Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!ncar!uchinews!ellis!deb5
From: deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: Hard Languages
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <DMIKGD.B5x@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Reply-To: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <232259582.92333656@inform-bbs.dk> <4ef9ck$ooc@news.ccit.arizona.edu> <4epnnd$eko@news.asiaonline.net> <31124077.4B84@tkg.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 15:02:37 GMT
Lines: 32

In article <31124077.4B84@tkg.com>, Curt Finch 4138005  <curt@tkg.com> wrote:
>it would seem that the more interesting piece of this thread
>is leaning towards defining the difficulty of learning a
>new language as
>	
>	difficulty = linguistic distance + innate hardness
>
>linguistic distance can be measured by number of roots or
>words or grammar in common perhaps.  Or maybe number of years
>since the languages shared a common ancestor language.

Certainly not the latter, since the rate of linguistic change is not
constant for all languages.

>innate hardness can be measured by how long it takes native
>speaking children to nail the grammar or maybe the average
>of learning time for all foriegners to master it.

Again, I think the latter is impractical.  How would you choose your 
sample?  One speaker of each language/major language/language family/
etc.?  On a percentage basis based on number of speakers (e.g. if 
22% of the planet has Mandarin Chinese as a native language, then 22%
or the sample should be native Mandarin speakers)?

Comparing child language acquisition seems a much easier route to take.



-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
