scrambled
Kingfisher
RE: Austria may elect Europe's only far-right president
I don't want to offend you, but the question made sense to me. He didn't ask which was "easy", but which was "tougher to learn"; so you engage with a straw man from here on out, never answering what is a very simple question (Hungarian is "tougher").
"Certain aspects" (which you do not define or list); and "look", as in the differences of one language are only superficial, as opposed to really being more complex and different from English? The problem is, those differences are more than mere superficial ones: languages greatly differ in the amount of time needed to master, due to the specific language's complexity and distinction from one's native language. Here's a good general list of difficulty, compiled by people who actual specialize in secondary language acquisition, the Foreign Service Institute (US):
http://www.effectivelanguagelearning.com/language-guide/language-difficulty
Note that the chart above, while useful, has one extra variable not mentioned, which supports my earlier answer two-fold, in that not all of the languages are taught to the same level of proficiency by FSI; that is, one needs a "3/3" in French to graduate, but only a "2/2" in Hungarian. If they taught Hungarian to the same proficiency as say, they teach to French, it would be at least one year extra of training: approximately two years of full time education for Hungarian, against only six months for French. Notice also that Hungarian has an "asterisk", showing it is of increased difficult to learn, yet Polish does not. (For definition of the number scale used in Diplomacy, see here)
In any case, your argument is trying to split the baby, so to speak, by first pretending no language is 'easy' in the abstract, in which you make a metaphysical point that is true but irrelevant to human interest, but then must needs contradict yourself by saying there are "difficulties" present in learning languages. What "biggest difficulties" could there be since you said no language is "hard"?
Could be considered is a rather disingenuous use of passive voice, which you supplement with scare quotes over "easier"; even though easier is really what you mean, you cannot directly admit it because it contradicts your earlier "no language is easy or hard" dogma that you did not think of, but rather received from some "professor" who must have never had to learn more than one other language as an adult, but was trying to show how everyone is "equal".
Both Japanese and Korean are of completely different, and rather isolated, language families. As for the written forms, Japanese uses three different writing systems, and Korean uses a fourth, a unique Alphabet of its own. How are they closely related again, compared to Spanish? And in the context of this thread, who cares of the ease of a Korean speaker learning Spanish?
Your "other factors" are just the motivations of the learner; but that was not an issue in play, and any question of willpower is present in any situation in which someone is attempting to achieve something.
Secondary language acquisition is completely different, from a practical point of view, than native acquisition; and saying that "all languages are constructed of the same elements" is misleading, since the devil is in the details: the difficulty of language acquisition is in the many months of (mostly memorizing) the "deets". It would be like claiming that since all languages have vocabulary and grammar, all must then require the same time and effort to learn, be they Algonquin, Italian, or Pirahã!
Or you got bad advice on the internet, or tried to learn it in a classroom setting, the way the idiotic credentialing "educational system" of the modern west attempts to teach it.
Hungary may be in Europe, but the Hungarian Language is not Indo-European at all and is utterly different from them. The Magyars are of Asian origin as is their Language. It shows in the language itself:
description:
This ain't High School Spanish.
Usually it is; languages differ in their acquisition difficultly even considering only two languages in play. For instance, it has been observed that Russian speakers seem to pick up English faster than the inverse, probably because English is a relatively simplified language. Ukrainians can understand Russian better than the inverse; etc.
marty said:
I don't want to offend you, but the question made sense to me. He didn't ask which was "easy", but which was "tougher to learn"; so you engage with a straw man from here on out, never answering what is a very simple question (Hungarian is "tougher").
"Certain aspects" (which you do not define or list); and "look", as in the differences of one language are only superficial, as opposed to really being more complex and different from English? The problem is, those differences are more than mere superficial ones: languages greatly differ in the amount of time needed to master, due to the specific language's complexity and distinction from one's native language. Here's a good general list of difficulty, compiled by people who actual specialize in secondary language acquisition, the Foreign Service Institute (US):
http://www.effectivelanguagelearning.com/language-guide/language-difficulty
Note that the chart above, while useful, has one extra variable not mentioned, which supports my earlier answer two-fold, in that not all of the languages are taught to the same level of proficiency by FSI; that is, one needs a "3/3" in French to graduate, but only a "2/2" in Hungarian. If they taught Hungarian to the same proficiency as say, they teach to French, it would be at least one year extra of training: approximately two years of full time education for Hungarian, against only six months for French. Notice also that Hungarian has an "asterisk", showing it is of increased difficult to learn, yet Polish does not. (For definition of the number scale used in Diplomacy, see here)
In any case, your argument is trying to split the baby, so to speak, by first pretending no language is 'easy' in the abstract, in which you make a metaphysical point that is true but irrelevant to human interest, but then must needs contradict yourself by saying there are "difficulties" present in learning languages. What "biggest difficulties" could there be since you said no language is "hard"?
Could be considered is a rather disingenuous use of passive voice, which you supplement with scare quotes over "easier"; even though easier is really what you mean, you cannot directly admit it because it contradicts your earlier "no language is easy or hard" dogma that you did not think of, but rather received from some "professor" who must have never had to learn more than one other language as an adult, but was trying to show how everyone is "equal".
Both Japanese and Korean are of completely different, and rather isolated, language families. As for the written forms, Japanese uses three different writing systems, and Korean uses a fourth, a unique Alphabet of its own. How are they closely related again, compared to Spanish? And in the context of this thread, who cares of the ease of a Korean speaker learning Spanish?
Your "other factors" are just the motivations of the learner; but that was not an issue in play, and any question of willpower is present in any situation in which someone is attempting to achieve something.
If only! John McWhorter, linguistics professor, said all languages will "beat you up" due to their relative complexity, number of words to learn, etc. He believed that Spanish will probably beat up an English speaker the least and is a good starter language. When I went from studying Latin to Ancient Greek, Latin immediately became easy, so much more complex was Greek. Russian phonology, on the other hand, makes the Attic dialect seem like Hawaiian.
Secondary language acquisition is completely different, from a practical point of view, than native acquisition; and saying that "all languages are constructed of the same elements" is misleading, since the devil is in the details: the difficulty of language acquisition is in the many months of (mostly memorizing) the "deets". It would be like claiming that since all languages have vocabulary and grammar, all must then require the same time and effort to learn, be they Algonquin, Italian, or Pirahã!
Or you got bad advice on the internet, or tried to learn it in a classroom setting, the way the idiotic credentialing "educational system" of the modern west attempts to teach it.
Hungary may be in Europe, but the Hungarian Language is not Indo-European at all and is utterly different from them. The Magyars are of Asian origin as is their Language. It shows in the language itself:
description:
This ain't High School Spanish.
Usually it is; languages differ in their acquisition difficultly even considering only two languages in play. For instance, it has been observed that Russian speakers seem to pick up English faster than the inverse, probably because English is a relatively simplified language. Ukrainians can understand Russian better than the inverse; etc.
