How do you think Thai compares to these?

[bermondburi]

Wondering if there are any speakers of these languages and how the learning process compared?

[Richard W]

Did you notice that there was no explanation of why Amharic should be hard to learn!

They got the problem with reading Arabic wrong. The four forms of each consonant causes little trouble. What might bite in reading is the highly ambiguous representation of their vowels. What might actually bite is the dearth of regular masculine plurals and the four meanings of each Arabic root. Every Arabic word has a basic meaning, a second meaning which is the exact opposite of the first, a third meaning which refers to either a camel or horse, and a fourth meaning that is so obscene that you'll have to look it up for yourself.

[arunsakda]

This is an interesting youtube, but more than 13 minutes. I thought I had a good ear but only recognized 11 out of 20 guessing languages. Some a little obscure. Faeroese? Ya gotta be kidding me.

http://mobile.youtu.be/jmgpo0ZqdRU

Edited October 2, 2015 by arunsakda

[KhunBENQ]

http://mobile.youtu.be/jmgpo0ZqdRU

Link does not work on PC.

Link for PC:

I haven't counted exactly but also not much more then half.

To the original post: at least it is clear that there are languages more difficult than Thai.

Reading Thai is still a pain, but no comparison with Chinese, Korean etc.

[cyberfarang]

This proves that languages did not evolve until after the human dispersal from Africa.

My problem is I can`t hear different languages, they all sound like a load of mumble to my ears, cannot distinguish the words, even Thai I struggle with.

But how does English sound to foreigners?

[KhunBENQ]

But how does English sound to foreigners?

Oh, its English?

Well at least the four letter word was very clear

[CaptHaddock]

This proves that languages did not evolve until after the human dispersal from Africa.

My problem is I can`t hear different languages, they all sound like a load of mumble to my ears, cannot distinguish the words, even Thai I struggle with.

But how does English sound to foreigners?

Thanks for dropping by and settling the question of the timing of language development in our species, which has been a subject of controversy among scientists for a long time. Most of the scientists believe, apparently mistakenly, that speech originated with homo saiens 200,000 years ago long before h. sapiens ventured out of Africa.

It's particularly impressive that your admittedly abysmal failure to learn Thai has not inhibited your theoretical development in linguistics.

[Aforek]

http://mobile.youtu.be/jmgpo0ZqdRU

Link does not work on PC.

Link for PC:

I haven't counted exactly but also not much more then half.

To the original post: at least it is clear that there are languages more difficult than Thai.

Reading Thai is still a pain, but no comparison with Chinese, Korean etc.

[Aforek]

I must say that I am very bad for this exercise ( number six is French, true, but spoken with a Swiss accent ) ; when I see all these different languages, they seem all very difficult to me, and I am happy that there is an international language ( English ) to understand each other

It's true that Basque language is very difficult, older than the other indo european languages and it doesn't belong to any family language ( older than Celtic language )

as for Thai, it's a complicate and complex spelling but when you know the alphabet well, it's not very difficult to read ( I don't make effort to write, no motivation and I admit that writing without any spelling mistake is very difficult, too much for me )

edit : sorry, I made a mistake, my message must follow KhunBENQ 's message, I think that you guess it

it's a pity that on this forum we can't cancell a message

Edited October 5, 2015 by Aforek

[Om85]

The difficulty level of any language depends on what is your mother language and its relation with the language that you are trying to learn, also of your will to learn, for example, my mother language is Spanish, when I was in high school it was mandatory for me to take French lessons and for the 90% of my classmates it was very easy to learn cuz French and Spanish are very close languages, but for me it was imposible mission because I didn't like how it sounded and because I was not interested in anything French, in the other hand I have mastered very easily Chinese Mandarin, Japanese, Thai and Russian, so how difficult is a language to learn depends mostly on how willing are you to learn it.

[CaptHaddock]

The difficulty level of any language depends on what is your mother language and its relation with the language that you are trying to learn, also of your will to learn, for example, my mother language is Spanish, when I was in high school it was mandatory for me to take French lessons and for the 90% of my classmates it was very easy to learn cuz French and Spanish are very close languages, but for me it was imposible mission because I didn't like how it sounded and because I was not interested in anything French, in the other hand I have mastered very easily Chinese Mandarin, Japanese, Thai and Russian, so how difficult is a language to learn depends mostly on how willing are you to learn it.

The difficulty does indeed depend on how closely or distantly the second language is to the student's mother tongue. Motivation itself doesn't change the difficulty in learning that language, but may enable the motivated student to succeed despite the difficulty. Since learning even a relatively "easy" language is in fact difficult, motivation is usually the determining factor.

Congratulations on learning four of the toughest languages out there.

[Johpa]

The US State Department use to rank, and may still rank, languages according to learning difficulty for native English speakers. It was a rather crude classification system placing languages into four ranks depending upon how long it took the average learner, and these were pretty bright students from the State Department, to reach a set level of speaking proficiency. Thai was given a Level III ranking, as was Chinese. Level IV rankings included Japanese, Russian, and Arabic. I would think that the highly agglutinative languages like Navajo would be pretty hard to learn. Languages like the Salish languages which are highly agglutinative, highly symbolic, and contain lots of radical consonants might top off the list of difficulty, if they had the data for these small North American languages.

[CaptHaddock]

The US State Department use to rank, and may still rank, languages according to learning difficulty for native English speakers. It was a rather crude classification system placing languages into four ranks depending upon how long it took the average learner, and these were pretty bright students from the State Department, to reach a set level of speaking proficiency. Thai was given a Level III ranking, as was Chinese. Level IV rankings included Japanese, Russian, and Arabic. I would think that the highly agglutinative languages like Navajo would be pretty hard to learn. Languages like the Salish languages which are highly agglutinative, highly symbolic, and contain lots of radical consonants might top off the list of difficulty, if they had the data for these small North American languages.

The rankings from the Foreign Service Institute of the US State department that I find show Thai in the group of the most difficult among Level IV. Level V, the most difficult of all, include Japanese, Korean, Arabic, Mandarin, and Cantonese.

http://www.effectivelanguagelearning.com/language-guide/language-difficulty

Interestingly, although Thai ranks at the top of the second hardest-to-learn group, the time to the FSI's defined level of proficiency is 44 weeks, while it takes double that time, 88 weeks, to achieve similar proficiency in the Level V languages.

The FSI is only interested in major languages relevant to the mission of the State Department. What if they included languages like K!ung with clicks? I'll bet clicks are harder to master than tones.

[Aforek]

There are at least two things to consider when speaking of languages : pronounciation and grammar ; considering this, rank is not the same at all

tones and spelling are difficult in Thai, but grammar is not very difficult: for me, French guy , German language is difficult because grammar is very complicated but pronounciation not difficult ; so, it's difficult to say which ones are more complicated to learn

I know that English is a big language, but for a basic every day life use , it's not a difficult language

I agree with Capt Haddock, "What if they included languages like K!ung with clicks? I'll bet clicks are harder to master than tones.", this language is simply totaly unhuman for us

listen to this :

Edited October 6, 2015 by Aforek

[CaptHaddock]

There are at least two things to consider when speaking of languages : pronounciation and grammar ; considering this, rank is not the same at all

tones and spelling are difficult in Thai, but grammar is not very difficult: for me, French guy , German language is difficult because grammar is very complicated but pronounciation not difficult ; so, it's difficult to say which ones are more complicated to learn

I know that English is a big language, but for a basic every day life use , it's not a difficult language

I agree with Capt Haddock, "What if they included languages like K!ung with clicks? I'll bet clicks are harder to master than tones.", this language is simply totaly unhuman for us

listen to this :

Whoa! Apparently, some Khoisan languages have tones in addition to clicks!

Khoisan languages feature several tones. For instance, Juǀ’hoan has four level and one rising tone. Nama has four tones: high, low, rising, and falling.

http://aboutworldlanguages.com/Khoisan-Language-Family

Perhaps intro courses to Thai should spend the first two months on Khoisan after which Thai will seem like a walk in the park.

[arunsakda]

This proves that languages did not evolve until after the human dispersal from Africa.

My problem is I can`t hear different languages, they all sound like a load of mumble to my ears, cannot distinguish the words, even Thai I struggle with.

But how does English sound to foreigners?

Always thought it probably sounds like Dutch does to me.

[anotheruser]

Did you notice that there was no explanation of why Amharic should be hard to learn!

They got the problem with reading Arabic wrong. The four forms of each consonant causes little trouble. What might bite in reading is the highly ambiguous representation of their vowels. What might actually bite is the dearth of regular masculine plurals and the four meanings of each Arabic root. Every Arabic word has a basic meaning, a second meaning which is the exact opposite of the first, a third meaning which refers to either a camel or horse, and a fourth meaning that is so obscene that you'll have to look it up for yourself.

Because it is hard to speak any language when you have a big ass plate in your lip.

[timmyp]

No language is harder than another. "Indonesian is easy, so kids start speaking at 2. But Japanese is so hard that children can't speak until they're 8." ←of course no such situation exists. Children learn to speak at the same time.

If the language you want to learn is related to a language you know, then it will be easier for you. It isn't innately an easy language, it's just easier for you.

If there are lots of good learning materials for a certain language, then it's going to be easier to learn that language than another language for which there are few materials for learning the language.

If there are many non-native speakers who speak a language that you'd like to learn, then you will find a higher level of tolerance from native speakers of that language listening to learner mistakes. If it's a language with few non-native speakers, then native speakers will be less tolerant. That can certainly make it harder to learn that particular language, but again, it's not innately easy or hard.

If a language seems really complex in one way (for example, the pronunciation), then it's going to be easier in another way.

I think it's really interesting that people think languages are innately easier or harder than others. I often hear people tell me how easy Indonesian is, and how hard Japanese is. It's all the same.

I have an M.A. in phonetics, and I have looked at loads of languages with some interesting sounds. It can be intimidating to hear and to analyze these unfamiliar sounds. Certainly some languages have more complex sound systems, while other languages have complex syntax. But it all balances out. There is no language with a crazy complex phonemic system and bizarre syntax and wacky morphology... if it's hard in one way, it will be easy in another.

Languages that have a smaller lexicon are going to use those words in very complex ways, and intonation is going to play a much bigger role than a language that can rely on a separate word to convey an idea.

I read an interesting paper on how a complex phonemic system actually allows for more "mispronunciation". That is, if you have 10 vowels and you mispronounce 1, you've got an error rate of 10%. If you've only got 5 vowels and mispronounce 1, then you've got a 20% error rate. This is a simplistic overview of the paper, but I think you get the point that being complex in one way doesn't mean that it's a harder language overall.

[CaptHaddock]

No language is harder than another. "Indonesian is easy, so kids start speaking at 2. But Japanese is so hard that children can't speak until they're 8." ←of course no such situation exists. Children learn to speak at the same time.

If the language you want to learn is related to a language you know, then it will be easier for you. It isn't innately an easy language, it's just easier for you.

If there are lots of good learning materials for a certain language, then it's going to be easier to learn that language than another language for which there are few materials for learning the language.

If there are many non-native speakers who speak a language that you'd like to learn, then you will find a higher level of tolerance from native speakers of that language listening to learner mistakes. If it's a language with few non-native speakers, then native speakers will be less tolerant. That can certainly make it harder to learn that particular language, but again, it's not innately easy or hard.

If a language seems really complex in one way (for example, the pronunciation), then it's going to be easier in another way.

I think it's really interesting that people think languages are innately easier or harder than others. I often hear people tell me how easy Indonesian is, and how hard Japanese is. It's all the same.

I have an M.A. in phonetics, and I have looked at loads of languages with some interesting sounds. It can be intimidating to hear and to analyze these unfamiliar sounds. Certainly some languages have more complex sound systems, while other languages have complex syntax. But it all balances out. There is no language with a crazy complex phonemic system and bizarre syntax and wacky morphology... if it's hard in one way, it will be easy in another.

Languages that have a smaller lexicon are going to use those words in very complex ways, and intonation is going to play a much bigger role than a language that can rely on a separate word to convey an idea.

I read an interesting paper on how a complex phonemic system actually allows for more "mispronunciation". That is, if you have 10 vowels and you mispronounce 1, you've got an error rate of 10%. If you've only got 5 vowels and mispronounce 1, then you've got a 20% error rate. This is a simplistic overview of the paper, but I think you get the point that being complex in one way doesn't mean that it's a harder language overall.

M.A. or no, this is a confused opinion. When you claim that all languages have the same complexity and therefore none are "innately" more difficult than any other, you are talking about the task a newborn faces in learning his mother language. I don't know if the claim of equal complexity is true or not, but the learning task that a newborn faces is irrelevant to the current discussion. We are talking about second language acquisition by an adult. From the point of view of a particular adult facing learning a new language not all languages are the same and how different it would be if he were an infant in that culture could hardly be less relevant.

[timmyp]

If the language you want to learn is related to a language you know, then it will be easier for you. <---This is regarding learning a second language

It isn't innately an easy language, it's just easier for you.

If there are lots of good learning materials for a certain language, then it's going to be easier to learn that language than another language for which there are few materials for learning the language.

If there are many non-native speakers who speak a language that you'd like to learn, then you will find a higher level of tolerance from native speakers of that language listening to learner mistakes. If it's a language with few non-native speakers, then native speakers will be less tolerant. That can certainly make it harder to learn that particular language, <---This is regarding learning a second language

but again, it's not innately easy or hard.

If a language seems really complex in one way (for example, the pronunciation), then it's going to be easier in another way. <---This is regarding learning a second language

I have an M.A. in phonetics, and I have looked at loads of languages with some interesting sounds. It can be intimidating to hear and to analyze these unfamiliar sounds. Certainly some languages have more complex sound systems, while other languages have complex syntax. But it all balances out. There is no language with a crazy complex phonemic system and bizarre syntax and wacky morphology... if it's hard in one way, it will be easy in another. <---This is regarding learning a second language

I read an interesting paper on how a complex phonemic system actually allows for more "mispronunciation". That is, if you have 10 vowels and you mispronounce 1, you've got an error rate of 10%. If you've only got 5 vowels and mispronounce 1, then you've got a 20% error rate. This is a simplistic overview of the paper, but I think you get the point that being complex in one way doesn't mean that it's a harder language overall. <---This is regarding learning a second language

M.A. or no, this is a confused opinion. When you claim that all languages have the same complexity and therefore none are "innately" more difficult than any other, you are talking about the task a newborn faces in learning his mother language. I don't know if the claim of equal complexity is true or not, but the learning task that a newborn faces is irrelevant to the current discussion. We are talking about second language acquisition by an adult. From the point of view of a particular adult facing learning a new language not all languages are the same and how different it would be if he were an infant in that culture could hardly be less relevant.

I'm sorry to have confused you cap'n, but the opinion was mainly about learning a second language.

I have highlighted that above in red text so you don't miss it again.

Sadly, people who haven't a clue about linguistics or language believe that they have qualified opinions about it. "I don't know about machines, but that conveyor belt sure has a complex design."

To sum this up for you again:

Learning as an adult, the only factors that make a language easier or harder than another are:

#1: if it is related or not to a language you speak

#2: if native speakers accept the idea of non-natives learning it

Excluding point #2 above, if you are a monolingual native speaker of English, then it's just as hard for you do learn Swahili as it is to learn Japanese, Mongolian, and Quechua.

It's just a hard for a monolingual Japanese speaker to learn English as it is for you to learn Japanese. If we bring tolerance to non-natives into play as in point #2, that certainly makes a difference, but it isn't about the nature of the language. A video demonstrating how hard it is to learn such a language would be more accurate to show native speakers being intolerant to non-native speakers, rather than a demonstration of how complex the language is by its seemingly bizarre sounds.

[CaptHaddock]

If the language you want to learn is related to a language you know, then it will be easier for you. <---This is regarding learning a second language

It isn't innately an easy language, it's just easier for you.

If there are lots of good learning materials for a certain language, then it's going to be easier to learn that language than another language for which there are few materials for learning the language.

If there are many non-native speakers who speak a language that you'd like to learn, then you will find a higher level of tolerance from native speakers of that language listening to learner mistakes. If it's a language with few non-native speakers, then native speakers will be less tolerant. That can certainly make it harder to learn that particular language, <---This is regarding learning a second language

but again, it's not innately easy or hard.

If a language seems really complex in one way (for example, the pronunciation), then it's going to be easier in another way. <---This is regarding learning a second language

I have an M.A. in phonetics, and I have looked at loads of languages with some interesting sounds. It can be intimidating to hear and to analyze these unfamiliar sounds. Certainly some languages have more complex sound systems, while other languages have complex syntax. But it all balances out. There is no language with a crazy complex phonemic system and bizarre syntax and wacky morphology... if it's hard in one way, it will be easy in another. <---This is regarding learning a second language

I read an interesting paper on how a complex phonemic system actually allows for more "mispronunciation". That is, if you have 10 vowels and you mispronounce 1, you've got an error rate of 10%. If you've only got 5 vowels and mispronounce 1, then you've got a 20% error rate. This is a simplistic overview of the paper, but I think you get the point that being complex in one way doesn't mean that it's a harder language overall. <---This is regarding learning a second language

M.A. or no, this is a confused opinion. When you claim that all languages have the same complexity and therefore none are "innately" more difficult than any other, you are talking about the task a newborn faces in learning his mother language. I don't know if the claim of equal complexity is true or not, but the learning task that a newborn faces is irrelevant to the current discussion. We are talking about second language acquisition by an adult. From the point of view of a particular adult facing learning a new language not all languages are the same and how different it would be if he were an infant in that culture could hardly be less relevant.

I'm sorry to have confused you cap'n, but the opinion was mainly about learning a second language.

I have highlighted that above in red text so you don't miss it again.

Sadly, people who haven't a clue about linguistics or language believe that they have qualified opinions about it. "I don't know about machines, but that conveyor belt sure has a complex design."

To sum this up for you again:

Learning as an adult, the only factors that make a language easier or harder than another are:

#1: if it is related or not to a language you speak

#2: if native speakers accept the idea of non-natives learning it

Excluding point #2 above, if you are a monolingual native speaker of English, then it's just as hard for you do learn Swahili as it is to learn Japanese, Mongolian, and Quechua.

It's just a hard for a monolingual Japanese speaker to learn English as it is for you to learn Japanese. If we bring tolerance to non-natives into play as in point #2, that certainly makes a difference, but it isn't about the nature of the language. A video demonstrating how hard it is to learn such a language would be more accurate to show native speakers being intolerant to non-native speakers, rather than a demonstration of how complex the language is by its seemingly bizarre sounds.

Even after you delete the irrelevant claim that all languages have the same inherent complexity, your opinion, to the extent that it is coherent, is not supported by the data. The Foreign Service Institute of the US State Department has been training US diplomats in a wide range of languages for decades. Their experience is that to train their students to the desired degree of proficiency (which they define) takes 2200 hours for Japanese, 1100 hours for Mongolian, and 900 hours for Swahili.

http://www.effectivelanguagelearning.com/language-guide/language-difficulty

You have probably ignored completely reading and writing which are certainly not all equally difficult to learn and which would be an important part of most learners' goal of proficiency. For some unknown reason you are uniquely fixated upon the attitude of the natives as a major impediment in second language acquisition. The fact is, however, that most students of foreign languages do their learning in a classroom with a teacher, not on the street or out on the tundra among the Inuit hunters.

I am sure your mother is delighted with your degree, but it would be more impressive to me if you could demonstrate an ability to think critically and write clearly.

[MaeJoMTB]

To the original post: at least it is clear that there are languages more difficult than Thai.

Reading Thai is still a pain, but no comparison with Chinese, Korean etc.

The difficulty is not the language (whichever of the main four you choose to learn).

It's the poor quality of the teachers.

[timmyp]

Even after you delete the irrelevant claim that all languages have the same inherent complexity, your opinion, to the extent that it is coherent, is not supported by the data. The Foreign Service Institute of the US State Department has been training US diplomats in a wide range of languages for decades. Their experience is that to train their students to the desired degree of proficiency (which they define) takes 2200 hours for Japanese, 1100 hours for Mongolian, and 900 hours for Swahili.

http://www.effectivelanguagelearning.com/language-guide/language-difficulty

You have probably ignored completely reading and writing which are certainly not all equally difficult to learn and which would be an important part of most learners' goal of proficiency. For some unknown reason you are uniquely fixated upon the attitude of the natives as a major impediment in second language acquisition. The fact is, however, that most students of foreign languages do their learning in a classroom with a teacher, not on the street or out on the tundra among the Inuit hunters.

I am sure your mother is delighted with your degree, but it would be more impressive to me if you could demonstrate an ability to think critically and write clearly.

Yes, I'm aware of that goofy language difficulty ranking. People with degrees in linguistics laugh at that thing. There obviously weren't people working on that ranking who have a linguistics background. German is ranked in the highest level of difficulty, incidentally.

>Even after you delete the irrelevant claim that all language

Just trying to keep from filling the page by quoting the entire message. Go ahead and point your finger at that if you think I tried to edit my argument

>I am sure your mother is delighted with your degree, but it would be more impressive to me if you could demonstrate an ability to think critically and write clearly.

Just sad of you Cap'n. Learn about linguistics before you spout off about it like you have a clue. Just because someone drives a car doesn't mean they have the faintest idea of the mechanics. People use Windows and haven't a clue about programming. It would silly for people like that to make comments about what programming language is easier or harder, other than repeating what they have been told. It makes me chuckle how folks think they know about language because they speak one.

>but it would be more impressive to me if you could demonstrate an ability to think critically and write clearly.

Wasn't clear enough for you? Dignified way to address the argument.

I would be more impressed by you taking a basic 101 course on linguistics instead of trying to pretend you have any idea what you're talking about. Even an intro to linguistics book. There are loads out there for non-academic public.

But kick back at the bar and talk about how wrong I am and how much more you know, it will be met well if you are surrounded by those as ignorant on linguistics as you clearly are.

I gotta wonder: What do you speak besides English and a smattering of Thai, anyway? Even without understanding the mechanics of language and language acquisition, are you in any position to make any statement about learning a language other than "That sounds tough"?

[CaptHaddock]

Against data accumulated by a public institution that contradicts your half-baked claims, the best rebuttal you can come up with is that you know more because you have a degree? That's really the best you can do? Sheesh.

[timmyp]

Against data accumulated by a public institution that contradicts your half-baked claims, the best rebuttal you can come up with is that you know more because you have a degree? That's really the best you can do? Sheesh.

"I don't care if you claim you're qualified! I've never studied it but I know what I'm talking about! There are lots of other people who haven't studied it either, and they agree with me!"

Great position to argue from.

About the brilliance of that data accumulated by a public institution:

How many populist economic policies failed to consult a qualified economist?

How many education reforms left qualified teachers out of the loop while creating their policies?

I'm sure you can provide other such examples.

Do you think the data collected for those 4-levels of language difficulty were any different?

Thankfully they don't leave engineers out when building bridges or coming up with the building schedule.

[Johpa]

No language is harder than another..... Children learn to speak at the same time.

I have an M.A. in phonetics, and I have looked at loads of languages with some interesting sounds.

This thread is about adults learning a new language and not about the innate learning of a language by a child, an ability that seems to disappear around puberty. Did you take no courses in linguistics on your way to a degree in phonetics? Perhaps you should read some articles on the critical age hypothesis or read some of Krashen's works as he is quite readable for being a linguist.

[timmyp]

No language is harder than another..... Children learn to speak at the same time.

I have an M.A. in phonetics, and I have looked at loads of languages with some interesting sounds.

This thread is about adults learning a new language and not about the innate learning of a language by a child, an ability that seems to disappear around puberty. Did you take no courses in linguistics on your way to a degree in phonetics? Perhaps you should read some articles on the critical age hypothesis or read some of Krashen's works as he is quite readable for being a linguist.

It took me a while to stop rolling my eyes.

Krashen, huh? That genius n+1 business... sounds like you took a basic TEFL course, and now you know about certain languages being harder to learn later in life? The world of linguistics and language acquisition is broader than that, Johpa. Krashen doesn't deal with phonetics, btw. And he doesn't talk about a language being harder than another, so it's weird that you should bring it up as some kind of stance that certain languages are harder to learn as an adult.

So I guess I totally missed your point, other than you being snotty. "Did you take no courses in linguistics on your way to a degree in phonetics?"

The critical period (not "age", as you said) has been proven to end well before puberty. Look it up yourself. Oh, and read it this time before you try to cite it?

Sounds like you know a name of a linguist and part of a theory,...

I encourage you go back and read all the sections in my previous post that highlight what I specifically said about second language learning, because clearly you skimmed them as much as you did your cursory reading of Krashen's monitor model and the critical period.

Edited October 19, 2015 by timmyp

[CaptHaddock]

Against data accumulated by a public institution that contradicts your half-baked claims, the best rebuttal you can come up with is that you know more because you have a degree? That's really the best you can do? Sheesh.

"I don't care if you claim you're qualified! I've never studied it but I know what I'm talking about! There are lots of other people who haven't studied it either, and they agree with me!"

Great position to argue from.

About the brilliance of that data accumulated by a public institution:

How many populist economic policies failed to consult a qualified economist?

How many education reforms left qualified teachers out of the loop while creating their policies?

I'm sure you can provide other such examples.

Do you think the data collected for those 4-levels of language difficulty were any different?

Thankfully they don't leave engineers out when building bridges or coming up with the building schedule.

Your mistake was that you should have studied theology where questions are indeed settled by authority. Not science. You seem to have missed a rather essential point.

Edited October 19, 2015 by CaptHaddock

[Johpa]

Dear Timmy,

It has been decades since I formally studied linguistics and I do so apologize for using the term "critical age" instead of "critical period" and that I noted that this period ends "around puberty" rather than "before puberty". And I apologize for responding only to a most recent post of yours and not to any earlier posts that might have indicated you knew what you were talking about.

[timmyp]

Against data accumulated by a public institution that contradicts your half-baked claims, the best rebuttal you can come up with is that you know more because you have a degree? That's really the best you can do? Sheesh.

"I don't care if you claim you're qualified! I've never studied it but I know what I'm talking about! There are lots of other people who haven't studied it either, and they agree with me!"

Great position to argue from.

About the brilliance of that data accumulated by a public institution:

How many populist economic policies failed to consult a qualified economist?

How many education reforms left qualified teachers out of the loop while creating their policies?

I'm sure you can provide other such examples.

Do you think the data collected for those 4-levels of language difficulty were any different?

Thankfully they don't leave engineers out when building bridges or coming up with the building schedule.

Your mistake was that you should have studied theology where questions are indeed settled by authority. Not science. You seem to have missed a rather essential point.

You claim "science" but you have never studied the science.

Please, please, read a basic book on linguistics, then you will at least have some basic knowledge.

Steven Pinker's book is a nice intro to linguistics, I used it in an intro class I taught in the U.S. It's over 20 years old but not outdated and it is written for the non-academic.

In addition to the science behind how language works and the way that the brain is wired to form language, Pinker talks about people's delusions of how language works, and sadly how that comes into play in education and policymaking.

We are getting off the point, which is about languages being harder than another. And the science, I hate to poop in your Easter basket of language expertise that you claim to have, and it pains me to shatter your belief that science stands with you, but the science is that langauge complexity is overall the same for all langauges.

Please pursue this topic on your own, instead of doing a 30-second Google search attempting to find evidence to support an argument that just "feels" right to you, despite not being claimed by the authority of science.

Edited October 20, 2015 by timmyp