Re: Are some languages easier to learn?
|From:||Josh Brandt-Young <neonwave7@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, October 17, 1998, 1:08|
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998 20:05:55 -0400 Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...> writes:
>But why should some languages be harder *inherently* to learn? All
>children learn languages in about the same time, suggesting that
>no inherent differences in difficulty, and that ease and difficulty
>depend purely on your L1, and previous second languages.
Indeed...suddenly I have this sense of deja-vu.
>Well, about a quarter of the world's languages are classified as
>ergative, so it's not all that rare. Ergative isn't one of the basic
>types, it's more a continuum with accusative on the opposite end. The
>four (or three) main types are: isolating, agglutinating, fusional
>(in)flectional), and polyagglutinative; altho the last is sometimes
>considered a subtype of agglutinating.
Wow! Really? That's very cool--I had no idea there were that many
ergative languages around. Could you list some? I know of Basque and
Georgian, but that's all I can think of.
"Polyagglutinative"...I think you mean "polysynthetic," yes?
Josh Brandt-Young <neonwave7@...>
"After the tempest, I behold, once more, the weasel."
(Mispronunciation of Ancient Greek)
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]