More like: by the, of the, for the, to the, belonging to the etc.
Yeah I was gonna say, those aren’t the same at all. English has way more prepositions than French.
él la los las
Ellos ellas
Eso esa
Esos Esas.
English is schizo, but “the” is actually a very nice simplification, and It hardly impacts the communication.
…
ithe hardly impacts …I could see the value in changing the article if the noun itself didn’t change. For example, if Spanish said “la casa” for singular and “las casa” for plural. Then the article would be all you need to know if something is plural or singular. But, every language I’m aware of (which isn’t all that many) changes both the article and the noun. Using “the” in English removes this unnecessary redundancy. But, English is ugly in that whether you add an “s” for plural or “es” seems somewhat arbitrary.
Spanish is redundant. One house is “la casa”, several are “las casas”. It pluralizes both articles and nouns.
Also, like English, nouns are pluralized with several suffixes, but the rules are very clear. Any Spanish speaker can pluralize correctly nouns they’ve never seen before, none of that octopi/octopuses, virii/viruses weirdness.
Octopodes.
It’s Greek-based, not Latin. English often tries to keep certain rules about loan words from other languages. So, the plural of “alumnus” isn’t “alumneses” but “alumni”. It also mostly keeps the spelling of loan words, which causes all kinds of problems when that spelling is very different from English spelling. For example, “voila” is so different from how someone would spell it in English that a lot of people write “wala” because they don’t know French.
But, I agree that other than having gendered nouns, Spanish is a much more sensible language than English. It does have its quirks though, like “si” vs “sí”, “te” vs “té” or “él” vs “el”. I get that those are to distinguish homonyms, but are they really necessary? Words like “cara” and “sierra” exist and it’s just like any homonym in English. Spanish also has silent letters like “h” so “errar” and “herrar” are pronounced the same but written differently. Also, “y” and “ll” are often pronounced the same way, and many Spanish speakers can’t differentiate between “b” and “v”.
Despite being theoretically most correct, octopodes is least correct in English because it doesn’t actually matter what the root of a word is if everybody uses it differently.
Spanish (and I don’t think French) doesn’t have that many words for “the”. It’s just “El” and “La”.
I suppose “los” and “las” as well… Sorta. But that’s just plural “El/La”. Which might sound unnecessary but having everything match plurality and grammatical gender does clear up ambiguity sometimes.
Eso(s)/Esa(s) mean “that/those”
Mfs just explained to me my native language.
They teach them as different, is important to know they are not the same or else you use a singular when you should use a plural, or viceversa.
“The” can be singular or plural, femenime or masculine.
The Inquisitor!
Russian:
Polish: (null)
🫲👁️🧠👁️🫱not really, suffixes serve this purpose
You sure?
Kupiłum rower.
Rower kosztował 1337 złotych.
Jadę teraz na tym [looks like an article] rowerze.
Rower nie jest nowy, raczej używany po remoncie.
Correct, Polish doesn’t exist. It never has, and it never will.
In Norwegian (or rest of scandinavistan, as far as I know) we don’t even use “the”. Suffixes are used instead.
Fish = Fisk
The fish (single) = Fisken
The fish (plural) = FiskeneProud lad from Jutland here: in our dialect we do use “the” in “æ”.
The fish = æ fisk
So, is there no differentiation between “a fish” and “the fish”?
A fish - en fisk
The fish - fiskenEnglish would be a lot more fun if they did the same as us.
A fish
Fisha
A man
Mana
A book
Booka.
Sounds like Final Fantasy potions/spells
this is a relly gard thing to understand for natives of languagea without articles, “some fish” vs “this particular fish”
I can see now why English is seen as more universal, even if in an alternate timeline where the Anglophones never became dominant.
Die Nichteinhaltung der Fallzahlen von eins bis vier vom Mittelpunkt ausgehend stört mich massiv.
Der, des, dem, den
Die, der, der, die
Das, des, dem, das
Die, der, den, die
I’m trilingual and two of the languages don’t even have this bs lol (Mandarin, Japanese, English).
deleted by creator
You can express just about everything in any language. It just sometimes takes more words.
I’m learning japanese right now, it has a very Lego-like structure for creating words and sentences that allows you to be very specific about things which is pretty cool.
Homophones are waaaaay more common in Japanese than in English though.
If you wanna blow your mind even more, look into hungarian, finnish, turkish or georgian. These are some very agglutinative languages, much more than japanese. If i was you i would skip hungarian and georgian tho because the grammar is unhinged but for what they are finnish and especially turkish are pretty nice.
Yorkshire:
T’ (Glottal stop sound)Too many instances of den, not enough of das.
Der, die, das 👏👏…
Wer, wie, was👏👏
Wieso, weshalb, warum? 👏👏
Wer nicht fragt, bleibt dumm!
1000 tolle Sachen
Die gibt es überall zu sehen
Manchmal muss man fragen
Um sie zu verstehen
In hungarian the articles are only “a”(which actually works like the english “the” but with a form that is “az” which is like “a” turning into “an” in english) and then “egy” which means “a” in english but also means the number one. Most times from what i notice it works pretty closely to what german or english does. Where my whole “it works pretty intuitively” argument falls apart is that you conjugate your freaking verbs and they work in sometimes completely mysterious ways.
“Eszek egy almát” and “Eszem az almát” – these are just “I eat an apple” and “I eat the apple”
But “Almát eszek” also works it just sounds more like you are specifically pointing out that its an apple that you are eating(and not an orange for example) and even tho its in the indefinite form it can sound pretty definite depending on context.
But then “Almát eszem” sounds like you are eating a person named Alma because for some reason not having the article makes it sound more personal.
“Eszek” is just eating
And at last “Eszem” sounds like you are pointing out that “I am eating that” or “I am eating that”. Also if its in a more rural dialect it could be just the base form.
So yeah its an absolute brainfuck in hungarian.
the
Any time I use the wrong definite article my German wife will loudly bark “NEIN!” It’s hot but educational.
Hey, is your wife free later? I could really use some German lessons. I mean German less- I mean German- I mean Ger- I-I-I mean light domming.
You guys have articles?
Norwegian: -en, -a, -et (suffixes)
But also -o, -i and probably other variations depending on location.
O and I? In swedish we only have en and ett and norwegian has a third one but what the hell are o and i? Im not very good with swedish yet(im an immigrant) but could you explain what o and i do? I dont think swedish has this tho.
They are dialects, mostly. In parts of western norway, -o is used for singular feminine words, for example: “stuo” (instead of “stua” (“the living room”)). Similarly, -i is used in parts of central Norway, for example: “boki” (instead of “boka” (“the book”)). I’m not sure if these are accepted in “correct” written form of nynorsk, but it is commonly used in spoken and written dialects.
Swedish cottage: Stuga, Stugan, Stugor, Stugorna, Stugans, Stugornas
Huh, I was not aware that “stuga” is swedish for “cottage”. In norwegian, cottage would be: Hytte, hytta/hytto/hytti, hytter, hyttene. I could include genitive as well, but it’s just adding an -s to each form.
