|
|
English is the hardest language to learn
<<According to Oxford, it would be 'our books'. But that's only because that's how the people who wrote the Oxford grammar guides have traditionally spoken. I see no reason why people hundreds of miles away in West Yorkshire or Northumberland should be perceived as 'wrong' simply because they speak differently.>>
Only because a number of people do something it doesn't mean it's correct. Then let's all use "ain't" all the time, I mean... millions of people can't be wrong just because some posh Oxford guys say so... FUCK GRAMMAR...
I still don't understand why English speaking people don't give a damn about grammar.
Let it be that way...
Pete
To get back to the topic: English may or may not be the hardest language to learn, but it still presents many difficulties for people to learn it well:
Spelling: I can't imagine how a learner deals with this. Spanish, German, Italian, Korean, et al, are relatively straightforward. Even French is a model of consistency compared to English (eg., tough, though, through, cough). Does one have to look up the pronuncation of every new word?
Pronunciation: Both of the 'th' sounds (eg., as in then and think), the large vowel inventory, the vowel glides, the dipthongs, etc., are not easy to master. To sound native-like is certainly more difficult in English than in Spanish or Italian.
Grammar: Yes, the grammar seems simpler than many European languages. But there are still many pitfalls, not the least of which is the huge number of irregular verbs. Also the remains of the case system with the pronouns (I, me, my, mine) and possessives (Jack's), irregular plurals (man-men, sheep-sheep, ox-oxen), and so on. And in general, the choice of which tense to use (including compound tenses) is as elaborate as most other European languages. Nowhere near the simplicity of Chinese or Indonesian grammar, and probably not not more difficult than Afrikaans, Swedish, or Danish.
In sum, I don't think that English is THE most difficult langage (languages like Russian and Hungarian are probably more difficult for most learners), but I think it is far from the easiest. Its main advantage seems to be the incredible exposure most people in the world have to it. As the Antimoon folks say, English is everywhere.
Only non-native speakers can make grammatical mistakes. If something is commonly said by native speakers, then it is correct regardless of what someone from Oxford might say.
<<<My name is referring the planet, not the cartoon about the Mickey Mouse and his dog.
Yes, you are not correct, because already I am now becoming English teacher and teached much people the fluent English like I am speaking myself. >>>
Dear Pluto
Tell me that this is a joke.
Are you related to Harry Enfield?
What country in the world is blessed with this high standard of English tuition?
I should have guessed, you come from Mars.
Best Wishes. From Robin
<<Only non-native speakers can make grammatical mistakes. If something is commonly said by native speakers, then it is correct regardless of what someone from Oxford might say.>>
Yes, that's true, from a linguistic point of view. But there is conroversy between the linguist's and the non-linguist's point of view. I reckon you know this old "war" between prescriptivists and descriptivists. Of course, the descriptive theories are regarded as "modern" and acceptable, whereas prescriptivism is considered to be "old-fashioned" and "naive". Today linguists seem to have peculiar aversion towards prescriptivism. Being pretty conversant with linguistics, I like to advocate descriptism, too.
BUT:
Although prescriptivism is the pariah of academic life, people who are not involved in linguistics usually see things from a different angle, which is actually prescriptivism. If I tried to convince ordinary people that a person who uses "non-standard" grammar speaks a language as valid as that of those who use so-called standard grammatical constructions....well, I would get quizzical looks. (Believe me...I've tried it :-))
The so-called non-standard forms are stigmatised, and therefore considered to be "incorrect" and "bad" grammar by many people. However, this is not the case.
On the other hand, I think we must learn to "accept" that most people still believe in the "correct" - "incorrect" distinction. (Note that acception does not equal to approval here, hence the "...".) We have to do so, because job interviewers are not normally conversant with linguistics (they SHOULD be), and they will certainly make the first impression on the grounds of the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of our speech. This is why we do not always use the same language when talking to our boss and when chatting with friends. (That's code switching. Many people do it, including myself.)
BTW, sometimes I have serious doubts about the whole issue. Well, here is an illustrative example to make you understand why:
A person from the eastern part of London says the following thing: "I thinks I ain't gonna do nothin'". It's a non-standard way of saying "I think that I am not going to do anything", but is by no means ungrammatical (since native speakers, by nature, do not make grammatical errors). But what if a non-native speaker utters the above statement? Well, that's definitely ungrammatical, as many EFL / ESL teachers say. Touchy, isn't it?
I really want to hear (see) your opinion about it.
Pluto,
as far as my above messages are concerned, I might have been a bit arrogant... Well, this is in my line. It's not your fault obviously... I didn't want it to come out that way. Sorry.
Robin
>>Are you related to Harry Enfield? <<
Yes, I am knowing him, he say he have loadsa money, no? I believe this 'loadsa' is not the good grammar. You see, much native mistakes!
<<Yes, I am knowing him, he say he have loadsa money, no? I believe this 'loadsa' is not the good grammar. You see, much native mistakes!>>
There is subtle difference between "bad grammar" and informal language. "Loadsa" is the spoken colloquial form of "loads of", and by no means bad grammar (or "native mistake" as you put it).
Last night a woman asked me for a Cigarette outside my front door. Well! as you can imagine, asking complete strangers for a cigarette is not a very cool thing to do.
Given the context, you would imagine that I would have guess what it was she wanted ie, Money, the time, etc.
I had to ask her three times, before I could understand what she was saying.
One of the problems with the 'Descriptive approach' of anything goes, is that it makes it more difficult to teach 'Native Speakers' how to speak and spell properly.
I have just popped down to the University Book Shop to look at the ESL books. There is an amazing amount there. I find that I prefer to look and even buy the books in the bookshop, than actually read them back home. It also makes me realise, how limited a computer and a series of Web Pages can be.
I sympathise with foreign learners of English. Imagine spending years learning English, only to find that you cannot understand someone asking you for a cigarette.
One of the things she did not do, was change the word I was having difficulty with, ie fag, smoke, or make a gesture.
As a final comment, I would like to say that not all Native Speakers are equal.
Pluto, you get an F for that post.
"Yes, I am knowing him, he say he have loadsa money, no? I believe this 'loadsa' is not the good grammar. You see, much native mistakes!"
Such horrible grammar! You should be ashamed.
"I am knowing him"
1 mistake
"he say"
2 mistakes
"he have"
3 mistakes
"no?"
4 mistakes
"the good grammar"
5 mistakes
"much native mistakes"
6 mistakes
Your post contains a total of 6 mistakes! Try better next time!
<<One of the problems with the 'Descriptive approach' of anything goes, is that it makes it more difficult to teach 'Native Speakers' how to speak and spell properly.>>
Speech and writing are totally different things. Writing is not the language itself, it is the abstraction of it. Descriptive grammar applies to spoken language
I am very pleased to see my thoughts are bringing forward so many postings! I was laughing to see the talk of 'Harry Enfield'.....I like! He is very funny man who I saw on BBC world many years ago now. I'm feeling I need to say to Pluto that he or she is very bad at English but this is really only the proof of my original statement that English is hardest language. This must also be proven by Robin's 'Lady wanting cigarette' and difficulties he was having in understanding her. I wonder if English is hardest language when it comes to regional dialect then? And Hungarian and Russian is technically harder? I'm also thinking if Robin's lady who was waiting outside his front door wanted a cigarette at all, lol, and if in fact she is how the English say 'A lady of the night' and this is reasons why he couldn't understand her as she wanted to say things quiet so as not to be attracting Polizei LOL You see how there are so many barricades when it comes to English Language!
Well, I think my English now got a bit rusty because I wasn't in England since 3 months now and it is the fact I did already forgot much. But when I was in England people were saying me that they are thinking I am English because I speak it so well and are so surprised that I'm not native speaker. But after they are saying why they didn't guessed I am not native speaker because actually they should because I don't made so many mistake like native speaker. This is why I believe English is so easy, because even I said I learn it in one year, actually it's the case I learn it in only 9 months to be fluently.
English is abslotuley not the hardest langauge to learn. of course much depend of your own language, how similar it is. I learn since some months english, and it's simple read it although the pronunciation it's not possible at all or understand it when spoken.
What the hardest language is ? I don't know, i didn't encounterd it. finnish, hungarian, basque, russian etc.....................no idea.
Pluto,
you're funny Hahaha :-) you're making a joke, it's obvious !!!
<< Well, I think my English now got a bit rusty because I wasn't in England since 3 months now and it is the fact I did already forgot much. But when I was in England people were saying me that they are thinking I am English because I speak it so well and are so surprised that I'm not native speaker. But after they are saying why they didn't guessed I am not native speaker because actually they should because I don't made so many mistake like native speaker. This is why I believe English is so easy, because even I said I learn it in one year, actually it's the case I learn it in only 9 months to be fluently. >>
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a joke, or if you're just serious deluded. You're English is good if you've only been learning it for 9 months non-intensive. However, your grammar is certainly not native-like, as you seem to believe. Unless, of course, you've learnt the local grammar some obscure regional dialect, which I highly doubt.
Here are corrections of your grammar, based on my own dialect, which is Standard British English / Received Pronunciation, which I'm guessing you have learnt (please say if this is not the case):
<< Well, I think my English now got a bit rusty >>
Well, I think my English has now got a bit rusty
-- the present perfect sounds more natural here because what you've described carries on into the present
<< because I wasn't in England since 3 months now >>
Either:
because I haven't been to English for three months now
Or:
because it's three months now since I left England
-- misuse of 'since' is extremely common amongst native speakers of French and German, because they try to use it as they would use 'depuis' or 'seit' respectively.
<< and it is the fact I did already forgot much. >>
and it is a fact that I have already forgotten a lot
-- the present perfect sounds more natural here because what you've described carries on into the present; 'much' is not used as a noun on it's own -- use 'a lot' or 'loads' instead.
<< But when I was in England people were saying me that they are thinking I am English >>
Either:
But when I was in England, people told me that they thought I was English
Or:
But when I was in England, people said that they thought I was English
-- 'say' is not used with a direct object; you started in the past tense, you continue in the past tense; it sounds more natural to use the simple past than the past continuous here as well
<< and are so surprised that I'm not native speaker >>
and are so surprised that I'm not a native speaker
-- indefinite article is needed
<< But after they are saying why they didn't guessed I am not native speaker >>
Either:
But then they said that they didn't guess that I was not a native speaker
Or:
But then they said that they hadn't guessed that I was not a native speaker
-- 'didn't' is used with an infinitive, not a past participle
<< because actually they should >>
-- doesn't fit in here
<< because I don't made so many mistake like native speaker. >>
because I don't make as many mistakes as a native speaker
-- I'm going to make an educated guess that your native language is German, based on the other mistakes you've made here. If so, the 'so... wie...' construction translates as 'as... as...' in English.
<< even I said I learn it in one year >>
even though I said I'd learnt it in one year
-- you learnt English before you made that statement, so you have to use the past tense (preferably the pluperfect) of 'learn'.
<< actually it's the case I learn it in only 9 months to be fluently. >>
actually, I am fluent after learning it for only nine months.
-- full restructuring of the clause is necessary; also, you can 'be fluent', but you can't 'be fluently'.
|