View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
rac118
Joined: 23 Feb 2009
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:13 am Post subject: Which is the more complicated language? |
|
|
I dont know many words in korean, maybe 25. But I've been here a year and a half and my impression of the language is that its extremely primitive.
My impressions, not that these cant be incorrect:
-no articles, which means no the, an, or a
this would literally have to make sentences sound like "Me go home."
-no differentiation between amounts
so no difference between talking about one apple or ten apples. this is a much less complicated way of looking at the world because we are talking about ideas that are abstract, non specific.
-overly simple syntax
i guess im least sure about this one but it seems that the subject or the most important idea of the sentence is said at the beginning, as if they cant carry that idea to the end because they might forget. So, i guess it would be "Home me go." or "Apple me eat."
vocabulary also seems to be extremely limited, i hear the word babo about 600 times a day. in english i know there are many many ways to call a person stupid.
im not claiming to be an expert on any of this, im perfectly willing to be proven wrong, maybe some of you know things i dont. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
PeteJB
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
The term is 'Scientific' language, simple it is most certainly not. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rac118
Joined: 23 Feb 2009
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
care to explain what that means? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
PeteJB
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Because it's not. Just because you hear babo 600 times a day doesn't mean there aren't other words to describe a person as stupid, for which there are many in Korean including words originating from Chinese that barely translate into a single English word without the requirement of a sentence to explain. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rac118
Joined: 23 Feb 2009
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
haha
question "care to explain what that means?" answer "because its not."
i love it.
anyway, i dont really know im just curious about other opinions. so you are saying that korean doesnt use a limited vocabulary. that only attacks one of the points. do you have any numbers that show this to be the case? i did a google search but i didnt really come up with anything. also, i might have a hard time believing a number because so many of the "korean" words are just badly pronounced attempts at speaking english. god, "konglish," is there anything more annoying... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
PeteJB
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
'Haha'
Yoy say "I know about 25 words in Korean" and call it simple. I think only someone who has studied a larger portion of any given language has the right to claim it is simple.
I love it.
Everything you have said doesn't seem to carry much weight for the point your trying to make. For example, your attack on Konglish is pointless because English has butchered words from other languages for years - Korean is hardly the first to do this. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rac118
Joined: 23 Feb 2009
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I made that point about 3 times in the OP.
I think someone is feeling insecure because he wasted his time learning it.
No content = boring
I hope someone else can contribute. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
PeteJB
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Even if I didn't know Korean, I'd know better than to call it 'extremely primitive'. If you want content your going to have to come up with better points than those. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm glad that my linguistics profs took pains to disabuse their students of the notion that one natural language is more primitive or more difficult than another. It made the study of language itself much more fascinating. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
FMPJ
Joined: 03 Jun 2008
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Most linguists agree that one only needs to know at least 26 words in any language in order to evaluate it.
Last edited by FMPJ on Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rac118
Joined: 23 Feb 2009
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
oh my god
yeah, OMG
yo, another one of these? ok, sure... everything is equal.
kids, never debate anything again ever.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rac118
Joined: 23 Feb 2009
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
FMPJ wrote: |
Most linguists agree that one only needs to know at least 26 words in any language in order to evaluate it. |
finally, some humor.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
crazy_arcade
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that's it's none to hard to discern the simple thing in this thread.
OP: I really like your line or debate because it's very effective and really convincing. Please account for the french and latin words that are a monstrosity in English. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
tigercat

Joined: 10 Oct 2008
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pig latin is complicated. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rac118
Joined: 23 Feb 2009
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
actually, i was waiting for that argument, eventhough i came at this with a certain level of modesty.
the argument is that english steals language in the same way. i think this is going to be hard for many many on here to understand but its very different given the time frame. im not going to keep writing unless someone else actually contributes something. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|