Apparently this reminder is needed.

It is a meme.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Google for a poem called “The Chaos”. It starts with “Dearest creature in creation”. Read it out loud without errors.

        • Treczoks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          As a non-native speaker, it took me a quite few trials to get things right. And it contained a shitload of surprizes.

          There is a reason this poem is called “The Chaos”.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And, have you read it aloud? ;-)

        But it is good that you provided the link instead of the text, as the link contains a load of additional information about the poem and its author.

      • uid0gid0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        When tweetle beetles fight, it’s called a tweetle beetle battle.

        And when they battle in a puddle, it’s a tweetle beetle puddle battle.

        AND, when tweetle beetles battle with paddles in a puddle, they call it a tweetle beetle puddle paddle battle.

        AND, when beetles battle beetles in a puddle paddle battle and the beetle battle puddle is a puddle in a bottle they call it a tweetle beetle bottle puddle paddle battle muddle.

      • steventhedev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the set of definitions contains the word set, does the English language implode in a recursive cascade of paradoxes?

        • bort@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          A set can totally contain itself. A better question would be: Consider a set, that contains all sets, that do not contain themself. Would that set contain itself?

          • hglman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, just relax the axiom of comprehension, allow U ∈ U and move on with proving things for fun and profit. No one said that you have to pick axioms that seem natural or intuitive.

        • phorq@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          Español
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Define “the” without using the word “the”… Take that logic! Set and match!

  • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Come on, you can’t count Seal the musician… That’s not a common name in English speaking countries. I’ve never heard of anyone else named Seal

  • FishFace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    English is easy. The hardest part about it, which some other languages also feature, is a poor correspondence between the written and spoken language.

    • RadicalEagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That feels intuitively correct to me, but I’m not sure if I’d say any language is particularly “easy”. Language is complex, complicated and only makes sense in the context of understanding human communication. Although language is also more intuitive than we give it credit for.

      I think spoken Japanese is possibly “easier” than spoken English, but written Japanese (outside of digital media) is essentially impossible for me because I don’t have Kanji memorized.

      • FishFace@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean yes it’s a bit under-nuanced to describe any language as “easy” or “hard”. The single biggest influence is whether you’re already familiar with a similar language. English is going to be much easier if you already know German; Japanese will be much easier if you already know Okinawan. And as you say, written and spoke language can be quite different.

        That said, I don’t think it is the case that all of the different factors trade off against one another perfectly. I would expect them to trade off against one another to an extent though, because I would imagine there are forces which cause overly complex languages to become simpler, and more simple languages to become more complex. (One aspect of complexity comes through redundancy, such as requiring agreement between inflections of words when the inflection only conveys information already imparted from the rest of the sentence. But extra redundancy can aid in understanding because the listener generally doesn’t hear everything perfectly)

        But yeah, some languages just have incredibly complicated and picky grammar, whilst others have relatively simple grammar. As an English speaker, Japanese grammar has lots of unfamiliar features but could still be simpler than Finnish, which also has lots of unfamiliar grammar but which is very complex.

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like English is fairly easy to get into and have a correct conversation level. But that it’s insanely hard to master.

      • FishFace@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have no reference for the relative difficulty of languages to master, except that I know that all languages are incredibly hard to master to the level of a native speaker.

  • anar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    English is only “hard” because it is shit. There ain’t no rules for nothing. All the “rules” have exceptions, which have exceptions, which have have exceptions.

  • NotSpez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Damn. I keep being surprised by how many people take stuff online way too seriously. Good meme, you get my seal of approval

    • treesquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But an acronym that was intentionally made to be the name of the animal, so it’s just a duplicate, like all three of the non-singer seals, which just mean to lock something in or out. There are only 2 meanings of seal here, plus a singer who named himself after one of them.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve never seen it written that way, love to read, was an EMT, went to college, etc… Just saying I missed that somewhere and often saw hiccup, even in EMT educational textbooks.

    • Troy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d argue that even cough and rough are different. There’s probably more.

        • Dexx1s@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, we all say hiccup. FFS, googling “hiccough” essentially autocorrects to hiccup. If everyone spells it hiccup and also pronounces it hiccup, literally no one is using “hiccough”.

          • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure sure. And you can spell through as thru as well. That doesn’t change the original spelling, or the fact that they’re pronounced the same.

            • Dexx1s@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              And you can spell through as thru as well.

              No you can’t. Not in the same way. “Thru” is an informal word, similar to writing “gud 2 c u”.

              How about you at least try something that’s not blatantly inequivalent. If I Google “thru”, what can I expect to find? If I run both through a dictionary, what can I expect to find? If I poll the general public on each, which one would be accepted as a proper spelling? What would I have to do to both “thru” and “hiccup” be treated as equals here?

              That doesn’t change the original spelling, or the fact that they’re pronounced the same

              I said nothing about an original spelling. But if you’re calling it the original spelling, you’re kinda just conceding that “Hiccough” is the original and “hiccup” is the current.

        • Donebrach@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          no one uses hiccough. it’s outdated and dead. Just as in the future no one will use “surewhynotlem” and will instead use the proper and more agreed upon spelling “donebrach”