English is inferior to all the other European languages

>>9442047
Shit thread.
Saged.

>>9442060
No it isn't

>>9442047
>too primitive grammar
Implying this is a bad thing.
>very little suffixes
Suffixes are for the weak.
>fixed syntax
Like most languages.

>>9442065
>Like most languages
No

>>9442047
This man's first language is not english. Not difficult to tell. Buttmad continental europoor mad about english language hegemony

>>9442047
t. butthurt frog or kraut

>>9442047
>English has the largest amount of great writers out of all European languages
Hmm must be doing something right

>>9442079
No, the language you're talking about is cleary French, not English.

No arguments, I take it?

>>9442067
Yes.

>>9442047
You're conflating grammatical complexity with grammatical advancement. In point of fact, most languages have been losing complexity for thousands of years, and English is among the furthest along in this process. And yes, we have developed a relatively fixed syntax to pick up the slack, but word placement tends to be one of the more shallow arenas for the development of elegant prose anyway, so I can't say it's too much of a loss. I think the burden lies with you to show that a variety of suffixes is a boon to a language. I should remind you that you have about as much liberty in suffix choice as we have in syntax, if not less.

>>9442047
why do you think grammatical complexity maps to grammatical advancement?

>>9442047
>very little suffixes

You mean very few suffixes.

Try actually learning to speak English before you criticize it.

File: 1441104483920.png (113KB, 695x820px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 695x820px

I loved it until the French destroyed it with their faggotry.

>>9442340
I wonder what causes the languages to lose their complexity. I know the Greeks of Rome were continually lamenting how far their languages had degenerated from the golden era of Attic playwrights and philosophers around the 3rd and 4th centuries BC.

Part of me wants to say that as society become more settled and developed with poor people gaining more power the language equalizes with the general level of the population, but at the same time I know English lost a large chunk of its cases when it was confined to the southwest of England during the Danelaw period, which doesn't exactly fit that narrative.

>>9443148
My personal theory is that in the early days of language, the best way to increase the range of expressable concepts was to add new structures. Eventually, though, humans got better at abstracting more meaning from fewer words, and this began a process of culling superfluous forms.

>>9442047
Which ones OP?

>>9443148
The greater number of people speaking a language, the more standardised and simplified it has to become.

>>9443034
so you love dutch?

>>9443271
True especially people, with a lower IQ (British Empire) and more people to whom the language isn't native and suited. The Shakespearian English is proof, that this language was much more elaborate and complex, much like the German of the Romatic and Classic epoche. But the loss of the quality of the English language is truley horrific.

>>9443271
Not true. A larger number of speakers tends toward fracturing and dialects.

>>9443423
Retarded response, but languages do not 'degenerate', they simply evolve. If one looks back to Cicero, he complains of the degeneration of Latin by the plebs then, and even in English, Johnson complains about it. And yet here we are, in an infinitely more complex world, with tens of thousands of more concepts to express, and everyone still understands each other.

Language 'degeneracy' is a meme, in the original sense of it.

>>9442047
>Too primitive grammar, fixed syntax, very little suffixes. In a a word, complete and utter shite.

This argument should convince me that all the majestic plays by Shakespeare I've read so far are, in fact, shit?
Do you think that it is that easy to discredit an entire literary tradition? Fuck off.

>>9442392
But that's what he meant, they aren't really big, are they?

When the Third World War breaks out I will track down every single creator of /lit/ language threads and gas them together with the kikes.

>>9443533
You're good people

>>9443533
>they simply evolve
>Define evolve: to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state
Anglophones are truly degenerate.