COLOURS ARE FUCKING COLOURS. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING, FRANCE?!
Big complaints from someone with a language where the connection between the written text and its pronunciation can only be described as rather weak.
thats why i hate languages. they have like 500 rules, and then break them half of the time and you just have to know when that is the case
Polish enters the room…
Next topic: When and when not to pronounce a consonant as schwa /ə/.
Spoiler: It depends
Cut cut cut… WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING ENGLISH !?
I concur
The /u:/ ones are nearly all French words and to put gouda there is just wrong
Gouda belongs in the left column. Or, if you want to get close to the original Dutch, in the right one. But definitely not in the second one.
Well the Anglo-Saxons should gave fought better at Hastings, then there wouldn’t be French words here. But I’m not sure it would be simpler.
Blanc i Blanca
French is not that special.
I think the point here is that the feminine form of blanc is blanche, ending in -che which is irregular. If it were regular it would be blance, but it’s not because blance sounds stupid.
Italian: many body parts are male gendered in singular, like arm: “braccio” and use the relative article; so “the arm” is “il braccio”. However, to make the plural, you use the female gendered SINGULAR version of the word and the female plural article. So “the arms” become “le braccia”. But that only works for some body parts, as others work differently!
Eg: with foot and feet, we use the normal rule: foot (piede) is male so uses the male singular article (il piede). And feet (piedi) remains male and uses the male plural article (i piedi). However, hand (mano) is considered a female gendered word (although it ends with -o which generally means it’s male gendered) and uses female articles.
Also: we don’t talk about accents.
Ma braccia non è singolare femminile di braccio. È solo il plurale che diventa femminile come “le carceri”
Lo so, ma è “singolare” nel senso che la maggior parte dei sostantivi italiani finiti in -a o in -o sono singolari. Quando uno impara la lingua venendo da altre, risulta abbastanza confusionario perche una delle prime cose che si capiscono è che in base alla vocale con la cui finisce il sostantivo o l’aggettivo, si può evincere se questo è singolare, plurale, maschile o femminile ma con le parti del corpo questo non si applica.
Languages have made-up rules by people trying to bring some order into the chaos that actual languages are. The only point of languages is to bring some point across. As long as the receiver understands what the sender was trying to say, it worked. No matter how “wrong” someone else might find it. All the crap about grammar and spelling is like >90% classism.
deleted by creator
The change is due to the gender Le manteau (masculine “le”) La veste (feminine “la”). Many languages have the same concordance between gender and adjectives.
I think it’s more about how this doesn’t follow the usual rule for adjective agreement. By that rule it would be le manteau blanc / la veste blance, but that sounds weird and un-French I suppose so “blanche” it is. (I don’t know French very well so take this all with a grain of salt)
That’s essentially it. It’s a general rule that adjectives ending in -c turn into either -che or -cque.
This is why Lojban is the best language.
I know you’re not speaking English while complaining about irregular grammar in other languages, I just know.
My illogical language is better because I speak it.
la sola klera lingvo estas Esperanto
Some punk knocks down the Tower of Babel and now we gotta deal with shit like this
On an unrelated topic the letter “C” exists as a testament to the depravity of man
You can’t just leave us with that.
I am right now!
Its counter intuitive but a certain amount of irregularity helps languages. By far the easiest rated languages are isolating and lightly inflecting langauges, and from my experience this is even true if your native language is agglutinative. What a lot of these “easy” languages have in common is that theyre not inherently regular, they have irregular word endings and totally arbritary ways of constructing sentences in a way to convey meaning. On the other hand you have of course the languages that are just so irregular that theres no vibe you can go off of like in romance languages(theyre extremely easy to learn if you move to place where theyre spoken) like navajo. Many words go from “i mean that “s” or “a” fits there” to “why is the word form changing completely in this one specific case”, on other words you loose all grounding. But i believe the reason a lot of people struggle with highly synthetic languages is the exact opposite, you have to specify everything in the right way or your sentence wont make sense. In highly irregular languages any piece of a sentence could be very important to the meaning, in a highly regular language every piece of the sentence is important to the meaning and right in the middle are languages that mostly follow rules but not always. Also in very regular languages its often not possible to make the reductions which humans love to do. You might have to specify a piece of information over and over in different ways without it leading to the sentence being more understandable. Idk these are my two cents as a definitely native speaker of hungarian and kinda sorta native english speaker.
