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

[Arayaz]

你会不会中文，会的话就讨论我的问题，不会就闭嘴，别跟我扯什么乱七八糟的。
永远是你这种一句中国话都不会的人，蹦出来，使出吃奶的劲给英语辩护。

I am not defending English. I just believe that it is not practical to say that any natural language is simpler than another.

I do not speak any of the Chinese languages. But! It is possible to know things about languages that one does not speak!
I would need to have experience with a Chinese language to judge it as being simpler or more complicated than English, but I don't need experience with it to generalize that it's not a good idea to compare the complexity of natural languages.

I'd prefer this thread get locked since it's not really going anywhere except into the dumpster fire, but I'm also happy to continue arguing the point.

[Oligey]

Chinese (simplified Chinese: 汉语; traditional Chinese: 漢語; pinyin: Hànyǔ; lit. 'Han language' or 中文; Zhōngwén; 'Chinese writing') is a group of languages spoken natively by the ethnic Han Chinese majority and many minority ethnic groups in Greater China.

From Wikipedia.
I'm not going to argue the point about which language is simpler, because I doubt it's possible to compare them. I'm protesting your implication that Chinese is one language. You also seem to be unable to differentiate a script and a language: Simplified Chinese is a writing system. Not a language.

I see, you consider dialects like Shanghainese and Cantonese languages, so Chinese is a family.
But now I am telling you they are just dialects. It is funny that you and Salmoneus said this out of political purposes but accused me of it.

At the end of the day, there could be narrow and broad definition of Chinese, I used the narrow one and you know it, but you just want to argue that only your defintion is correct because you want to troll.

You don't accept it? You think Cantonese is a lang so HongKong can be independent?
It is OK, I don't mind, because it doesn't have anything to do with my original post at all!
Keep diverging the whole question.

I doubt it's possible to compare them.

Because you cannot read or write Chinese, so you can only doubt.

You also seem to be unable to differentiate a script and a language: Simplified Chinese is a writing system. Not a language.

What I mean is Chinese with the simplified chars. I said that because some ppl may think Chinese is hard due to the traditional chars.
Again, why it is related to the question itself?
You strategy is when you are unable to participate in the original discussion you just introduce unrelated topics to muddy the water.

Okay, so here we might have a civilized discussion. I misunderstood you ─ I thought you were arguing that SImplified Chinese was a language in and of itself.

I'm not sure what you mean by "you think Cantonese is a lang so HongKong can be independent," but I can assure you I don't have any political beliefs I wish to discuss here.

As for the original question:

English is an isolating language with a somewhat complicated phonology, which relies heavily on analytic strategies rather than morphology.
Standard Chinese is an isolating language with a somewhat complicated phonology, which relies heavily on analytic strategies rather than morphology.

They are very similar from a grammatical point of view. As for the "complexity" of the languages ─ it's not very easy to measure complexity without making inherent assumptions based on your native language. English speakers would consider Inuktitut a very complicated language ─ look at all those suffixes! But a Yup’ik speaker would view Inuktitut as simple, since their structures are so similar.

Similarly, from an English point of view without linguistic education, "complexity" is really just "difference from English." Since one of the main areas that languages tend to differ from English is morphology, we look at languages that don't rely heavily on it and think that they're simpler. But this is a perception based on the native language of the person.

I don't think you speak English natively. I'd guess some Chinese language is your native tongue, since you pose the question, but I have no way of knowing for sure. But know that people always consider their language the simplest until they look into linguistics and realize that "simple" is a relative term.

我很愿意跟你讨论原来的问题，但是首先你要证明你懂中文。
为什么？就看你的论点就知道，我在和VaptuantaDoi讨论时已经全部反驳过了，但是你看不懂，所以你要再说一遍。
你不懂中文，你根本没资格跟我讨论。

我母语是不是英语有什么关系？我要求你的母语是汉语了吗？没有吧？我只要求你懂一定程度的中文，好歹会读会写，但是你不满足条件。
我不会跟你浪费时间。

[Khemehekis]

To clarify, Oligey, the point of my sarcastic statement about Esperanto was to show how silly it is to argue that one language being (allegedly) simpler than another makes the former language "better" than the latter language.

[Oligey]

你会不会中文，会的话就讨论我的问题，不会就闭嘴，别跟我扯什么乱七八糟的。
永远是你这种一句中国话都不会的人，蹦出来，使出吃奶的劲给英语辩护。

I am not defending English. I just believe that it is not practical to say that any natural language is simpler than another.

I do not speak any of the Chinese languages. But! It is possible to know things about languages that one does not speak!
I would need to have experience with a Chinese language to judge it as being simpler or more complicated than English, but I don't need experience with it to generalize that it's not a good idea to compare the complexity of natural languages.

I'd prefer this thread get locked since it's not really going anywhere except into the dumpster fire, but I'm also happy to continue arguing the point.

我就一句话：你懂中文，我就跟你讨论；你不懂中文，你就没资格，我就不会在你身上浪费时间。
你觉得你能从什么宏观角度来辩论，那是你自己的看法。汉语能简单到什么程度根本超出你的想象。
你现在在做的，就好像原始人想象外星科技一样。你觉得外星也和地球一样，真的吗？你怎么知道？

你觉得这个帖子没意义，那是因为还没有遇到懂中文的人。如果以后出现一个汉语使用者，那这个问题就会很有意义。
所以，不要从你自己的角度去否定一个话题。
你的论点，我在和VaptuantaDoi对话时全都提到过，我不会再说第二遍。你看不懂是你的问题。

[Oligey]

To clarify, Oligey, the point of my sarcastic statement about Esperanto was to show how silly it is to argue that one language being (allegedly) simpler than another makes the former language "better" than the latter language.

And my sarcastic statement was to show that it is totally possible.
Chinese is not as popular as English doesn't mean it is not better or simpler.

[Khemehekis]

A very simple language:

https://tokipona.org/

Is this the best language there is, Oligey?

[Arayaz]

I've encountered people like this before who don't really grasp linguistics and refuse to listen to other people's arguments. Oligey is actually the most reasonable of the ones I've met, actually!

You say you have refuted all of my arguments when talking to VaptuantaDoi, but I don't remember you ever mentioning my claim, which is that it's not reasonable to compare the "complexity" of the two languages. If you can take the time to say that you won't repeat the answer, you can take the time to say your answer again.

Or in (Standard) Chinese, if you'd prefer that:

你说你在与VaptuantaDoi交谈时反驳了我的所有论点…但我不记得你对我的主张说过任何话，即比较两种语言的“复杂性”是不合理的。 如果您能花时间说您不会重复答案，您就可以花时间再次说出您的答案。

yes i did use google translate for some of that, no i don't care

Also, there's no such thing as one language being "better" than another... arguing that one's language is better, more simple, easier to learn, a better language for everyone to speak, etc., all claims I've heard before, is egocentrism. You'd make a good auxlanger.

[Oligey]

I've encountered people like this before who don't really grasp linguistics and refuse to listen to other people's arguments. Oligey is actually the most reasonable of the ones I've met, actually!

You say you have refuted all of my arguments when talking to VaptuanaDoi...but I don't remember you saying anything about my claim, which is that it's not reasonable to compare the "complexity" of the two languages. If you can take the time to say that you won't repeat the answer, you can take the time to say your answer again.

Or in (Standard) Chinese, if you'd prefer that:

你说你在与VaptuanaDoi交谈时反驳了我的所有论点…但我不记得你对我的主张说过任何话，即比较两种语言的“复杂性”是不合理的。 如果您能花时间说您不会重复答案，您就可以花时间再次说出您的答案。

yes i did use google translate for some of that, no i don't care

Also, there's no such thing as one language being "better" than another... arguing that one's language is better, more simple, easier to learn, a better language for everyone to speak, etc., all claims I've heard before, is egocentrism. You'd make a good auxlanger.

Using ChatGPT doesn't mean you know Chinese. You are still not qualified IMO.
Did I say I won't waste time anymore?
You can stop here and claim victory. I don't mind.

[Oligey]

A very simple language:

https://tokipona.org/

Is this the best language there is, Oligey?

Did I used the word "possible" or "certainly"?

[Oligey]

I set the bar of "knowing both langs" to prevent ppl who don't have sufficient knowledge from conducting a meaningless argument, but still there are ppl like VaptuantaDoi, Salmoneus, Arayaz who used their imagination about a foreign lang to start a debate "by force".

You guys just don't yield, do you?
Admitting your incapability in this topic will hurt your self-pride, so you must argue.
The desire is so strong despite the fact that the only thing you can cling to is your imagination about Chinese.

Claim your victory or lock the thread as you will. I won't waste time no more.
I will wait for a person who really knows both langs, at what time this question will become meaningful.

[Arayaz]

I don't need to know Chinese to argue the point that "complexity" is not a meaningful category of comparison for *any* language.

I don't need to imagine things about Chinese, and in fact I never have done that anywhere in this thread. I cited my source for the language-family argument. Anything else that I have said, you, as a speaker of Chinese, can confirm, with your own knowledge.

If I say anything about Chinese that you disagree with, please do tell me what it is.

I want this to be a meaningful discussion, so I'll ask you:
What is your reasoning for arguing that Standard Chinese is more simple than English?



Also, for what it's worth, I didn't use ChatGPT, though it is arguably a better translator than Google.

[Oligey]

I don't need to know Chinese to argue the point that "complexity" is not a meaningful category of comparison for *any* language.

I don't need to imagine things about Chinese, and in fact I never have done that anywhere in this thread. I cited my source for the language-family argument. Anything else that I have said, you, as a speaker of Chinese, can confirm, with your own knowledge.

If I say anything about Chinese that you disagree with, please do tell me what it is.

I want this to be a meaningful discussion, so I'll ask you:
What is your reasoning for arguing that Standard Chinese is more simple than English?



Also, for what it's worth, I didn't use ChatGPT, though it is arguably a better translator than Google.

OK, let's do this one by one aspect.
The most important reason is that, in CN, learners need to memorize only 4K characters, but in EN, they need to memorize 25K words.

Indeed, in CN, chars are different from words, but they are highly related to the extent that if you know the chars, you know the words automatically. Your efforts paid on learning words will be minimum (not zero though).
The root reason is that CN chars have meanings.

Some ppl like to consider CN chars counterpart of EN letters. This is incorrect, because EN letters don't have meanings.
What does A mean? Or B?

One example in CN:
I encountered a word when watching a documentary, which is "magma".
In EN, its spelling doesn't hint at its meaning at all, so I had to look up the dictionary.
But in CN, it means 岩浆. The first char means "rock" and the 2nd means "liquid".
"Rock liquid", of course it is magma.
This is why CN is simpler than EN in this aspect.

If we can agree on this, we can go on to the next aspect.

[Khemehekis]

So in other words, Chinese is simpler because it's logographic? I hope I understand that right.

[Arayaz]

OK, let's do this one by one aspect.
The most important reason is that, in CN, learners need to memorize only 4K characters, but in EN, they need to memorize 25K words.

Indeed, in CN, chars are different from words, but they are highly related to the extent that if you know the chars, you know the words automatically. You efforts paid on learning words will be minimum (not zero though).
The root reason is that CN chars have meanings.

Some ppl like to consider CN chars counterpart of EN letters. This is incorrect, because EN letters don't have meanings.
What does A mean? Or B?

One example in CN:
I encountered a word when watching a documentary, which is "magma".
In EN, its spelling doesn't hint at its meaning at all, so I had to look up the dictionary.
But in CN, it means 岩浆. The first char means "rock" and the 2nd means "liquid".
"Rock liquid", of course it is magma.
This is why CN is simpler than EN in this aspect.

If we can agree on this, we can go on to the next aspect.

Now we're getting somewhere! This is only because most words in Chinese languages are made of compounds of simpler words, whereas in English, words come from a greater diversity of sources.

In Chinese you need to memorize 4k+ characters, as opposed to 25k words 26 letters.

Indeed, reading the meaning of the words is easier to interpret for Chinese languages, but the pronunciation is easier to interpret with English (though admittedly, not much). The Latin alphabet is optimized for pronunciation and minimizing the number of letters to memorize; the Chinese script is optimized for meaning.

If we can agree on that, then yes, we can move on.

[Khemehekis]

Now we're getting somewhere! This is only because most words in Chinese languages are made of compounds of simpler words, whereas in English, words come from a greater diversity of sources.

In Chinese you need to memorize 4k+ characters, as opposed to 25k words 26 letters.

Indeed, reading the meaning of the words is easier to interpret for Chinese languages, but the pronunciation is easier to interpret with English (though admittedly, not much). The Latin alphabet is optimized for pronunciation and minimizing the number of letters to memorize; the Chinese script is optimized for meaning.

If we can agree on that, then yes, we can move on.

Or, put another way: English borrows lots of roots from Latin and Greek, many Latin roots coming to English speakers from Old French, and also borrows words from Norse, Spanish, Italian, German, Modern French, Arabic, Farsi, Hindi, Japanese, Dutch, Algonquian languages, Nahuatl, and Portuguese. Words like "logography" or "polysyllabic" or "dietitian" or "sesquipedalian" are made by putting Greek or Latin roots together. Mandarin or Cantonese, however, is its own source of compound and complex words, pretty much. Split + mind + disease = schizophrenia. In fact, Japanese BORROWS these Sinitic roots to make its own learned [that's learn-ed, with two syllables] words. English is more like Japanese in this regard. Mandarin or Cantonese is more like Navajo.

That's not to say that a person studying English can't learn the Greek and Latin roots, though. Most native English speakers older than about 12, for instance, understand that the Greek word "hydro" and the Latin root "aqua" both mean water, and that -ology usually indicates the scientific study of something.

[Oligey]

OK, let's do this one by one aspect.
The most important reason is that, in CN, learners need to memorize only 4K characters, but in EN, they need to memorize 25K words.

Indeed, in CN, chars are different from words, but they are highly related to the extent that if you know the chars, you know the words automatically. You efforts paid on learning words will be minimum (not zero though).
The root reason is that CN chars have meanings.

Some ppl like to consider CN chars counterpart of EN letters. This is incorrect, because EN letters don't have meanings.
What does A mean? Or B?

One example in CN:
I encountered a word when watching a documentary, which is "magma".
In EN, its spelling doesn't hint at its meaning at all, so I had to look up the dictionary.
But in CN, it means 岩浆. The first char means "rock" and the 2nd means "liquid".
"Rock liquid", of course it is magma.
This is why CN is simpler than EN in this aspect.

If we can agree on this, we can go on to the next aspect.

Now we're getting somewhere! This is only because most words in Chinese languages are made of compounds of simpler words, whereas in English, words come from a greater diversity of sources.

In Chinese you need to memorize 4k+ characters, as opposed to 25k words 26 letters.

Indeed, reading the meaning of the words is easier to interpret for Chinese languages, but the pronunciation is easier to interpret with English (though admittedly, not much). The Latin alphabet is optimized for pronunciation and minimizing the number of letters to memorize; the Chinese script is optimized for meaning.

If we can agree on that, then yes, we can move on.

Not really.
As I said, "some ppl like to consider CN chars counterpart of EN letters. This is incorrect, because EN letters don't have meanings."
So, In Chinese you need to memorize 4k characters, as opposed to 25K words in EN.

the pronunciation is easier to interpret with English

This is 100% true, but only for each single word.
However, we have to return to the overall amount, 4k in CN vs 25k in EN.
Considered the amount in EN is 6 times more than that in CN, which overall workload regarding pronunciation is ligher?
I think it is still CN. You recite these 4k chars very laboriously, but there are only 4k after all.
In EN we can (roughly) know a word's pronunciation based on its shape, but there are 25K of them.

[Arayaz]

Not really.
As I said, "some ppl like to consider CN chars counterpart of EN letters. This is incorrect, because EN letters don't have meanings."
So, In Chinese you need to memorize 4k+ characters, as opposed to 25K words in EN.

the pronunciation is easier to interpret with English

This is 100% true, but only for each single word.
However, we have to return to the overall amount, 4k in CN vs 25k in EN.
Considered the amount in EN is 6 times more than that in CN, which overall workload regarding pronunciation is ligher?
I think it is still CN. You recite these 4k chars very laboriously, but there are only 4k after all.
In EN we can know a word's pronunciation based on its shape, but there are 25K of them.

Admittedly, English doesn't have a very consistent spelling system. I think you misunderstood my motivation for mentioning the 26 letters ─ you may well need to memorize what big words mean, or study the Greek and Latin roots, but there are only 26 letters to learn how to write, whereas in a Chinese language, there are 4,000 ─ or I'm pretty sure more ─ unique glyphs to learn. True, once you learn them all you can pretty much decode anything ─ but that's once you learn them all.

Can we say:

• English VOCABULARY is difficult until one familiarizes themselves with Greek and Latin (etc.) roots
• Chinese VOCABULARY is somewhat easier, since words are derived from other native words
• English SPELLING is difficult because it doesn't correspond to the meaning at all
• Chinese SPELLING is difficult because there are a large number of characters that one simply has to commit to memory

Vocabulary is certainly one of the most difficult areas of English for second-language learners. Similarly, the writing systems of the Chinese languages are likely the main obstacle for L2 learners of them.

Can we agree on this?

[Oligey]

Not really.
As I said, "some ppl like to consider CN chars counterpart of EN letters. This is incorrect, because EN letters don't have meanings."
So, In Chinese you need to memorize 4k+ characters, as opposed to 25K words in EN.

the pronunciation is easier to interpret with English

This is 100% true, but only for each single word.
However, we have to return to the overall amount, 4k in CN vs 25k in EN.
Considered the amount in EN is 6 times more than that in CN, which overall workload regarding pronunciation is ligher?
I think it is still CN. You recite these 4k chars very laboriously, but there are only 4k after all.
In EN we can know a word's pronunciation based on its shape, but there are 25K of them.

Admittedly, English doesn't have a very consistent spelling system. I think you misunderstood my motivation for mentioning the 26 letters ─ you may well need to memorize what big words mean, or study the Greek and Latin roots, but there are only 26 letters to learn how to write, whereas in a Chinese language, there are 4,000 ─ or I'm pretty sure more ─ unique glyphs to learn. True, once you learn them all you can pretty much decode anything ─ but that's once you learn them all.

Can we say:

• English VOCABULARY is difficult until one familiarizes themselves with Greek and Latin (etc.) roots
• Chinese VOCABULARY is somewhat easier, since words are derived from other native words
• English SPELLING is difficult because it doesn't correspond to the meaning at all
• Chinese SPELLING is difficult because there are a large number of characters that one simply has to commit to memory

Vocabulary is certainly one of the most difficult areas of English for second-language learners. Similarly, the writing systems of the Chinese languages are likely the main obstacle for L2 learners of them.

Can we agree on this?

I think we should stop here.
That is why I insist to discuss with ppl who know Chinese, because otherwise they don't know whether they should trust me or not due to the lack of hands-on experience of their own.

Our conversation is like, I try to prove CN is simpler in one area, but you want to get it even for EN by dividing the area into sub-areas, and in these sub-areas it is 2 : 2, which is a tie, meaning CN isn't really simpler. No, it is not like that.

You are reluctant to trust me because you didn't really experience how convenient CN is, and can only comprehend it by conceiving the situation.

I repeatedly emphasized the importance of overall amount, 4K vs 25K, but I am afraid you ignored it.
Why it is so important?
Just one example, I mastered all these 4k (or 3.5k at least) CN chars in elementary school, during which I held a dictionary when reading newspaper and looked up for each char that I didn't know.
But it lasted only 6 years, and after that I basically never encountered any new words.
Words like "magma" were new to me at some point, but I understood and memorized them immediately because of the reason I stated above.
You don't have this experience, so you don't want to agree with me.

In EN, no one can achieve the same in elementary school. Instead, native EN speakers need to learn new words until their mid-age.
Proof: https://blog.cyracom.com/ciiblog/the-li ... rs-compare

You see how huge the diff in simplicity here?

A CN char is harder than an EN word IN ALL ASPECTS, but when it comes to overall amount, it is simpler.

Since we cannot agree on even one aspect, I think we should stop here.

[Arayaz]

<snip>

I agree that we should end this conversation. I doubt you'll come to my point of view, and I doubt I'll come to yours (since, again, I don't like comparing the "complexity" of languages), and finding a middle ground doesn't seem easy either.

I'd appreciate it if a mod could lock the thread, but it's not a horrible cesspit of flamewarring, so I understand if it'd be better to leave it open.

[Khemehekis]

Interesting test/study. It said I know 41,576 English words.