Can we agree on that simplified Chinese is way simpler than English?

[Oligey]

I am happy to exchange opinions, but please note the following before participating in the discussion:

1. I will only discuss with ppl who know both languages, Chinese and English. The reason behind this is if one wants to compare 2 things, they need to know both. I hope this is understandable.
2. Please don't make a judgement based on the fact that your mother tongue is in the same language family as either of the two languages. For example, a French person considering English easier than Chinese doesn't mean it is really the case, because French and English are both in the Indo-european family and they are highly similar to each other. The same goes for a Cantonese considering Chinese simpler.

Thanks!

[Omzinesý]

Should this be in the Natlangs section?
Is simplified Chinese a well defined language variety? Or do you just mean the writing system?
Why do we compare simplified Chinese and normal English? There is simple English as well.
Similarity between English and French is nearly exclusively from language contact. Their genealogical relation is just a nice curiosity.

Yes, I have too little understanding of Chinese to evaluate them. I still find English a difficult language.

[Oligey]

Or do you just mean the writing system?

I mean both writing and speaking.

Why do we compare simplified Chinese and normal English? There is simple English as well.

There are two versions of Chinese, simplied and traditional, the former is used in mainland while the latter in HongKong and Taiwan.
I don't think English has congeneric variations.
Of course it has US version, British version and so on, but I don't mind which one to be compared with. They aren't a lot different.

[Salmoneus]

"Simplified" and "traditional" "Chinese" are not two varieties of Chinese. They're just different systems of spelling. Which is irrelevant to the language itself.

["Chinese" isn't really a language at all, other than for the purposes of the central government's political propaganda. It's a family of languages, which have been diverging just as long as the Romance languages in Europe.]

I don't speak Chinese so can't compare it with English, but it seems extremely complicated. Then again, English is also very complicated.

[Oligey]

"Simplified" and "traditional" "Chinese" are not two varieties of Chinese. They're just different systems of spelling. Which is irrelevant to the language itself.

In other words, they ARE two varieties with different but similar systems of spelling.

["Chinese" isn't really a language at all, other than for the purposes of the central government's political propaganda. It's a family of languages, which have been diverging just as long as the Romance languages in Europe.]

By "a family of languages", may I know what are the languages in this family in your understanding?

[VaptuantaDoi]

Generally speaking all languages are about the same level of complexity. English and Chinese are coincidentally complicated in roughly the same areas – simple morphology, fairly complicated phonology, very complicated syntax. So no, we can't agree to your statement.

[Oligey]

deleted

[Oligey]

Generally speaking all languages are about the same level of complexity. English and Chinese are coincidentally complicated in roughly the same areas – simple morphology, fairly complicated phonology, very complicated syntax. So no, we can't agree to your statement.

我希望逐个讨论你所提到的几个领域：
simple morphology：
中文的的词语并没有形态变化，但是英文有。英文的名词有单复数，动词有各种时态。所以，明显中文简单，英文复杂。

fairly complicated phonology:
这个问题有三个方面：
1. 发音动作：英语的语音比汉语要多得多，所以英语要说得很快。汉语其实语素也不少，但是它把语素合并成一个音，比如“强”这个字，qiang，四个语素，但是合并以后口腔只需要做一个动作，而不是四个。所以汉语的语速就要慢一些，口腔不用做那么多动作，自然简单。而且传递的信息也并没有因此减少。
2. 同音词：两种语言都有很多同音词，所以我分不出优劣。
3. 字形与字音的关联度：这个绝对是英语胜出。汉语的字音必须死记硬背，与字形基本无关。但是，如果考虑到词汇量，还是汉语简单，因为汉语死记硬背也就四千个字，英语要背两万五千单词。虽然从个体来讲是英语简单，但是汉语的总量小，所以总体来讲还是汉语简单。

very complicated syntax：
这方面我不太懂，不过好像是差不多。

最重要的，我认为汉语简单的首要原因是需要背诵的词汇量很小。这个你没有提到。
汉语是表意的，所以认识字也就基本上认识了词，而字只有四千个。中国的中小学的教学目标都是以字为单位，没有以词为单位的。
英语就多了，要记两万五千到三万单词，哪怕是母语也要背单词背到中年。

所以，以上各个方面，不是汉语比英语简单，就是二者基本持平，那么总体来说，还是汉语简单。

汉语真正让人讨厌的地方在于：
1. 打字很难，如果是生僻字，不能组成词的字，要在输入法里找好久。
2. 词与词之间没有空格。尤其是遇到人名的时候，根本分不清一个字是不是人名的一部分。

[Keenir]

Generally speaking all languages are about the same level of complexity. English and Chinese are coincidentally complicated in roughly the same areas – simple morphology, fairly complicated phonology, very complicated syntax. So no, we can't agree to your statement.

我希望逐个讨论你所提到的几个领域：
simple morphology：
中文的的词语并没有形态变化，但是英文有。英文的名词有单复数，动词有各种时态。所以，明显中文简单，英文复杂。

ah, so you're going to cheat by bringing in a Sinitic script.

Thats not what you said in the OP, and I quote:

1. You know both languages, Chinese and English.

[VaptuantaDoi]

我希望逐个讨论你所提到的几个领域：
simple morphology：
中文的的词语并没有形态变化，但是英文有。英文的名词有单复数，动词有各种时态。所以，明显中文简单，英文复杂。

This is a very simplistic way of looking at things. Any language which lacks in morphology makes up for it in syntax. You can still express plurality and tenses in Chinese, you just have to learn analytic constructions rather than synthetic constructions. You say that 动词有各种时态 (for those who can't speak Chinese, roughly "verbs have all sorts of tenses"), but in reality English only has two morphological tenses, with the rest being formed in roughly the same ways that Chinese forms them.

fairly complicated phonology:
这个问题有三个方面：
1. 发音动作：英语的语音比汉语要多得多，所以英语要说得很快。汉语其实语素也不少，但是它把语素合并成一个音，比如“强”这个字，qiang，四个语素，但是合并以后口腔只需要做一个动作，而不是四个。所以汉语的语速就要慢一些，口腔不用做那么多动作，自然简单。而且传递的信息也并没有因此减少。

This is not at all how languages work Chinese phonology has numerous areas of complexity – the analysis of the various palatal and velar series, the analysis of finals (linguists seem unable to decide if Chinese has five, two, or zero vowels), and something you conveniently ignore, which is tone. English phonology is in some ways simpler (no tone) but in some ways more complicated (syllable structure) and in still others about the same (vowel system analysis). Both languages are quite hard to pronounce for speakers of unrelated languages. Also note that Chinese and English have roughly the same number of phonemes. Chinese has around 28, English around 30.

very complicated syntax：
这方面我不太懂，不过好像是差不多。

Pretty much all languages have complicated syntax, but isolating languages especially so. English is pretty isolating, Chinese very isolating. As such it has complicated syntax.

最重要的，我认为汉语简单的首要原因是需要背诵的词汇量很小。这个你没有提到。
汉语是表意的，所以认识字也就基本上认识了词，而字只有四千个。中国的中小学的教学目标都是以字为单位，没有以词为单位的。
英语就多了，要记两万五千到三万单词，哪怕是母语也要背单词背到中年。

You seem to be getting confused between the idea of a Chinese character and a word. While there are only a few thousand Chinese characters, there are still over 100,000 Chinese words. Much in the same way that English only uses 26 letters, but it has many more than 26 words. You need about the same number of words to get by in both languages (although English does have a larger amount of technical and specialised vocabulary, almost none of that is known by the majority of English speakers and is entirely restricted to its field).

所以，以上各个方面，不是汉语比英语简单，就是二者基本持平，那么总体来说，还是汉语简单。

Here you are wrong again I'm afraid I suspect that rather than having a genuine debate on the subject, you just want everyone to agree with your unfounded statement that your generic "simplified Chinese" is simpler than English.

汉语真正让人讨厌的地方在于：
1. 打字很难，如果是生僻字，不能组成词的字，要在输入法里找好久。
2. 词与词之间没有空格。尤其是遇到人名的时候，根本分不清一个字是不是人名的一部分。

This disproves your other point. If characters were the same as words, you wouldn't need any spaces.

[Oligey]

Generally speaking all languages are about the same level of complexity. English and Chinese are coincidentally complicated in roughly the same areas – simple morphology, fairly complicated phonology, very complicated syntax. So no, we can't agree to your statement.

我希望逐个讨论你所提到的几个领域：
simple morphology：
中文的的词语并没有形态变化，但是英文有。英文的名词有单复数，动词有各种时态。所以，明显中文简单，英文复杂。

ah, so you're going to cheat by bringing in a Sinitic script.

Thats not what you said in the OP, and I quote:

1. You know both languages, Chinese and English.

This exactly what I said in the post. Either language is OK, why texts in Chinese is cheating?
What is your logic?

[Oligey]

我希望逐个讨论你所提到的几个领域：
simple morphology：
中文的的词语并没有形态变化，但是英文有。英文的名词有单复数，动词有各种时态。所以，明显中文简单，英文复杂。

This is a very simplistic way of looking at things. Any language which lacks in morphology makes up for it in syntax. You can still express plurality and tenses in Chinese, you just have to learn analytic constructions rather than synthetic constructions. You say that 动词有各种时态 (for those who can't speak Chinese, roughly "verbs have all sorts of tenses"), but in reality English only has two morphological tenses, with the rest being formed in roughly the same ways that Chinese forms them.

fairly complicated phonology:
这个问题有三个方面：
1. 发音动作：英语的语音比汉语要多得多，所以英语要说得很快。汉语其实语素也不少，但是它把语素合并成一个音，比如“强”这个字，qiang，四个语素，但是合并以后口腔只需要做一个动作，而不是四个。所以汉语的语速就要慢一些，口腔不用做那么多动作，自然简单。而且传递的信息也并没有因此减少。

This is not at all how languages work Chinese phonology has numerous areas of complexity – the analysis of the various palatal and velar series, the analysis of finals (linguists seem unable to decide if Chinese has five, two, or zero vowels), and something you conveniently ignore, which is tone. English phonology is in some ways simpler (no tone) but in some ways more complicated (syllable structure) and in still others about the same (vowel system analysis). Both languages are quite hard to pronounce for speakers of unrelated languages. Also note that Chinese and English have roughly the same number of phonemes. Chinese has around 28, English around 30.

very complicated syntax：
这方面我不太懂，不过好像是差不多。

Pretty much all languages have complicated syntax, but isolating languages especially so. English is pretty isolating, Chinese very isolating. As such it has complicated syntax.

最重要的，我认为汉语简单的首要原因是需要背诵的词汇量很小。这个你没有提到。
汉语是表意的，所以认识字也就基本上认识了词，而字只有四千个。中国的中小学的教学目标都是以字为单位，没有以词为单位的。
英语就多了，要记两万五千到三万单词，哪怕是母语也要背单词背到中年。

You seem to be getting confused between the idea of a Chinese character and a word. While there are only a few thousand Chinese characters, there are still over 100,000 Chinese words. Much in the same way that English only uses 26 letters, but it has many more than 26 words. You need about the same number of words to get by in both languages (although English does have a larger amount of technical and specialised vocabulary, almost none of that is known by the majority of English speakers and is entirely restricted to its field).

所以，以上各个方面，不是汉语比英语简单，就是二者基本持平，那么总体来说，还是汉语简单。

Here you are wrong again I'm afraid I suspect that rather than having a genuine debate on the subject, you just want everyone to agree with your unfounded statement that your generic "simplified Chinese" is simpler than English.

汉语真正让人讨厌的地方在于：
1. 打字很难，如果是生僻字，不能组成词的字，要在输入法里找好久。
2. 词与词之间没有空格。尤其是遇到人名的时候，根本分不清一个字是不是人名的一部分。

This disproves your other point. If characters were the same as words, you wouldn't need any spaces.

This is a very simplistic way of looking at things. Any language which lacks in morphology makes up for it in syntax. You can still express plurality and tenses in Chinese, you just have to learn analytic constructions rather than synthetic constructions. You say that 动词有各种时态 (for those who can't speak Chinese, roughly "verbs have all sorts of tenses"), but in reality English only has two morphological tenses, with the rest being formed in roughly the same ways that Chinese forms them.

你说的不对。确实每种语言都要表现时态，但是有些方法就是好过其他方法。中文是提前设定好时态，然后后面说的一切就都属于这个时态，所以不需要改变每个动词。但是英语正好相反。
比如我要讲一件发生在上周的事，第一句话我就会说“上周……”，然后后面的100个动词都不需要变化。
但是英语里，我需要把这100个词都变成过去式。你怎么能说这两种方法一样好呢？

This is not at all how languages work Chinese phonology has numerous areas of complexity – the analysis of the various palatal and velar series, the analysis of finals (linguists seem unable to decide if Chinese has five, two, or zero vowels), and something you conveniently ignore, which is tone. English phonology is in some ways simpler (no tone) but in some ways more complicated (syllable structure) and in still others about the same (vowel system analysis). Both languages are quite hard to pronounce for speakers of unrelated languages. Also note that Chinese and English have roughly the same number of phonemes. Chinese has around 28, English around 30.

关于语调，是我错了，我忘了提到它。抱歉！确实，在这一点上，汉语比英语更难。
但是我不觉得你反驳了我关于汉语语速慢、口腔运动少的观点。我觉得这个论点还是成立的。
Here is evidence: https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/language-speed

关于你说汉语更难发音，也不对。中文只有1300个不同的音节（包含声调），英语有上万个，怎么可能汉语更难发音呢？

Pretty much all languages have complicated syntax, but isolating languages especially so. English is pretty isolating, Chinese very isolating. As such it has complicated syntax.

其实，为什么汉语的句子很短，比英语短得多？就是汉语的语法更简单，简单到根本不支持长句子，所以汉语使用者必须把长句子拆开。
汉语里没有that，who, where，所以从句和主句很难分开。句子一长，就让人看不懂了。
所以这一点上，我觉得还是汉语简单。英语里，经常一句话就是一个段落。
你看我写的句子，都很短。

You seem to be getting confused between the idea of a Chinese character and a word. While there are only a few thousand Chinese characters, there are still over 100,000 Chinese words. Much in the same way that English only uses 26 letters, but it has many more than 26 words. You need about the same number of words to get by in both languages (although English does have a larger amount of technical and specialised vocabulary, almost none of that is known by the majority of English speakers and is entirely restricted to its field).

不对。我已经说了，汉语是表意的，认识了字，也就认识了词。但是英语必须挨个背单词。
举个例子，英语里的aroma，这个拼写不能提供任何有关词义的信息，所以必须死记硬背。
但是汉语里它的意思是“芳香”，两个字都是香的意思，所以认识了两个字，自然认识这个词。
再举一例：smite这个词，在中文里是“重击”的意思。如果你知道“重”的意思，也知道“击”的意思，自然知道重击的意思。但是在英语里，人们必须死记硬背这个新词。

Here you are wrong again I'm afraid I suspect that rather than having a genuine debate on the subject, you just want everyone to agree with your unfounded statement that your generic "simplified Chinese" is simpler than English.

咱们有什么区别呢？你只是想维护你的母语的尊严而已，想让其他语言的使用者承认英语更简单。

This disproves your other point. If characters were the same as words, you wouldn't need any spaces.

我从来没说过字和词是完全一样，我说的是他俩高度关联。

[VaptuantaDoi]

I ain't reading allat.

[Oligey]

I ain't reading allat.

Forgive me for replying in Chinese. I have to. It is to confirm that the person who is arguing with me really knows about Chinese.
Apparently you don't. I stated this in the post.
I am not expecting you to be a native speaker, but at least you should be able to read Chinese fluently.
If you want to compare 2 things, you have to know both. I hope that is understandable.
I used to discuss this topic with ppl who only know English but not Chinese, and the debate soon devolved to them being so desperate to defend the pride of their mother tongue.
I understand. When one possesses only one item, it is of course always perfect to them, because it is all they have, and the fact that there are other possibilities in this world is beyond their imagination.
I am not saying Chinese is perfect or something, it is definitely not as accurate as French for example, but it is simpler and of a sufficient level of accuracy, so overall it is better than English.

[Keenir]

I ain't reading allat.

I think that thats what Oligey is counting on - and is thinking victory can be claimed from such a response.

Thats not what you said in the OP, and I quote:

1. You know both languages, Chinese and English.

This exactly what I said in the post. Either language is OK, why texts in Chinese is cheating?
What is your logic?

Script =/= Language

[Keenir]

I ain't reading allat.

Forgive me for replying in Chinese.

We'll do that when you understand what you're doing; thus far, you don't.

I have to. It is to confirm that the person who is arguing with me really knows about Chinese.
Apparently you don't.
If you want to compare 2 things, you have to know both. I hope that is understandable.

Except you're not using the same Sinitic script for English, nor the Latin script for any Chinese. therefore you aren't comparing them.

I am not saying Chinese is perfect or something, it is definitely not as accurate as French for example,

Given that you can't tell the difference between a language and a script, I'm not sure you can be trusted to explain why you think French is more accurate than "Chinese".

but it is simpler and of a sufficient level of accuracy, so overall it is better than English.

...which you still have not provided evidence for.

[Oligey]

I ain't reading allat.

Forgive me for replying in Chinese.

We'll do that when you understand what you're doing; thus far, you don't.

I have to. It is to confirm that the person who is arguing with me really knows about Chinese.
Apparently you don't.
If you want to compare 2 things, you have to know both. I hope that is understandable.

Except you're not using the same Sinitic script for English, nor the Latin script for any Chinese. therefore you aren't comparing them.

I am not saying Chinese is perfect or something, it is definitely not as accurate as French for example,

Given that you can't tell the difference between a language and a script, I'm not sure you can be trusted to explain why you think French is more accurate than "Chinese".

but it is simpler and of a sufficient level of accuracy, so overall it is better than English.

...which you still have not provided evidence for.

Just don't participate in this discussion, please, if you don't know Chinese.
There are certain debates that you cannot be a part of. It is normal.
I cannot discuss Latin with you, and I am not frustrated.

[VaptuantaDoi]

I ain't reading allat.

I think that thats what Oligey is counting on - and is thinking victory can be claimed from such a response.

The chances of convincing him of anything are negligible.

[Keenir]

Just don't participate in this discussion, please, if you don't know Chinese.

I know Mandarin and a bit of Cantonese, hoping to learn some Hokkien in the coming year; as to the other side, mostly Giles-Wade, I believe. Which do you know?

I cannot discuss Latin with you, and I am not frustrated.

To quote a cartoon, "Confucus say, fool know not he be fool." :)

[Dormouse559]

I am happy to exchange opinions, but please make sure the following before participating in the discussion:

Hi Oligey, I’m one of the site moderators. Since you’re new to the forum, I’d like you to read the House Rules, with particular emphasis on the first.

You’re behaving more than a little rudely by telling fellow forum members that they can’t join this discussion based on your own judgments, and then testing them without consent. If they want to contribute, they’re allowed to.

Further, on an informal basis, it’s good practice on here to include an English translation of any extensive non-English text outside of the monolingual threads in “Language Learning & Non-English.”