First off, all these words and terms you use "Sicilian", "English", etc are nonsense in a true discussion of languages being "better". All lingual communication is forced air through specific muscular nuance. Nothing more. Nothing less.

So it depends on what one defines as "better". Simpler? Sure, cavemen grunts were simpler and for someone who views simplicity as the paramount of communication are in fact much "better" than modern languages. More intricate requiring skill to master and perhaps even a deeper specificity of intent or purpose one wishes to convey? Sure, than complex language like we have today is "better". Until you explicit define what "better" is as in what intent or goal is to be accomplished, it's a matter of perspective.

One would assume, the point of language, rather communication altogether being to convey and converse a specific sentiment, desire, or goal, a modern language is "better" than a series of grunts or clicking of one's tongue, yes. Up to the point it becomes too complex very few know how to express certain intricacies and subtleties, properly, up to the point it becomes a mere vanity display of 500 different ways to say the exact same thing seemingly for the point of simply being able to do so.

Sure, cavemen grunts were simpler ...complex language like we have today is "better". — Outlander

The prevailing view is that the more "primitive" a people, the more complex their language. This is true of "primitive" people today, and presumably of paleolithic "cavemen": both are far more complex than English and other predominant languages today. This is because contact/conquest winnows down the complexity by necessity, so that non-native speakers have even the slightest chance of learning it. All the complexity is unnecessary anyway, our "dumbed down" languages are still fully expressive of human thought.

For me it is clear that languages are different and that if there is a difference then one is to be better than another. — I like sushi

But in what sense is it better or worse? It is obvious that English is more useful overall. All the interesting content is in English. When people from different countries have a meeting, they use English. The internet is more practical and extensive if you use English. So, as a whole, English is more useful than other languages that are rarely used or known.

For example, you will not see people studying Basque or Catalan because they are not that useful for their professional objectives. Maybe we can find some individuals who study those languages because they have a passion for them, and it is amazing. But we have to admit that they are not recognized or valued by many people.

I don't know to what extent English is 'better' than Basque... It is more useful, yes. But I think that 'better' or 'worse' depends on someone's tastes rather than objective measures.

I am saying there are clearly objective values to languages beyond mere convenience.

English has changed over the years for sure maybe due to the number of people who speak it. German has certain matter-of-fact characteristics to it, and various other languages have a narrower range in some areas.

I know people who are bilingual who state that sometimes it is easier to express/think in one language more than another depending on the situation. I think English is particularly unique in that it developed in certain directions due to Latin, Ancient Greek, French and influences from colonies too.

This range could be viewed as positive or negative thing. Which is it? I would say mostly positive at one point in history, but as time has passed it may have become a little unwieldy perhaps?

English became a global language because of the combined influence of two superpowers, the British Empire and the US, not because of its advantages, right?

"Better" is too general to answer, but I will say that English has proven itself to be convenient in comparison to many other languages. The writing system in English (and other Roman languages) is so much better than kanji characters in Japanese/Chinese, which is unnecessarily complicated and unwieldy.

Perhaps English promotes individualism through the extensive use of individualistic pronouns. Japanese culture is considered collectivist compared to Romanic cultures and Japanese doesn't
have the same emphasis on individualistic pronouns. Japanese pronouns often use honorifics or pronouns that refer to someone's position in society relative to the speaker.

Japanese has significant differences depending on politeness or formality, which should be utilised based on your relationship to another, particularly age or status differences.

While I wouldn't overgeneralise, these differences and others between English and Japanese may explain or mirror differences in culture. But whether one is better than the other depends on one's values.

English became a global language because of the combined influence of two superpowers, the British Empire and the US, not because of its advantages, right? — Judaka

I would say mainly due to the British Empire first and foremost. I was more curious about how English may have helped in any slight way? Did the structure of the language contribute to invention and human thought in any way? Is it even possible to answer this question? If we can then what use could it be?

Perhaps English promotes individualism through the extensive use of individualistic pronouns. — Judaka

There is one example where English fell short. The terms Missus and Miss used for women was not as befitting as Italian or French, when a mature woman would be referred to respect with no real need to be married. Senora and Senorita are irrespective of marital status. That is what gave rise to the invention of Ms.

But whether one is better than the other depends on one's values. — Judaka

Some values are better than others. Not sure how you could argue otherwise?

I hope someone with knowledge of linguistics (seems to be only @hypericin so far) contributes to this discussion, because so far it belongs in the Lounge.

I mean...

I think English is particularly unique in that it developed in certain directions due to Latin, Ancient Greek, French and influences from colonies too.

This range could be viewed as positive or negative thing. Which is it? I would say mostly positive at one point in history, but as time has passed it may have become a little unwieldy perhaps? — I like sushi

What does any of this mean?

You are aware that that English is a bastardised language?

I was suggesting that the eclectic nature of English (for reasons stated) helped it expand, yet I question if the ability to pull from its romance and germanic roots has perhaps become a hinderance to communication due to a plethora of terms.

I doubt those are even legitimate questions, in terms of linguistics.

I have a very strong, and perhaps very eccentric, hatred of ignorant chatter about language, partly because everyone who can speak seems to think they have the right to throw around their opinions about it without doing the most basic research. As I say, unless I see some linguistics here (or even philosophy of language, communication theory, or social sciences) I'm moving this to the lounge. Well, I'll be tempted to do so anyway.

You think I am ignorant? Okay then … shut it down I will not waste my time if you assume I have not studied any linguistics. I guess you just have a pet hate.

Np bye :)

Well, you asked for it. In the second sentence of the OP you claimed without backing it up that a difference between languages implies that one is better than the other--without even explaining what this means. On the face of it it's a silly thought, and you don't go any deeper to explain it.

I was asking for opinoins and gave examples. Anyway, I get the gist done here bye

You think I am ignorant? Okay then … shut it down I will not waste my time if you assume I have not studied any linguistics. I guess you just have a pet hate.

Np bye :) — I like sushi

No, no, to have one's thread moved to the lounge be a badge of honor, if nothing else. Like in the days of old, the philosopher's table was not a chopping block (though it may have served similar purpose after dark) but a refining board where one can best find one's own faults not in shame or negative light, but in the promise of progress, like all great thinkers thoughts and desires surely went through.

You quit when in fact you should strive forward, you doubt when in fact you should only double down on the conviction that fathered this thought or discussion you brought forth. Sure, it's not perfect, perhaps not even desired by the majority, but I ask you now. What scientific theory was not arduously even cruelly scrutinized before it became the law we all know and acknowledge? Very few. So take solace my weary friend. :)

Besides... I think now the mystery as to the identity of the caper of your disappearing thread is now well known. :wink:

First off, all these words and terms you use "Sicilian", "English", etc are nonsense in a true discussion of languages being "better". All lingual communication is forced air through specific muscular nuance. Nothing more. Nothing less. — Outlander

Well, no. If you lack use of tenses (like Sicilians) then you are less likely to plan ahead. This is advantageous in some ays but perhaps not in others.

It’s a crying shame that I would have to explain that differences necessitate different values to some extent even though the circumstances under which they are applied may make them better in one way and worse in another.

We are different. I am likely better in some and worse in others. In terms of language the use is to communicate and explore ideas. I would suggest that all languages offer something but some more so than others (and the linguist who did field research on the Sicilians was as intrigued as me).

Pretty much done here (not due to your post, just saw it).

Well, I was going to say something... Anyhow, fwiw, from a linguistic perspective, the question is somewhat analagous to asking a biologist if salmon are better than cod. Languages evolve to fill sociocultural spaces as animals evolve to fill environmental niches. It's the nature of human language that when a sociocultural gap or function becomes available, it will fill it. So, in their own context, languages can't really be said to be better than one another. Also, humans can both easily handle their own language and several more at the same time once we receive sufficient early exposure, so there's not really an issue of unwieldiness either. You might get some traction on the idea if you focus on writing systems though.

. If you lack use of tenses (like Sicilians) then you are less likely to plan ahead. — I like sushi

This would represent both a strong form of linguistic determinism for which there is no evidence and a confusion about grammar. You don't need tenses to represent the future. English, by some definitions, only has two tenses (present and past) and uses modal verbs to express the rest. Some languages, like Chinese, don't have tenses at all. Does this mean the Chinese are deficient in planning ahead. No, it doesn't, any more than if I use "I am doing it on Saturday" (present continuous tense) to represent the future or I use "I am going to do it on Saturday" (modal auxiliary) makes me less likely to be planning ahead than if I use what we call the future tense "I will do it on Saturday" (but is actually a modal, oh no!)

I for one, as someone new here, would quite enjoy reading more on this thread. Is it perhaps just that the initial question needs refinement and clarification? Do you mean it might be easier to express certain things in certain languages because of how they have evolved?

There are tendencies to mix languages in sentences when trying to convey meaning eg 'It has a certain...je ne ce quoi' when we want to describe something with good qualities we can't describe, or 'And finally, the pièce de résistance!' when we want to show the crowning achievement. Do we native English speakers use these common phrases because French better conveys the meaning, or are we just accustomed to it by this point?

I tried learning some Japanese, and though I found learning to write kanji/katakana difficult, the ability to convey a meaning/emotion/image in one or two characters is quite interesting, even if I got it wrong a lot being a non-native speaker lol.

Confusion about grammar? :D

Comedy thread now.

Pictorial or gestural languages are better than verbal languages for some of the signs we encounter in public places such as traffic.

Some languages seem to be better for constructing long words:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_words

Assembly language is the best.

Seemingly, English is the only language that has trouble with the words "man" and "woman", which are two words that every language has. In that sense, even Amazonian languages of isolated tribes are "better".
Any other language that supposedly has trouble with them as well does not have it as a natural phenomenon of the language but as an ideological import from English — whose population likes to say that 2+2 can equal 5 and that "divisible" and "able to be divided" are not the same thing.

Confusion about grammar? — I like sushi

Yes, you seem to be confused about tense and future reference. You don't need the former for the latter and the latter is what's important functionally. Or if you knew that, I don't know why you think tense would matter in the context you gave.

I think this article might be a useful reference point;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism#:~:text=Linguistic%20determinism%20is%20the%20concept,categorization%2C%20memory%2C%20and%20perception.

Linguistic determinism is pretty much refuted but there's some evidence for the weaker form of that idea, linguistic relativism, i.e. that distinctions between language can influence certain cognitive processes. For example, if you have more colour distinction words (and languages vary fairly widely on this) you might be quicker at picking out different colours. The differences are not very dramatic or important though and I've never had any wow moments reading about this stuff.

Do we native English speakers use these common phrases because French better conveys the meaning, or are we just accustomed to it by this point? — Daniel Duffy

Interesting question. I think you'll find the relative frequency varies according to language community. So, they can become a marker of being a member of a certain class or group. In that case, it would be more about being accustomed to it (and reinforcing your position within a group) than actually anything to do with better conveying meaning. So, I'm not convinced that saying "It has a certain "je ne sais quoi"" conveys the relevant idea better than "it has a certain something". The difference is more in the mood or resonance, which would pertain to the interpersonal (feeling) rather than the experiential (factual) side. There is an absolute ton of research done on this type of thing in Applied Linguistics anyhow as it's a major part of the field. And if we're talking French, there's an interesting historical story to that.

Some borrowed words I think are more efficient at conveying meaning, mostly because they kind of condense an idea in English into one concept. The German word "Heimat" (the feeling of being at home) is one and the Czech word "litost" (the feeling of coming face to face with your own misery) is another. You'll note though that as we can define them we have those ideas in English, they just take longer to say. That is, it's not like we're learning a new feeling we couldn't feel before or anything like that (as linguistic determinism might suggest).

The German word "Heimat" (the feeling of being at home) is one and the Czech word "litost" (the feeling of coming face to face with your own misery) is another. — Baden

I am familiar on a daily basis with these two feelings :lol:

In that case, it would be more about being accustomed to it (and reinforcing your position within a group) than actually anything to do with better conveying meaning. — Baden

I agree. I wonder if culturally, in some parts of UK and USA at least, the French are portrayed in such a way that using 'je ne ce quoi' has become a cultural affectation to make oneself sound however the French are culturally viewed (in this case, maybe mysterious and exciting). This would make the use of 'je ne ce quoi' and other French phrases more about portraying a certain image of oneself rather than whatever the object is you are talking about.

Assembly language is the best. — unenlightened

Machine language is 102 97 114 32 98 101 116 116 101 114

I am familiar on a daily basis with these two feelings — Daniel Duffy

:lol:

this would make the use of 'je ne ce quoi' and other French phrases more about portraying a certain image of oneself rather than whatever the object is you are talking about. — Daniel Duffy

Yes, and that becomes automatic. Relatedly, from a very young age we can "code switch" between and within a language depending on who we're talking to and I think we do that as adults too as a form of social flexibility and image generation. We sadly tend to want to be liked and fit in more than almost anything regardless of whatever narrative we paste over that.

I think we do that as adults too as a form of social flexibility and image generation. We sadly tend to want to be liked and fit in more than almost anything regardless of whatever narrative we paste over that. — Baden

Yes, its a strange phenomenon to witness. My mother lives in England, has an English accent (North East) but when she comes back from visiting family in Ireland she sounds Irish. Did I read somewhere its a socio-survival technique? We naturally try to conform to the crowd, strength in numbers etc.