Is there any language that just comes naturally and is easiest for humans to learn?
I was thinking since what language we use, is mostly dominated by how widespread and how long it has been in use.
Surely we can agree that some languages are easier to learn than others but it doesn't matter so much as the language you learn as you grow is going to be an easier process than trying to learn one later on in your life.
English grammar is so much easier to learn than, for example, the italian grammar because it's way more simple. Not to say that this is enough to judge a language complexity, but it's a start
I think we're biologically predisposed to language in general, not any individual one in specific.
Also, English (and some other romantic languages) is hard as fuck for new speakers because it has a billion exceptions.
All languages are the "perfect" language. There is no concept that cannot be described in another language (this might take a paragraph, IE explaining serendipidity to a Korean in Korean, but the Korean will understand the concept).
The human mind is very malleable at a young age.
I would define it as a means of communication, one that can be used daily with little to no effort.
I'm sure someone else has a much better definition.
Yes, music and math would work but are they practical?
Austronesian and Afroasiatic languages are probably easier to acquire.
Language isolates like Basque, Caucasian languages and Burushaski, along with all the indigenous American languages are probably the most difficult and complex.
>Some are, in the end, more efficient at expressing ideas accurately than others
Prove it faggot.
You'd probably be shit at expressing ideas or making arguments no matter what language you were doing it in.
Speakers who already know Indo-European languages find it easier to learn Indo-European languages than non-Indo-European languages... stop the fucking presses!
You'd better get MIT Linguistics and LanguageLog on the phone to report your discovery, m8.
PS: this should give you a clue as to why this has no bearing on whether some languages are "more efficient" than others (an incoherent notion that non-linguists for whatever reason persist in believing in)
Get a proper background in the research and theory or fuck off.
Becuase you have lot learn less vocabulary, since more complex words are derived though combining words and rules.
patro - father
patrino - mother
frato - brother
fratino - sister
avo - grandfather
And now guess what grandmother is.
fermi - to close
malfermi - to open
I believe it is said that with a vocabulary of only 500-700 words you can already speak fluently. Further more, there are no strict notions of what is "right" and "wrong" in terms of "you can say that, but nobody does".
Now consider the fact that all of what you said is irrelevant to the fact that someone who speaks Mandarin or English as their first language knows many, many more than 700 words even in childhood, and whether the words for mother, father etc are similar in structure has fucking zero effect on their competence in using the language... in what sense should Esperanto be considered more "efficient" again? Do you know of any countries or companies that have switched to Esperanto to maximise efficiency?
Non-linguists PLEASE FUCK OFF.
Esperanto is not meant to be more efficient or replace other languages, but be a neutral language that is learnt later on in life (==> secondary constructed auxiliary language), and for that reason is kept simple. There's realy no linguistic background to this.
As you are obviously a very angry linguist-elitust, could you tell me this: If a Chinese (or any other non-Indo European person) had to learn English, German or Esperanto, what would be the easiest for him?
And if a third person, let's say a native south American straight out of the rain forest had a teacher who could teach him Chinese, English or Esperanto, what language would be the fastest to learn?
>not meant to be more efficient
I'm responding to a poster who claimed that Esperanto is more efficient in some objective sense than other languages, and I'm calling him out on his naive bullshit.
That was me, and I'm still not saying Esperanto is more "efficient". All I'm saying/asking is (whether) is is easier to learn? I believe it is, and I wanted to see what a linguist believes. The examples were just to show how Esperanto tries to simplify the language, and if you will make it " more efficient" to learn. Not to use.
>Spanish is considered easy
>I studied spanish for 7 years, my native language is french, so rather similar to spanish on many aspects
>Still can't speak spanish for shit since I haven't practiced it for 2 years
I remember seeing this short documentary on (i think) a native Australian tribe, where they didn't have numbers.
If you asked them how many children one had, they would recite each child's name, because numbers doesn't exist for them.
Surely we can all agree that having to recite each child's name to present a count of the amount of children you have is inferior to simple saying "i have x children"