Search results for 'tag:Learning English tag:Vowels' matching tags 'Learning English' and 'Vowels'

Re: Complexity of grammar

Forbes — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:05:31 GMT

Studies of languages have shown that any given language will compensate for complexity in one area with simplicity in another and that if you compare any two languages that they have roughly the same number of complex and simple areas.

Consider the following:

Imagine a language with only two vowels and two consonants, a rule that forbids consonant clusters and syllables ending in a consonant and without significant tonality at the morpheme level. We could characterise such a language as phonologically simple. However, discounting the possibilty of homophones, only four words of one syllable and sixteen words of two syllables would be available, which would mean that almost every word/ morpheme would have to be of at least three syllables; such a language would of necessity be morphologically complex.

Going to the opposite extreme, a language with a hundred vowels and three hundred consonants, even without allowing clusters and final consonants, has the potential to provide umpteen (I leave the mathematically gifted to work out how many) words/morphemes of one and two syllables and thousands more if clusters and final consonants are permitted. It is likely that such a language would be morphologically simple. It would of course be almost impossible to speak since the differences between the phonemes would be so subtle that both speaking and listening would require the utmost concentration at all times.

So we can see that both excessively simple and excessively complex phonologies would prevent effective communication. And the same applies to any language considered as a whole. An overly simple language would be of no use except to communicate at a very basic level indeed and an overly complex language could not be passed on to children.

There is a tendency to think of isolating or analytic languages as simpler than synthetic or agglutinating languages, but that is not the case.

Take these four sentences:

1. The bird ate the fish

2. The fish ate the bird

3. Avis piscem edit

4. Piscis avem edit

We know (if we know both Latin and English) that in 1 and 3 there is no doubt that it is the fish that had the bad luck, and that in 2 and 4 that it was the bird. English achieves certainty by word order and Latin ( where the order of words in 3 and 4 can be changed without altering the meaning) by changing the endings of words. From the perspective of an English schoolboy learning Latin, Latin is difficult because you have to change the endings, but from the perspective of an Ancient Roman schoolboy learning English, English is tricky because you have to get the words in the right order. English schoolboys wonder why Latin bothers with endings and Ancient Roman schoolboys may feel that English lacks flexibility because you cannot put the word you consider important first.

Agglutinating languages are often presented in a way that makes them look horribly complex. I have seen the Turkish verb presented in what appears to be a neverending set of tables. Further investigation though shows that the forms are made up applying quite simple principles and that the principles are applied universally, so the verbal system is not as complicated as you first thought.

A language can be neither too simple not too complex and all languages are simple/complex within a very narrow set of parameters.

Re: I need serious advice. Help! :'(

Kooyeen — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:16:31 GMT

What? Incredible? And that's nothing!
I remember the first time I heard the difference, it was in a pronouncing dictionary, I think. I kept on clicking on every word, and my face was like . And the difference between BrE and AmE! Even more .
Let's say I had no idea someone could leave out r's, and say "playa", "neva", "ova". I had no idea what a tapped t was, so it was amazing to find out how t's turned into d's. And then the vowels... never heard of the American "o" as in "not", never. Bit pronounced as beat, did as deed (I didn't know of the real vowel in "did"). And "good", that was amazing too! Never heard of that vowel either, so it was "good" with the same vowel as "cool". What about the schwa? It is obvious that I had no idea what a reduced vowel was.
As you see, a mess, but... that's the way English was taught at school. Eengleesh, actually. The problem is that I think English is taught this way throughout Italy. I believe more than 80% of the teachers teach it that way. My niece is learning English at school and,, yeah, "she ease learn-eeng Eengl-eesh".

Re: What makes English so difficult to learn?

Marvin A. — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:55:37 GMT

and an ignorant American would look at British and pronounce practise (Br. spelling) like practize....

Highly unlikely.

Americans on the other hand, have been butchering it for centuries and should not be consulted when learning this language. It is, after all, English and not American.

Rubbish. North American English is in many ways much closer to Elizabethan English than British English, Australian English and New Zealand English.

Anonymous Australian.

Well, we could say that Australian English speakers are "butchering the language": for one thing, most of you have forgotten how to prononounce your r's; your vowels are quite different earlier forms of English, and your vocabulary has shifted quite a bit.

It is, after all, English and not American.

Well, it's not Australian either.

so it is logical that the more words one knows, the more thoughts one can have.

How is that logical? Other languages can also be quite expressive. Just because English "has" over a million words, you have to realize that many are simply restricted to medicine; others are not in common use and would be quite incomprehensible to most people. Just by possessing a copious amount of words (many of these so called "English words" are hardly native words, and are not understood by many people), doesn't mean that English is more expressive than other languages in all respects.

It (the spelling) was fixed 400 years ago

Yes, for the most part. But what I don't understand, is if someone wants to simply be able to speak English (and doesn't care about reading and writing), why don't they simply use a phonetic alphabet when learning English.

though I'm convinced once upon a time it really was pronounced "kuh-ni-git"

Actually in Old and Middle English, the "k" was pronounced (but there was no "uh" after it), and the "g" was pronounced like in the word "Loch" if you put on a Scottish accent.

Or meaby something from German: einhundertfunfundzwazig (125) - this is correct spelling, there shouldn't be any spaces!!!

Well, it's easy enough to break down, and is hardly harder than onehundredtwentyfive.

You say its easy, and yet you write 'learned' instead of 'learnt' - a classic example.

"learned" and "learnt" tend to be pretty well interchangeable.

Re: What is the most obstacle to your spoken english?

Philip — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:03:17 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

I would like to know what is the most obstacle to your spoken english? 'greatest'

I am somewhat proficient in three languages other than English. My biggest problem in conversations, of course, is understanding the other people, usually because they speak the language faster than I can think in it. So, I usually start any conversation more slowly that I really need to, and that seems to slow them down a bit. Vocabulary can also add to my problems.

As for people learning English, I find that the biggest problem I have with them is their attempt to speak faster than they really should, thus making it difficult for me to comprehend. I believe that many Asian languages use far more vowels than consonants, and when speakers of Thai, for example, speak English fast, they often do not give as much attention to the consonants in English. On the other hand, an English speaker will make many (sometimes embarrassing) mistakes because of the tonal system in Thai.

Each language-to-language situation is different, depending on the languages involved; these are problems that a language learner should be aware of and try to get help from a person thoroughly familiar with both languages.

Re: HERE - British Pronunciation

LeicesterLad — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:47:10 GMT

To summarise everyone's comments Dominik - and also agree with you original statement - it's safe to say that, when learning British English, the "r" should not normally be pronounced EXCEPT when the following word starts with a vowel, where it always should. The letter "y" very rarely acts as a vowel at the start of words in English so normally the "r" would not normally be sounded. For example in "That is their yatch" you wouldn't sound the "r".

Most British speakers combine words in phrases like "there is" into a single continuous sound and the r is sounded for convenience. This is less common in German, where words starting with vowels are still seperated from the previous word, although ironically, in German, the written words are more likely to be combined into one!

Having said that, some British accents (Scottish, Lancashire, Cornish etc) pronounce "r"s at the end of words - like in American English - but these are regional differences that I wouldn't worry about when learning English!

Re: Are grammar rules helpful to non-native speakers

Anonymous — Sun, 02 Oct 2005 07:31:36 GMT

Rules help a long as they are predominantly consistent.
When a rule is significantly inconsistent then it will lead to confusion.

For example, what rule can be applied to the double "o" sound in English? The words:
food, blood, took, foot, moon, stool, and many other double "o" words are pronounced differently. Another example: "cut, put, pull, pun, prune. How are we to offer rules on the pronunciation of vowels that don't keep still?

Then we have double consonants mimicking letters. For example: phone, fun, fine, pharmacy, Philadelphia, finicky, phantasm. Or the silent letters such as the "p" in, Psyche, the "l" in should, would, and in salmon, or the "gh" in night, sight, plight, might, height, right, light.

Because of this, learning English requires memorization of word appearances and not so much on rules as would be the case if English spelling were more in accord with pronunciation.