Some languages certainly seem more suited to rhyme. The Inferno sounds far better in the original for example. English is not a particularly great language for poetry. Shakespeare succeeds in beating it into iambic pentameter, but only with great skill and flexibility, and because he is using an old dialect. Chaucer also sounds better in the original, but really needs to be in translation for modern English speakers to understand it. I truly envy those whose native language hasn't changed as much over the ages, and can still read ancient and medieval works (e.g. Fus-ha).

Other languages can be adapted to a greater variety of meters. Dactylic hexameter isn't really an option in the same way for example, especially not for great epics.

The nuance of Hebrew, and especially Greek is famously crushed by Latin, where you are stuck either adding a bunch of words or making clauses ambiguous in what they are referring to in a sentence. But Latin is also a pretty language.

Syllabus per second vary, with Germans being on the low end with 5 or 6, versus 9 for Italians. But I recall that the bit rate computed for languages varies very little despite this.

Some languages certainly seem more suited to rhyme. The Inferno sounds far better in the original for example. English is not a particularly great language for poetry — Count Timothy von Icarus

On the other hand, it has been said that English is better suited to rock and roll than other languages , maybe due to the syllabic compactness of its vocabulary.

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

Languages are different but that doesn't mean one has to be better than another.

The language(s) we learn as children are not the result of one being better than another, but rather what is available. What is available is determined by social, political, economic, and geographic factors. Is Latin better than Greek or Gaelic? (No.). Proper Latin was spoken by important people who lived in the Roman Empire and by people who wanted to be perceived by others as real Romans. "Real Romans speak educated Latin regardless of where they are from" was the rule. That educated Latin was a passport to the higher circles of Roman society was a result of the way the Roman Empire operated. When the Empire fizzled out, proper Latin started to fade away (except in the Church).

English is the current "lingua Franca" of the world, (an insult to the French) not because this "bastardized language" is better but because empires made English the most convenient language to employ in the largest number of settings. It could have been some other language, and maybe Chinese will be lingua franca in the future. Or Hindi. Who knows?

Saying "one language is not better than another" doesn't mean that there are not significant differences among the many languages. It does seem like Latin would be easier to devise poetic rhymes than English. Writing great poetry in Latin in 2024 won't advance your literary career very much, given the dearth of Latin readers.

I'd like to speak fluent German, French, Spanish, Latin, Greek, and a couple of other languages, but that train didn't arrive at the station. Sic transit gloria mundi.

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

You should have asked "in what sense" better, rather than just better. It sounds vague and unclear without some quantifier when asking which is better.

Language is a tool to communicate for foremost purpose. Tools must be useful for their worthy of existence. So if you say which language is most useful, then it must be the one which you can communicate with most people in the world. And which language has most books written, published and translated from other language books. These are the questions you must ask.

There is no point a language great in whatever reasons for, but only 10 people in the world speaks, and has only 2 books published and 5 books translated from the other languages. It would be not very useful, flexible or interesting at all to be confined in using a language with the limitations.

If you read this far, then the answer is clear. It is English which is the most useful language in the world for the number of speakers in the world (don't know how many exactly but it would be spoken in every country you place you foot in), all the books written and published (again must be the most), and also has the most translated copies of the books in the world than any other languages.

f you read this far, then the answer is clear. It is English which is the most useful language in the world for the number of speakers in the world (don't know how many exactly but it would be spoken in every country you place you foot in), — Corvus

I think this isn't quite right - about 1.3bil English speakers and about 1.8bil Mandarin speakers last I saw anything about it..

I think this isn't quite right - about 1.3bil English speakers and about 1.8bil Mandarin speakers last I saw anything about it.. — AmadeusD

A lot of them would also speak English in some degree. So you must add about 15-30% of them into the English speakers. Every country in the world you think of, you should be adding 20-30% of them into the number of English speakers.
Thinks of India, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and some African countries. Their 2nd or official language is English. Whatever countries you go, if you don't know their own native language, then you would communicate with them in English.

those are overlapping numbers - not single-language speakers.

But you’re right on the latter particularly in terms of volume of media

those are overlapping numbers - not single-language speakers. — AmadeusD

Yes, many folks in the world speak 2-3 languages.

Yes, many folks in the world speak 2-3 languages. — Corvus

My point is that number for English speakers includes those people.

It doesn’t exclude them. So nothing to add to the number :)

My point is that number for English speakers includes those people.

It doesn’t exclude them. So nothing to add to the number :) — AmadeusD

Well fair enough. My estimation of total English speakers being the top in the world came from guessing, and it was maybe wrong. I am not sure. But having said that, are you 100% certain your number is correct? :D I am not actually sure if the total number of Mandarin speakers would be correct. The quoted figure would be some statistic data from somewhere (of which I have no clue what it could be). Why should I trust it? What is the ground for its accuracy?
My point was, whatever countries I visited, if didn't know their native local language, I was able to communicate with the most locals in English. No other language would have been able to do that.

My point was, whatever countries I visited, if didn't know their native local language, I was able to communicate with the most locals in English. No other language would have been able to do that. — Corvus

I would say i've somewhat experienced the same, but only in a commercial sense.

Most random locals don't speak English in the, lets say, 'exotic' places i've visited. I had to pick up some Arabic to work my way around, socially, in Egypt (don't read in to that - i recall about six words), despite every commercial interaction being super-easy due to English being taken on for that purpose in Egypt.

What does any of this mean? — Jamal

You know, you could contribute to what it means if you had any thoughts about language other than irritation about what other people know about it.

For instance, Arabic became the language of science, philosophy, and poetry among post 9th Century Muslims, even though they were Iranian and mostly spoke Persian. At the hub of the world's overland trade routes, they had long been polylingual, but there was something about Arabic that they particularly loved. So yes, a language can be viewed as superior for certain activities. And please stop being a butthead.

Feel free to discuss the topic, but if you have any more complaints about me, take them to Feedback.

I would say i've somewhat experienced the same, but only in a commercial sense.

Most random locals don't speak English in the, lets say, 'exotic' places i've visited. I had to pick up some Arabic to work my way around, socially, in Egypt (don't read in to that - i recall about six words), despite every commercial interaction being super-easy due to English being taken on for that purpose in Egypt. — AmadeusD

Yeah, I was in some sceptic mood there in my previous message. :)
I had a wee word about this with folks here, and they say that if you only count native language speakers total, then Mandalin is 1.1 billion speakers and the top. But if you include the native speakers and the 2nd language speakers in the world, then English comes the top with 1.45 billion speakers in the world.
This is no surprise, because every country in Europe, they all speak English at least up to daily conversational level. And almost all countries in the world, English is taught and learnt as 2nd language in school.
I had some Chinese & Japanese friends, they all spoke English, and we used to communicate in English no bother at all.

every country in Europe, they all speak English at least up to daily conversational level — Corvus

Not that it matters much, but this is not remotely the case, unless you just mean that all European countries have significant numbers of English-speakers.

English comes the top with 1.45 billion speakers in the world. — Corvus

After some more digging, it looks to me like the top total number is in flux, and trades off between Mandarin and English. Variously, there are 1.4-1.6bil English speakers total, and anywhere from 1.3-1.8 billion Mandarin speakers in total.

However, significantly more native speakers of Mandarin - about 955mil vs 450mil in English.

But i would concur with Jamal there. It's not that these countries use it daily - its largely commerce.

Not that it matters much, but this is not remotely the case, unless you just mean that all European countries have significant numbers of English-speakers. — Jamal

Yes, you could be correct. My statement was again from my guessing having met many continental European students from Germany, Norway, Italy, France, Spain, .. even from Romania, they all spoke perfect English. But in their own countries, I am not sure how it would be like. I have not been to many of the countries personally.

However, significantly more native speakers of Mandarin - about 955mil vs 450mil in English. — AmadeusD

Agreed. Yes, this sounds accurate.

Yeah, travelling students must be a minority. My experience is that in France, Spain, Italy, and Russia, English is only spoken in the touristy parts of big cities and holiday resorts. But in the Netherlands and Scandinavia I suspect most people do speak English.

But in the Netherlands and Scandinavia I suspect most people do speak English. — Jamal

This is true. When I went to the Netherlands, I recall all of them spoke English everywhere we went. I have not been to Scandinavia, but had friends from Finland and Norway. They spoke good English.

Language is a tool to communicate for foremost purpose. — Corvus

Yes, since through language, early humans were able to evolve and survive better by communicating more effectively.
But… I’ve been thinking, and there lies the problem.
When I think, I always use language to do so (I believe this may be overlapping with another recent post about internal dialogue, which astounded me when I first considered the possibility that not all people have internal dialogue) I cannot seem to think of anything at all without it materializing as words and sentences in my mind. Now I am trying to do it, and all I can hear is, “Now I am trying to do it.” But more than that, when I am trying to understand something, or work something out, I do so only by thinking in language. Therefore, it seems to be the only way I can successfully understand the world. Even if I see an orange, for example, when I look at it, I think, “orange.” Of course, this can develop, and I can think of a whole load of complex things about the orange if I want to, and also, the orange doesn't have to be there. But whatever I think about, the words pop into my brain first to enable me to think about it. Therefore, the thoughts seem to have more power than the orange itself, since they can be more complex than it, and they seem to take over. (Oh, wait! Can thoughts of an orange be more powerful than the orange itself? I guess that is another whole debate)
Not only that, having been thinking about this recently, and trying it out, I’ve realized that, when I try to suppress the inner dialogue— which I cannot 100% successfully do—I begin to ‘see’ the thing I am thinking about. I see it vaguely, perhaps because I am distracted by the whole language thing, but I see it like when I can picture something in my head, like my previous house, or my old school, or something like that. Am I totally weird or something? I hope this happens to other people too.
Anyway, so this led me to thinking, what if the foremost purpose of language is for people to make sense of the world by thinking things, and communication is a secondary benefit? What if, in caveman/women times (sorry, anthropologists would be tutting and shaking their heads at me now, but you know what I mean) in order to make sense of their world, people had their own inner dialogues, their own unique languages, and then began to communicate by amalgamating all the languages into a common one, in that particular tribe or group of people anyway?
And then I wonder, is that basically what we have done by adopting English, since English is an amalgamation of a whole lot of different languages?
I really hope I haven’t broken any rules in this post by the way :/ Please excuse me if I have, as I am new to this site.
Am I allowed to say all this without referring to a philosopher? I guess that rationalists would say that language is innate. This seems to support the possibility that people may be capable of developing their own internal ‘languages’, enabling them to interpret the world, until they become able to amalgamate them with the most commonly used languages around them.
Or… this could all be a total lot of nonsense. But… it’s a thought… which has probably been thought and said before at some point, I’m sure.

If, however, this whole idea is true, it would make the concept of one language being better than another a nonsense, since there would be far too many to make a decision. In addition, there seems to be far too much mixing of languages to pull one out and name it superior. Those who would say that English is superior may have problems with the French, for example, who could pipe up and say, "Wait! But your language cannot be the best, since our language is mixed into yours."
Although, I guess you may be able to say that one language, such as English, is the best mixer of languages. But then you'd get those languages that are mixed into French piping up and saying, "Wait..." And it goes on...

PS Sorry about the massive long post! My brain seems to have been working overtime!

I would say mainly due to the British Empire first and foremost. — I like sushi

The US has also played an important role, especially in how English became a de-facto global language. Such as why it's spoken in the EU. It's a minor disagreement at best, so I'll say no more on it.

Some values are better than others. Not sure how you could argue otherwise? — I like sushi

Your scale of inquiry is far too large. You're looking for anything about English that could've had any impact in any area across possibly hundreds of years. The problem with evaluating languages is that they're part of everything, and never the only factor.

With both your comparison of Sicilian or mine with Japanese, it's also unclear whether the language differences cause or reflect cultural differences. I'm sure it's a combination of both, but worth keeping in mind.

The topic is too broad for me, although the question of evaluating the pros/cons of languages is one I've often pondered, the only thing I've managed to achieve is a headache.

I really hope I haven’t broken any rules in this post by the way :/ Please excuse me if I have, as I am new to this site. — Beverley

Welcome to TPF. You are doing great. No problems. Thank you for your great post.
Yes, I see your point. Language is also for understanding the world, and this could be actually the foremost purpose and point. Because from the early age, people learns the native language interacting with the world, not necessarily communicating with the people. Communication is for the later stage of life, where one wants to extend one's scope of knowledge or the world vista.

I can also see how you have inner dialogue, and it is critical process in thinking. I think in Locke and Hume, our ideas are same as the words, so perceiving meant understanding, and understanding meant ability to express in language.

And you are correct in saying that English is a complex language with multitude of mixture with the other languages, and there is no such a thing for clear criteria which language is better.
I personally chose to use English from purely practical point that the most countries I have been, more people seem to be speaking it as their 2nd language, and also the amount of books published and translated into English in all subjects. Price and availability of books in English were also very practical for accessing and being able to afford them too.

Anyhow, thanks for your points on the topic. I hope we can exchange more points on the topics we share as our mutual interests in the future. cheers.

I really hope I haven’t broken any rules in this post by the way :/ Please excuse me if I have, as I am new to this site. — Beverley

No you haven't broken any rules. The only thing I'd say is that you should put a blank line between paragraphs to make it more readable.

Welcome, Beverley. :smile:

Are you just identifying your subjective opinion, or are you saying something objective?

As in, you think you better express yourself with painting than sculpture, or are you saying that sculpture is the truly best way to express certain perspectives?

Seems the former would be the only sustainable claim. — Hanover

Dude, to say something is "better" is a subjective opinion.
So, I don't understand what the confusion is about.

Good advice. Thank you.

We get saturated in English from early age. Few things are dubbed except toddler tv programs. And we think american sounds kinda cool so yes we probably speak English better than most born with uncouth languages.

Italian is the best language I’ve stumbled on so far, stringent, clear in pronounciation and well sounds pretty nice too. Like it more than French or Spanish. French sounds nice but its a language for talking, not for communication(pretty much the sister language of Danish in the latin language group albeit beautiful). Spanish is such a mixture of arabian, germanic and latin, very hard to get a grasp on. And well not as cute as Italian.

Spanish is such a mixture of arabian, germanic and latin, very hard to get a grasp on — Ansiktsburk

I just discovered that my language has Germanic roots...

It is difficult to 'grasp on' exactly what?

I find the British accent cool.


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JUOXOQR_yyA