Thinking about leaving the UK

[Siwastaja]

Swedish is actually quite easy to learn.

Yeah, probably for an English-speaker due to many common Germanic words and similar-ish constructs. For more challenge, come here and try to learn Finnish (or Estonia, similar thing). Apart from small number of obvious loanwords, it will be a complete from-scratch process.

[coppice]

Swedish is actually quite easy to learn.

Yeah, probably for an English-speaker due to many common Germanic words and similar-ish constructs. For more challenge, come here and try to learn Finnish (or Estonia, similar thing). Apart from small number of obvious loanwords, it will be a complete from-scratch process.

Learning new languages is easy. You just need to be three years old.

[pdenisowski]

Swedish is actually quite easy to learn.

Yeah, probably for an English-speaker due to many common Germanic words and similar-ish constructs

As someone who speaks English and German and who also studied some Swedish:  German helps much, much more than English in learning Swedish, but it still doesn't help to the extent that it does with Dutch (which looks and sounds almost like a German dialect). 

I think many Germans could guess at the meaning of a lot of (especially written) Dutch, but would probably not be able to understand newspaper headlines in Swedish without some prior study of the language.

What makes Swedish "easier" to learn is that it has a much simpler verb system than most Indo-European languages (even easier than English), no strong case system (like German and Slavic languages), and relatively a easy phonology / phonetic writing system.  The post-positioned definite article (en tjej - a girl, tjejen - the girl) is probably the "strangest" thing in Swedish for an English speaker.

[IanB]

I like the sound of Norwegian a lot. It is a tone-accented language and it sounds very musical.

Also, if you spend time in Norway as an English speaker, you quickly start to pick up a good idea of what people are saying when you listen to them.

[SiliconWizard]

I like the sound of Norwegian a lot. It is a tone-accented language and it sounds very musical.

Also, if you spend time in Norway as an English speaker, you quickly start to pick up a good idea of what people are saying when you listen to them.

Norwegian and English have common roots, if I'm not mistaken.

[IanB]

Norwegian and English have common roots, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, they are both Germanic languages, and Norwegian has some points of similarity with Scots and other northern dialects of English, in accent and in vocabulary.

Also, Norwegian and Swedish are nearly the same language, although I think Norwegians understand Swedish more than Swedes understand Norwegian.

[unseenninja]

Swedish is actually quite easy to learn.

Yeah, probably for an English-speaker due to many common Germanic words and similar-ish constructs. For more challenge, come here and try to learn Finnish (or Estonia, similar thing). Apart from small number of obvious loanwords, it will be a complete from-scratch process.

I can make reasonable qualified guesses reading French, Dutch, German, Italian, etc, but Finnish is so far removed from most other European languages that I found it quite disorienting when I first visited Finland and the only word I recognised was "taksi". Not to mention that the grammar and structure of the language is completely novel compared to the others. It would be quite a challenge at my age.

Two of my friends come from Swedish/Finnish parents and they can speak both mother tongues fluently, plus English of course. Consequently, their ability to easily pick up new languages is very good indeed.

We all draw the line at Danish though and speak English with our Danish colleagues.

[IanB]

Also, Norwegian and Swedish are nearly the same language, although I think Norwegians understand Swedish more than Swedes understand Norwegian.

Case in point:

We all draw the line at Danish though and speak English with our Danish colleagues.

(Danish ≈ Norwegian)

[unseenninja]

Norwegian and English have common roots, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, they are both Germanic languages, and Norwegian has some points of similarity with Scots and other northern dialects of English, in accent and in vocabulary.

Also, Norwegian and Swedish are nearly the same language, although I think Norwegians understand Swedish more than Swedes understand Norwegian.

There's one slight problem with Norwegian. It's actually two languages. There is 'bokmål' - the original Norwegian and there is 'nynorsk', literally 'new Norwegian', which is spoken more along the west coast. I can understand original Norwegian, as long as they slow down a bit and don't throw lots of slang into their sentences. Nynorsk is somewhat more challenging!

[unseenninja]

Also, Norwegian and Swedish are nearly the same language, although I think Norwegians understand Swedish more than Swedes understand Norwegian.

Case in point:

We all draw the line at Danish though and speak English with our Danish colleagues.

(Danish ≈ Norwegian)

Yes, Danish and Norwegian are closer than Swedish and Norwegian, but I can read all three of them without problems. It's when the Danes open their mouths that my eyes go glassy. Spoken Danish is a bit like French - only about 30% of the letters in a word are actually turned into sounds! It does depend very much on the speaker and where they grew up though. Some Danes speak a broad Copenhagen dialect that I find next to impossible to understand but I can go to Århus, on the western island and understand people very well. They refuse to have anything to do with Swedish there, so I still end up speaking English to them anyway.

[SiliconWizard]

Norwegian and English have common roots, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, they are both Germanic languages, and Norwegian has some points of similarity with Scots and other northern dialects of English, in accent and in vocabulary.

Also, Norwegian and Swedish are nearly the same language, although I think Norwegians understand Swedish more than Swedes understand Norwegian.

There's one slight problem with Norwegian. It's actually two languages. There is 'bokmål' - the original Norwegian and there is 'nynorsk', literally 'new Norwegian', which is spoken more along the west coast. I can understand original Norwegian, as long as they slow down a bit and don't throw lots of slang into their sentences. Nynorsk is somewhat more challenging!

Accents vary quite a bit too and some are intractable to the unsufficiently trained ear.

[tooki]

I can make reasonable qualified guesses reading French, Dutch, German, Italian, etc, but Finnish is so far removed from most other European languages that I found it quite disorienting when I first visited Finland and the only word I recognised was "taksi". Not to mention that the grammar and structure of the language is completely novel compared to the others. It would be quite a challenge at my age.

Indeed. Finnish is one of the few languages in Europe that is not part of the Indo-European family of languages. (Estonian, Turkish and Hungarian are the other major ones, along with minor languages like Basque, and a smattering of local languages and dialects.) Excluding the languages of immigrants, only about 1% of Europe’s population has a non-Indo-European native language!

[m k]

Finns have also generally two languages, written and spoken, plus dialects with their own wordings.
Very nice for learners, of written language.

And of course the rest of the world forgot to actually eliminate many non-metric things when they “went metric”. Tons and tons of pipes (and corresponding threads) remain non-metric, tire sizes are still that crazy mm/%/inch mess, and aviation still uses feet and nautical miles.

Don't forget trigonometrics, Babylonia FTW.

And when pipes come out from the pipe section they change metric.

Are there or was there imperial logarithms?

[IanB]

And when pipes come out from the pipe section they change metric.

Industrial pipes can come in various size schedules:

• NPS (USA)
• DN (metric)
• DIN (Germany)
• JIS (Japan)
• GOST (Russia)

You could compare this with the various wire gauge standards like AWG or SWG.

Are there or was there imperial logarithms?

I think that would be log base 10. Engineers and industrial practitioners tend to use log₁₀, while mathematicians exclusively use log_e

[Siwastaja]

two languages, written and spoken, plus dialects

Yeah - but I don't think there is any language where this isn't the case, dialects are everywhere and so are differences between written and "actually spoken" (in daily dialogue) language.

Finnish probably being quite difficult to learn otherwise, at least there are two positives: consistent and simple mapping between written letters and phonetic sounds (a feature lost in many languages like English or French), and not too dramatic differences between written and spoken languages, but of course, as in any language, there are some.

[IanB]

I know in many languages like French and German, there are distinct differences between the formal written language and the conversational spoken language. There are words and grammatical constructs used in conversation that would not be used in writing.

I think this doesn't happen very much, if at all, in English. You write what you say, and you say what you write.

[coppice]

I know in many languages like French and German, there are distinct differences between the formal written language and the conversational spoken language. There are words and grammatical constructs used in conversation that would not be used in writing.

I think this doesn't happen very much, if at all, in English. You write what you say, and you say what you write.

Huh? English is littered with slang you wouldn't write in anything remotely formal. For example, in real English verbal English there are many terms of abuse which are a form of affection, but written down they are purely abuse.

[IanB]

Huh? English is littered with slang you wouldn't write in anything remotely formal. For example, in real English verbal English there are many terms of abuse which are a form of affection, but written down they are purely abuse.

Yes, but I'm not talking about slang, I'm talking about two versions of the language. It would take a native speaker of French or German to amplify what I mean, but I believe I am correct.

[Siwastaja]

"Two different versions" would be a slight exaggeration in nearly any language though, I think. For a beginner sure, just the fact that spoken language is delivered to you at high pace you cannot control alone makes it more difficult to understand than written text. Any amount of constructs and words that differ make it progressively more difficult.

Clearly there are small differences even in English; words like "ain't" wouldn't get used in written newspaper or scientific text, but IMHO isn't slang enough to be called slang either, quite a lot of people would use that at least sometimes.

Or just like "kaksi" (two) shortens to "kaks" in spoken Finnish, in English you can hear people say stuff like "how y'all doing" quite commonly. Maybe it's a "dialect" or "slang", but pretty common enough not to feel like slang to my untrained ears - just "spoken language".

[tooki]

two languages, written and spoken, plus dialects

Yeah - but I don't think there is any language where this isn't the case, dialects are everywhere and so are differences between written and "actually spoken" (in daily dialogue) language.

No, this is a very different thing, at least in German. See below.

Huh? English is littered with slang you wouldn't write in anything remotely formal. For example, in real English verbal English there are many terms of abuse which are a form of affection, but written down they are purely abuse.

Yes, but I'm not talking about slang, I'm talking about two versions of the language. It would take a native speaker of French or German to amplify what I mean, but I believe I am correct.

You are absolutely correct, at least in regards to German. (I can’t vouch for French.)

Switzerland is a poster child of this: the native spoken language in the German-speaking part of the country is “Swiss German”, a language (or dialect, depending on who you ask) with pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar different enough that most Germans cannot readily understand it. Swiss German TV shows have to be dubbed into standard German for Germany, just as if it were any other foreign language.

In contrast, the language used in Switzerland in writing, as well as spoken in some very specific settings like elementary school, is “Swiss Standard German”, the Swiss dialect/variant of standard German, readily understood by Germans. (Standard German is used in school so the kids learn it. But the division is really clean: standard German is the language of instruction. During breaks, the same teacher will speak Swiss German with the kids.)

(In recent years, written Swiss German has become a thing among younger people, used in text messaging between friends. But since it is a transcription of a language with a very high level of regional variation, spelling varies wildly from person to person.)


To give you an idea of the difference, here’s a sample sentence:

English: I was in Basel yesterday and went shopping there.
Swiss German (Zurich dialect): Ich bi geschter z Basel gsi und bi dete go poschte.
Standard German: Ich war gestern in Basel und war dort einkaufen.

As you can see, the Swiss German isn’t a slight tweak on the standard German, it is very substantially different. Germany has many local “dialects” that diverge substantially from the written form. (I assume Austria does too, I just have no experience. Liechtenstein is the same as Switzerland.)

Now here’s the key thing: when you talk about slang, you’re talking about the level of formality (known as “register” in linguistics). My English (my native language) does indeed vary in register situationally. But in Switzerland, Swiss German vs. standard German is NOT situational, insofar as you use Swiss German in all settings, and it has its own slang and formal registers. So, for example, a sales clerk at a fancy boutique will use very formal Swiss German when speaking with a customer, and very informal Swiss German when speaking with a friend. But if they write a letter, it’s in formal standard German to the customer, and informal standard German to the friend.

So it’s not a single language with a spectrum of formality, it’s two separate languages, each with its own spectrum of formality.

This is called a “diglossia” in linguistics (which I studied at university), for those who want to read up on the subject.

I would argue that there are many native English speakers who also have a clear diglossia. For example, most African-Americans’ home dialect is AAVE (African-American Vernacular English), but use standard American English in writing (and in most cases, also speak standard American English situationally). AAVE has, aside from the obvious differences in pronunciation and slang vocabulary, a number of substantial grammatical differences from standard American English. Similar situations apply to many British dialects.

In contrast, many native English speakers (both in USA and elsewhere) have no diglossia, using substantially the same vocabulary and grammar for both everyday speech and writing. A typical American from the Midwest or Pacific Northwest, for example, will not have a separate home dialect. This does not mean that slang doesn’t get used, nor that there aren’t different “registers” of formality when speaking and writing for different situations, but it does mean that, for example, the grammar is the same.

[IanB]

Grammatically, I think there are different ways of forming verb tenses, where some forms are only found in speech, but not in writing. I think in French, some constructs are found in writing, but never used in speech. As I said, I'm not an expert or a linguist, but this is what I have been told.

The case of "ain't" is an interesting one. Apparently, this was a perfectly proper and correct form in the past, but over time it got viewed differently and people formed the idea that it was somehow bad. Note that today, you can contract "they are not" to "they aren't", but you cannot contract "I am not" in the same manner anymore. The language has lost something perfectly reasonable.

(Note: composed before tooki's response.)

[m k]

Dynamic language is of course a bit different.

Minä mä mää mie
Sinä sä sää sie
For me and you.

Hän se hää
For 3rd person.

Se se se
For 3rd non person.

And plural
Me me myö
Te te työ
He ne hyö

Potato
Peruna pottu potaatti

More potatoes
Perunoita perunia pottuja pottuloita potui

Laatikko loota loora
For box.

Ämpäri sanko(sankko)
Regular buckets of different part of the country that everybody understand without a problem.

As a Finn do you understand what 'pirrastaa' or 'suuli' means?

Generally Finns understand each others.
Words are not chopped very much, but different parts may have totally different words for same thing.
Or the same word for different thing.

E,
typo.