Is English primitive?

He's not primitive. It just aims for information. Those. it's more difficult to express your feelings there than let's say in Russian. But it is better to convey some message correctly in English.

There are more words in the English language than in any other in the world, at least for this reason it can hardly be called primitive.

Ronik 1912
Word count does not mean primitiveness. Groot says only one phrase - I am Groot. But it is not considered primitive.

Green green green green green
green green green green

English English is not primitive, but simpler (again, relatively), therefore (well, because it was actively promoted) it became the language of international communication. The language of trade.

It's just more linear. You can't shuffle the words in it as you like. After all, the meaning of the sentence depends on the arrangement of words. You put the words in the wrong place and in the place of thanking a person and also swear at him.

Protestant Knight
Isn't it in Russian? For us, even the comma matters.

7Rain7
As far as I have noticed, in modern Russian teaching, even the very concept of "comma" is absent, and if it does appear, it does not matter - commas are placed anywhere just for "solidity."
And the primitiveness of English, apparently, lies in the fact that advanced individuals still have to combine streams of English words with Russian inclusions - there are not enough English analogues for all

In English, everything is much simpler with stress in all words (the most difficult thing for foreigners to learn Russian and similar languages), the words in the sentence do not agree with endings and do not have a clear gender division (therefore, the translation into Russian in games is oblique under female characters) ... The structure of a sentence determines part of its meaning. A lot of time is devoted to events and their significance for the content of the sentence - therefore, verbs have a lot of time. Adverbials and similar expressions are also transmitted through the tense forms of the verbs.
In general, English has a clearer structure, but at the same time there is a certain number of exceptions formed under the influence of historical events and colloquial expressions (for example, the reduction of the main verb in a sentence).

7Rain7
For us, even the comma matters.
But many don't even use it.

Sergey Zakharenko
eroppo
But many people don't even use it.
And this is very sad.

And you can express yourself with relish in English.

English is still worse and simpler than Russian, yes.

7Rain7
I'm talking about the fact that we can shuffle the subject verbs, the predicate as you like, but in English everything should be strictly in a certain order.

well, Russian synthetic, and English. - analytical ... maybe that's the whole problem?

Fan_Tiesto
Those who seriously call this language primitive simply do not really know it (if they know it at all). Rich in words, very idiomatic, laconic, with a simple but flexible grammar - all this makes him much more elegant than Russian. Russian, too, of course, is not a bastard, but compared to English it is noticeably more cumbersome and redundant. A page of English text will swell one and a half times if translated into Great and Mighty.

well, Russian synthetic, and English. - analytical ... maybe that's the whole problem?
Rather, the problem is that many people confuse simplicity with primitiveness. At the same time, they themselves are familiar with English at the maximum school level (and in schools it is usually taught simply disgustingly).

Gauguin
English is still worse and simpler than Russian, yes.
Figase, I didn't expect from you. ))

I don’t understand why in all countries of the world in schools they do not teach as a foreign language, for example, Esperanto? In other words, the failure suffered by artificial languages, created specifically as a means of international communication, and therefore convenient and easy to learn, is incomprehensible.

Veenine
May be light. But in my life I have never met a person who knows Esperanto. But many friends know English, although some of them were taught German or French at school. It still depends more on the person himself what language to study, and whether to study at all.

Meniuris
So it is understandable why now it is of interest only to enthusiasts - because it has not become what it was intended, that is, an international language. And it is not clear why it happened so, why this language (well, or any other artificial one) was not introduced.

JetRanger A
page of English text will swell one and a half times if translated into Great and Mighty.
... which is just great. In places where Occam's Razor is used, this may be a minus, but where you need to express your thoughts in detail and on a large scale, it is a definite plus.

Gauguin
where you need to express your thoughts in detail and on a large scale is a definite plus.
The fact of the matter is that the details and scale remain the same (if the translation is accurate and adequate). But at the same time, the volume becomes larger.
The Russian language, even at the level of words, is heavier than English. In our words, there are elementary more syllables, not least due to the endings (the same synthetics).

Veenine
And it is not clear why it happened so, why this language (well, or any other artificial one) was not introduced.
And what is the point of inventing an extra language, if the existing ones are in bulk? Choose the most common, and you will have international communication. At the same time, it will become possible to communicate normally with all native speakers of this language in the respective countries, and their culture will also become open to you in all its original glory.

And then, Esperanto is easy only for Europeans, roughly speaking. For the Chinese or Japanese, it is not very much easier than the same English, for example.