Is English A Difficult Language?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mande2013

French is hard to learn, easy to master while English is easy to learn, hard to master.

---

French writing is incredibly difficult, not easy to master at all. As for hard to learn - well, I couldn't learn French, but I guess I may have made process if I put the same effort as I put trying to learn Chinese.

Back on topic though, this is such a subjective question. Is one, for instance learning Chinese, being a native speaker? The grammar is virtually the same, so I can switch between languages midsentence without any real difficulty. It's not exactly learning a new language, in the sense that it is reapplying the same rules already internalized with new vocabulary. There are a few particularities, but not as many as in other pairings of languages.

Now, Japanese as a counter example is far, far harder to make sense of as an English speaker. I cannot seem to get my mind around the grammar, as this actually is a code switch - I am not used to the ordering of words, and it gives me a headache to think like this. The characters don't pose much of a problem as I am proficient in Chinese and Classical Chinese, so I can pretty much memorize them on first glance - but my god, the grammar is murder.

Now, if I were a native speaker of English without Chinese knowledge, it would be impossible to pick up the language in the way I am (characters right from the beginning, instead of the Western approach of starting with fewer characters and "learning" to write Chinese characters). This is what I call really learning a new language - everything is foreign.

So, is English hard? Probably much harder for a certain group, and not so difficult for certain people.

As for the personal element, this is much more difficult. Certain mouths like the sounds of certain languages, and certain people enjoy certain cultures. I don't see the success of much of the "forced" education we have, except in Europe where they somehow converted much of the population to learn English without protest in a way the English speakers of the world will never learn any other language.

English spelling is weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eiseabhal

English spelling is weird.

---

is it? how do you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nacht-Jagen

English is an incredibly difficult language to learn. Being from Germany, I speak German, French, Swedish, and I know how to carry a very basic conversation in Greek. I'm currently learning Welsh, as well. When I moved to America, English was a hassle to understand. So many rules in the writing and speaking of it are not always consistent. It was very frustrating.

---

How do you find Welsh? I have been fascinated by the sound if this language but for now I don`t have time for it:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

French writing is incredibly difficult, not easy to master at all. As for hard to learn - well, I couldn't learn French, but I guess I may have made process if I put the same effort as I put trying to learn Chinese.

Back on topic though, this is such a subjective question. Is one, for instance learning Chinese, being a native speaker? The grammar is virtually the same, so I can switch between languages midsentence without any real difficulty. It's not exactly learning a new language, in the sense that it is reapplying the same rules already internalized with new vocabulary. There are a few particularities, but not as many as in other pairings of languages.

Now, Japanese as a counter example is far, far harder to make sense of as an English speaker. I cannot seem to get my mind around the grammar, as this actually is a code switch - I am not used to the ordering of words, and it gives me a headache to think like this. The characters don't pose much of a problem as I am proficient in Chinese and Classical Chinese, so I can pretty much memorize them on first glance - but my god, the grammar is murder.

Now, if I were a native speaker of English without Chinese knowledge, it would be impossible to pick up the language in the way I am (characters right from the beginning, instead of the Western approach of starting with fewer characters and "learning" to write Chinese characters). This is what I call really learning a new language - everything is foreign.

So, is English hard? Probably much harder for a certain group, and not so difficult for certain people.

As for the personal element, this is much more difficult. Certain mouths like the sounds of certain languages, and certain people enjoy certain cultures. I don't see the success of much of the "forced" education we have, except in Europe where they somehow converted much of the population to learn English without protest in a way the English speakers of the world will never learn any other language.

---

If it comes to French, I agree with you. At the very beginning, I found this language very difficult but later it was much easier.

"i"riomhe "e" ach e deidh "c" ach seall air a facal "weird". I am pulling your legs pal.

I was brought up speaking a language with VERY regular spelling.

If it come to phonetics, polish is very difficult for almost every foreigner. Most of consonant clusters are real nightmare for learners. So, I think that English isn`t so bad:)

I tried to learn Japanese, and I have to concur, the syntax was murder on my brain.

Hi,
Why do we say that English is a difficult language?

Although I am Arabic and was born in Arabic land and the origin of my parents is indeed Arabic, and no one of my grandfathers had married with a foreign woman, but I find the English language is easier hundred times than Arabic language due to the Arabic grammar is very difficult and often I would like to answer with English not to answer by Arabic..
Arabic language contains words if you slightly changed the position of the diacritical mark the meaning will be upset up to down, the object may be changed to subject or vise versa, thus you need to be very careful against of that you will commit an awful mistake…
I myself the talker till now although I have learned many years in school and after school yet I fear from the Arabic language lest not to fall in committing mistakes and the matter lastly will be frustrated and perplexing to me….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muhsin

The great problem I’m being facing is that of writing good, plain…

---

Why not hire someone to correct your English? Or find someone interested in perfecting your first language, and correct each other for free. Just make sure to find a native speaker of the language. There are many Indian people I know who have been in England for decades but still speak English "in an Indian way". Your use of *being* in "The great problem I’m being facing is ..." is typical of the "faulty" English I hear used by Indian people. If you re-read your posts carefully then you may spot elements like this that are obviously redundant to a native speaker. I mean, doesn't "The great problem I'm facing is..." sound correct to you? Another way to proceed is simply to read lots of English novels and listen to broadcasts on the BBC World Service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mohammad Ahmad

Hi,
Why do we say that English is a difficult language?

---

As a native speaker I'm always spotting small errors in the way that foreign people speak English, even if they have much acquaintance with the language. Your English is very good but there are subtle errors, which I hope you will excuse me pointing out, given the nature of this thread.

Quote:

---

Although I am Arabic and was born in Arabic land...

---

That's a subtle "error", an English native would say, "I was born in an Arabic land," or more likely specify the country, "I was born in Egypt."

Quote:

---

but I find the English language is easier hundred times than Arabic language due to the Arabic grammar

---

Although an English person would understand this perfectly, and would normally be too polite to correct your English, this is an incorrect way of speaking. A native speaker would say, "is a hundred times easier". My knowledge of grammar is pitiful, so I would hesitate to say that your grammar is wrong here, English (in theory!) allows great flexibility in grammar. I think this reveals the main problem that good non-native speakers of English have. It's little "turns of phrase" that give them away.

Quote:

---

no one of my grandfathers had married with a foreign woman

---

The "with" is redundant, a native speaker would say, "had married a foreign woman". I can see why you added the "with". English is not always logical!

Quote:

---

Arabic language contains words if you slightly changed the position of the diacritical mark the meaning will be upset up to down, the object may be changed to subject or vise versa, thus you need to be very careful against of that you will commit an awful mistake…

---

Interesting. English has the opposite problem. If you put words in the wrong place the meaning will still, usually, be easy to ascertain, which makes it difficult for learners to learn the right word order, especially if they learn from teachers who "don't care". Many English people who go into "teaching English as a foreign language" know that their pupils will be understood if they don't quite get things quite right, so, for an easy life, don't bother make sure that their pupils get everything absolutely correct.

Ok! Dear Sir I find some interests in what you said for example you said English speaker would say :
A hundred times is better….. sorry for this mistake because the phrase ( hundred times) is considered as a singular .. Ok that's right, again I would say and I would recognize that my language although many teachers and many people would admire and say that your language is good, but perfectly I know that my language yet is not the same native Englishman language, however it can be understood ,and by the all means of , it is not a weak language.
Otherwise, under any consideration it is not weak …..
I know my friend , I know! Thank you for your delighting correction. But let me say I am proud enough In what I wrote!
The topic you brought or others brought is dealing with a question that the English language is difficult, for this reason I put my comments and if not I consider the English is the easy one in the entire world languages,I should not write any letter.
Still I remember the day when I am small student in the second class of the secondary school and when our teacher in English did such mistake in answering the grammar exercises , spontaneously I stood raising my hand and said to him" your are wrong my teacher!"
Can you correct it? I said yes!….. And from that time I am who answered all the exercises on the blackboard and no less than 90% I had gained in all years of my study…
However, I would like to thank you again and I would receive any correction whether from you or from any member else with great delight
2- No one or ( none) of my grandfathers had married ( with) with is awkward here, that's right, but in the manner of our quickly writing sometimes we forget the subtle principles as you said exactly….
Best regards and wishes
I would be pleasureful to hear any correction

The grammar was wrong, because the word order was faulty. Although I don't want to be pedantic ;). I think you've got a problem with articles (I don't think you have any in Arabic, do you?) and a slight problem with the tenses. It's 'When I was a boy/little', because you're not a boy anymore. Everything that's in the past (even this morning) is strictly past, so this morning you were in town too. In fact a few minutes ago you were upstairs, if you've come down the stairs in the meantime.

I agree that English is easy to start with. It's straightforward and you can express yourself in a matter of months. No-one will be pedantic (unlike the French sometimes) and start correcting you. HOWEVER, changing the word order can have slight differences of meaning (mainly emphasis). You can 'I go to town sometimes' or 'I sometimes go to town.' It depends whether 'sometimes' is important.
A lot is possible in English and sometimes what is possible isn't necessarily right.

I can say, 'Only one time did he try.' but it sounds too lyrical and so we would rather say 'He tried only one time/once.' But you can still say the first, provided you do it in the right context.
And so it goes with word choice. There is a difference between 'liberate' and 'free', but you need to know it.
And there is a difference between 'I will do it' and 'I'm going to do it.'

I think there is the great pitfall of English. It looks easy, because you can explain it in five minutes, but when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, you just need to have an awful lot of material and make sense of it in terms of how it feels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mohammad Ahmad

Hi,
Although I am Arabic and was born in Arabic land and the origin of my parents is indeed Arabic, and no one of my grandfathers had married with a foreign woman, but I find the English language is easier hundred times than Arabic language due to the Arabic grammar is very difficult and often I would like to answer with English not to answer by Arabic..

---

That's probably because the dialect you grew up speaking (presumably Iraqi Arabic) is far removed from the official language of the Arabic world, Modern Standard Arabic. I'll bet you are completely comfortable with your native dialect, and it is only MSA that gives you headaches.

kiki1982 - Ihr Englisch ist viel besser als mein Deutsch - und vielleicht besser als mein Englisch!

Mohammad Ahmad - One of the easiest ways in which to learn English structure is to begin by "diagramming" sentences, since understanding subjects, predicates, modifiers and the parts of speech - and visualising their relationship(s) to one another - can be a boon to English-as-a-second-language students. Sadly, diagramming has fallen by the wayside these days, but the internet is omniscient, and a Google search for "diagramming sentences" will yield several very good sites.

To whom mentioned my name:


Firstly I would thank the moment that I was guided voluntary to come here, since until death the man needs to learn.
It is a forum never have I seen!
I would thank all members sharing the article without excluding anyone.....
I would like to thank the administration in accepting me to be member here...

My comments to all:


Is there anyone whose name is Mohammad Ahmad other than me?
Seemingly you considered me as someone didn't know the part of the speech! It is awful if you think that....
For me I have learned the British grammar, I think it is slightly differs from the American....
Dear Sir. Give me your pardon if I turn annoyed and will not share in any word.....
The matter you mentioned the boy in the fifth primary class has learned it as he learned his name....
But not to say he wants to flee, let me in brief answer tell you what is the part of the speech:
1- The subject which started the sentence \ the clause ( the sentence can be composed of one clause, two, more)
2- The verb which it comes past the subject and it is the item which carries the meaning although there are verbless clauses especially in the non- finite clauses - the adverbial one, moreover the verb itself can be divided for five form: the basic, the S form, the past ( V-ed 1), the (ing form), and the V-ed 2 the participle\ passive
3- The complement .So the order of the English sentence basically is: S V C...
Some verbs are dynamic others are static, the static one needs not for object as I say, He is a teacher. ( teacher is subject complement Sc) it is always is considered as adjective, the dynamic verb needs object, some dynamic verbs took two objects.
e.g. He gave me the book ( two objects in the complement)...direct object\ indirect object
The pronoun ( he, she, they, we, etc..) can be either subject or object....
The modifier is the the item which precedes the subject such as ( The dirty boy...) His graceful hand, This river. Both of them..all of the rocky road.etc...
The modifier belongs to a main basic group, the group we called it generally the modification and this divided to premodification( the modifier) and post modification i.e. it comes after the head noun ...
example for the verbless clause :
While at England, he was active in drama. Seeing the large crowd, he went on his way....
There is something in grammar we called the predeterminer and the post determiner, but I haven't waste of time to discuss , I want to sleep...

MMA - Iraqi translator

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman Resu

kiki1982 - Ihr Englisch ist viel besser als mein Deutsch - und vielleicht besser als mein Englisch!

---

Und ich hoffe, meines ist auch viel besser als mein Deutsch, denn Deutsch ist nicht meine Muttersprache, sondern meine dritte. Englisch ist meine zweite und Niederländisch meine erste, aber das hättest du nicht wissen können ;).

Diagramming sentences is helpful, you are right, but I'm not sure if English students can benefit much from that. Schools teach things like 'always' goes between subject and verb, but sometimes it doesn't work that way. In German and Dutch it can help, because it's often more or less the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Und ich hoffe, meines ist auch viel besser als mein Deutsch, denn Deutsch ist nicht meine Muttersprache, sondern meine dritte. Englisch ist meine zweite und Niederländisch meine erste, aber das hättest du nicht wissen können ;).

Diagramming sentences is helpful, you are right, but I'm not sure if English students can benefit much from that. Schools teach things like 'always' goes between subject and verb, but sometimes it doesn't work that way. In German and Dutch it can help, because it's often more or less the same.

---

Ik kan lezen Nederlands, maar wanneer ik spreek Nederlands ik klinken als Elmer Fudd.

You might be correct; I was suggesting only that diagramming might help Mohammad Ahmad to better visualise the structure of English. My first language is French, and I was taught diagramming English sentences at an early age (dinosaurs still roamed free then). I found it very helpful because the noun / verb; subject / predicate relationship between French and English is at odds in so many cases.

I don't think English is difficult, but I think that people often are unaware of how much work and time they need to learn a foreign language. The problem is the lack of perseverance more than difficulty. Most people want it to be an easy and quick task, but when they find the process of learning being slow and demanding, they give up.

I wonder how much influence on this state of affairs has our consumer society, where you can get almost everything easily and quickly or the slogans like ‘learn language in 3 months.’ I sometimes encounter people who really believe it and get disappointed when they are not fluent after this period of time. Usually they later explain that they have no talent as if talent were so necessary.

It`s not possible to learn any language quickly and in easy way. I don`t believe in talent for learning languages. It`s just the matter of work and time.

Hmm, I don't know. That's not to say that a talented person will be able to learn a language fluently in a few months and another will need years, but I think there is something like the ability to adopt strange structures or features more easily.
Saying that though, my husband's Polish, Czech and Slovak students are consistently better at English than the Spanish, Italians and French. Obviously because they have such elaborate structures that they easily pick up simpler ones.
The number of English natives I have heard claim that even Spanish is too difficult (:eek:) because they have no talent is quite high. I guess that has more to do with the idea or ability to think in another language than it has to do with talent. Maybe the idea that everyone has that talent in a larger or smaller amount is introduced to you when you are little.

Although, my husband must have a secret, because he can pick up basic structures in 2 weeks. Without lessons. I think that's quite amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

... I think there is something like the ability to adopt strange structures or features more easily.

---

And the willingness. I remember at age 11 finding the use of gender ridiculous (das Madchen, what's the sense in that?) Being totally entranced by the logic and rationality of science, at that age, I just gave up on languages as irrational! (I continued to use English :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

And the willingness. I remember at age 11 finding the use of gender ridiculous (das Madchen, what's the sense in that?)

---

If it makes you feel any better, there's a convolution there which isn't readily seen. "Mädchen," is a diminutive - just as "kitty" is a diminutive of "cat" in English - of its ProtoGermanic root, "magaþs," [i.e. "meid"] which, like its Old Dutch antecedent "meid" / "meisje" (or is it "meidje? - kiki will know this one) is feminine in its root form, but neutral once it gets its "chen" and becomes a diminutive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Saying that though, my husband's Polish, Czech and Slovak students are consistently better at English than the Spanish, Italians and French. Obviously because they have such elaborate structures that they easily pick up simpler ones.

---

I think it has more to do with the fact that Polish, Czech and Slovak students need English more than the speakers of major Romance languages. Spanish or French will get you pretty far in this world. Czech or Slovak? Not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichtrausch

I think it has more to do with the fact that Polish, Czech and Slovak students need English more than the speakers of major Romance languages. Spanish or French will get you pretty far in this world. Czech or Slovak? Not so much.

---

Yeah, I too thought about it. From what I heard and noticed, since people from western Europe have a more comfortable situation, they appear to be often less determined and ambitious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman Resu

If it makes you feel any better, there's a convolution there which isn't readily seen. "Mädchen," is a diminutive - just as "kitty" is a diminutive of "cat" in English - of its ProtoGermanic root, "magaþs," [i.e. "meid"] which, like its Old Dutch antecedent "meid" / "meisje" (or is it "meidje? - kiki will know this one) is feminine in its root form, but neutral once it gets its "chen" and becomes a diminutive.

---

It's 'meisje', but it comes from the same root, you are right. Also Fräulein (everything with -lein is old diminutive, you can see this in Goethe poems, for example). Once upon a time, English used to have genders, but maybe it's what the German author of this lousy book about English we've got at home claims: every immigrant, from the Romans, to the Saxons, Normans, Danes, Vikings and all the others just got so confused they stopped trying and made a language that had many features, but whose structures were pretty basic for everyone. I don't think it is that way, because only round about Chaucer did nearly all genders disappear. There are some left, mind you: England is a 'she', as is a ship and there are a few more that I can't remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lichtrausch

I think it has more to do with the fact that Polish, Czech and Slovak students need English more than the speakers of major Romance languages. Spanish or French will get you pretty far in this world. Czech or Slovak? Not so much.

---

I may not have explained myself properly: these students are in the same class, same level and work at the EU, so there should be no differences, but Eastern Europeans are definitely statistically better at applying grammar than the French. Don't talk about Spanish students, they're hopeless. And I've been correcting my husband's exams for years now. Italians are 50-50. There are good ones, and there are abysmal ones. Eastern Europeans always come in the upper échelons (70-80%, there are not many who do 90%, I've only come across a handful).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Eastern Europeans are definitely statistically better at applying grammar than the French.

---

We do not need ze grammar - we have l'amour!

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hannah_arendt

It`s not possible to learn any language quickly and in easy way. I don`t believe in talent for learning languages. It`s just the matter of work and time.

---

It is possible to learn languages in faster and more efficient ways. Second language learning, from both a resource and from a pedagogy perspective is going through a bit of a slump. All these teach yourself x and learn x in 3 months are all nonsense. Basically the only effective method is to have material that is both difficult, and designed to progress at a rapid rate. I have found that all the Chinese language resources available to me, for instance, were all pretty much written from propaganda perspectives with very little to encourage somebody on how to speak, read, or write properly. My Japanese text books they make me use here are dragging my *** through a bunch of unexplained nonsense, which, rather than explain in linguistic terms basic things, sticks primarily to using repetitive patterns to try to enforce understanding.

Part of the problem is people have become quite anti-intellectual and "pragmatic" about second language acquisition. That's not to say people don't seek to learn new languages, but they only seek to do it in the most practical manner possible. Reading literature in that language is deemed impractical, you know because people don't speak the way John Milton or Proust writes. It's anti-intellectual nonsense. There's this notion that the most important thing is to be able to speak the language in a "real world" setting, and they believe reading literature doesn't bring you towards that goal. I obviously disagree, since reading Proust or Milton, if in the latter case you're learning English as a second language, will expand your vocabulary and train you to think in the target language. I guess my point is, what's wrong with taking an intellectual approach to learning a language?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

It is possible to learn languages in faster and more efficient ways. Second language learning, from both a resource and from a pedagogy perspective is going through a bit of a slump. All these teach yourself x and learn x in 3 months are all nonsense. Basically the only effective method is to have material that is both difficult, and designed to progress at a rapid rate. I have found that all the Chinese language resources available to me, for instance, were all pretty much written from propaganda perspectives with very little to encourage somebody on how to speak, read, or write properly. My Japanese text books they make me use here are dragging my *** through a bunch of unexplained nonsense, which, rather than explain in linguistic terms basic things, sticks primarily to using repetitive patterns to try to enforce understanding.

---

You are right that we can facilitate many things. Without any doubt nowadays, there is much easier than earliert. We have many textbooks, audio materials and videos and of course software, internet. However you still have to put your effort and time in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mande2013

Part of the problem is people have become quite anti-intellectual and "pragmatic" about second language acquisition. That's not to say people don't seek to learn new languages, but they only seek to do it in the most practical manner possible. Reading literature in that language is deemed impractical, you know because people don't speak the way John Milton or Proust writes. It's anti-intellectual nonsense. There's this notion that the most important thing is to be able to speak the language in a "real world" setting, and they believe reading literature doesn't bring you towards that goal. I obviously disagree, since reading Proust or Milton, if in the latter case you're learning English as a second language, will expand your vocabulary and train you to think in the target language. I guess my point is, what's wrong with taking an intellectual approach to learning a language?

---

Reading literature demans quite hight knowledge. However there are editions adjusted to the levels. As far as I observe my pupils, they don`t want to read any books, even in Polish. I sometimes give them short texts connected with the british or american culture. I think that I can`t do more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman Resu

... there's a convolution there which isn't readily seen. "Mädchen," is a diminutive - just as "kitty" is a diminutive of "cat" in English - of its ProtoGermanic root, "magaþs," [i.e. "meid"] which, like its Old Dutch antecedent "meid" / "meisje" (or is it "meidje? - kiki will know this one) is feminine in its root form, but neutral once it gets its "chen" and becomes a diminutive.

---

That's interesting. So is every German word ending in "chen" neutral? What about "der Wagen"? Why are cars masculine?

Yes, every word ending in -chen or -lein is neutral. So Fräulein (Miss) too. No exceptions.

Der Wagen is masculine, because it is, but der Magen (stomach) is also masculine, so probably it has to do with that word structure. There are rules to it, but they only taught them to me when I was two years in. They should have done that earlier. Generally, things ending in e are feminine (apart from weak nouns like der Kunde [customer], but they are few and far between, are mostly developed from verbs, like der Angestellte [official] from anstellen = appoint and refer to people), things in -ung are also feminine, as are words ending in -(i)tät (an ending that also occurs in French and Dutch as -(i)té and -(i)teit respectively), -heit/keit.
Nouns with plurals in -(¨)er are generally neutral. Masculine nouns usually get plurals in -(¨)e. So you've got two chances to distinguish between male and neutral, even if they look the same.
Things like Wagen do not get a plural ending or they get an ¨only, like der Ofen, die Öfen.

Then there are foreign origin nouns that are generally neutral too. Das Auto, for example. Das Handy (mobile), das Baby.

It's not so hard as it seems, because after a while you get combinations in other cases into your head that help you deduce the gender if you can't remember.

About the reading thing:

I just think there is a general contempt for anyone trying to use his/her intelligence. Reading is not only not popular in language learning, it's not popular in general (or it's on the internet, but that's short). Many learners get freaked out by words they can't understand straight away and then give up. Me too, but they weren't interesting books I had to read for French. I only discovered those great books when I was much older. The point is that perseverance is non-existent. If books about 'learn x in 3 months' sell, then you can figure out what the chance is that those same people will try and slog through a children's book in the target language.

@JBI:

Don't you think it's to do with textbook writers' perceptions about how things should be taught? I mean, my Russian for Everyone book (one of the best, my hubby used it in uni, despite it's title ;)) featured as one of the first words in a reading exercise (when we had got to the longer words) the word 'communist'. Capitalist came some 10 chapters later. For the rest it was very methodical, as the Russian language is, even if it was a little propagandist at times (the last text featured a bus with passengers that were all studying things :rolleyes:). On the other side, most of the French textbooks I was so fortunate as to learn from were boring, made you learn pedantic and useless vocab and usually featured texts about French accomplishments and companies (Club Med, for example). Sadly nothing about French chanson (apart from Jean-Jacques Goldman) or the French Revolution. Even less about the French kings. On the other side, the English textbooks were always very interesting and even if you weren't interested in what the teacher was trying to teach you, you would be interested in what the text to teach you it was about. So it was win-win.

If the Japanese think that repeating things over and over like schoolmasters used to do in England and anywhere for that matter maybe until the 50s (I think they still do this in Africa and other parts of Asia) is productive, then who can blame them for basing their textbooks for Japanese on that? Of course, we would not dream of that and we envisage a language class as an ideal English class: dynamic, fun and interesting on a non-linguistic level, but obviously that's not how they see it, I guess.

@JBI: Aren't there any books for learning Japanese prepered by English people who studied Japanese and teach it on a university level? Wouldn't it be better to use them if Japanese ones are no to your liking?

As for Poland, you can find some interesting textbooks prepared by academics. I have been learning Spanish from such a textbook, now it's rather out-dated, but I don't care, as it is very bookworm friendly. There are some easy, but intriguing and funny fragments from books of notable Spanish authors like Vicente Blasco Ibáñez, etc. And it was the same when two years ago I bought a book like that for my friend who is interested in Latin. At the beginning there are some lessons with texts written for total beginners, but then they proceed by giving fragments from Cicero, Virgil, etc. That seems to me far more interesting way of learning then getting through endless boring texts prepared for language learners.

Of course, there is also a small dictionary under the text where new words are translated, so it is no problem to undestand the given fragment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Of course, we would not dream of that and we envisage a language class as an ideal English class: dynamic, fun and interesting on a non-linguistic level, but obviously that's not how they see it, I guess.

---

You've had the distinct advantage of beginning Life with a language little changed from its initial shift from ProtoGerman to Low Franconian (even if you grew up in Belgium, and your Dutch was dialectical, like Brabants and Flemish). In America, modern educational practise is to ignore then structure of the English language almost entirely, and to pretend that the Latin and Greek etymological antecedents - together with formation and relation prefixially and suffixially - are valueless, and instead to teach each (English) word as a separate fragment of vocabulary, rather than examining the root, extrapolating from it, and learning the language innately.

In Dutch or German, modern language is derived primarily "from itself," which is to say from ProtoGermanic platforms (again, save for the southern dialects which borrow so heavily from Middle French); in English, nearly three-quarters of the roots are derived from Latin etymological antecedents, and yet no Latin (not even a rote examination of the most common verb and noun forms) is taught when teaching English. Words like "accept," "inception," "exception," "capable," "perceive," "capacity," "receipt," "perceptive," "capture," "occupy," "conceit," "intercept," "receptacle," "recipient," and cetera are learned individually, rather than learning a single word in Latin - capere - and building the vocabulary of all of the above words from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mande2013

Part of the problem is people have become quite anti-intellectual,,,,

---

I wish this remark wasn't absolutely true. Despite the fact that he was discussing "new ideas" as they related to visualising architecture, Alberti's famous remark, "commune hoc ignorantiæ vitium est: quæ nescias, nequicquam esse profiteri," can be applied to the (perception of) learning of almost anything, and nowhere is this more glaringly apparent in the modern world than with language and the communications Arts.

I reject the idea that English is easier than French. Rather, I would suggest English is easy to learn but difficult to master while French is difficult to learn but easy to master, since the latter is a more "self-contained" language than the former. What makes English "easier" is that you can speak it poorly and still be understood. That's not the case with French. However, English pronunciation is more difficult I think. While neither language can be classified as phonetic like Spanish, French is still more phonetic than English, since there are very few phonemes one needs to internalize whereas English has a vast array of them. Also, English has more vocabulary.

I don't think that English is difficult language. By daily speaking practice we can improve that very much.And continuous update of vocabulary knowledge led us to a good English writer.

In what way would knowing what capere meant to Julius Kaiser enable you to learn "innately"?

I am very well learned and well versed in the English language. Being that I am part English makes it all that much easier. Much like if an Italian-American who only knows English went to Italy to learn the Italian language she would learn it quicker and easier than the non-Italian that does the same thing. Language is deeper than symbols on a page, it is rooted in our brains. In France and Germany they control the language tyrannically, dictating what new words are acceptable and changing the meaning of old words. The English language in contrast is like an open-source culture wherein anyone can create new words, shape the way the language is used and so on and so forth. It's all about what catches on with what people say and what drops out of usage. That's why English is such a widely used language.

Also, English is very confusing for foreigners and is filled with riddling contrasts where words that sound the same mean entirely unrelated things, one word can mean several unrelated things and the spelling of some words can get confusing. For those of us who naturally speak English it can get irritating to deal with foreigners who criticize us for what seems contradicting to them while they learn it. We say they know "broken-English", not a true language, but they try and "fix" the language anyways and they tumble down a hole of impossibilities while trying to rule the open-source.

English has changed a lot in it's history, having originated in Denmark and brought to Great Britain before the middle ages. At the turn of the 20th century the male-female slant in English went slowly out of usage and now you see in America a recent surge in dumbing the language down. In the United Kingdom though people continue to speak intelligently with words greater than five letters long.