Easiest Language [real world, not code]

[djr33]

A bit off topic for the board, but I know that a number of users are interested in the subject and I think it warrants discussion.

I'm very interested in world languages. I know a good bit of Spanish, and I'm taking classes for Italian, Latin, German and Arabic (see signature) currently, as well as being natively fluent in English. I've also come across a good bit of info on other languages in general, from a couple classes and random experience. (Just a bit of background.)

I've been thinking about it, and I think this is a very interesting question.

What's the easiest language to learn?


Please remember to think of this in terms of a baby learning a first language, or in terms of teaching ANYONE the language, rather than just picking it up for the first time. If we look at it from personal experience (and which language we LIKE the most-- subjectively, not based on ease), it will not result in the real easiest language, just the easiest language to pick up in relation to a native language-- very easy to pick up Italian if you know Spanish.

A note for those who do not know:
Romance languages are those derived from Latin-- "Rom[e]-", not anything to do with romantic poetry/sound/etc.



Here's my analysis:

Result: Spanish.

Why?

First, the languages I know:

English--
what a mess. It's spoken all around the world, but it's terrible. It comes from some strange collision of old German and Latin (via French mostly), and acts like it. Pronunciation is especially a mess, and very hard to define. Vowels, unlike most languages, can take any number of sounds. Consonants also differ for strange reasons, though rules can be defined, but it would be a LOT of rules. It also has a strange mix of patterns from both background languages.
The up side to it is lack of conjugation (for the most part, except 3rd person singular, which does tend to confuse speakers of languages that totally lack conjugation anyway), and lack of declension (except in a few cases, like personal pronouns). There is also no masculine/feminine issue-- that's the biggest plus.
English also has the greatest number of words which adds to the difficult in remembering them all, but also helps with expression.

German-- It's ok, but I have been taking the class for over a month now and I am having a lot of trouble remembering which nouns are masculine/feminine because the patterns, though I've been told are present, are too complex to explain (and my teacher, who speaks it from experience, not from a systematic educational understanding) doesn't really know all of the rules.
The pronunciation is generally consistent, though tends to have variation in strange places, but mostly following patterns (eg, a G sounds like an english G, except at the end of a word, after I, where it sounds like "sh").
There are a lot of rules to remember, and a neuter case in addition to masc/fem.
It isn't the hardest, certainly, but not easy as easy to pick up from my Romance language experience.
Declensions add to the difficult as well (see Latin below for a more thorough explanation).
German also has a few quirks that are in English that make it a bit weird.
And there is the issue of compound words, making it a bit hard to adjust to.

Arabic--
Well, first, it's so completely different that it is very difficult/slow for me. However, this clearly isn't relevant in relation to learning a first language.
The writing seems confusing, and it sounds like, from my professor, it can be confusing at times even to Arabic speakers. The style is a [right to left] script with nearly all the letters connected; then dots and lines are added to differentiate single letters. The shape that resembles a cursive "i" in english actually has 4 meanings in arabic, based on these dots, for example.
In speaking, the sounds are very different from Western languages, and also, according to my professor, can be confusing to native speakers as well. There are about 6 sounds that are deep in the throat (related to K, H and G) that we don't use in English, and they, along with a few others, can be a bit ambiguous. However, with experience, this becomes clear, and I'm already getting used to hearing these sounds. A few, though, are very hard to distinguish, in general.
In grammar, though I know very little as of yet, it seems methodical, with a base as the center of words and various prefixes or suffixes determining the specific word, such as plurals or gender.
There is also a dual case, between "one" and "many", which adds another layer to learning it (but not hugely different as it is just one more page to the same book, not a new book all together, so to speak).
In conclusion, very different, and fairly complex. I can't really give a specific judgment, but I don't think it is necessarily the easiest, at least.

Latin--
Well, it's hard to even compare it because it's not used any more, but might as well look at it a bit.
Latin grammar is incredibly hard. In addition to masc/fem/neuter and plurals, as well as standard conjugation, cases (declensions) add a huge concept to the language.
Basically, every noun has 10 forms (plural/singular, 5 each) to have the parts of speech represented by "he" [nominative], "him" [accusative], "his" [genitive], "to him" [dative], "with him" [ablative], plus the vocative which directly addresses a noun, like "Oh, Jim...".
The word base is very small for Latin, though, so that makes it a bit easier.
It is also incredibly logical, but very complex.
Once you memorize all of the rules-- and there are a LOT-- then it all goes as you would expect, with few irregular conjugations, etc.
It's say it's complex and somewhat difficult, but also void from the discussion.

Italian--
Very similar to Spanish, but with a few more things that make it hard. Articles and some adjectives become merged with nouns in contractions and the articles themselves are harder, with 7 forms of just the definite article, based on the starting letter of the noun.
Conjugations are slightly more complex than Spanish, but not too difficult.
No declensions here, and just masc/fem (no neuter).
Pronunciation is generally easy, though several letters (G and C) have varied pronunciation based on the following letters (I or E changes it), and this is then canceled with an H, if needed, so that can be a few too many rules to remember at times.
I'm certainly picking this one up the easiest, knowing Spanish and English already.
Basically, it's very similar to Spanish, but a bit more difficult, from what I can tell.

Now, Spanish--
Spanish has a few difficulties-- conjugation, masc/fem and plurals.
Pretty basic use of that, though, and beyond that easy.
I'm certainly biased because I learned it first, but it's completely regular aside from a handful of exceptions, most of which follow a modified pattern (adding something to the root word, for example), not some random new pattern.
Without declensions, neuter gender and other issues, it's already up there, then the consistency helps.
Also, in speaking, the letters ALL are pronounced the exact same way every single time with only 4 or 5 exceptions which are all standard based on simple rules (Gi and Ge become Hi and He; ll becomes y; rr is rolled; e can be "ay" or "eh", depending on stress; etc.).
Though I'm not yet fluent, I can read anything with nearly flawless pronunciation (still working on accent) just based on the letters.
I'm confident that this is one of the easiest.


Ok, so, now, in general:

French--
Similar to Italian and Spanish, but the pronunciation is weird [lacking pronunciation on the endings of most words], and the grammar is a bit more complex than spanish (negatives, for example, like Italian using non).

Portuguese--
Close runner up to Spanish, I think, though the pronunciation has a few more rules, I believe.

Romanian--
Surprisingly, I found, with just slight experience, this to be fairly simple. It's a Romance language (didn't expect that at first), and didn't look too complex, but I didn't explore it enough to have a real opinion. From its eastern european influence, I must assume it's somewhat harder than Spanish.


Welsh, Dutch, Norwegian and Swedish, etc.:
Related to German, so they probably are just about the same in terms of difficulty.
Norwegian and Swedish don't seem that too hard, after seeing just a bit. They also weren't simple, though ;)
I would consider looking into Swedish as possibly an easy language, but I can't comment yet.

Finnish:
I don't know it myself, but from what I have heard, it's a completely separate class of language and very complex in its grammar, with, for example, about 17 different articles.

[CONTINUED IN NEXT POST]

[Twey]

English and German have roughly the same level of grammatical complexity, in my experience. German's pronunciation is easier though. Welsh is the same, grammatically complex but phonetically simple.

Japanese has a fairly simple grammar that doesn't do anything horribly unexpected: there are only two irregular verbs. I suppose there are a lot of characters to learn, though.

Chinese has to be the hands-down winner for grammatical simplicity. Nothing conjugates at all, all modifications usually reserved for conjugations of verbs are accomplished with adverbs. Again, though, the characters are numerous (even more so than Japanese) and it has much more complex phonetics than Japanese.

Korean is a bit of a mix between the two, with Japanese-esque grammar but complex sounds (although they're somewhat different from Chinese sounds). It also has the advantage of not using ideographical characters in common writing, I suppose, but its phonetics are very complex and there are a lot of rules about how various jamo change their sounds when in certain positions relating to other jamo.
Welsh, Dutch, Norwegian and Swedish:
Related to German, so they probably are just about the same in terms of difficulty.Dutch yes, Welsh, Norwegian and Swedish no. Those latter two are Scandinavian languages, I believe, and bear a passing resemblance to one another (as English and French, for example), and Welsh is a Celtic language. Only Dutch has anything to do with German.
[French] grammar is a bit more complex than spanishOnly at lower levels. When you learn a bit more of each you'll rapidly find that French prefers to use auxillary verbs rather than huge combined inflections like Spanish does (and the combinations of the inflections often bear no resemblence to the original inflections, as well), which greatly simplifies the grammar in the long run.
I am having a lot of trouble remembering which [German] nouns are masculine/feminine because the patternsI suggest you give up on the patterns. I quote:
Male persons or animals, the seasons, months, and days are all masculine, as are nouns ending in -ant, -ast, -ich, -ig, -ismus, -ling, -or and -us. Female persons or animals, and numerals are all feminine, as are nouns ending in -a, -anz, -ei, -enz, -heit, -ie, -ik, -in, -keit, -schaft, -sion, -sis, -tät, -tion, -ung and -ur. Young persons or animals, metals, chemical elements, letters of the alphabet, hotels, restaurants, cinemas, continents, countries and provinces are all neuter, as are nouns that end in -chen, -icht, -il, -it, -lein, -ma, -ment, -tel, -tum, and -um. Nouns referring to things that end in -al, -an, -ar, -ät, -ent, -ett, -ier, -iv, -o and -on, as well as most words with the prefix ge- and most nouns ending in -nis and -sal are also neuter.In other words, Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here. I'd just do it word-by-word if I were you -- it was easier for me anyway.

[djr33]

Hungarian, Turkish, etc:
Not sure what to comment on here. I have only heard a bit. I think they are sorta related to Russian and German, or something like that. I wouldn't expect them to be the easiest.

Russian:
Different alphabet, though may or may not be difficult in itself.
I have heard from those who speak or learn the language, though, that it is complex.

Middle Eastern Languages:
I don't know anything more about these than just what I learned from Arabic, so I'd assume that, overall, the general comments apply. I know that pronunciation differs (even by region in Arabic). One thing to consider, then, is that there are formal versions of these languages and also colloquial local dialects, so one would need to learn both to communicate properly, overall.
These include Hindi/Urdu, Farsi, Hebrew, etc.

Asian languages:
Chinese languages: Mandarin, Cantonese: Very different, but also hard because 1) the intonation is critical to understanding; 2) rather than individual symbols per sound [phonetic], it's representational with characters that mean concepts. There are around 500 characters, I think.
Japanese: Actually not that hard, from what I understand, with pretty basic grammar, and all of it can be written [officially] in a version of English characters based on about 50 pairs of letters that make up the sounds. However, there are 5 forms of writing- Traditional Kanji, Chinese characters, this English representation, some formal version and some other character set. That's a lot to remember.

Punjabi, Tagalog, Telugu, etc.:
Worth including in the list because they are spoken by many people, but I don't know enough to comment. If anything, similar to Arabic, etc., so refer to that for some basic understanding, perhaps.

Native/Tribal languages:
With the example of the Navajo language in use as code for WWII, it's clear that these have a lot of variation.
I have no idea how to go into any detail, but I think we can conclude that in some sense, many of these languages are not too valuable for two reasons: 1. some of these languages simply have no representation of parts of the modern world, like computers, for example. The word base in them is also generally much smaller due to less outside influence and expansion; 2. To effectively communicate, most of speakers of these languages know another as well, for an overall language in the region, where their specific dialect may be only used in that small village.



Anyway, something for discussion.

[djr33]

Thanks for the reply, Twey.
I added a bit to that, and a second post to finish, after you posted.

As for the corrections, thanks. I am going on what I've experienced, so please feel free to correct any of this.

I do think, though, that Swedish, etc., are similar to some extent to German because a friend of mine speaks Swedish and it sounded like it was somewhat easy for him to learn German. They aren't the same family, no, but they are somewhat similar overall in the grand picture. ...I think.

Your description of the Asian languages makes a lot of sense. I want to look into learning one (probably Japanese) soon.


I completely agree about the patterns in German, and that was my point.
Whereas in Spanish and Italian an A ending means feminine and O masculine, German is much much more complex, making a lot harder to learn, except with just repetition.

[boogyman]

you should become like the pope and be fluent in 101 languages :-O YIKES WOW thats alot to memorize

I also think that age is a factor here. It is scientific fact that children can absorb more information and data then a full adult, so if someone were to learn a new language, on average, it would be easier for them if they were younger.

[djr33]

Age is absolutely a factor, though I'm not sure it would change which languages are more difficult, but that could be something to look into.
I'd venture a guess that the more logical languages would be easier at an older age (looking at logic) [vs. other languages, not vs. learning earlier], and the languages with more memorization at an earlier age.

[Twey]

you should become like the pope and be fluent in 101 languagesI doubt anybody is fluent in 101 languages. I do know a person who claims to hold passable conversation in around thirty, but even he doesn't claim fluency in all of them.

I'd instinctively agree with your theory there, Daniel. It might be worth doing an experiment on if you have the time.

[djr33]

Well, that experiment is difficult, but a poll could answer the same question.
Just consider repetition at a young age, with the parents speaking the language. Seems easier than the baby learning rules. In fact, so few people really understand language in terms of rules anyway.
However, learning a new language, it is easy to understand why it works, and that's how textbooks teach.

As for your friend, he sounds fun :p
What languages? (Then again, long list)

Hmm... I now feel like looking up the pope's fluency.

[Twey]

What languages? (Then again, long list)Long list indeed, and I can't remember it entirely. I do recall that a significant portion of it is composed of different variants of Arabic, however.

[djr33]

Ah, colloquial dialects? Makes sense.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/04/15/language_may_be_key_for_next_pope/
Well, there we go. German, English, Latin and Romance languages, it seems.

[boogyman]

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7414

man in brazil claims to know 56 languages fluently.

I was thinking of John Paul II but I just did some more languages and discovered that he only was fluent in 8/9 depending on the source... even that is alot for me to fathom, but if this guy in brazil is legit, WOW

[djr33]

Great link.

That guy is awesome. I feel like contacting him. Perhaps I will.

Twey, this is of note--
[He] said Mandarin was the hardest language to learn because of the vast number of idiograms.

And now to actually work on the languages I'm learning. Test in German in an hour and a half, then in Latin after that. And HW for Arabic/Italian, of course ;)

[ReMaX]

My native language is german and I know that it is difficult for other people.
I also know Latin and speak French but English is the most easiest language. I cannot speak English very good although it is so simple! For beginner it is easy to speak and learn it because of having not that much articles ("the" "a" :D ) and no big number of conjugations and - I think - no ****in' declination!!! It is more difficult in that case that there are so many words for the same meaning but I am not sure if this is not the same thing like in every other language?!

greetings
Max

[boogyman]

djr also look at this link http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/story?id=830166&page=1

its a autistic savant that learned islandic, which is said to be one of the hardest languages to learn, in just a week.

ABCNews did a special on him "there are only about 50 true savants in the world ... but what makes Daniel different is his motor skills" in rough rememberance. While most savants have very poor motor skills, this guy seems to have all of the basic motor skills fine. basic being limb mobility (leg and arms), talking, eating.

if you were to see him on the side of the road, most people would think of him as being the "geeky" type, however little do they know he's literally 1 of a kind.

I have always been marveled at the ability to calendar calculate... and what I mean by that is if i give you some random date like
January 14, 4002, can you tell me the day of the week that falls on? oh and do it in under a minute?

[djr33]

Guten Morgen, Max. Danke Schön.

You are right about English having lost many of the complexities-- just a/an (before a vowel-- easy), and the; no conjugations EXCEPT 3rd person singular (added S) and the word "to be"-- am are is; no declensions except for personal pronouns (he, him, his, she, her, her/hers, it, its, I, me, my, mine).
However, there is a MUCH larger vocabulary than many other languages (around 800,000 words, I think it is).
Also, as you said, you can't speak it very well, but you can speak it.
[EDIT: By the way, your English is very good, considering, so don't worry.]

That brings up a very important point that should be made clear--

What is the easiest language to learn to communicate in?
What is the easiest language to become VERY fluent in?

I guess that English becomes easier with the first question, so it would move up the list. Great insight.

Lots of English learners speak poorly, but can get their point across. Can't say I'm able to do that yet in German.

[Twey]

Ah, colloquial dialects? Makes sense.No, actual languages. "Arabic" is a whole language family, not just Standard Arabic, comprising some 27 classified languages if Wikipedia is correct. See [[Varieties of Arabic]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_Arabic).
It is more difficult in that case that there are so many words for the same meaning but I am not sure if this is not the same thing like in every other language?!No, this is a peculiarity of English. Some people love the fact that it has such an enormous vocabulary, some people hate it.

[Trinithis]

I know English and some Spanish. Perhaps it is simply the fact that English is my native language, I absolutely love it. One thing that I have heard several times about English is that it is a language that has an extremely large vocabulary for words that describe emotion. Being a fan of classical horror literature, I enjoy esoteric words and all that goodness.

[Twey]

Not just emotion, it has a plethora of synonyms for just about any purpose imaginable.

[Trinithis]

I like the word myriad more than plethora :D

Well if anything, I'm glad this thread was posted because it makes me want to find time to write fiction again . . . especially to finish this one story of mine I've been working (not so diligently) on the past two years.

[jscheuer1]

I was going to say 'nuance' but deleted that post because explaining it could get complicated. Being a confirmed English speaker, I agree with Trinithis. It is a myriad more than a plethora. The slight nuance in this case is in my opinion warranted. Getting back to nuance, having so many words to choose from only allows for greater nuance. A good writer, I would imagine, can be well nuanced in any of the world's written languages.

[jscheuer1]

[T]his is a peculiarity of English. Some people love the fact that it has such an enormous vocabulary, some people hate it.

I often find it amusing. For instance, I was reading in a recent issue of The NewYorker a review of the current state of affairs in Rock & Roll music. The critic premised that the music had lost is original miscegenation. Having never encountered the word before, I could surmise its meaning from context somewhat. But, like many words I encounter for the first time, it also suggested its own meaning from its look on the page as well as my imagined pronunciation for it. I later looked it up to find I was pretty much spot on (at the same time affording myself a chuckle at one near homophone I had also thought of that didn't really fit), yet was amused to find that it has a procreative nuance not entirely unwarranted, but slightly out of place in the context in which I originally saw it.

All this makes for great fun in my book, more so when shared with folks who also enjoy such matters. Must bore the hell out of a lot of folks though. And/or seem like a lot of bother to others.

[Twey]

having so many words to choose from only allows for greater nuance.Indeed, this is the advantage of having so many, making it all the more ironic that I chose to express my slight bias towards a smaller vocabulary using a synonym characteristic of a larger vocabulary.
I often find it amusing. For instance, I was reading in a recent issue of The NewYorker a review of the current state of affairs in Rock & Roll music. The critic premised that the music had lost is original miscegenation. Having never encountered the word before, I could surmise its meaning from context somewhat. But, like many words I encounter for the first time, it also suggested its own meaning from its look on the page as well as my imagined pronunciation for it. I later looked it up to find I was pretty much spot on (at the same time affording myself a chuckle at one near homophone I had also thought of that didn't really fit), yet was amused to find that it has a procreative nuance not entirely unwarranted, but slightly out of place in the context in which I originally saw it.So we must wonder: does the sexual nuance stem from its almost-homophone, or is it almost a homophone because of the sexual nuance?
All this makes for great fun in my book, more so when shared with folks who also enjoy such matters.It's great for native speakers, but it makes the language much less accessible to others. The question is whether the trade-off is worth it.

[djr33]

Note the divide in comprehension and replication-- learners of english seem to have little trouble getting an idea across in some sense, if awkwardly, but have a lot of trouble understanding writing or websites with complex directions because of the diction.

[Aculeus]

Even though English has a huge vocabulary, I find it easy to pick up on a word's meaning based on its context. Is it easy to determine a word's meaning based on the context in other languages? So far with my minimal learning of German and Spanish I haven't found this to be the case.

A lot of English words are derived from slang which makes it even harder to understand if all you are seeing is modern culture.

I like a large vocabulary and often use words unintentionally that people don't know. I just pick up words when I hear them usually just based on context.

[Twey]

Yes, me too. I think most native English speakers do.

Speakers of ideographical languages have it easy here (Japanese: 血 [blood] + 吸 [suck] + 鬼 [evil spirit] = 吸血鬼 [vampire]), but English speakers have a similar system to rely upon based on the roots of the word (ideo [idea] + graph [picture] = ideograph [picture that conveys an idea]). Alternatively, and this is the case in any language, it's sometimes possible to guess a meaning of a word simply by looking at the context in which it is used, and assumptions made of the same concept ("That tomato is very red, isn't it?" + "Oh yes, and very tasty!" = "A 'tomato' is a red, edible thing").

[jscheuer1]

Note the divide in comprehension and replication-- learners of english seem to have little trouble getting an idea across in some sense, if awkwardly, but have a lot of trouble understanding writing or websites with complex directions because of the diction.

Diction? Do you mean pronunciation? That's what diction means. I would think it might more usually be that they are unfamiliar with the vocabulary. I find that when working web technical with non-English or limited English folks, if I stick to the standard terms and avoid any complex words that are not technical terms, they 'get it'.

[djr33]

Diction is word usage, especially word choice within a given range-- ie "evil" or "horrible", etc.


So far with my minimal learning of German and Spanish I haven't found this to be the case.Yeah, but that's because it is so foreign [to you]. Spanish I can't say is all that easy, yet, though there are certainly instances when I've learned something from context, if few, so far.
With German, though, it's already very apparent how easy compound words are. Arbeitsbush-- workbook; Tennisgern-- tennis that I like [vaguely]; etc.
I'm not sure why English would have any advantage in that sense, though it may have some, but I'm not aware of it.

[jscheuer1]

Diction is both. I believe (after looking it up) the more common meaning is as somewhat like you are saying, but more "especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness". I'd always encountered diction primarily in acting though, where it means what I said it does. Using it instead of 'word choice' is therefore poor diction. Foreign listeners/readers have less of a problem if you use a proper diction in the situation. Word choice in general can be confusing to them however.

[djr33]

Diction, in its original, primary meaning, refers to the writer's or the speaker's distinctive vocabulary choices and style of expression. A secondary, common meaning of "diction" is better, and more precisely, expressed with the word enunciation — the art of speaking clearly so that each word is clearly heard and understood to its fullest complexity and extremity. This secondary sense concerns pronunciation and tone, rather than word choice and style.It's about clarity of wordage.

In the above post, it discussed how diction would make reading something difficult-- clearly the primary meaning. Regardless, though odd, complex diction would make understanding oral language difficult, such as in an opera. But that's a complete tangent.

[jscheuer1]

I thought this whole thread was a tangent, the lounge too. Anyways, my meaning using:


refers to the writer's or the speaker's distinctive vocabulary choices

is that for a foreign audience, proper diction would result in understandable (effective) word choices. However, your Wiki definition left out that part at first. From Merriam Webster:


1obsolete : verbal description
2: choice of words especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness
3 a: vocal expression : enunciation b: pronunciation and enunciation of words in singing

The Wiki moved effectiveness and clarity to the part 3 definition, which makes it more a matter of being verbally understood, rather than also intellectually, as does the dictionary definition.

[djr33]

As a tangent, I only meant how the second meaning could have applied, as I didn't intend that originally.

Diction is one's style and word choice-- choosing which words to use, not just grammatical word usage. Where 3 words may be correct, one of those gives a specific desired understanding, one that is perhaps nearly undefinable.
As said in the quote above, it's clearly not only vocal, but also specifically applicable to singing, clearly unrelated to my use above, discussing written materials.

As for the wikipedia "leaving it out", well, that's interpretation-- words don't have set meanings, only interpretation, which can be guided by a dictionary, but not dictated by it.

I'd find a better choice to be "enunciation" [clarity] or "inflection" [varied/specific tone], anyway, rather than the vocal meaning of diction.

Diction certainly does include clarity, but stylistic clarity. A writer such as Hemingway clearly has a certain style of diction, which is quite simple, though few would call the writing as a whole simple. If one's diction were to be formatted in a manner which created complex juxtapositions of expressions thereby causing ... it to be hard and stuff to understand, then, yeah, that would be important. But this, again, falls into the holistic meaning of the word-- choosing words to create meaning. Diction is subtext as well. Diction is which words you use to say a certain thing, moreover, the manner in which you say it. It's something like tone, but more in a word by word sense. A simple example would be puns-- having a specific word that is chosen for a reason, though another word could replace it in the sentence, keeping the same literal meaning. Diction is the reason you choose a certain word rather than any other word in its entry in a thesaurus.

[jscheuer1]

Though diction can be purely stylistic, it is especially relevant to clarity in both the written and the spoken word.

[djr33]

Not really. Diction is style of word usage; it CAN be clear or unclear, but only as a side effect of the style, much like an accent. An accent is not specifically about being understood, but certainly has a big effect on whether someone can understand you. Of course there are regional norms with accents, and one tends to fall into this pattern, and the same is true with diction, so there is some sense of it being intentionally to be understood, but that's only because the style is that of those around oneself.
Merging the two definitions in one is specious-- both do relate to clarity, but so can many things; enunciation and word choice are quite independent and used for different things; one can have very clear enunciation and have chosen colloquial words, or one can have very poor enunciation and have chosen extremely proper words. Frequently they may relate as one may be of a certain style in which formal/informal is more appropriate, but the two are entirely separate, as they could differ. Black shoes and black socks make sense, but they are still separate as someone might go against the pattern there. Some correlation may be expected, but isn't necessary.
Diction is also a personal choice, not based on the reader [or the listener, for definition 2]. Much like sexual harassment laws (tangent, but good/clear example), it is in the eyes of the victim [in this case just the receiving party] how it should be interpreted-- it, in this case being clarity, but not diction. Diction is set, and definitely, by the writer/speaker. Interpretation thereof can differ and is subjective, based on preference, familiarity and expectation; one's diction doesn't change when speaking to someone who is less likely to understand complex English, though they certainly can by choice change it in order to MAKE it easier, but it's a choice-- a style.

[jscheuer1]

Diction . . . CAN be clear or unclear, but only as a side effect of the style

Basically my point, but it is especially linked to clarity. So, as a word it can be this or that, but it primarily also connotes clarity. To be unclear, and to be clearly unclear, one would say "poor diction", or "sloppy language", etc.

[djr33]

Diction means more, though.

Being unclear also overlaps with simply using poor grammar or syntax.

Diction is specific BEYOND just clarity.

"John, your post is very descriptive."
"John, your post is entirely didactic."
Both are quite correct [assuming a post that fit] AND CLEAR, but they are also quite different.
"Good" diction may in fact become less clear to someone who doesn't know every word used. The odds are that people will understand "descriptive" but may have no idea about "didactic". However, it could very much be a better word choice.
Diction relates to a choice by the author and certain affects clarity, but a poet or artistic writer will frequently use more complex words to establish a very specific tone and convey a complex meaning with a single word; this is done regardless of clarity. Poems can be very hard to understand, but they may also be very good writing. Same with "good" literature.


Diction is more than a rule-- it's a style.

Think of it as subtlety and subtext. It's the specific different between two correct and clear words, and why you choose one or the other. In that sense, in the example above, it's the difference to "very" and "entirely", which are both easy to understand (would be by most English speakers), and both are certainly correct to stress the adjective following, but entirely has a different meaning conveyed with it than very.
However, that example is even too broad for this. The idea is choices between synonyms, like using "girl", "lady", "young lady", "gal", "woman", and "young woman". All are simple and literally correct, but one may be a much better choice to convey meaning.

Getting back to the main point of this thread, it's this which makes English hard. Not only are there a lot of words, but they also have very specific meanings beyond what can be said in a dictionary. And to really understand language, it's these subtleties that really determine what someone's tone and take on a subject is, beyond just the facts.
This is also important in other languages, but less to understand with fewer words.

This is in fact the hardest part of learning a new language. To really feel the language, diction must be understood, and connotations of words. "Sad" in English has a very different meaning than "Tristis" in Latin, or its derivatives-- "Triste" in Italian and Spanish, for example. In these languages, it can also talk about something that CAUSES sadness, especially in Latin. Though the clear literal translation is just "Sad" in English, it loses a lot of its meaning.

In Spanish, "tengo ocupado" would mean "I have something that occupies my mind" if you just translate the words literally to English, but it's much better translated (and taught) as "I'm worried." But in many cases, it's not as simple as that and a word translates to one thing but doesn't match up one-to-one with English.

Ser and Estar both are verbs meaning "to be"; Ser is used for qualities [ie height], and estar for conditions [ie happy]; ser for facts, and estar for location; some people think of "ser" as definite and "estar" as changing, but this fails in cases such as time and "estar" used with the location of something that doesn't change, etc. If this is confusing, good. That's the whole point. In order to use them correctly, something more than the literal meaning must be understood.

Diction is exactly that feel... what makes a certain word not the same as another word.

[jscheuer1]

"Good" diction may in fact become less clear to someone who doesn't know every word used.

True, but not if that person is the intended audience.

[djr33]

Note that I added some to the above post, as an afterthought.

Diction isn't about talking to a certain person. It's simply a way in which you can convey meaning.

If you are talking to someone it's certainly important to consider them, but diction isn't defined like that. As I've said, it overlaps, of course, but diction is also quite relevant in writing a novel, something that will be read by many.

Writing, at its "best" is regardless of understanding-- a good novel doesn't tone things down so that everyone can read it, though this does lose some readers in the process.

Not considering someone and being misunderstood is stupid, but not really bad diction, except that it may be a bad USE of good diction.

[jscheuer1]

Language doesn't happen in a vacuum. There is always an audience. If not, it's just noise and/or scrawl. When there is an intended audience, good diction would be to be clear, precise, and understood.

[djr33]

Right, but it's also not something that must be dumbed down so everyone can understand. It's perfectly acceptable to use complex diction and doing so can show mastery of the language. Of course at times this might not be appropriate for the audience. But this again separates diction from understandability, as the two overlap but are not equal.

[jscheuer1]

And, that's where good diction lives, at least for the most part - in the overlapping area of diction in general and understandability in particular. Going back to the dictionary:


choice of words especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness

Also, I never said good diction should be understood by all, just by the target audience.

[djr33]

Should things be dumbed down, then?

Good, strong diction might be hard for some to understand, but it is still diction, regardless of who understands it; simpler diction may be appropriate, but that doesn't mean it's part of the definition.

Though a person can be "nice" or "mean", that isn't part of what a person is.
A person may also be blind, but that certainly isn't any part of the definition of "person".

The Venn diagram method should clear this up-- clarity and diction certainly overlap, but they both have separate parts.

Diction is simply a state, unchanging. Perception may see this in different ways, but a yellow flower is still yellow if a blind man looks at it. Reasons for choosing a certain style of diction vary, including making it accessible, clear, effective, confusing, funny, blunt, subtle, etc.

[molendijk]

Come on, lads an' lassies!

There is no language A that is inherently more difficult than whatever other language B! That would imply indeed that babies and children learning A would internalize the rules of A at a later age than babies and children learning B. There is no evidence whatsoever for that (I am almost sure; my job is the study of language(s)).
What makes a language difficult is something that only holds for certain perspectives: if you are a native speaker of Dutch, then Romance languages are harder to acquire then German languages (like German, Dutch, English etc.); if your native language has no case system, then German is more complicated than Dutch, etc..

Ik heet Arie Molendijk (Dutch, my native language)
My name is Arie Molendijk
Ich heisse Arie Molendijk
Je m'appelle Arie Molendijk

[Twey]

Mm, I have to disagree somewhat I think, at least on a theoretical basis. I've heard this repeated a lot, and there does seem to be a fair bit of evidence to support it, but on the other hand I have difficulty seeing how a language with very few rules to memorise, where the language is very regular (e.g. spoken Mandarin), can possibly be considered to have the same difficulty level as a language with a lot of very complex rules, like German or Finnish. In English, for example, infants and people without a great deal of experience in the language tend to apply rules to words that are exceptions, for example "she sleeped" rather than the correct "she slept." In French, Spanish, and other languages with noun gender, beginners often use the wrong prepositions: "der Strasse," "mon tante," "la problema." This sort of confusion, which often (anecdotally, I haven't performed any sort of study into this) lasts up to around five years of age, is simply not present in languages like Mandarin, where verbs have no inflection at all, nouns have no gender, and tense is indicated by adverbs.

Children do, however, learn very fast. It could be that the difference is there even for children, but because of the speed of learning, the difference is not statistically significant, and we should look at adults for a clearer picture. I'd like to look into it some day when I've the time and money.

[djr33]

That can't possibly be true; sorry.
Now, communication may come out of necessity at around the same age, but a proper understanding of the language must be more difficult in some languages.
With my limited knowledge, it's quite difficult to come up with a clear example, but here's an attempt:
With Spanish, everything is completely phonetic; a young child can begin writing words and sounding them out.
With Mandarin, everything is written in characters; there is very little way to guess what any one of the 5,000+ characters might be, simply based on the sound someone makes.
Certainly wouldn't it be more work for the Mandarin learner to write all of these, than the Spanish learner to transcribe anything based on sound?

Now, I suppose you could argue it all evens out, with, for example, Mandarin having such basic grammar, but that would fall apart under the thought of learning disabilities. However, this leads to the thought that the easiest language must be subjective, and also that no one can really judge languages fairly, as everyone has a native language.

EDIT: Haha, Twey, I see we have inverted examples here.
Perhaps it does prove the point that all languages are about even, overall. Though that's very unlikely ;)

[Twey]

Now, I suppose you could argue it all evens out, with, for example, Mandarin having such basic grammarBut that's coincidental. Current mainstream linguistic thinking runs that no human language is inherently more difficult than another: even if a language was designed to be specifically easy to learn, for example combining a phonetic writing system with a simple, regular grammar like that of Mandarin, it would be equally as difficult to learn as a highly irregular language like English or German. There is quite a lot of evidence to support this, but I can't agree with the theory behind it: I feel like there must be something the researchers have missed.

[djr33]

Well, the strongest force in learning a language is immersion-- so if you were to be part of a world in which people spoke Finnish, you might actually pick that up almost as easily as Mandarin.

There are two ways to learn a language-- really understanding the reasons behind it then learning to use those rules to create communication, or you can simply memorize until it makes sense and comes naturally. The former is more complex, though in more the way I learn [working on the latter], and the latter is what happens naturally when a baby hears his/her parents, etc. Memorizing, of course, is nearly impossible without using it, though, which is why I have so much trouble picking up some of what I'm learning in class.

[Twey]

But the latter takes a lot more exposure to the language (depending on how regular said language is).

[jscheuer1]

Should things be dumbed down, then?

When did I suggest that? I was referring to the audience. The writer and/or the speaker (hereafter in this post, the 'actor') may choose their audience(s). Therefore, the 'actor' can do as he or she sees fit.

I did mention an example in which the target audience was not fluent in English, both here, in this thread, and elsewhere. For folks like that, for example, if the topic is DHTML, one should stick to technically correct terms and otherwise to simple basic words. That would be good diction under those circumstances.

I'm a great fan of both the written and the spoken word aimed just slightly, sometimes even more than slightly, over my head, assuming that it truly conveys the "actor's" meaning. That's how I learn, and often, though not always, there is great insight and/or humor in such an "actor's" material.

[djr33]

You continue to state that diction is related to the interpretation and making the audience understand-- ie, it should be dumbed down to work. diction is independent of that. That's why I asked if it should be dumbed down... ie, so the audience can understand in order to use this understanding of "proper" diction.

Well, it's also important for non english speakers to not make typos, but that isn't part of diction, is it ;)

Of course, sure, make it easy when explaining to someone new to the language. But why are you claiming that's a PART of diction? (Certainly a result.)

Remember, cause and effect; effect is not part of cause.

I agree; advanced writing is always good, except that it's just annoying sometimes ;)
Good complex writing is great, though.

[jscheuer1]

If diction includes 'clearness, or effectiveness', especially includes 'clearness, or effectiveness', I don't see how tailoring 'word choice' (the most basic definition of diction) to become especially 'clear, or effective' wouldn't be good diction.

[djr33]

Effective in the sense of skill and intent. Masterful diction is precise and accurate, unrelated to interpretation which is bound to include errors.
Of course better diction would more likely to have better comprehension due to clarity, but it is also made difficult at the same time as it becomes more advanced/complex.

I imagine using diction well as using a sword well, with skill and control. The blade goes exactly where intended, at the right speed and angle.

[jscheuer1]

Using the sword analogy, you (the 'actor' - see previous post for meaning) should adapt your fencing technique (diction) to your opponent's (the audience's) vulnerabilities (ability to comprehend).

[djr33]

You may be a masterful swordsman and still not win a fight, if your opponent is simply better defended or a better swordsman. Your blow may be very well placed, but hit armor; or it may be blocked by a better move. [In this case, the skill of the opponent is the representation of lack of familiarity of the listener, though.]


Perhaps better to look at it like this:
The control of placing that sword exactly where intended is what really matters-- the diction. You may decide to place it in the wrong spot entirely, but it was still quite precise. Your words may be completely worthless-- some random rant about why it's really the year 1997, and everyone else has just skipped ahead 10 years-- but it still may be phrased well.

Precision and accuracy are different.

I guess I just see diction as the precision factor and the correctness as the accuracy, two separate components. I wouldn't think of you as someone with bad diction if you used the wrong word, but simply someone who was wrong.

[jscheuer1]

A bit of a stretch, precision and accuracy overlap. But if you want to see them as separate:

Both precision (clarity and/or effectiveness), and accuracy (correctness), or however you want to parse those, are part of the definition of diction that I am referring to.

[djr33]

Scientifically, and precisely in general, precision and accuracy are different, such as specified in the study of chemistry.

Precision is hitting the same place on the dart board repeatedly [consistently]; accuracy is hitting the center; doing both is needed to actually get a good score.

I don't see accuracy as a crucial component of diction. It's basically implied that the word choice is literally accurate, and beyond that, it's a matter of style.

[jscheuer1]

If the same spot is the center, precision and accuracy are, by your definition, the same, hence the overlap. I think you are try to wriggle off the hook with questionable semantics.

Good diction conveys the speaker's or writer's meaning to the listener or reader. Diction in general, can refer solely to style.

[Twey]

"Accuracy" and "precision" are synonyms. I think you're both using entirely the wrong terminology here.

A correct word is one that gets across the bare meaning necessary. A word chosen with good diction is one that gets across the meaning, but also has appropriate nuances to communicate more subtle information, such as the user's opinion on the subject.

[djr33]

http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/sci122/SciLab/L5/accprec.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy



A correct word is one that gets across the bare meaning necessary. A word chosen with good diction is one that gets across the meaning, but also has appropriate nuances to communicate more subtle information, such as the user's opinion on the subject.Indeed.


Good diction conveys the speaker's or writer's meaning to the listener or reader. Diction in general, can refer solely to style....In general... so.... the definition is the "in general meaning" of the word-- style. Attaching good begins to make a judgment about the use and style, which then adds other factors-- what is good? Etc. And it also inserts an implied "use of", which is generally regarded as the same concept, but must be specified here as "diction" is not the same as "use of diction", when you are defining the word with this explanation.


Diction is, actually, JUST literally the choices of words, not the reasons why. I guess I'm stretching it a bit, though the MOST common use of diction is to convey a specific desired meaning in the manner Twey describes.

[blm126]

I speak English natively, but know some German. That doesn't really give me a lot to go on for this topic, however I would have to say German is easier than English.

German- The vocabulary seems to be much smaller than English, and most words follow the same pronouciation patterns. The only exceptions to this are the rare "stolen" words like Pommes Frites. If you can say it, you can spell it. Confusing parts include extra cases(genitive, and dative), seemingly random uses of prepositions(what is german for "of"?), and genders of course.

English - So many rules it's not even funny, and then for every rule there is an exception. Even as a native speaker it is easy to make mistakes.

Also, for the discussion on German rules on gender: These are a huge help. Consider the word "Madchen". Ever wonder why it is neuter? It breaks the females are feminine guideline, but follows the -chen rule. You don't need to know them all. I remember my German teacher giving us a small list, about a third the size of the one Twey listed. She claimed these were the rules we would actually need. After speaking German long enough, I can guess gender and plural form pretty well.

[jscheuer1]

"Accuracy" and "precision" are synonyms. I think you're both using entirely the wrong terminology here.

I never said they weren't synonyms. That was what I meant in this case by questionable semantics. I could have said 'splitting hairs'. Diction is intrinsically caught up in clarity. To be able to convey a shade of meaning is part of it, but if your meaning is lost to the reader in doing so, it can't possibly be good diction.

[molendijk]

... I would have to say German is easier than English.

German- The vocabulary seems to be much smaller than English, and most words follow the same pronouciation patterns. The only exceptions to this are the rare "stolen" words like Pommes Frites. If you can say it, you can spell it. Confusing parts include extra cases(genitive, and dative), seemingly random uses of prepositions(what is german for "of"?), and genders of course.

English - So many rules it's not even funny, and then for every rule there is an exception. Even as a native speaker it is easy to make mistakes.

Also, for the discussion on German rules on gender: These are a huge help...

Hello Brady,
German easier than English? Don't think so (I'm a native speaker of Dutch).
Vocabulay of German smaller? Think of all the compound words you can make in German. It's famous for that! But even then, the vocabulary of a language doesn't automatically make the language simple or complicated.
As for German rules on gender. English doesn't even have grammatical gender, so that's no argument.
I would say you don't see the whole picture of English and German. I could equally argue (which I don't) that German is much more complicated than English since in German there are lots of exceptions to the rules for plural (das Mädchen --> die Mädchen; der Mann --> die Männer etc.), since in German the case of the object often impredictably depends on the verbs (deM Mann helfen vs deN Mann sehen), since, more generally, German has a case system, whereas English only has case for pronouns (I vs me, etc.), since the German tense system (viewed semantically) is more elaborated than the English system (both 'das habe ich nicht gewusst' and 'das wusste ich nicht' are possible, depending on the context/situation), etc.

Arie Molendijk.

[Twey]

Diction is intrinsically caught up in clarity. To be able to convey a shade of meaning is part of it, but if your meaning is lost to the reader in doing so, it can't possibly be good diction.But there, again, you're arguing that if I were to use a word you didn't know in order to fully convey my meaning, it would be bad diction. I don't really agree with this: limits of the reader's vocabulary are entirely unpredictable, and one certainly shouldn't limit one's diction with wild guesses at such.

[djr33]

The particular swing of a sword may still be a good swing, regardless of any lack of damage inflicted, based on any number of reasons, such as the person simply moving.
I agree, Twey.

[jscheuer1]

But there, again, you're arguing that if I were to use a word you didn't know in order to fully convey my meaning, it would be bad diction. I don't really agree with this: limits of the reader's vocabulary are entirely unpredictable, and one certainly shouldn't limit one's diction with wild guesses at such.


The particular swing of a sword may still be a good swing, regardless of any lack of damage inflicted, based on any number of reasons, such as the person simply moving.
I agree, Twey.

Ganging up on me, eh? :)

Not to worry. I never said a wild guess. People of reasonable intelligence can gauge their audience in a reasonable manner and thereby arrive at a turn of phrase that will work best, or at least adequately (we can't all be experts at word choice) in that situation. The sword thing isn't that good of an analogy, notwithstanding your rapier wit. The object of the sword generally doesn't want to get hit, the object of diction generally does.

[Twey]

People of reasonable intelligence can gauge their audience in a reasonable manner and thereby arrive at a turn of phrase that will work best, or at least adequately (we can't all be experts at word choice) in that situation.Well, the majority of people (that I know, at least) don't know the word "petrichor." Does this mean I should avoid using it in my work? I wouldn't even if you said I should :) If the target audience is of a literacy in the language to be able to use a dictionary, there need be no limit to the vocabulary used.
The sword thing isn't that good of an analogy, notwithstanding your rapier wit.*groan* :)

[jscheuer1]

I would venture that the word "petrichor" isn't in most dictionaries. It's a neat word though. I'm getting the feeling though that you are looking for extreme examples to prove an extreme point of view. I have no problem with folks using obscure words, or words that many folks might need to look up. That's not my point. I'm not talking about this word or that word. I'm talking about the diction of a given piece. If every word is obscure, so is the piece. And, as I was saying, though I like challenging material and would never want to limit what an author or speaker has recourse to in the realm of vocabulary, it is a simple truth that one's diction is at fault if one fails to reach one's target audience because of the use of (too many) words of which one has no reasonable expectation of their being understood by said audience.

The odds of getting through increase as the number of unknown words decreases.

[Twey]

Again, what's acceptable for an audience and a dictionary isn't necessarily the same as what's acceptable for said audience sans dictionary, to put it unnecessarily macaronically. Even were it to cause some tohubohu, it's reasonable to expect the audience to look up unknown words and thus improve their vocabularies in the process, although the piece as a whole may come across as something of a bombast.

Interesting how many peculiar words one can stumble across whilst looking up one. :)

[jscheuer1]

Again:


The odds of getting through increase as the number of unknown words decreases.

If you fall down in this area and are otherwise using good writing/speaking practices, it's correct to call the failure poor diction. That's all I was ever saying, whatever else I was accused of, I plead innocent!

[djr33]

But, still, the "getting through" isn't PART OF the diction; it's an effect. Cause != effect.

This becomes, then, an argument for many reasons to change, or not change, the cause in order to hope for a certain effect.

[jscheuer1]

Diction includes clarity, especially includes clarity, in its definition, as well as other attributes that make being understood an essential part of, not a side effect of, diction:


choice of words especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness

Even if I were to agree to the 'side effect' theory, poorly chosen words having the adverse side effect of not being understood, would still be poor diction as regards the circumstance - all I've been saying.

[djr33]

Define "with regard to", as we clearly don't agree on that meaning.

Circumstance doesn't define the diction, though.

You could do a great job of bandaging a man's leg, even though he's already dead. Sure, it's stupid, but doesn't mean it wasn't a good job. :p

[vaibhav24in]

"Hindi" is the best language in the world and it is easy toooo. Far easy than english

[Twey]

Daniel, have you seen Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/)? I've been looking at it recently and I think it would interest you. It would also be good to have someone with whom to study :p

[djr33]

Hindi's different script makes it a big undertaking for anyone used to western languages. However, that's as far as I can comment. It certainly may be simpler, syntactically.

I'll look into that, Twey. Thanks.

EDIT: Read.

Looks interesting. I certainly like the concept.
And, sure, let's form a study group. Meet every Thursday in Olson Hall room ... er... nevermind :p

[Twey]

Hindi's different script makes it a big undertaking for anyone used to western languages.Not really. It uses the Devengari script, which is based on the concept of combining a vowel-character with a consonant-character in order to obtain a syllable-character, and is entirely phonetic. There's a lot less to remember than C/J/K ideographs, and even less to remember than the Japanese syllabaries or English spellings.
Looks interesting. I certainly like the concept.
And, sure, let's form a study group. Meet every Thursday in Olson Hall room ... er... nevermind :pHaha :D We could do it over IM.

[djr33]

Well, I'm up for learning any language, and I will continue to add more, until I die, or my brain explodes, whichever comes first. And, of course, immediately, I might fall asleep, if exhausted :p

[hraskojanko]

Hi,

just to mention - according to the "Language institute" in Berlin , there is currently 7832 languages in the world ;-)
After 8 years of analysing those languages, these scientist published the list of easiest and most difficult languages in the world....(I was told it was this year in september in Paris, France)

Well, here is the list, however, is written in Slovak language, but I believe, you can understand it very well. (I'm adding the translations to some.. )
...and I think you will posible have difficulties with displaying some characters

10. mongolčina

09. aramejština

08. gréčtina (Greek)

07. nórština

06. taliančina (Italian)

05. rumunčina (Romanian)

04. chorvátčina (Croatian)

03. bulharčina (Bulgarian)

02. angličtina (English)

01. najľahší jazyk na svete ktorým hovorí vyše 300 miliónov ľudí na celom svete je španielština. (Easiest language in the world is Spanish)


Desať najťažších jazykov na tejto planéte:
(Ten most difficult-to-learn languages in the world)

10. nemčina (German)

09. francúzština (French)

08. čínština (Chinese)

07. japončina (Japonese)

06. jazyk oboch Kórei je rovnaký, takže kórejština (Korean)

05. perzština (Persian)

04. arabčina (Arabian)

03. fínština (Finnish)

02. maďarčina (Hungarian)

01. najťažším jazykom akým sa hovorí na tejto planéte je Slovenčina.
(The most difficult language on this planet is Slovak)

Well it seems we should make some changes in the grammar rules to make slovak language easier :-) What's funnny, the people say that for slovaks is the more difficult language hungarian and vice versa :-) When you look at the list, it makes perfect sense ;-)

Roman

[djr33]

Interesting. Thanks for posting that. I'm a bit uncertain about English being the second easiest, though it does seem easy to grasp in part-- but not in whole. Mastering English may be one of the most difficult. I'd like to see that list as well. (I'd consider myself pretty advanced in the language, and this is after years of a decent education and speaking natively, though I'm not sure I'm yet, fully, an expert.)

Slovak will be a while for me, then.

But, why am I taking Arabic and German? Ha.

I'm a bit surprised that French is on there as so hard. But I do agree, in some ways.

Ha, I was right. Spanish.

However, is this list all from the perspective of someone who speaks Slovak? (With the exception of learning Slovak itself). I suppose it isn't, because it's from Berlin. Having German on the list shows it's not centralized to European languages either, I guess. So, it must be a general list for the world. (Though maybe with some bias toward languages that use a similar script to European languages).


Interesting that Greek is so easy. Latin and Greek are similar, from what I know, and Latin is kinda hard. But, then again, it's complex grammar that you can catch onto without too much trouble. From that, it's pretty basic, I guess. And of course that would be relating it to ancient latin, so modern Greek may be easier as well. Might look into that.

I had a feeling, after just briefly reading (I mean, looking at) something in Romanian that it was easy. Figured the grammar was a bit easier than Italian, and harder than Spanish. Guess I was right, there.

[Twey]

I don't agree with this at all. I think any study that ranks Croatian as one of the easiest languages to learn (and as being considerably easier than Japanese, even) requires some serious rethinking.

[jscheuer1]

The study was done by Croats.