What are examples, if any, of "sensible" languages?

Esperanto is probably the closest thing to what you want.

It's a constructed language, gramatically composed of elements of the Romantic and Germanic language groups, but with mostly Slavic phonemes.

It was intended to serve as a global common language that was easy to learn and easy to speak.

JSRG said:

So being fluent in English, fairly competent in Spanish and mediocre in Japanese and Latin, one thing I've noticed is that all of these languages are, quite frankly, kind of crazy and not at all, for lack of a better term, "sensible."

For example, while Spanish is fairly standard in its pronunciation, the same can't be said of English (Ghoti and all that), and Japanese may be even worse than English in this regard; Japanese, if you don't know, has about two thousand different symbols that must all be memorized and can make totally different sounds based on context. Though even Spanish has the issue that while you can look at a word and know how to say it (a few letters can make different sounds but the rules for which sound to use are simple and consistent), if you hear a word it's harder to know how to spell because the letter h is silent ("hay" and "ay" are pronounced identically but have different meanings) and some letters make the same sounds as other letters.

Similarly, we run into the issue of irregular conjugations. Verbs all have a "normal" way they are conjugated but there's verbs aplenty that break those rules. In English, for example, by the normal rules the past tense of take would be taked but instead it's took. In Spanish, normal conjugation of the verb tener in the first person singular would give us "teno" (you swap out the -er for -o) but instead it's "tengo". Japanese was actually fairly consistent in conjugation from what I remember, though, outside of the fact that some verbs ending with -ru are conjugated differently from the rest of the verbs.

With Latin, you end up with the extra issue of irregular declensions... that is, how the nouns change depending on how they're used in a sentence. There's tons of irregulars there! Spanish thankfully dropped that for the most part.

Another issue is that of there being too many tenses. English seems reasonable in this regard; you have the present tense, the past tense, and then to express the future tense you just put in the word "will" in front of the present tense verb. Spanish, on the other hand, throws a bunch of extra tenses at you that are, when you get down to it, unnecessary. As far as I can tell there is little practical reason why the Preterite and Imperfect Subjunctive can't simply be removed and replaced with the Imperfect (all three are used to describe past events), which would be especially great because the Imperfect is actually the easiest tense in all of Spanish to conjugate, with only three verbs being in any way irregular. Similarly, you might as well throw out the regular Subjunctive tense and just use the Indicative instead and save Spanish learners the trouble of having to remember when to use each. It'd cut down on the irregular conjugations, too!

In fact, when we come to "conjugating" nouns we can see that problem also. Why does child become children rather than childs? And that's to say nothing of the irregular stems in all of the declensions in Latin.

Spanish has other facets that are when you get down to it unnecessary; each tense has 6 different conjugations (for first/second/third person and whether it's singular or plural) you have to remember. While it does give the "advantage" that you don't have to include the noun, it would be a lot simpler to just have the same conjugation for everyone and then to include the noun to specify who the subject is. Similarly, what is the purpose of assigning genders to inanimate objects or abstract ideas?

Granted, I doubt there's some perfect language that has nothing that makes it needlessly complicated (of natural languages, anyway--created languages like Esperanto don't count), but I can't help but look at all 4 of the languages I have some knowledge of and think that they have all kinds of facets that make them more complicated than there is any need for.

So the point of this convoluted post is to ask this: What is the most, for lack of a better term, "sensible" language? It would need, for example:
-Consistent pronunciations, preferably with even simply hearing a word allowing you to know how to spell it without fail (assuming it's heard clearly, of course).
-No irregular conjugations for verbs or nouns; if there must be irregulars, they must be small in number and therefore easy to remember.
-As few "unnecessary" aspects as possible. For example, there is no need to assign genders to objects and ideas, as it just means you have something extra to memorize for no particular reason.

Anyone who knows more languages than I do have any ideas on what languages may quality? I'm rather curious.

Click to expand...

It sounds as if you'd be an excellent candidate for a degree in linguistics - one of my favourite topics.

Languages are a microcosm of the history of a people. They reflect where they've been and what they interacted with. They are a constant compromise between the customs and habits of different speakers and the languages of conquerors and conquered.

English has a foundation of early 5th century Germanic (Anglo-Saxon, Jutish, Friesian) tempered by 9th century Scandinavian ('Viking') dialects. Add to that a superstructure based on Old French (from the Norman invasion in 1066) along with copious borrowings from Church and Vulgar Latin and a little Greek. Throw in a pile of words borrowed from every part of the Empire and you end up with a wonderful mongrel of a language where consistency is often the exception to the rule.

Even your example of child/childs has messy form. The original Anglo-Saxon word for kids was 'child' (pronounced 'chilled'). The normal plural form was 'childer'. Somewhere along the line it managed to pick up another form of plural by adding 'en' - (think of ox/'oxen' and brother/'brethren'). As a result 'child' got pluralised twice - 'child' (singular) became 'childer' (plural) and then became 'children (plural plural).

English is even a cousin to Sanscrit and the languages of Northern India - but that's another story.

OB

JSRG said:

So being fluent in English, fairly competent in Spanish and mediocre in Japanese and Latin, one thing I've noticed is that all of these languages are, quite frankly, kind of crazy and not at all, for lack of a better term, "sensible."

For example, while Spanish is fairly standard in its pronunciation, the same can't be said of English (Ghoti and all that), and Japanese may be even worse than English in this regard; Japanese, if you don't know, has about two thousand different symbols that must all be memorized and can make totally different sounds based on context. Though even Spanish has the issue that while you can look at a word and know how to say it (a few letters can make different sounds but the rules for which sound to use are simple and consistent), if you hear a word it's harder to know how to spell because the letter h is silent ("hay" and "ay" are pronounced identically but have different meanings) and some letters make the same sounds as other letters.

Similarly, we run into the issue of irregular conjugations. Verbs all have a "normal" way they are conjugated but there's verbs aplenty that break those rules. In English, for example, by the normal rules the past tense of take would be taked but instead it's took. In Spanish, normal conjugation of the verb tener in the first person singular would give us "teno" (you swap out the -er for -o) but instead it's "tengo". Japanese was actually fairly consistent in conjugation from what I remember, though, outside of the fact that some verbs ending with -ru are conjugated differently from the rest of the verbs.

With Latin, you end up with the extra issue of irregular declensions... that is, how the nouns change depending on how they're used in a sentence. There's tons of irregulars there! Spanish thankfully dropped that for the most part.

Another issue is that of there being too many tenses. English seems reasonable in this regard; you have the present tense, the past tense, and then to express the future tense you just put in the word "will" in front of the present tense verb. Spanish, on the other hand, throws a bunch of extra tenses at you that are, when you get down to it, unnecessary. As far as I can tell there is little practical reason why the Preterite and Imperfect Subjunctive can't simply be removed and replaced with the Imperfect (all three are used to describe past events), which would be especially great because the Imperfect is actually the easiest tense in all of Spanish to conjugate, with only three verbs being in any way irregular. Similarly, you might as well throw out the regular Subjunctive tense and just use the Indicative instead and save Spanish learners the trouble of having to remember when to use each. It'd cut down on the irregular conjugations, too!

In fact, when we come to "conjugating" nouns we can see that problem also. Why does child become children rather than childs? And that's to say nothing of the irregular stems in all of the declensions in Latin.

Spanish has other facets that are when you get down to it unnecessary; each tense has 6 different conjugations (for first/second/third person and whether it's singular or plural) you have to remember. While it does give the "advantage" that you don't have to include the noun, it would be a lot simpler to just have the same conjugation for everyone and then to include the noun to specify who the subject is. Similarly, what is the purpose of assigning genders to inanimate objects or abstract ideas?

Granted, I doubt there's some perfect language that has nothing that makes it needlessly complicated (of natural languages, anyway--created languages like Esperanto don't count), but I can't help but look at all 4 of the languages I have some knowledge of and think that they have all kinds of facets that make them more complicated than there is any need for.

So the point of this convoluted post is to ask this: What is the most, for lack of a better term, "sensible" language? It would need, for example:
-Consistent pronunciations, preferably with even simply hearing a word allowing you to know how to spell it without fail (assuming it's heard clearly, of course).
-No irregular conjugations for verbs or nouns; if there must be irregulars, they must be small in number and therefore easy to remember.
-As few "unnecessary" aspects as possible. For example, there is no need to assign genders to objects and ideas, as it just means you have something extra to memorize for no particular reason.

Anyone who knows more languages than I do have any ideas on what languages may quality? I'm rather curious.

Click to expand...

I used to work with a Romanian. He had a good command of English but a strong accent. He said how hard he found it to learn English and said that Romanian was much more consistent. Since English is a mongrel language with Latin, Greek, French incorporated into the original (whatever that was) it's not surprising that it's a mess.

Interesting topic. I also think there are many unnecessary features in language. Any language, is my guess. Which is normal of course, just by the fact that natural languages are not designed, but evolve.

Verb conjugations! Bweuh! Who needs that? Many childs learning french including me when i was younger being annoyed with all the tenses.

And then i discovered Chinese.
No conjugations. At all. I run, he run, they run, we run yesterday, tomorrow you run.

You mentioned gender of objects. Doesnt exist. Even he and she, same word (sound).

Obviously there is a flip side of the coin. You don't like 2000 characters in japanese, you won't like the many times more in chinese. Well you don't need to know them all, but they are there. I wouldn't call 'having many characters' as superfluous, or not sensible. (you are looking for sensible, not simple, right?) There are a few things i would call superfluous but generally, grammar is very limited.
Wonderful language.

Great article you posted there. Very enjoyable & satisfying read for anyone who has struggled with the language. Especially the part about classical chinese is so witty. I had actually read that part years ago. Nice to see it in the full article.

Anyway, i wanted to make another suggestion to you. As i agree with you on the difficulties in chinese. The Indonesian language combines some of the advantages of chinese, with the English alphabet. I am not knowledgeable on Indonesian though. But i understand it also has no conjugations. Plurals are very easy.
Easy to learn. I never did though. Maybe experts here who can explain how easy it is?

Well, there IS the Finno-Ugric Finnish, which is pretty straightforward when it comes to pronounciation: what you see is what you get.

No articles a/an/the and no gendered pronouns -- we have all been just and no less than häns since 1543



And no prepositions -- well, sort of.

But... There's always a but, right?!
Speaking of Finnish conjuctions and stuff... Let's just say it is a land of plenty!

English: A dog.
Swedish: What?
English: The dog.
English: Two dogs.
Swedish: Okay. We have: En hund, hunden, två hundar, hundarna.
German: Wait, I wan't to try it too!
English: No, go away.
Swedish: No one invited you.
German: Der Hund.
English: I said go away....
German: Ein Hund, zwei Hunde.
Swedish: Stop it!
German: Den Hund, einen Hund, dem Hund, einem Hund, des Hundes, eines Hundes, den Hunden, der Hunden.
Finnish: Sup.
English: NO.
Swedish: NO.
German: NO. Finn, you go away!!
Finnish: Koira, koiran, koiraa, koiran again, koirassa, koirasta, koiraan, koiralla, koiralta, koiralle, koirana, koiraksi, koiratta, koirineen, koirin.
German: WHAT?
Swedish: You must be kidding us!
English: This must be a joke...
Finnish: Aaaand... koirasi, koirani, koiransa, koiramme, koiranne, koiraani, koiraasi, koiraansa, koiraamme, koiraanne, koirassani, koirassasi, koirassansa, koirassamme, koirassanne, koirastani, koirastasi, koirastansa, koirastamme, koirastanne, koirallani, koirallasi, koirallansa, koirallamme, koirallanne, koiranani, koiranasi, koiranansa, koiranamme, koirananne, koirakseni, koiraksesi, koiraksensa, koiraksemme, koiraksenne, koirattani, koirattasi, koirattansa, koirattamme, koirattanne, koirineni, koirinesi, koirinensa, koirinemme, koirinenne.
English: Those are words for a dog???
Finnish: Wait! I didn't stop yet. There is still: koirakaan, koirankaan, koiraakaan, koirassakaan, koirastakaan, koiraankaan, koirallakaan, koiraltakaan, koirallekaan, koiranakaan, koiraksikaan, koirattakaan, koirineenkaan, koirinkaan, koirako, koiranko, koiraako, koirassako, koirastako, koiraanko, koirallako, koiraltako, koiralleko, koiranako, koiraksiko, koirattako, koirineenko, koirinko, koirasikaan, koiranikaan, koiransakaan, koirammekaan, koirannekaan, koiraanikaan, koiraasikaan, koiraansakaan, koiraammekaan, koiraannekaan, koirassanikaan, koirassasikaan, koirassansakaan, koirassammekaan, koirassannekaan, koirastanikaan, koirastasikaan, koirastansakaan, koirastammekaan, koirastannekaan, koirallanikaan, koirallasikaan, koirallansakaan, koirallammekaan, koirallannekaan, koirananikaan, koiranasikaan, koiranansakaan, koiranammekaan, koiranannekaan, koiraksenikaan, koiraksesikaan, koiraksensakaan, koiraksemmekaan, koiraksennekaan, koirattanikaan, koirattasikaan, koirattansakaan, koirattammekaan, koirattannekaan, koirinenikaan, koirinesikaan, koirinensakaan, koirinemmekaan, koirinennekaan, koirasiko, koiraniko, koiransako, koirammeko, koiranneko, koiraaniko, koiraasiko, koiraansako, koiraammeko, koiraanneko, koirassaniko, koirassasiko, koirassansako, koirassammeko, koirassanneko, koirastaniko, koirastasiko, koirastansako, koirastammeko, koirastanneko, koirallaniko, koirallasiko, koirallansako, koirallammeko, koirallanneko, koirananiko, koiranasiko, koiranansako, koiranammeko, koirananneko, koirakseniko, koiraksesiko, koiraksensako, koiraksemmeko, koiraksenneko, koirattaniko, koirattasiko, koirattansako, koirattammeko, koirattanneko, koirineniko, koirinesiko, koirinensako, koirinemmeko, koirinenneko, koirasikaanko, koiranikaanko, koiransakaanko, koirammekaanko, koirannekaanko, koiraanikaanko, koiraasikaanko, koiraansakaanko, koiraammekaanko, koiraannekaanko, koirassanikaanko, koirassasikaanko, koirassansakaanko, koirassammekaanko, koirassannekaanko, koirastanikaanko, koirastasikaanko, koirastansakaanko, koirastammekaanko, koirastannekaanko, koirallanikaanko, koirallasikaanko, koirallansakaanko, koirallammekaanko, koirallannekaanko, koirananikaanko, koiranasikaanko, koiranansakaanko, koiranammekaanko, koiranannekaanko, koiraksenikaanko, koiraksesikaanko, koiraksensakaanko, koiraksemmekaanko, koiraksennekaanko, koirattanikaanko, koirattasikaanko, koirattansakaanko, koirattammekaanko, koirattannekaanko, koirinenikaanko, koirinesikaanko, koirinensakaanko, koirinemmekaanko, koirinennekaanko, koirasikokaan, koiranikokaan, koiransakokaan, koirammekokaan, koirannekokaan, koiraanikokaan, koiraasikokaan, koiraansakokaan, koiraammekokaan, koiraannekokaan, koirassanikokaan, koirassasikokaan, koirassansakokaan, koirassammekokaan, koirassannekokaan, koirastanikokaan, koirastasikokaan, koirastansakokaan, koirastammekokaan, koirastannekokaan, koirallanikokaan, koirallasikokaan, koirallansakokaan, koirallammekokaan, koirallannekokaan, koirananikokaan, koiranasikokaan, koiranansakokaan, koiranammekokaan, koiranannekokaan, koiraksenikokaan, koiraksesikokaan, koiraksensakokaan, koiraksemmekokaan, koiraksennekokaan, koirattanikokaan, koirattasikokaan, koirattansakokaan, koirattammekokaan, koirattannekokaan, koirinenikokaan, koirinesikokaan, koirinensakokaan, koirinemmekokaan, koirinennekokaan.
English:
Swedish:
German:
Finnish: Aaand now the plural forms!

True story!

P.S. If you are interested in learning those plural forms, too, feel free to pm me.

I'm told Afrikaans has a very simple grammatical structure (probably due to its origins as a kind of pidgin Dutch). My own Afrikaans is too limited to tell you whether the claim stands up to reality, though.

And of course, there is the limitation that there are very few places in the world where that will be a useful language for you!

Paidiske said:

I'm told Afrikaans has a very simple grammatical structure (probably due to its origins as a kind of pidgin Dutch). My own Afrikaans is too limited to tell you whether the claim stands up to reality, though.

And of course, there is the limitation that there are very few places in the world where that will be a useful language for you!

Click to expand...

I just discovered that, outside of the African continent, Australia has the biggest number of Afrikaans speakers.

OB

Occams Barber said:

I just discovered that, outside of the Africa continent, Australia has the biggest number of Afrikaans speakers.

OB

Click to expand...

Lots of white South Africans fled here; relatively close geographically and culturally, similar climate, and so on.

That said, I have never had a need or use for my limited Afrikaans here, and there's a real stigma about being an Afrikaans speaker. My only sadness about that is that so much of my dad's culture has become inaccessible to me.

I was going to start a fun thread asking everyone what words and word spellings they would want added, subtracted, or replaced. No matter what the reasons behind English language rules are, words like "of" or "one" will never make sense. Neither do the silent letters and requirement to write two letters for a sound instead of one letter for "ch" and one for "sh" and one for "th" in the alphabet. What would you spell for a word that, based on its pronunciation or meaning, does not make sense as it is?

Example: The plural for ox should be oxes, not oxen. I also agree on taked vs. took. The past test for run should be runned, not ran.

We should not have a Q in our alphabet. There is no reason English can't have the "kw" sound by writing it that way - kw.

JSRG said:

Well, as I noted, the question is whether something is "needlessly complicated." I am not sure whether I could the definite and indefinite articles as such. The fact languages exist without them proves you can go without them, and by and large you could strip them out of English sentences and they'd make perfect sense. On the other hand, they are useful sometimes in better clarifying meaning. Latin didn't have them, but (as far as I know) every single Romance languages does... I don't think they'd all develop them unless there was an actual reason to do so, i.e. better clarification.

Of course, as I come from a language that uses them, it may be blinding me to the difficulty in learning the concepts which could offset any small gain in clarity. I'd be curious how hard it is for someone coming from a language without them to get a handle on when to use them.

Click to expand...

Of course, it is in no way super hard to learn, it is basically just about memorizing and learning, after all, but stuff that still complicates things a bit. For a Finnish speaker, the first hurdle of English is to learn to separate female persons from male persons with she and he. Articles are the next one. Thankfully there are just four options. I still simply forget to put one in there occasionally, and also get the logic of none/definite/indefinite wrong at times, because my native language doesn't have them. But you are right, in most cases incorrect or forgotten article doesn't really interfere with understanding.

English prepositions are the trickiest one, IMO, not least because the logic -- whether something is in or on or at the table and the like -- is fairly similar to my second language, Swedish, both being Indo-European Germanic languages, but still with some differences where the logic departs to two different directions, muddying the waters further.

Word order is also something that I as a non-native English speaker have to pay extra attention to, because word order in Finnish is more relaxed.

Joe loves woods. Woods Joe loves. Loves Joe woods. Woods loves Joe. Loves woods Joe.
Joe rakastaa metsiä. Metsiä rakastaa Joe. Rakastaa metsiä Joe. Joe metsiä rakastaa. Metsiä Joe rakastaa. Perhaps somewhat more poetic, but still perfectly correct and preserves the meaning.

I went to the park for a walk today:
Kävin tänään puistossa kävelyllä. Tänään kävin puistossa kävelyllä. Puistossa kävelyllä kävin tänään. Kävelyllä kävin puistossa tänään. No difference and the meaning doesn't get destroyed.

Kalevalatar said:

English prepositions are the trickiest one, IMO, not least because the logic - whether something is in or on or at the table and the like - is fairly similar to my second language, Swedish, both being Indo-European Germanic languages, but still with some differences where the logic departs to two different directions, muddying the waters further.

Click to expand...

In: You put clothes in a drawer.
On: You put clothes on the top of your dresser.
At: You stood at your dresser to put your clothes away.

See the difference?

Word order is also something that I as a non-native English speaker have to pay extra attention to, because word order in Finnish is more relaxed.

Joe loves woods. Woods Joe loves. Loves Joe woods. Woods loves Joe. Loves woods Joe.

Joe rakastaa metsiä. Metsiä rakastaa Joe. Rakastaa metsiä Joe. Joe metsiä rakastaa. Metsiä Joe rakastaa. Perhaps somewhat more poetic, but still perfectly correct and preserves the meaning.

Click to expand...

"Joe loves the woods" is correct in English because if you wrote woods before Joe, it looks like trees have the ability to feel love, which they obviously do not. Joe is the subject - meaning the sentence is all about him, not the trees. Also, we say or write "the woods" for context. Without that word it does not specify Joe likes to be in a forest.

I studied French and Spanish. Personally I found Spanish the easier of the two to learn, because it is very phonetic and it minimalises the use of pronouns. Unfortunately I never kept up with Spanish and today I have forgotten most of what I learned.

I carried on studying French, and spent a part of my university course living in France where I became more confident in the language. These days, I am by no means fluent, but I can read books and articles easily and can speak it fairly confidently. I find French an easier language to pronounce than Spanish, because for me, I could never manage to do the alveolar trill that is essential for pronouncing many Spanish words. I can manage the uvular trill much better.

Another language that fascinates me is Welsh, but it is a very complex language and very difficult to pronounce. I live not far from the border of Wales and have regularly been there, so I have learned words from reading the many signs displayed in the language.

ChristianForCats said:

"Joe loves the woods" is correct in English because if you wrote woods before Joe, it looks like trees have the ability to feel love, which they obviously do not. Joe is the subject - meaning the sentence is all about him, not the trees. Also, we say or write "the woods" for context. Without that word it does not specify Joe likes to be in a forest.

Click to expand...

"Joe loves the woods" is correct in English because it matches the fairly strict English Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) word order rule, i.e..


Many other languages use 'inflection' to indicate things like who did what to who, making word order less important. 'Inflections' are endings added to words to indicate tense, person, number, gender, mood, voice, and case. In English adding 's' to a noun is an inflection indicating a plural (dog/dogs). Adding 'ed' to most verbs is an inflection indicating past tense (walk/walked). In other languages inflections can be suffixes, prefixes or even infixes (within- word additions).

In Old English (~5th to 11th century) word order wasn't important since it relied heavily on a range of inflections from the original Germanic dialects (Angle, Saxon, Jute, Friesian) which formed the basis of English. Over time most of these inflections were lost. As inflections were lost, word order became more important.

I'm not familiar with Finnish but I'm willing to bet it's full of inflections making up for it's informal word order.

Want to know more? Go to Inflection | linguistics | Britannica
OB

ChristianForCats said:

Neither do the silent letters and requirement to write two letters for a sound instead of one letter for "ch" and one for "sh" and one for "th" in the alphabet. What would you spell for a word that, based on its pronunciation or meaning, does not make sense as it is?

Click to expand...

Before the printing press we used to have a character for 'th'. It was called 'thorn' and looked like this - þ.

Since the type face sets for early presses came from Europe they didn't include a þ character. At first English printers substituted the letter Y for the missing þ character. This is why 'the' came to look like 'Ye' in many old books (e.g., Ye Old Shoppe). Eventually Y fell out of favour as a substitute for 'th' since it represented a different sound.

OB

Took me about 6 months to learn English when i was about 4 months old. I had special lessons with a Grate Dane. It was a little difficult in the beginning as every word i pronounced started with a growl (Rrrrrrr).

Occams Barber said:

Before the printing press we used to have a character for 'th'. It was called 'thorn' and looked like this - þ.

Since the type face sets for early presses came from Europe they didn't include a þ character. At first English printers substituted the letter Y for the missing þ character. This is why 'the' came to look like 'Ye' in many old books (e.g. Ye Old Shoppe). Eventually Y fell out of favor as a substitute for 'th' since it represented a different sound.

Click to expand...

The word ye also means you, as in "Come all Ye Faithful."

How did you type the thorn on your keyboard?