• wrinkle2409@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Dude, I’m trying to learn German and those goddamn articles are so infuriating. I wonder how difficult it would be for there to be a linguistic reform to make it simpler

    • Strider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I am German and can emphasize. You can do it, but don’t try to be perfect.

      In my lifetime we had 2 reforms I think (1 small one big) but that didn’t make it better to be honest…

    • farmgineer@nord.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Then you end up with less flexibility and more fixed word order. English used to have cases though they’ve almost entirely collapsed at this point. German is fine as it is. Learn some grammar and it will become second nature.

    • Airfried@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Quite the statement for an English comment. English spelling is nonsensical and in desperate need of a major reform. RobWords even made the case for using runes again as it would probably fix a lot of issues already. The language simply isn’t made for Latin letters.

      But I don’t want to make this a sole whataboutism comment. Each language poses it’s own challenges. I will say that changing how roughly 100 million speak is easier said than done and would destroy a lot of culture. It would be much easier to force everyone to speak a different language entirely.

      Personally I don’t think it should or could be done at all. Unlike a spelling reform that English needs desperately and German had plenty of recently. There is nothing wrong with a language being complicated but there’s plenty wrong with arbitrary spelling if you ask me.

      • wrinkle2409@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        My native language isn’t English in case you were assuming that. I mention it because my native language has gone through a reform for the reasons of simplification. English may be shit, but it was much much easier to learn than the hell I am going through with German. Even Japanese, which I touched for a few years wasn’t nearly as bad. The point of languages it to be simple and efficient, and they should evolve to that goal eventually.

        • hraegsvelmir@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          14 hours ago

          The point of languages it to be simple and efficient, and they should evolve to that goal eventually.

          That’s one hell of an assumption to bring to the table. There is no point to language, no end goal towards which they must, or even should evolve. They’re a natural creation of humans to facilitate communication, but coming from human beings, they’re naturally quite irregular and odd, at times.

          I mean, I get it that German isn’t a cakewalk to pick up, but you’re also complaining about the unreasonable complexity in one of the less morphologically complex European languages. Take a gander at Polish, Icelandic, Basque, or Finnish, and German will probably seem quite charming and quaint with its handful of cases and corresponding forms of the articles.

          • wrinkle2409@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            They’re a natural creation of humans to facilitate communication

            If a language is easy to learn and easy to use, more people will speak it. The languages that don’t adapt die with the people who still insist on using it. There is an evolution and there is a goal, as you said, to communicate. A simpler language is bound to be chosen over one that adds obstacles to communication.

            In the same way evolution is mostly driven by an animal’s ability to pass off its genes, language is mostly driven by it’s ability to be used and learned.

            Now I’m thinking about Esperanto, maybe that is not completely true, idk

            • Griffus@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 hours ago

              But the point of a language is not to spread to the most people, it is for the peoples using it being able to use it in a way that makes it possible to communicate with their own in a way that makes sense within the local population, its culture and history.

              Different languages have a different learning curve based on what language you grew up with. What is hard for you might be a cakewalk for someone coming from a different language, especially if you are coming from a different family of languages.

        • farmgineer@nord.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Even Japanese, which I touched for a few years wasn’t nearly as bad.

          I think this is a ‘to each his own’ sort of situation. I like the idea of kanji but am terrible at memorizing them. I’ll take German grammar over kanji any day. If you specifically mean grammar, Japanese does have its own challenges as well.

          The point of languages it to be simple and efficient

          According to whom? The point of language is to communicate information. There are high-context and low-context ways to do this. There are direct and indirect ways to do this, all of which encode certain cultural meaning. If you studied Japanese, think about all the indirectness, honorifics, etc. that aren’t there to be simple, they’re there for cultural and societal reasons, even if mostly just historical in some cases.

        • Airfried@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          19 hours ago

          My native language isn’t English in case you were assuming that.

          I wasn’t assuming that, don’t worry. That’s why I phrased my message like that.

          I guess I agree to disagree here. Language is an expression of culture and heritage too. I would never speak German differently now just because of a reform. Neither would 99% of German speakers I assume. Yet we freely integrate English words into our language because it feels natural. These English words often come and go anyway so I’m not actually concerned the German language will become deluded from Internet lingo or anything.

      • CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Gendered nouns in German are just as stupid and arbitrary as spelling in English. Why is a pencil masculine? Why is beer neutral but coffee masculine? Why is school feminine?

        • hraegsvelmir@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          13 hours ago

          I don’t know about Latin letters more generally, but at least the issue with the default Latin alphabet, there just aren’t enough letters to represent the sounds used in English phonetically. The English language has between 14-25 vowels, depending on dialect and accent, and a further 24 consonants. When the Latin alphabet only has 26 letters, you’re naturally going to run into situations where one letter has to represent multiple sounds. With that said, I don’t see any reason, aside from the sheer cultural inertia of hundreds of years not doing so, why English couldn’t address the issue with diacritics on different letters to achieve the necessary number of unique letters to represent all of the sounds found in English.