I keep reading that English is less expressive than other languages. More specifically on these forums I've seen it claimed many times that French, Spanish and German are more expressive, that somehow they can communicate subtle concepts that English simply isn't able to. Can some one explain how this is so? Obviously all these languages have a more complex grammar, but how does this translate into a greater expressiveness? How does a greater number of verb conjugations or declensions lead to an ability of a language to get across more complex ideas? Surely a rich vocabulary, which English possesses, is a far better conveyer of this than gender, or verb and noun endings. English is renowned for its mix of Germanic/Latin vocabulary with many of these words almost standing as synonyms, were it not for a slight different shade of meaning, something. French/Spanish and German, which mainly retain their original Latin/Germanic vocab respectively do not have this range of subtle meanings. What's more German, with its more limited tense/aspect system sounds less flowing, and yes, less expressive almost with every sentence.
How is English less expressive than other languages?
No language is inherently more expressive than any other.
A lot of non-native english speakers claim english is less 'expressive' than their native language because *they don't know how to express certain ideas in english*, and rather than admit their shortcomings in the english, they fault the language itself by erroneously concluding that such ideas can't be expressed.
Its backwards logic, employed by people who think they speak english well.
A lot of non-native english speakers claim english is less 'expressive' than their native language because *they don't know how to express certain ideas in english*, and rather than admit their shortcomings in the english, they fault the language itself by erroneously concluding that such ideas can't be expressed.
Its backwards logic, employed by people who think they speak english well.
Well, sometimes Language A has more ways to shade the meaning of a certain term than Language B. But usually this balances out when Language B ends up having a three or four words that Language A lumps together into one.
Speakers of a foreign language probably get frustrated when they want to convey a distinct idea that they are used to having a separate term for, but find that they have to settle for a word that doesn't split the hairs as finely as they are used to. However, they probably don't realize that it works both ways -- their adopted tongue may also make fine distinctions that their native language does not.
Does any of this make a language more expressive than another? Not really. Three may be dozens of Inuit words for different kinds of snow, and only one in English, but English can convey the exact same concepts as Inuit by using modifiers -- crunchy snow, fluffy snow, hard-packed snow, wet snow, etc. Conversely, English makes a distinction between the mind and the brain that French does not -- French uses the same word for both. But French distinguishes between states of being that are permanent, inherent features and ones that are transitory, while English only has forms of "to be" for both -- you "are" a man and you "are" in a hurry. We grasp the concept that one is a permanent state (at least without surgical intervention) and one will change depending on circumstance, but it wouldn't occur to us to need a separate word to indicate the distinction. Russian speakers indicate their own gender with verb endings, which we would consider unnecessary. They, in turn, probably don't get why we care if it's THE house or just A house.
Speakers of a foreign language probably get frustrated when they want to convey a distinct idea that they are used to having a separate term for, but find that they have to settle for a word that doesn't split the hairs as finely as they are used to. However, they probably don't realize that it works both ways -- their adopted tongue may also make fine distinctions that their native language does not.
Does any of this make a language more expressive than another? Not really. Three may be dozens of Inuit words for different kinds of snow, and only one in English, but English can convey the exact same concepts as Inuit by using modifiers -- crunchy snow, fluffy snow, hard-packed snow, wet snow, etc. Conversely, English makes a distinction between the mind and the brain that French does not -- French uses the same word for both. But French distinguishes between states of being that are permanent, inherent features and ones that are transitory, while English only has forms of "to be" for both -- you "are" a man and you "are" in a hurry. We grasp the concept that one is a permanent state (at least without surgical intervention) and one will change depending on circumstance, but it wouldn't occur to us to need a separate word to indicate the distinction. Russian speakers indicate their own gender with verb endings, which we would consider unnecessary. They, in turn, probably don't get why we care if it's THE house or just A house.
Well, my dear friend...Modern English is much less expressive than Shakespeare's Old English. And that is a Fact.
English started just like any other Rich Germanic Language, but it was gradually mutilated by foreign wars and French invasions, that completely changed the nature of the Old English.
Today Modern English is a very simple language, with a very simple grammar.
It contains about 30% French and 30% Latin, artificially injected into the Simplified Germanic grammar.
Remember, Old English used to be a Complex Germanic language.
As a result Modern English is less expressive than the Old English
Therefore Modern English is less expressive than other Germanic, Latin, Slavic languages, etc
Shakespeare's English is Dead
English started just like any other Rich Germanic Language, but it was gradually mutilated by foreign wars and French invasions, that completely changed the nature of the Old English.
Today Modern English is a very simple language, with a very simple grammar.
It contains about 30% French and 30% Latin, artificially injected into the Simplified Germanic grammar.
Remember, Old English used to be a Complex Germanic language.
As a result Modern English is less expressive than the Old English
Therefore Modern English is less expressive than other Germanic, Latin, Slavic languages, etc
Shakespeare's English is Dead
"Russian speakers indicate their own gender with verb endings, which we would consider unnecessary."
INCORRECT
IN LAW and SCIENCE you have to be very gender specific.
example "the serial criminal killed my suspect"
(uselles language because you dont know the gender of the criminal or the suspect)
you have to specify "the FEMALE serial criminal killed my MALE suspect"
very retarded...indeed
95% of indo-european languages have a gender.
INCORRECT
IN LAW and SCIENCE you have to be very gender specific.
example "the serial criminal killed my suspect"
(uselles language because you dont know the gender of the criminal or the suspect)
you have to specify "the FEMALE serial criminal killed my MALE suspect"
very retarded...indeed
95% of indo-european languages have a gender.
Because English has no gender and GENDER is very IMPORTANT in LAW and SCIENCE, if you read an English Court transcript, you almost have no clue about the gender of the offenders, if you don’t know their names and study the whole transcript.
If the document is partially destroyed and you are only left with a piece of paper where no names are specified, it is impossible to deduct the gender of the offenders, because English is not a gender specific language.
English is not just less expressive, is very ambiguous as well, difficult to distinguish.
If the document is partially destroyed and you are only left with a piece of paper where no names are specified, it is impossible to deduct the gender of the offenders, because English is not a gender specific language.
English is not just less expressive, is very ambiguous as well, difficult to distinguish.
It seems that my friendito Aldo is posting the same nonsense in multiple topics. You're quite a naughty trollito.
<<Shakespeare's English is Dead >>
Didn't Shakespeare write in a version of English that was already streamlined (mutilated)?
Didn't Shakespeare write in a version of English that was already streamlined (mutilated)?
I think some of the complaints about English concern the use of words like "U-turn", T-shirt", etc. These make it look like an primitive "toy language".
<<Modern English is much less expressive than Shakespeare's Old English. And that is a Fact.>>
Shakespeare IS modern English.
Shakespeare IS modern English.
I've read a lot of information on internet, concernig the amount of words that English has,a million? really? I'm pretty sure that's very far from real facts.
Also what's the advantage of having more words to tell something? when usually ,two words must be used to compose a verb and up,off,out,down,on,etc are used almost unnecessary.
I'd like to add more but I'm very tired of writing a subject every time that I have to express something that (I) think.
BTW. sorry for my grammar, I just studied English during 3 months, so don't expect too much from this humble spanish/french speaker.
Also what's the advantage of having more words to tell something? when usually ,two words must be used to compose a verb and up,off,out,down,on,etc are used almost unnecessary.
I'd like to add more but I'm very tired of writing a subject every time that I have to express something that (I) think.
BTW. sorry for my grammar, I just studied English during 3 months, so don't expect too much from this humble spanish/french speaker.
What the fuck does expressiveness have to do with grammar? Expressiveness depends on vocabulary, word use, how you construct your sentences, the way you convey what you want to say, individual talant etc, but not grammar. How does having conjugations matter in making something expressive?
How can 'yo hablo' be more expressive than 'I speak' when they both mean the same thing? The fact that in English 'speak' has no inflection here is neither here nor there because it doesn't affect the meaning.
How can 'yo hablo' be more expressive than 'I speak' when they both mean the same thing? The fact that in English 'speak' has no inflection here is neither here nor there because it doesn't affect the meaning.
"Because English has no gender and GENDER is very IMPORTANT in LAW and SCIENCE, if you read an English Court transcript, you almost have no clue about the gender of the offenders, if you don’t know their names and study the whole transcript.
If the document is partially destroyed and you are only left with a piece of paper where no names are specified, it is impossible to deduct the gender of the offenders, because English is not a gender specific language.
English is not just less expressive, is very ambiguous as well, difficult to distinguish."
Totally agree, a genderless language is very ambiguous indeed, creating many problems for academics, law is not the only one affected.
Medicine and biology is very gender specific too.
If the document is partially destroyed and you are only left with a piece of paper where no names are specified, it is impossible to deduct the gender of the offenders, because English is not a gender specific language.
English is not just less expressive, is very ambiguous as well, difficult to distinguish."
Totally agree, a genderless language is very ambiguous indeed, creating many problems for academics, law is not the only one affected.
Medicine and biology is very gender specific too.
Nobody gives a shit about law. They write fucked up enough as it is already, adding genders ain't gonna change anything. No one understands it anyway.