring it back with point #2:

2. You, as the (potential? hypothetical?) surveyor, do not get to define words. You have to define words the way survey-ees define them, and if there is no consensus, you must avoid the word. This is just basic polling policy. For example: (Real, scientific) surveys that try to determine sexual health/practices/trends NEVER use the word "gay."* They ALWAYS use the phrase "men who have sex with men". Now, some people might figure that "gay" (perhaps paired with "bi") would pretty much cover "men who have sex with men", but that's not their call. The people conducting the survey don't get to label the people who answer the survey. They label themselves (or not). That's why surveys about sexual health use a behavioral phrase, rather than an identity word.

So perhaps all this could (in fact, must, if you want a decent survey) be avoided by having your survey say "one who has, through conscious thought, rejected a belief in a god or gods"** (or whatever you want--so long as it is a behavioral phrase) instead of "atheist." (You must also include an "other" box, in this case.) People who do not consider themselves to have "rejected a belief in a god or gods" will not check that box, you will not have labeled them incorrectly, or defined their own label incorrectly, and things will (at least this far) be peachy. (Except to say that when you are looking at the data you collect, you can't suddenly switch back to "atheist.")

3. Now that you see (or at least, take my word for it) that the LANGUAGE you choose is very important, you will also see that you cannot just use someone else's already compiled statistical data as a control. You have to use exactly the same questions for everyone. So you can't even use someone else's IQ stats-- if you are giving any part of a surveyed population a questionnaire that includes a particular measure of IQ, you must give the entire surveyed population the exact same questionnaire and measure of IQ, using the exact same questions phrased in exactly the same way.

*Unless they are trying to compare, say, the answers of those who self-identify as gay men to the rest of the "men who have sex with men" population.

**Or, if you want to actually survey as many atheists as possible, you could just accept the far more inclusive phrase "one who lacks a belief in god or gods," and go with that, but for some reason you won't do that.

 

[Helen]

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me please,' said Alice, `what that means?'

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

`Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

`Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, `for to get their wages, you know.'

 

[elipse]

That's a lovely cravat you're wearing.

I mean belt!...

I mean cravat!

 

[ideogram]

Please tell that to these guys.

http://www.languagemonitor.com/number-of-words/number-of-words-in-the-english-language-1005366/

Have you studied any linguistics or not?

I see. I accept that someone else call me a bigot based on their definition, of course, for the sake of communication.

I believe this is what you (as in you) call a strawman. What I mean, of course, is that if someone disagrees with you about what an atheist is, pulling out a dictionary and arguing about the definition is a waste of time.

So, what you'r saying is that if someone says, "this is more sophysticated than that", he or she must place a constant disclamer stating "for me and only for me". Of course, one can objectively call something more sophisticated. I can only imagine if I were to discuss the objective elements of human beauty.

Of course, you are wrong. You can't objectively call something "more sophisticated". Good luck trying to prove that.

That is exactly what I did. I said I used it as synonym for complex. I defined it as a complex in a quantitative connotation. The response was an imposition of what I meant, only and only to be explained as bigotry.

Would you try to forget the bigotry thing? You are just getting distracted. If the word is a synonym for complex, then say complex. You really don't get this.

Now you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. At the beginning I thought you had a point, but I see that you don't, or if you do, you are unable to focus on it. Oooh, donuts!

 

[ideogram]

Christian, do you realize any idiot can post something on a web page? Quoting random websites is even more useless than quoting the dictionary.

 

[Helen]

That's a lovely cravat you're wearing.

I mean belt!...

I mean cravat!

`It is a -- most -- provoking -- thing,' he said at last, `when a person doesn't know a cravat from a belt!'

 

[elipse]

`It is a -- most -- provoking -- thing,' he said at last, `when a person doesn't know a cravat from a belt!'

One of my very favourites!

 

[Helen]

Mine as well. Very complex!