on the English language

[Etherealicer]

My native language is Dutch, but I learned English, French, German, Latin and Greek in school. Comparing them I´d say that English is a relatively simple language even though it has some quirks.

To be honest, I don´t remember much of the French and Greek but I can read German and Latin.

English is a fairly easy language, but there are some challenges to it.

English comes with the huge amount of words and the different usage thereof in different parts of the world (British- vs. American English + regional slang). E.g. lift/elevator / vacuum/hoover, depending on where you are in the world, people might understand one, but not the other. And because most Europeans learn British English, but consume American English content (internet / movies etc.) we have not a clear grasp what is what. This makes it quiet confusing if someone doesn't understand a basic word like lift.

Another problem is/are native English speakers (sorry guys)*. Many never learn a second language, because there is little need for it. So, they lack that experience. This means they have a harder time understanding poor pronunciation and it doesn't occur to them to speak slower and in easier sentences. The 3rd problem resulting from this are names. Native English speakers can say my name fine... until they learn how to spell it and suddenly they can't say it anymore My name is Beat (from the Latin beatus, meaning lucky) I'm a pacifist and don't beat anyone.

* It is not exclusive to English speakers. It can be observed in older generations of Germans and is probably most prominent with the French.

[Poncho65]

If not for your or Enki's (perhaps even Grant) pronunciation of it  I would have never learned how to say your name correctly, Beat

[enki_ck]

Die Schwierigkeit sind nur die Geschlechter von Wörtern, aber wenigstens haben wir nicht den Französischen Unfug, wo das Geschlecht die Bedeutung ändert.
Tour (de France) == male == tour
Tour (Eiffel) == female == tower

.

der See =/= die See

[Etherealicer]

.

der See =/= die See

Man kann in Beiden ertrinken... I see no problem
Ausserdem ist die Unterscheidung nicht so richtig klar geregelt. Z.B. eine Definition verlangt das ein See, Zu- und Abfluss hat. Nach dieser Definition wären viele Bergseen Meere. Eine andere Definition will, dass man um ein See herumlaufen kann. Aber wenn ich der Küste eines (Super-) Kontinenten entlanglaufe bin ich dann nich um alle Weltmeere gelaufen? Das macht alles zu einer Definitionsfrage und Auslegung der Regeln.
Gemäss Physik ist jeder Körper welcher paralelle Linien hat Flach (Einfaches Beispiel, ein Blatt Papier. Da kannst Du Paralellen einzeichnen == flach. Dann kannst Du das Papier in einen Zylinder oder Konus rollen und die Linien bleiben, wesshalb auch Zylinder und Konus flach sind*). Und jetzt kommt der verwirrende Teil, die Erde hat auch Paralellen, heisst das die Erde ist flach? 

* gemäss Physik. Das ist kein Witz. Und da das beobachtbare Universum ein Zylinder ist, ist es, gemäss Physik, flach.

[pfrsantos]

I think this speaks for itself

Turtle > Turtles
Goose > Geese
Moose > Moose

Mouse > Mice
Die > Dice

ASOASF...

 

[Barry Rowland]

 

[nakken]

Mouse > Mice
Die > Dice

ASOASF...

 

[kreisler]

long time no hear ... from me  ((i moved on to a new hobby: club-level ping pong ... what a life-enriching hobby, especially in gemani!))
from Dexter Resurrection S01E09

she to Batista: "You are no longer a captain of Homicide."
Batista: "Yes. I retired."

We all understand the context, the scene. Imho grammatically his answer is wrong. However, it would be correct, if he had said a word more like
"Yes, correct. I retired.", or:
"No, i'm not. I retired.", or:
"No. I retired." (single word answer)

But using the single word answer "Yes." is imho clearly wrong ... even though everybody understands that he mean to say "Yes, that's correct.".

[Barry Rowland]

I would respond "That's correct. ".    I can't imagine informal English as a second language 

[nate j]

she to Batista: "You are no longer a captain of Homicide."
Batista: "Yes. I retired."

We all understand the context, the scene. Imho grammatically his answer is wrong. However, it would be correct, if he had said a word more like
"Yes, correct. I retired.", or:
"No, i'm not. I retired.", or:
"No. I retired." (single word answer)

But using the single word answer "Yes." is imho clearly wrong ... even though everybody understands that he mean to say "Yes, that's correct.".

The negative question creates the issue here, not the response.

It would have been better and clearer to ask “Are you still a captain of homicide?” or “Are you retired now?” etc., which could be unambiguously answered with a “yes” or a “no”.

[Grant Lamontagne]

It gets worse than that.... At least in Canada, although I've observed this elsewhere as well.

If someone said "are you not still the Captain of the homicide department" it is very likely that someone would answer "Yeah, no I retired."

In this case the "yeah" is more of an acknowledgement of the statement or question, and the "no" part is the response.

Def

[Echotech]

And just to confuse things further, then there’s Australia

Here it’s really common to hear “yeah nah” and “nah yeah”, yeah nah means no, nah yeah means yes, easy when you know  it gets worse as explained here