|
|
Pro-drop Languages
<Are scince and technology linked in any way to languages<
Science is related to economy. Economy is related to exploiting natural resources. Exploiting is related to military. Latin = Roman empire English = British/American empire
« French is the most simplified romance language, and furthest removed from latin grammar. »
<<Isn´t the statement above a widely accepted fact?>> No, not at all. French has the reputation among language learners, francophiles, and other uninformed people, as being extremely complex and sophisticated -moreso than any other romance language- even though its just the opposite.
Recent history can be summarized as follows:
"The most dramatic changes ever in mankind's evolution took place in the 17th to 20th centuries and only spoke non-pro-drop languages —German, French, English." "Earlier, as long as the world languages were pro-drop such as Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, no significant lasting advance in science and culture was observed." "Now, if the future belongs to null-subject cultures (Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, Arabic), there are some convincing reasons to suppose that a new era of stagnation and misery now is just starting."
"Earlier, as long as the world languages were pro-drop such as Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, no significant lasting advance in science and culture was observed."
The Greeks and Romans did not make cultural and scientific advances. Oh my God, idiocy is rampant in the Anglosphere. Did you ever hear of Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras, Euclid, Anaxagoras, Ptolemy, Thales, Archimedes, Zeno, Archimedes and so on? The Euclidean Geometry was not surpassed until the XX century. That is, more than twenty centuries after. If the Middle Ages didn't belong to the pro-drop languages such as the Barbarian tribes the Classical Culture would had evolved naturally instead of stagnating and probably nowadays we would know how to travel to distant galaxies.
It's true. People who speak pro-drop languages become confused about who it is that is carrying out an action and who it is that is being acted upon and thus lose the ability to think logically, which prevents them from making new discoveries.
People who speak pro-drop languages become confused about who it is that is carrying out an action
Pro-drop languages define who takes the action by using conjugations. In Spanis the is less ambiguity than in English, for example: -piensO (first person singular) piensAS (second person singular) piensA(third person singular) pesAMOS (first person plural) pensAIS (second person plural) piensAN (third person plural) O<>AS<>A<>AMOS<>AIS<>AN Hence there is not room to confussion at all. In English : I think (first person, singular) You think (second person singular) He thinks(third person singular) She thinks (third person singular) It thinks (third person singular) We think (first person plural) You think ( second person plural) They think third person plural) You think (second person singular) = You think (second person plural) There is more ambiguity in Englis than in Spanish despite not being a pro-drop language In order to make new discoveries it's necessary imagination appart from logic. Non pro-drop languages make people unable to have imagination because the subject must be always explicit. That is the reason why Western Civilization is based on pro drop languages lik Greek and Latin
<<It's true. People who speak pro-drop languages become confused about who it is that is carrying out an action and who it is that is being acted upon and thus lose the ability to think logically, which prevents them from making new discoveries.>>
<<In order to make new discoveries it's necessary imagination appart from logic. Non pro-drop languages make people unable to have imagination because the subject must be always explicit. That is the reason why Western Civilization is based on pro drop languages lik Greek and Latin>> jahahahhahahahhahhahaajjajajajjaajjajajja lol, such a funny thread.
"
The Greeks and Romans did not make cultural and scientific advances. Oh my God, idiocy is rampant in the Anglosphere. Did you ever hear of Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras, Euclid, Anaxagoras, Ptolemy, Thales, Archimedes, Zeno, Archimedes and so on? The Euclidean Geometry was not surpassed until the XX century. That is, more than twenty centuries after. " Greeks (not Romans!) made important cultural and scientific advances but were stopped by the Romans who copied a lot but were not productive in natural science and art. Romans were pro-drop... ;-)
Hellenic Greek was pro-drop too. The Romans did great contributions to Civil Engineering and preserved the Greek achievements. It almost took 1000 years to Western Europe to achieve again the level of development of the Grecolatin civilization since the Barbarian hordes invaded Europe, so to say that the Romans and Latins did zero contributions is border line stupidity when everybody knows that it is just the opposite , our culture is based on the Grecolatin culture. Also for example according to the economists, the productivity of a Roman worker was not surpassed until the Industrial Revolution. The Romans created an incipient industrialized agriculture and a proto-capitalist economic system. This was faded out with the Feudal system . If this didn't happen, today the Humanity would be at the XXX century.
''You think (second person singular) = You think (second person plural)
There is more ambiguity in Englis than in Spanish despite not being a pro-drop language'' Not true. in Latin America, the same verb form is used for they and you (all)... for example: aman can mean both ''you (all) love'' and ''they love'' It's ambiguous. So in many times, ustedes and ellos are always used with the verb, to make a distinction. On the other hand, many American dialects have pluralized you: you all, y'all, youse, youngs...
It's ambiguous
No, it isn't. The context tells you if it refers to ustedes or ellos.
I'd like to make my question once again:
Besides Germanic languages and French, which other languages are NON pro-drop? Any hint is welcome. I really want to know. |