5 ms·

I'm also a Chinese major who later worked as a Chinese-English interpreter and translator. Compared to German (which I know) / Japanese (which I've studied) /

by Jd 16y ago

I'm also a Chinese major who later worked as a Chinese-English interpreter and translator. Compared to German (which I know) / Japanese (which I've studied) / aforementioned exotic languages Chinese grammar is trivial. There may be many inconsistencies (and difficulties when you encounter literary Chinese), but grammar rules are pretty basic.

tokenadult 16y ago
A list of languages I have studied before can be found at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=963415 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=963415 Suffice it to say that Chinese grammar is NOT "trivial" to anyone who digs into it deeply. No linguist would say so. Chinese grammar, being based in large part on word order and function words, rather than on inflection, is friendly to native speakers of English, and that is one of the reasons I preferred learning Chinese to learning Russian at university while I was taking courses in both. But there is plenty of grammar in Chinese, and plenty of misunderstanding of grammar among Chinese persons that impairs understanding among people who speak differing Sinitic languages.
- Jun8 16y ago
  OK< maybe "trivial" was a little too strong. All human languages need a certain grammatical complexity to function. What I was trying to say that, being isolating languages, the grammatical complexity of Chinese languages pale in comparison with those of Indo-European languages, which still carry most of their inflectional heritage. English, due to its unique development history, has lost most of its inflectional forms, it used to be heavily inflected. So, in that sense its basic grammar is said to be simpler than, say, Ancient Greek or French.
- Jd 16y ago
  Is not the "grammar" you refer the largely loose particles because of the lack of formal grammar, rather than the reverse? If so, I standby my original statement that the grammar (meaning formal grammar) is trivial. Why not give an example of a grammar point that you think I am missing?
  - tokenadult 16y ago
    I've already cited books in this thread, and they list dozens of features of Modern Standard Chinese grammar that are confusing even to speakers of other Sinitic languages. An example I often bring up to English speakers who are learning Chinese is that they have to learn that the Chinese verbal system is based on aspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect rather than on tense. Many native English speakers misspeak Chinese as a second language because they struggle to impose their sense of tense on a tenseless language, and meanwhile get Chinese aspect marking all wrong. That can lead to misunderstandings in either direction, as my extensive acquaintance with persons who speak both languages often shows.
    - Jd 16y ago
      Aspect is trivial.
Estragon 16y ago
Chinese grammar is trivial. There are entire books devoted to the semantics of the particle "le."
- Jd 16y ago
  Le isn't even pronounced in the same way in different regions, but does that mean that there are a wide range of acceptable pronunciations or that there is a large range of variation with respect to a standard pronunciation? Likewise with grammar. I'd imagine many of the complexities related in said books are due to attempting to list distributed evolved usages rather than what legitimately constitutes formal grammar. But I'd also like to know if I'm wrong.
  - tokenadult 16y ago
    what legitimately constitutes formal grammar Kindly define that. As a student of linguistics, I observed some very broad approaches to researching formal grammars of natural languages. Grammar of natural human languages includes much more than just the features of word accidence you would learn about in a course in Latin or Greek. I would have just downvoted for disagreement, but you wrote, "But I'd also like to know if I'm wrong," and I can only cheer that willingness to learn. Chinese grammar is expressed largely through different means (word order and function words) from those through which Indo-European grammar is expressed (inflection of word endings), but end result is still that the language has many fussy, arbitrary distinctions constrained by historical accident (or possibly by information theory) that allow for miscommunication among speakers of Chinese who are not all native speakers.
    - Jd 16y ago
      An abundance of fussy arbitrary distinctions do not constitute grammar by my definition. I'll have to think for awhile if I want to come up with a formal definition for formal grammar. If you still care, email me in a couple of days.

by Jd 16y ago

tokenadult 16y ago

A list of languages I have studied before can be found at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=963415 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=963415 Suffice it to say that Chinese grammar is NOT "trivial" to anyone who digs into it deeply. No linguist would say so. Chinese grammar, being based in large part on word order and function words, rather than on inflection, is friendly to native speakers of English, and that is one of the reasons I preferred learning Chinese to learning Russian at university while I was taking courses in both. But there is plenty of grammar in Chinese, and plenty of misunderstanding of grammar among Chinese persons that impairs understanding among people who speak differing Sinitic languages.

Jun8 16y ago
OK< maybe "trivial" was a little too strong. All human languages need a certain grammatical complexity to function. What I was trying to say that, being isolating languages, the grammatical complexity of Chinese languages pale in comparison with those of Indo-European languages, which still carry most of their inflectional heritage. English, due to its unique development history, has lost most of its inflectional forms, it used to be heavily inflected. So, in that sense its basic grammar is said to be simpler than, say, Ancient Greek or French.
Jd 16y ago
Is not the "grammar" you refer the largely loose particles because of the lack of formal grammar, rather than the reverse? If so, I standby my original statement that the grammar (meaning formal grammar) is trivial. Why not give an example of a grammar point that you think I am missing?
- tokenadult 16y ago
  I've already cited books in this thread, and they list dozens of features of Modern Standard Chinese grammar that are confusing even to speakers of other Sinitic languages. An example I often bring up to English speakers who are learning Chinese is that they have to learn that the Chinese verbal system is based on aspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect rather than on tense. Many native English speakers misspeak Chinese as a second language because they struggle to impose their sense of tense on a tenseless language, and meanwhile get Chinese aspect marking all wrong. That can lead to misunderstandings in either direction, as my extensive acquaintance with persons who speak both languages often shows.
  - Jd 16y ago
    Aspect is trivial.

Estragon 16y ago

Chinese grammar is trivial. There are entire books devoted to the semantics of the particle "le."

Jd 16y ago
Le isn't even pronounced in the same way in different regions, but does that mean that there are a wide range of acceptable pronunciations or that there is a large range of variation with respect to a standard pronunciation? Likewise with grammar. I'd imagine many of the complexities related in said books are due to attempting to list distributed evolved usages rather than what legitimately constitutes formal grammar. But I'd also like to know if I'm wrong.
- tokenadult 16y ago
  what legitimately constitutes formal grammar Kindly define that. As a student of linguistics, I observed some very broad approaches to researching formal grammars of natural languages. Grammar of natural human languages includes much more than just the features of word accidence you would learn about in a course in Latin or Greek. I would have just downvoted for disagreement, but you wrote, "But I'd also like to know if I'm wrong," and I can only cheer that willingness to learn. Chinese grammar is expressed largely through different means (word order and function words) from those through which Indo-European grammar is expressed (inflection of word endings), but end result is still that the language has many fussy, arbitrary distinctions constrained by historical accident (or possibly by information theory) that allow for miscommunication among speakers of Chinese who are not all native speakers.
  - Jd 16y ago
    An abundance of fussy arbitrary distinctions do not constitute grammar by my definition. I'll have to think for awhile if I want to come up with a formal definition for formal grammar. If you still care, email me in a couple of days.