| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Desperately Seeking Sam | Main | More Than Just a Bad Dream--A Nightmare's Impact on the Waking Brain »

January 05, 2010

In Search of the World’s Hardest Language

HardestLang In the Economist:

A CERTAIN genre of books about English extols the language’s supposed difficulty and idiosyncrasy. “Crazy English”, by an American folk-linguist, Richard Lederer, asks “how is it that your nose can run and your feet can smell?”. Bill Bryson’s “Mother Tongue: English and How It Got That Way” says that “English is full of booby traps for the unwary foreigner…Imagine being a foreigner and having to learn that in English one tells a lie but the truth.”

Such books are usually harmless, if slightly fact-challenged. You tell “a” lie but “the” truth in many languages, partly because many lies exist but truth is rather more definite. It may be natural to think that your own tongue is complex and mysterious. But English is pretty simple: verbs hardly conjugate; nouns pluralise easily (just add “s”, mostly) and there are no genders to remember.

English-speakers appreciate this when they try to learn other languages. A Spanish verb has six present-tense forms, and six each in the preterite, imperfect, future, conditional, subjunctive and two different past subjunctives, for a total of 48 forms. German has three genders, seemingly so random that Mark Twain wondered why “a young lady has no sex, but a turnip has”. (Mädchen is neuter, whereas Steckrübe is feminine.)

English spelling may be the most idiosyncratic, although French gives it a run for the money with 13 ways to spell the sound “o”: o, ot, ots, os, ocs, au, aux, aud, auds, eau, eaux, ho and ö. “Ghoti,” as wordsmiths have noted, could be pronounced “fish”: gh as in “cough”, o as in “women” and ti as in “motion”. But spelling is ancillary to a language’s real complexity; English is a relatively simple language, absurdly spelled.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 06:16 PM | Permalink

Comments

Hmm, yes. Quite. :)

Posted by: TalesNTypos | Jan 5, 2010 8:52:41 PM

It's funny: babies manage to learn all these languages without thinking twice about it. ;)

Posted by: JanieM | Jan 5, 2010 8:58:19 PM

Thanks, Robin! Arundhati Roy says Malayalam is not only the hardest language, but the one spelled palindromically. Hope you'll weigh in on that one. Of those I know, I think Italian is fundamentally the hardest -- same word for "why" and "because." But that's a little like saying 1 is the perfect palindromic number...

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 5, 2010 9:44:02 PM

i like the remark about malayalam and palindromes, never realized that before.

in lingala, yesterday is also the word for tomorrow. what day are we talking about here? it's usually clear from the context, but not always.

Posted by: ed rackley | Jan 5, 2010 10:12:28 PM

Malayalam's easy; the other Dravidian languages are hard.

Posted by: Robin Varghese | Jan 5, 2010 11:45:31 PM

Malbolge. End of discussion. An intentionally hostile (non-human, obviously) programming language. After its invention it took years to write the first program - what could be worse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbolge

Posted by: Scott | Jan 5, 2010 11:58:00 PM

What could be harder than learning Chinese characters?

Posted by: J.H. | Jan 6, 2010 10:11:38 AM

"Of those I know, I think Italian is fundamentally the hardest -- same word for "why" and "because."

Same as in Spanish. I usually tell people that I think English is probably one of the easiest languages: although the amount of words in it is daunting, it has the easiest grammar I've come across. Phonetically complex, perhaps, but otherwise easy to learn.

Posted by: Pepito | Jan 6, 2010 10:24:10 AM

Is Malayalam palindromic in Malayalam?

Posted by: prasad | Jan 6, 2010 10:57:53 AM

Is Malayalam palindromic in Malayalam?

It is in Hindi and Bengali.

Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 6, 2010 11:35:14 AM

Not in spelling, anyway.

Is palindrome palindromic in any language?

Posted by: Carlos | Jan 6, 2010 11:36:38 AM

Pretty silly question. You could rank languages by the difficulties they present for a native speaker of a given language, say English, to learn, but even that is rather senseless, because individuals differ greatly in their abilities to learn foreign languages, and in their abilities to learn various particular aspects of language (e.g., vocabulary, grammar, written vs. spoken language, etc.).

As JanieM says, almost all babies and small children learn all languages they hear the people around them speaking quite easily, even several languages simultaneously. Learning languages becomes much more difficult after early childhood, so what age of the language learner are we talking about?

As for learning Chinese characters, it's not difficult at all. It's like learning to recognize people's faces; we all can recognize thousands of faces. It's just that it takes a lot of time to learn thousands of characters, and most people lose interest very soon unless they are highly motivated. And you need to learn them in a systematic way.

Posted by: JonJ | Jan 6, 2010 1:27:29 PM

I have run into this a lot. Try asking a non-native English speaker who has tried learning two second languages, on of which is English, and I've found they found English easier to speak.

Posted by: rosco | Jan 6, 2010 3:57:41 PM

I still think that learning to write thousands of complex Chinese characters is much harder than learning 26 simple letters.

Posted by: J.Hawkins | Jan 6, 2010 4:21:44 PM

Sure, it's harder to write the characters than our alphabet, but nowadays no one writes them; computers do all the hard work. In fact, many older Japanese are lamenting that the ability to write kanji by hand is rapidly dying out.

Posted by: JonJ | Jan 6, 2010 8:14:59 PM

Malayalam has definitely been the most difficult language that I've tried to learn. Both written and spoken. Chinese, German, Turkish, Korean have all been much easier.

Posted by: Karen | Jan 7, 2010 1:10:23 PM

English is devilish in the particles and analytic nature(not just its other idiosyncracies), which is what the economist article completely misses. It's pretty clear that the writer has never taught ESL of any kind, because it misses all the things that non-native speakers have trouble with.

Basically, it's easy to become conversant in English but extremely hard to become native-level fluent. I can add particles and the particles have independent meaning, which is understandable by native-level speakers and few others. Is that easier or harder than Ainu or Russian? It's pretty much a dumb question, answered more dumbly

Posted by: Mario | Jan 7, 2010 6:20:06 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD ADVERTISING

Find the best prices on Las Vegas Show Tickets at Best of Vegas and Orlando Theme Parks at Best of Orlando!

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Klausi on the defeated

Anjuli on Perceptions

gautam on The Human Peacock’s Ghastly Tail

VirtualMachine on What goes into making beautiful celestial images?

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

Namit on The search for a two-thousand-year-old city

Anjali Kelling on Adagio in Blues

Phil S. on KILL THE CAPS LOCK, And four other modest proposals for improving the contemporary computer keyboard

Adam on Canadian Insights on America’s Lunatic Fringe

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

whatev on Canadian Insights on America’s Lunatic Fringe

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

Sara on Superbowl Spleen

Liam on The Human Peacock’s Ghastly Tail

Anand Manikutty on Adagio in Blues

Sagredo on How To Implode A Myth

Michael Harbour on The Emptiness of Pluralism

Kai Matthews on Superbowl Spleen

Albertan Atheist on Canadian Insights on America’s Lunatic Fringe

Kai Matthews on Adagio in Blues

Nick Smyth on The Emptiness of Pluralism

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed