zeme wrote:Chinese might have easy grammar
gyrus wrote:As someone who studies Chinese, I can attest to this being completely false. Anyone who claims this clearly has never tried to learn the "ba" construction or directional verbal complements.
hlysnan wrote:gyrus wrote:As someone who studies Chinese, I can attest to this being completely false. Anyone who claims this clearly has never tried to learn the "ba" construction or directional verbal complements.
Hello there. I studied Chinese at uni and the "ba" construction is pretty simple. All it does is basically switch the position of the verb and the object.
s + ba + o + v + modifiers
In my opinion, Chinese grammar is relatively easy compared to other languages.
gyrus wrote:Perhaps in some aspects, but it is often touted that "Chinese has no grammar". Plus, things like measure words are a pain. I understand the ba construction, it's just difficult for an English speaker to know when to use it and to remember to do so.
Remis wrote:Saluton. I've recently become quite interested in constructed languages, and especially Esperanto because of the large community. However, I read on a certain website coughzompistcough that Esperanto has a lot of flaws which were (presumably) fixed up in Ido.
So what I'm really asking is:
α. Is Esperanto hard to learn?
Remis wrote:β. Are Ido and Esperanto mutually intelligible?
Remis wrote:γ. Are these flaws easily noticed, or are they just trivial things?
Remis wrote:δ. Does anyone have a clue about how big the Ido community is, if it's separate from the Esperanto one?
hlysnan wrote:gyrus wrote:These things are sort of small compared to the tediousness of memorising characters in your third year. You can think of measure words as they are in English, except we don't use them as extensively. For example, "a bottle of water". Now apply that to everything in existence that is countable. Chinese grammar does exist, but it's really not too far from English and it is pretty simple with few things to remember.
Mutusen wrote:What do you mean, "Esperanto could work"? Esperanto works, people use it to communicate successfully.
arpee wrote:I mean it could work as a true "auxiliary" language. It is just way too difficult for most to pronounce. Most world languages do not have all of those phonemes so how on Earth is a language full of such phonemes international at all? Shouldn't the only phonemes be those popular in most languages to facilitate speaking?
This is wrong? It sounds fine to me. "He (subj.) is taller than me (obj.)." That sounds like perfectly good English to me I me.One of my big complaints about English is that we have only one objective case that serve the object of the preposition, the direct and indirect objects, making for grammar that's messy at times. It's no accident that people try to say the ungrammatical "he's taller than me." Sure it's technically not correct, but in languages with proper objects it's what you would do.
I think the prescriptively correct way is "He is taller than I" because the implied full sentence is "He is taller than I am". It's similar to a distinction between "He likes you more than [he likes] me" and "He likes you more than I [do]".mōdgethanc wrote:This is wrong? It sounds fine to me. "He (subj.) is taller than me (obj.)." That sounds like perfectly good English to me I me.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest