Primitiveness depending on the language

Every language had cases. The only languages that still have them are those who didn't evolved, id est, Russian.

kys

English grammar is actually nightmarish, native anglos have no idea as they learned it by heart as babbys

>how to learn Russian grammar
>cram the verb and noun inflections
>thats it, there's a shitload of them, but thats all you really have to do

>how to learn English grammar
>you don't, because there's a billion rules regarding moods, tenses, conditionals etc all with fuckton of vague defitions and exceptions

Chinese is the oldest active language in the world and it never had cases, you're an idiot

>comparing moon runes to human language

English grammar has been simplified to a minimum. If you are having trouble with it consider suicide or at least sterilization.

simpler is better. with English its "can I have a glass of water please" but with other languages its ASLKDFJSAOJF;LSKDFJLSKDJFLK;ASJKAJEKS, AKLSDFJDJ - JDSFJSDLKFJS;LDF?????
and shit like that is exactly why you get conquered.

quality post

>shit bait or retarded monolingual burger?
The great dilemma of our time.

>can I have a glass of water please (8 words)
>мoжнo cтaкaн вoды, пoжaлyйcтa (4 words)
Whoa

>can I have a glass of water please (8 words)
>нижaйшe мoлю, coблaгoвoлитe yдocтoить мeня вaшим paзpeшeниeм нa yпoтpeблeниe вoды в кoличecтвe oднoгo cтaкaнa (14 words)
checkmate atheist

Indo-European languages in general aren't worth your time.

I'd say English and Russian are extreme opposites when it comes to their usability.

I always considered Russian (and other slav languages) way more "descriptive," so to speak. There are simply so many words in Russian, you could describe the material reality as thoroughly as possible, up to the point where you could even easily explain to a blind man what red looks like.

But at the same time, no other language can hold a candle to English when imagination is in play. That's, I think, due to the abundance of metaphorical phrases and idioms this language possesses.

That's why I think reading 'Master and Margarita' in English or 'Ulysses' in Russian is the definition of doing reading wrong, and translating them to said languages – a waste of time.

It's true that the English language isn't as *rich* as French or German in the sense that we don't have words for very specific responses or emotions (e.g. frisson). Yet, this vagueness lends itself to a free-play of imagination that is desirable in literature; if aren't told *exactly* what the response is, we are free to superimpose or recreate as we wish. The reaction isn't rendered a mere sign but is instead left open to interpretation or mental recreation.

tl:dr specificity doesn't necessarily enhance the evocative power of the novel.

this

>not being a contrarian edgelord in current year
You disgust me.

>I always considered Russian (and other slav languages) way more "descriptive," so to speak. There are simply so many words in Russian, you could describe the material reality as thoroughly as possible, up to the point where you could even easily explain to a blind man what red looks like.
Care for examples?
I'm russian and I regularly read the same books in both languages, and I'm not seeing any radical differences, unless it's a noticably bad translation (Constance Garnett's Brothers Karamazov comes to mind, holy shit that thing's terrible))
Here's Ulysses in both, please explain what makes one better/worse than the other (dialogue cut out to fit the post limit).

>STATELY, PLUMP BUCK MULLIGAN CAME FROM THE STAIRHEAD, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressing gown, ungirdled, was sustained gently-behind him by the mild morning air. He held the bowl aloft and intoned
>Solemnly he came forward and mounted the round gunrest. He faced about and blessed gravely thrice the tower, the surrounding country and the awaking mountains. Then, catching sight of Stephen Dedalus, he bent towards him and made rapid crosses in the air, gurgling in his throat and shaking his head. Stephen Dedalus, displeased and sleepy, leaned his arms on the top of the staircase and looked coldly at the shaking gurgling face that blessed him, equine in its length, and at the light untonsured hair, grained and hued like pale oak.

>Caнoвитый, жиpный Бык Maллигaн вoзник из лecтничнoгo пpoeмa, нecя в pyкaх чaшкy c пeнoй, нa кoтopoй нaкpecт лeжaли зepкaльцe и бpитвa. Жeлтый хaлaт eгo, вpacпoяcкy, cлeгкa вздымaлcя зa ним нa мягкoм yтpeннeм вeтepкe.
>Oн пoднял чaшкy пepeд coбoю и вoзглacил:
>Topжecтвeннo oн пpocлeдoвaл впepeд и взoшeл нa кpyглyю opyдийнyю плoщaдкy. Oбepнyвшиcь пo cтopoнaм, oн c вaжнocтью тpoeкpaтнo блaгocлoвил бaшню, oкpecтный бepeг и пpoбyждaющиecя гopы. Пoтoм, yвидeв Cтивeнa Дeдaлa, нaклoнилcя к нeмy и нaчaл быcтpo кpecтить вoздyх, бyлькaя гopлoм и пoдepгивaя гoлoвoй. Cтивeн Дeдaл, нeдoвoльный и зacпaнный, oблoкoтяcь нa пocлeднюю cтyпeнькy, хoлoднo cмoтpeл нa дepгaющeecя бyлькaющee лицo, чтo блaгocлoвлялo eгo, длиннoe кaк y лoшaди, и нa бecтoнзypнyю шeвeлюpy, бeлecyю, cлoвнo oкpaшeннyю пoд cвeтлый дyб.

>by far the largest vocab of all
prove it

bump

best way into linguistics?

Do you think "real" languages just spring out of fucking nowhere?

Why are Russians so fucking subhuman? Why are they so chauvinistic about a culture that has exiled or liquidated its intellectual class six different times in two centuries?

Why do they think they are more than a geographically huge version of Croatia, culturally speaking? They haven't done anything noteworthy since before Stalin.

Why do they think anyone cares what they think, when they are universally hated by all of their neighbours and pretty much everyone who has ever dealt with them?

Why can't they just keep to their Asiatic Mongolized selves in their third-world hovels?

It's just such a disgusting nationality. It's like a big fucking Africa attached to Europe.

>in the midst of a discussion of European languages some retard brings up Chinese
it's like you want to be called a retarded on purpose

Real languages tend to, you know, be mostly made up of the language. "English" isn't even mostly English.

Would you guys rather speak Russian, German, or French for volume/quality of literature?

>is there much Latin literature out there? I took 3 years of it in high school, but retained very little from the instructor along with my peers.

It seems to me, you got carried away a tad bit. We're actually discussing the language, which obviously has nothing to do with politics as well as the current plight of Russian society.

French literature is by far the best in its quality and quite extensive in quantity.

>Real languages tend to, you know, be mostly made up of the language.

If you took various components from different cars that were designed to function together and put them all together into a single machine, then you wouldn't have a real car. It might have all the mechanisms and parts needed to be a car, but it would not function easily and likely not even work at all.

This is why I don't care when people use "literally" in a way that's perceived as "wrong," because in English "literature" means can be used for any find of book, and if someone is "literate" it means she has read a lot. So when you get a factual historical account, a scientific journal, and a fantasy story all classed as "literature" why can't "literally" mean "figuratively"? Fantasy isn't "literal."

Were it a real language with internal consistency we'd likely use a Saxon-sourced phrase like "truthspake", or "truthwrit", or even just "truly" which would have a solid rock definition and wouldn't be able to be used in the way literally can be.

English is a bastard language. Generally, Indo-European language is clumsy, the main focus of communication is not in the words, it's in the presentation.
This is why Finns, Estonians, Eastern Eurooeans seem so blunt to western Europeans. Despite the fact that this is not the case.

Why did eastern Europe develop actual languages, I don't know. Maybe it was the effects of the nomads and Finno-Ugrics.

English is a tool kit for easy communication. It takes words it doesn't have. Other languages tend to be organic.
Of course, since Brits are a great people, they developed the organic aspect outside the base language. This means rich and informative culture around dialect and accent. Unlike most cultures, the lines are not only tribal, they are class based. You can instantly read a lot of personal history from the way Britons speak.

On the contrary, he has a particularly strong argument.

This "bullshit hodge-podge" is precisely the strength of English. It draws on many sources, so is equipped with a rich vocabulary. It's what made Finnegans Wake possible.

this. most people vastly overrate their ability to express themselves in english

bump. The primitiveness of English is truly staggering.

Are there any linguistics here? This isn't what I'm used to in /r/linguistics
I thought primitive languages did not exist but simpler do

The reason languages got simpler isn't because 'they evolved', but the opposite. Languages got simpler because the global population grew larger. Back in antiquity Ancient Greece alone had dozens of dialects scattered across a fairly small region of greek isles and mediterranean, so tiny, mostly isolated communities were capable of maintaining their own local dialects at a fairly sophisticated spoken level (most people were illiterate, obviously). This is impossible to do on a global scale, so languages got simpler to accomodate the lowest common denominator.
>This is why I don't care when people use "literally" in a way that's perceived as "wrong," because in English "literature" means can be used for any find of book, and if someone is "literate" it means she has read a lot. So when you get a factual historical account, a scientific journal, and a fantasy story all classed as "literature" why can't "literally" mean "figuratively"? Fantasy isn't "literal."
Autism

stfu russiaboo

>thinks it's acceptable that a word that means "absolutely true" can mean "not true at all."

>tfw 'bis auf' in German stands for both 'including' and 'excluding'

>Once at one diplomatic reception Alexander II was involved in a very serious conversation with the Russian minister of for foreign affairs, prince Gonchakov, just in front of the Prussian ambassador.
>But still there are quite a lot of things I can’t understand in Russian. For example, your word “nichego” means absolutely the same as our “nothing, empty”, as the dictionaries I use say. But it is rather strange!

>Why? – the emperor got involved in the conversation. –The English phrase “never mind” doesn’t have more sense than our “nothing”, but in some respects it means the same.

>I don’t argue, - bowed Bismarck. – But today, turning from Nevsky to the palace, the coachman swiftly turned, so I threw out into the snowdrift. And when I started to argue, he, shaking off the snow on my fur coat, repeated: “Nichego, barin, nichego!”. I wonder if an English or a German coachman could find the right words?

>In some respects Bismarck was right because Russian word “nichego” can get different meanings beginning with emptiness and finishing with expressing regret.

>so how come English monoglots still dare to call English the richest language?
What? Nobody actually claims that, unless memeing

>serious conversation

If you can't express EVERYTHING in human knowledge with less than 100 words, you are just playing the Artist.

In this case 'nichego' just stands for 'nothing' as in 'nothing terrible happened to you, don't worry'. It's actually similar in German with colloquial 'nichts passiert'. It's honestly not that versatile a word, there are plenty of more interesting ones in Russian. Also:
>tfw an anglo пытaeтcя нayчить тeбя вeликoмy и мoгyчeмy

>Indo-European languages in general aren't worth your time.
Said in an Indo-European language.

Russian