probably chinese because it hardly has any grammar at all.
>>3
certainly not, Latin has LOTS of rules and LOTS of exceptions to those rules. don't even mention english german and all the other european languages.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-19 18:58
since when? give me an example. as far as i know, there a lots of rules, but no realy exceptions.
Just because none of them are logical, doesn't mean some can be relatively logical
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-20 6:38
>>6
agricola is masculine even though you'd expect it to be feminine with -a as its ending etc.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-20 7:39
Lojban
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-20 8:08
>>5
Seconding this.
Also be aware, that no citizen or slave in the Roman Empire spoke Latin like they wrote it.
They spoke Vulgar Latin in the regional dialect, TONS of grammar dropped and different vocabulary.
>>5 probably chinese because it hardly has any grammar at all.
Please look up "grammar" in a dictionary. You'll find that "grammar" is the set of rules that dictate what words go where in a sentence, as well as what shape and form they should have. Consider the sentences "Alice sees Bob" and "Bob sees Alice"; grammar is how you know which sentence means what.
Chances are you're looking for words like "tense" (like "go/went/gone", "see/saw/seen"...), "case system" ("i/me/my/mine", "he/him/his...), or somesuch.
If you're thinking stuff like "noun genders", this is one of two main ways a language classifies nouns; the other is "classifier" (long story, check the Wiki).
Guess what, all languages use one or the other, English being the only exception I know of. Chinese (as well as Japanese) uses classifiers.
(Also, In My Oh-So-Humble Opinion, noun classifier systems are more logical than noun genders, even if it (initially) requires that you learn some more words at first).
Id say Korean if not for the myriad of spelling and pronunciation inconsistencies.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-23 13:40
If by logical you mean it follows a certain logic strictly, then I'd say Turkish probably. If by that you mean it makes sense, that's a very tough question, IDK. Esperanto maybe?
>>24
Personally i like it. makes more sense to me. maybe because of my background. which i guess is another thing to consider when when deciding which is the most logical language.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-24 1:01
MEXICAN!
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-25 7:04
>>26
There is no Mexican language. They speak American Latin.
but if you mean among the natural languages, modern turkish (of course how "natural" it is, is completely debatable), for its pure regularity if not for anything else
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-28 14:19
C#
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-28 16:54
>>31
you know you probably picked the worst programming language for that joke, right?
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-28 22:20
I'm gonna say Esperanto. I don't really know much about it, but a language that was made through conscious effort instead of being developed randomly for thousands of years surely must be more logical, right?
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-02 11:23
>>33
yeah but if you check >>30, you'll see that there is a much better choice if you add artificial languages in the mix.
Besides, Esperanto sucks as hard as natural languages when it comes to that. Zamenhof failed hard in that.
Arabic isn't all that logical. It's like Latin + nonsense. There's a masculine and feminine form of every word, in almost all forms (most annoying being the possessive and plural). Even colors have a masculine and feminine form.
ex: za'hari(pink, masculine), za'haria(pink, feminine), az'rak(blue, masculine), z'raka(blue, feminine).
The writing system isn't so complicated; the diacritical markings help things make a bit more sense. Things are also spelled/writing as they're heard. But, there are the letters/characters that sound almost EXACTLY the same. Dha, da, theh, teh, gha, kha, etc. They can make spelling words confusing, especially if you have hearing problems.
The noun/verb "pronoun attachments" (that's what a friend that speaks Arabic calls them) are also sometimes complicated. For example, the word for "I" is "ana". So, to say something like "My book", you'd attach "ana" to the end of the word. Except it wouldn't be "ana", it'd the yeh character.
It would look like: كتابي; not that you would know how to read it, but it says "ketabi", the literal meaning being "book I", which is (not so) obviously interpreted into "my book".
That's my opinion on Arabic. (Sorry. if it's a boring or inaccurate read - I haven't gotten much sleep)
I think Japanese is more logical. The whole language is spoken and understood by context or situation. I also believe the writing system is perfect (kana); syllabaries make it so that the syllable only has one pronunciation. There is an exception for the 'g' consonant, but I think that's it.
inb4 languagefites, this is just my opinion.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-07 18:58
Arschloooooch!
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-07 21:48
ESPERANTO!
there are, as far as my knowledge goes, no exceptions. All nouns end in -o (plural ends in -oj), adjectives in -a (plural in -aj), present verbs in -as, past in -is, future in -os. add prefixes and suffixes to a root word and it always works. just makes complete sense. too bad no one speaks it.
It has genders, which of course could be sucky, but the genders themselves can be thought of as purely symbolic in most cases. They often separate concepts. The rest of the language is pretty fucking logical.
See, Arabic is composed of a root system with primarily triconsonantal roots (say k-t-b or كتب for things pertaining to reading). From that you get for instance كِتَابْ (kitaab), or book; كَاتِبْ (kaatib), or writer; كَتَيَ (kataba), or "he wrote". You can expand on this like a fucking maniac, using very logical rules for prefixes, suffixes, interfixes, root mutations, vowel mutations - you name it - to build up words that would take a whole sentence to express in English. Taken to the extreme, you can get things like كَتَبْتِيهُولْهُمْ (katabtiihuulhum), meaning "you, a single female, wrote it to them". This is all very dynamic too, and you can combinate and break things up in a lot of different ways, giving such nuance to the language that English speakers can only dream of.
Other logical things:
- Pronounced as written. As far as I know there is only one single exception to this in the entire language (disregarding very recent loanwords, of course), and that's الله, Allah, where the L-sound is pharyngealised.
- Vowels come in long and short forms, and the short ones aren't written unless it's necessary to remove ambiguity.
- Very, very few exceptions. There are some different declension/inflection rules between masculine/feminine words, and for roots containing semivowels, but otherwise the language is very regular compared to most others.
I guess that's true. However, there are still word forms that have no rules. Those are what make things harder to understand, when I'm reading. I can't think of a decent example, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
Still, I think seems Japanese is more logical than Arabic -- less complicated, to boot.
You do bring up a valid argument though, it does have some aspects which are *very* logical. I'll try learning more about the language as I study Japanese.
(again, this post may not make sense; I've woken up earlier than I did yesterday :<)
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-08 12:18
Arabic has a good system, which I am a fan of, but I don't find it really logical. It is a language which evolved naturally and retains such quirks, a truly logical language is artificial, and my bid for modern turkish came from it being pretty much artificial to begin with.
Mind you, in most Arabic texts short vowels are rarely placed, so to "read" the word you have to actually know the word - not an issue for an arabic speaker, but a pain in the ass for a learner.
Turkish, like Japanese, is an agglutinative language, and every word can be broken down progressively, unlike Arabic in which you take some apart linearly and you have to go from the three-letter-root for the meaning. The only illogical thing is the vowel harmony and consonant changes resulting in several "similar" endings - for example the past-tense suffix could be -di, for example geldi (he/she/it came), but in another word, it can be -du, oldu (it happened) but it's actually the same suffix. This stuff was problematic during the Ottoman times when the Arabic script was utilized, for example "Oğlun oldu" (you had a son) and "oğlun öldü" (your son died) were both written identically, as اولتى(from the archaic pronunciations, oltı and ölti respectively), but with that removed things are simple.
Also, it's phonetic, and there is just one irregular verb in the whole language, no genders
It is very much like Japanese in this aspect, however since it was reformed quite recently and doesn't retain a lot of things for "backwards compatibility", I believe it is more logical. Also, let's admit it - phonetic latin script is easier.
But of course, all these result in a tasteless language and I really wouldn't recommend anyone to learn it as a hobby.
The writing system is almost laughably easy. There are no capital letters, no vowels (in modern, printed Arabic, anyway), and there are only a few extra letters compared to English.
Seriously, it can be learnt in an hour. (By anyone with half a brain.)
Yes, but position within the sentence and context usually gives the meaning away.
For example, ktb could mean 'books' (kutub) or 'he wrote' (kataba), but kataba would usually come at the beginning of a sentence and kutub would usually be modified with a personal pronoun (kutubka, your books) or with an adjective (kutub jadidah, new books), or with the definite article (al-kutub, the books).
PS - Roots can be modified by consonants too, and not just vowels.
If we say that C = a consonant of the root (in Arabic 90% of words are formed from three consonants, KTB, QWL, SJD, SLM, etc.)
KTB = things to do with writing
SJD = things to do with bowing down
SLM = things to do with peace
Inserting short 'a' vowels between each root consonant, gives you the perfect (or past tense) verb in the 3rd person singular masculine, or 'he'. So, KaTaBa (he wrote), SaJaDa (he bowed down), etc.
But adding a ma/mu to the start gives the place/person who does the thing. So maKTaB (place of writing = office), maSJiD (place of bowing down = mosque), and muSLiM (person who is peaceful = Muslim).
There are many, many more patterns, but you get the idea. All very logical.
CaCaCa = perfect of the thing (past tense, 3rd masc. sg)
yaCCvC = imperfect of the thing (present tense, 3rd masc. sg)
maCCvC = place/person of the thing
CaCiiC = adjective of the thing
'aCCaC = comparative/superlative of the thing (bigger, best, etc)
maktab is office. maktabah is library. kaatib is writer.
kaatib (from the pattern CaaCiC, is the active participle, i.e. -ing words in English). so kaatib is 'masculine-writing-thing' = 'writer'. kaatibah would be a feminine-writing-thing.
But you could also say 'ana kaatib, meaning I'm writing, or I'm going to write.
>>69 Pidgin languages like Swahili
swahili isn't a pidgin dipshit
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-01 4:01
probably chinese because it hardly has any grammar at all.
What do people mean when they say that chinese has no grammar at all? >>16? Or there's something more?
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-01 15:49
>>73
I'm not >>16 but go torrent the Michel Thomas Chinese course
there's very little grammar at all, no conjugation
for I am a man, you say "I to be man"
>>74 there's very little grammar at all, no conjugation
That's like saying a house "doesn't have walls" cos the panelling is wood instead of bricks.
Grammar is the ruleset that defines how words are to be put together to form a sentence. Conjugations is just one element of such a ruleset, just like bricks is one thing you can cover a wall with. A wall isn't any less a wall without them, just as grammar isn't any less grammar without conjugations.
FYI: Chinese grammar doesn't conjugate verbs for the simple reason that there are other ways of marking things like time and subject/object. Chinese is a Subject-Verb-Object language (like English), so it'd say "I see you" like English. Difference is that "I saw you", "I've seen you" and "I'll be seeing you" (and, for that matter "I'm looking at you") still translates as "I see you"; context takes care of the rest. And even in those cases where it doesn't, there are other ways to take up the slack. Like, say, "Yesterday I go town. I see you, you ride bus". A language like Chinese will prefer this kind of sentences rather than, say, "I went to town yesterday and saw you taking the bus".
>>80
Isn't it one of those languages that use punctuation marks as phonemes, thereby sabotaging such insignificant little details like, say, actual punctuation? How very logical.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-20 21:18
>>74 there's very little grammar at all, no conjugation
That's like saying a house "doesn't have walls" cos the panelling is wood instead of bricks.
Grammar is the ruleset that defines how words are to be put together to form a sentence. Conjugations is just one element of such a ruleset, just like bricks is one thing you can cover a wall with. A wall isn't any less a wall without them, just as grammar isn't any less grammar without conjugations.
FYI: Chinese grammar doesn't conjugate verbs for the simple reason that there are other ways of marking things like time and subject/object. Chinese is a Subject-Verb-Object language (like English), so it'd say "I see you" like English. Difference is that "I saw you", "I've seen you" and "I'll be seeing you" (and, for that matter "I'm looking at you") still translates as "I see you"; context takes care of the rest. And even in those cases where it doesn't, there are other ways to take up the slack. Like, say, "Yesterday I go town. I see you, you ride bus". A language like Chinese will prefer this kind of sentences rather than, say, "I went to town yesterday and saw you taking the bus". Still a structured sentence, just different structure. Structure nonetheless.
>>80
Isn't it one of those languages that use punctuation marks as phonemes, thereby sabotaging such insignificant little details like, say, actual punctuation? How very logical.
WTF? First the server tells me nothing happened (even after I reloaded the page repeatedly, and then closed the tab and then re-clicked the link just to make sure).
So I post again, THEN suddenly it's there, as a double-post! What gives?
(in case you're wondering; I don't like double-posts, they kinda make you look like an attention-whore. Obviously this is how they happen, some sort of server/network error...)
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-20 22:40
>>83
lol thats exactly how I started the "ahh, I'm currently studying the language of the beaners" thing a while ago
No, you can actually learn it in high school as an optional class, at least where I live (Yucatán) but regarding the topic, mayan isn't very logical, it has a very strange grammar and rules.
For the most logical AND complete language, I'd say mexican spanish takes the prize.
Do there exist REAL languages with no irregularities? (Not counting Esperanto or Lojban or Klingon or any of that bullshit.)
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-22 0:09
Well... Japanese only has 3(?) irregular verbs... and pretty strict rules for everything else. Only problem is that when it's actually spoken, people omit about EVERYTHING from their sentences... including the subject.
It could be Chinese... Even their outdated writing system is logical due to being hieroglyphic. Fuck tonal languages though.
What's that clicking noise language that some niggers talk with?
The writing systems is one of the more logical parts...
It has two phonetic alphabets, one specifically for foreign loan words and the other for japanese words and grammar structures...
and a hieroglyphic alphabet (pronounced in speech with the japanese phonetic alphabet) which has the added function of telling words apart that sound or would otherwise appear the same. Makes a lot of sense, unless you're too lazy to learn it... in which case your argument is still invalid.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-23 0:58
>>96 three writing systems logical
no
plus don't the characters have like 3 readings? you're such a fucking weeaboo you can't see how bad of a language japanese really is
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-23 13:14
I'd say something like Chinese, one symbol, one meaning one sound. No grammatical number or case system minimal conjugation. Although I like the SOUND of Greek, it's pretty complex.
It makes it so there's 0 possibility for confusion when reading the language. Even if the word sounds the same as another word, the hieroglyphic character used to write it won't be the same.
As I said though, actual spoken Japanese is fucked.
Also, asian chicks are the best kind =/
Except vietnamese... fuck those bitches.
>>39
The writing system in Arabic is very simple. It's just 28 letters. The tricky part is learning how to join them, but even kindergarten children learn them in a matter of weeks. Practice makes perfect. "Everything looks the same" for the first while, but you'll get used to them quickly.
You can't compare the difficulty of mastering some 28 letters in 4 or less different shapes (making them about 80 combinations) to mastering ~2000 characters with multiple readings like in Japanese. Now that is overwhelming.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-23 23:22
Esperanto
Name:
noko2011-04-26 11:38
I'd have to second Japanese assuming we're leaving out Esperanto.
No genders, few/no irregularities (japanese has 2 irregular verbs and 1 irregular adjective in the entire language) plus the grammar itself is very logical.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-26 11:47
>>103
asian chicks are fugly
white bitches are best
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-26 16:01
I think chinese is the most logical because they had to simplify as the most as possible their grammar.
I'm learning chinese and sentences are very simple : no verb conjugation, etc.
Japanese is the second and it's also sexier to pronnunce.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-28 8:55
Japanese is not the most logical.
Yes it's regualr, but japanese as spoken by Japanese people is very contextual -- meaning that people when speaking will leave things out and just sort of expect you to know what's going on. There are different ways to speak Japanese if you are a girl or a boy, high ranking or low, and then it will depend on who you are speaking to as well. The idea of changing your numbers based on what you are counting is pants on head retarded, and the particals are confusing as hell. But yeah, logical and easy for nonspeakers to follow -- if by follow you mean watching tenticle porn in the original Japanese language.
Chinese is pretty simple to follow, though again you have the numbers varying by what you are counting, though it's usually a question of adding a word after the number, which is better, though I don't see the need.
I'd say Chinese, Danish, English, Spanish or Italian, French, Japanese, Korean, German, Latin, Greek, Russian, and beyond that, don't bother, it's not logical.
But of inventeds, I'd say Glossa, Lojban and last but not least Esperanto.
>>109
>japanese as spoken by Japanese people is very contextual -- meaning that people when speaking will leave things out and just sort of expect you to know what's going on.
And what's wrong with that? There's no point in resetting the context after every sentence. Think about it like a state machine.
>There are different ways to speak Japanese if you are a girl or a boy, high ranking or low, and then it will depend on who you are speaking to as well.
And what's wrong with that?
>The idea of changing your numbers based on what you are counting is pants on head retarded, and the particals are confusing as hell.
I agree.
>Chinese, Danish, English, Spanish or Italian, French, Japanese, Korean, German, Latin, Greek, Russian
French, logical? What the fuck have you smoked?!
>>110
>>The idea of changing your numbers based on what you are counting is pants on head retarded, and the particals are confusing as hell.
>I agree.
Sorry, I only meant that I agreed with the first part of your sentence. The particle system itself if awesome and very logical.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-28 11:55
>>110
>japanese as spoken by Japanese people is very contextual -- meaning that people when speaking will leave things out and just sort of expect you to know what's going on.
And what's wrong with that? There's no point in resetting the context after every sentence. Think about it like a state machine.
>There are different ways to speak Japanese if you are a girl or a boy, high ranking or low, and then it will depend on who you are speaking to as well.
And what's wrong with that?
Not who you were responding to but neither of those is logical you moron