Showing posts with label Hebrew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hebrew. Show all posts

Friday, May 17, 2013

Eurovision 2013 Edition

An enjoyable way to learn a language is through music. When a song is catchy, you'll want to listen to it more than once which enables repetition for learning. If you learn the lyrics and sing along, then you'll again be repeating correct grammar and structures which help you practice the language. But finding music, let alone good music, can be difficult, especially if you're new to learning the language.

For those who want to learn a European language (or the language of a country that is close to Europe), the 58th edition of the annual Eurovision competition can be a good place to find music in multiple languages. Well, to a degree I suppose. Since countries aren't allowed to vote for themselves in the competition, there is the tendency for the music to be in English so that it appeals to the largest audience possible. In the last twenty years, the winning song has been entirely in English sixteen times. Still, each year plenty of songs enter the competition in other languages. In fact, my first exposure to Eurovision was when I was learning Hebrew in college and we learned the words to the 1979 winner, the incredibly catchy and upbeat הללויה (Hallelujah). Here is a list of all of this years' entries that are not in English, including links to lyrics to help with your language learning. If you click on the artist's name and profile, you'll get sent to their official link which includes the lyrics in the original language, English, and sometimes French. 

Didn't qualify for the final

Country: Croatia, Language: Croatian
Artist: Klapa s Mora, Song: Mižerja (Misery)




Country: Montenegro, Language: Montenegrin
Artist: Who See, Song: Игранка (Igranka, The Party)


Country: Cyprus, Language: Greek
Artist: Despina Olympiou, Song: Aν με θυμάσαι (An me thimasai, If You Remember Me)





Country: Serbia, Language: Serbian
Artist: Moje 3, Song: Љубав је свуда (Ljubav je svuda, Love is everywhere)



Country: San Marino, Language: Italian
Artist: Valentina Monetta, Song: Crisalide (Vola), (Chrysalis (Fly))



Valentina Monetta also represented San Marino in last year's contest where she sang a ridiculous song about Facebook. In fact, whenever someone mentions Facebook, I sing a little bit of the chorus to myself as a joke that only I get. This year, she's back with far more serious fare. I kind of liked this song, so I'm a little disappointed that it didn't go through to the final.

Country: Macedonia, Language: Macedonian, Romani
Artist: Esma and Lozano, Song: Пред да се раздени (Pred da se razdeni, Before the Sunrise)



Country: Bulgaria, Language: Bulgarian
Artist: Elitsa Todorova and Stoyan Yankulov, Song: Само шампиони (Samo shampioni, Only Champions)


Here's another one I'm disappointed didn't qualify for the final. I like the combination of heavy percussion and Bulgarian folk music (including bagpipes) mixed with modern pop/rock.


Country: Israel, Language: Hebrew
Artist: Moran Mozar, Song: רק בשבילו (Rak bishvilo, Only for him)


Country: Albania, Language: Albanian
Artist: Adrian Lulgjuraj and Bledar Sejko, Song: Identitet (Identity)



Qualified for Final

Country: Estonia, Language: Estonian
Artist: Birgit, Song: Et uus saaks alguse (So there can be a new beginning)



Country: Moldova, Language: Romanian
Artist: Aliona Moon, Song: O mie (A thousand)



Country: Iceland, Language: Icelandic
Artist: Eythor Ingi, Song: Ég á líf (I am alive)




Country: Greece, Language: Greek
Artist: Koza Mostra feat. Agathon Iakovidis, Song: Alcohol is Free


This is a somewhat odd combination of traditional rebetiko music and essentially ska. I think it kind of works though.

Country: Hungary, Language: Hungarian
Artist: ByeAlex, Song: Kedvesem (My darling)


From the little bit I've followed this in the Hungarian press, it seems like Hungarians are proud to have a song in the final, but disappointed that it's sung by someone they see as a hipster dufus. I actually like this song quite well. It's very simple and sweet, and I love when the timpani kicks in during the chorus.

Country: France, Language: French
Artist: Amandine Bourgeois, Song: L'enfer et moi



I like the thundering beat of the chorus and the video filled with memento mori, but is there anyway she can keep her dress straps up? It seems like in every shot of this video they're falling down to the point where it just seems comical.


Country: Spain, Language: Spanish
Artist: ESDM, Song: Contigo hasta el final (With you until the end)


If this is from Spain, why does it sound like it's from Ireland? Also, once the white horse appears it just makes me think of the Father Ted parody of Eurovision titled "My lovely horse." I guess this means this song didn't do much for me, since all I could think of the entire time were jokes.

Country: Italy, Language: Italian
Artist: Marco Mengoni, Song: L'essenziale (The essential)



Of course, as I already mentioned, this post only includes those entries that are not in English. There are nine other songs (all in English) that will be competing in the final. Personally, I put my money on either Malta's entry for just how cheerful it is (and because the guy is a full-time doctor, part-time singer. How cool is that?) or on Norway's I Feed You My Love, but that's probably because I'm a sucker for European electropop. You all should be able to tune in to find out for yourselves. The final airs starting at 9pm Central European Standard Time this Saturday and can be streamed online at Eurovision's website.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

What Makes a Language Hard to Learn Part 3: Vocabulary

In previous entries, I discussed how grammar and pronunciation issues can affect how difficult it is to learn a language. In this post, I'll discuss some issues that can occur with vocabulary that I find to be difficult.

Grammar or Vocabulary Focused Instruction?

There is some discussion among language educators about whether language learning should be grammar focused or vocabulary focused. For the longest time, learning a language meant learning grammar. You would spend hours upon hours studying verb paradigms and case tables, then once you had mastered the grammar you could start plugging vocabulary into it. For many, this might seem obvious and intuitive, but the argument that language learning is more about vocabulary is quite compelling. For instance, I can make a sentence that is grammatically incorrect, but that is still comprehensible, like "I go store." It's missing aspects the grammar says should be there, like "I am going" instead of "I go", or "to the store" instead of just "store." Nevertheless, I'm sure most individuals who are familiar with English could decode the sentence's meaning despite the lack of grammar.

The same isn't true if we reverse it, that is, create a sentence that is grammatically correct but where the vocabulary isn't. An example of this comes from the famous linguist Noam Chomsky: "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." It's a fun sentence, especially because the grammar is completely correct, but no real meaning can be derived from it.

Frequency

It is because of examples like this that those within corpus linguistics (i.e., those who study language using real world texts) argue that language should be taught focusing on language that people actually use rather than grammar for grammar's sake. For instance, in the English verb system there is something called the future perfect progressive tense. It goes something like "I will have been doing..." Ask yourself, just how often do you express this kind of idea? Probably not very often. It's generally used to express that in the future you'll have been doing something that you started in the past for a certain amount of time, like "10 years from now I will have been studying French for 11 years." It's a structure and an idea that simply doesn't come up very often. In fact, while I was teaching in Hungary, another English teacher came to me and said, "Be honest. You never real use the future perfect progressive." I told him that if you need to express that kind of an idea, it's the only way to do it, but we really don't need to express that idea very often. Nevertheless, it is generally given equal weight to other tenses and structures when using a grammar focused approach even though it is not used frequently.

This idea of frequency is important and suggests that we should be focusing on high frequency vocabulary and grammar instead of just treating all grammar equally. For instance, a phrase that entered modern parlance, say, about 10 years ago is "I'm on the bus," obviously because of the invention of the cellphone. (Before that, you would have seemed quite mad if you had uttered this phrase out loud to everyone within earshot).

So ultimately, what this means is when deciding whether a language has difficult vocabulary or not, we should be considering the most frequent vocabulary. I remember back when I was in Argentina, and someone made the claim that Spanish was the hardest language in the world to learn because it had a larger vocabulary than most languages. To which I simply ask, okay, sure, but how many of those words do you really need to know in order to use the language? 

Word Formation

I've spent most of this series badmouthing the Semitic languages, Arabic and Hebrew because of their seemingly random grammar and unhelpful spelling systems. Lest anyone think I'm anti-semitic (and I really want that pun to work more than it actually does), I'm actually going to say some nice things about both languages regarding their vocabulary. In general, if a language is hard in one aspect, there's usually another aspect where it's incredibly easy that makes up for it. In this case, semitic languages use a root system for forming their vocabulary, often where a 3 letter root represents a basic concept, then puts them in different structures to form new words. For example:

Hebrew                                            Arabic
root: ספר (s-f-r) "write"                      root: كتب (k-t-b) "write"
a book: סֵפֶר (sefer)                           book: كتاب (kitab)
library: סִפְרִיָּה (sifriah)                        library: مكتبة (maktabah)
writer, or author:
סוֹפֵר (sofer)            writer, or author: الكاتب (al-katib)

My Hebrew teacher when I was an undergraduate actually gave this as an example to demonstrate how easy building vocabulary could be in these languages. While English has several different unrelated forms that have to do with writing, in Hebrew and Arabic they're all based on the same root. This makes building vocabulary in the language very quick, since once you know the root you're able to learn several other words with it. (By the way, I got the Hebrew script with the vowels written in by looking the words up on doitinhebrew.com. I really recommend it over Google Translate as an online Hebrew dictionary).

Cognates

When I was learning Spanish, I felt like once I had learned all the basic vocabulary, I was able to quickly learn more advanced vocabulary because of the high number of cognates. This is because both languages are part of different branches of the same language family, Indo-European. In addition, a lot of more advanced English words were borrowed directly from Latin, so there are again a lot of cognates. On the other hand, when I was learning Hungarian, which is a Finno-Ugric language, not Indo-European, I didn't have the same luxury because new vocabulary rarely has a cognate form in English. Here's some random words to prove my point:


Of course, I recognize that the more related languages are, the more likely it is that there will be some faux amis, or false cognates, between them. But even then, I'd rather take having to learn that "Soy embarazado" means that I'm pregnant (not embarrassed) instead of having to learn the majority of new vocabulary one by one because of a lack of cognates.

I know it's hard to believe, but I actually shared something I think is hard about Hungarian but is easy in Arabic. Absolutely shocking.
 

Sunday, April 21, 2013

What Makes a Language Hard to Learn Part 2: Grammar

In my last entry, I discussed what makes a language hard to learn and focused on pronunciation, basically saying that a language having different sounds doesn't necessarily make it difficult unless those sounds involve minimal pairs, are difficult for me to find in my mouth, and are not clearly represented in the writing system. This time, I'd like to tackle grammar issues.

I've lived in Argentina, Hungary, and Qatar, and in each one I've had someone tell me that their language is the hardest one in the world to learn. I'll say right now that the argument that Spanish is the hardest language is pretty flimsy (I think it had something to do with Spanish having a lot of vocabulary words). It's much easier to make the argument for Hungarian or Arabic, though I want to say right here and now that I don't find Hungarian grammar to be terribly difficult. In fact, I find it to be quite logical and easy, so it really isn't very time consuming. Regardless of the language studied, you have to spend a lot of time studying grammar. I don't have too much of a problem with this, again, so long as the grammar seems fairly rule-based and logical. It's when grammar textbooks say "There is no rule for this and each instance must be memorized" that I begin to feel that the language is being needlessly difficult.

Formation of Plurals

Forming plurals in English is fairly easy. You add an -s to the word. Sure, there are a few irregular plurals (child/children) and sometimes you add -es, but I think in most cases if you don't do it one-hundred percent correctly, the meaning will not be affected. Saying something like "She has many childs" sounds wrong, but you probably have no problem understanding it, and I think that understandability is an important key in what makes a grammar difficult.

I know it's just going to come off like I think Arabic is hard, but this is one thing that really gets me about the language. A lot of Arabic nouns form plurals by an internal consonant change. Something like this:

كتاب [kitab] - book / كتب [kutub] - books
فندق [funduq] - hotel / فبادق [fanadiq] - hotels
هرم [haram] - pyramid / أهرام [ahara:m] - pyramids

These changes aren't completely random, but it certainly can feel that way. In reality, there is a set number of patterns that can be made. It's kind of similar to strong verb forms in English, like speak/spoke, eat/ate, drink/drunk. The difference being that in English it really is a limited list of verbs that are affected by this, while in Arabic it seems like the majority of nouns. What this means is that for any noun that is learned, the plural form must be learned with it. Part of this also demands a good quality dictionary that will list the plural forms. If the dictionary only lists the singular, then the learner will have a hard time figuring it out.

I've felt a similar issue with German, where plurals can be formed either by adding an ending (often -e, -er, -en or -s), by an internal vowel change, by both, or by neither. Consider the following:

Die Tasche / Die Taschen - The bag / The bags
Das Buch / Die Bücher - The book / The books
Der Wagen / Die Wagen - The car / The cars

Again, there are a fairly limited number of patterns that are used and knowing the gender of the word can help narrow it down even more, but at the end of the day, when learning a new word you also have to learn the plural form. There is rarely anyway you can figure it out on your own.

In this respect at least, Hungarian is rather easy. There are some a few simple rules regarding vowel harmony which dictates all word formation in Hungarian, but after that the plural is formed simply by adding -k to the word.

taska / taskák - bag / bags
könyv / könyvek - book / books
bolt / boltok - store / stores
kocsi / kocsik - car / cars

The point is, once you know the handful of rules that govern plural formation, you can apply them to any noun you see without having to learn the form separately.

Case

While I'm on the topic of Hungarian, something I hear a lot of people groan about is that Hungarian has a lot of grammatical cases. Depending on what you mean by a case, there are at least sixteen. People who have struggled through cases in German, or worse still in Russian, quiver at the thought of having to learn so many cases.

The thing is, it's nowhere near that difficult. In German, Russian, and several other languages, grammatical case is simply something that the grammar demands. That is, it doesn't generally contain any meaning of its own.

ein Bruder - a brother, der Ball - the ball
Ich habe einen Bruder - I have a brother (+acc).
Ich gebe den Ball zu meinem Bruder - I give the ball (+acc) to my brother (+dat).

The first example demonstrates the accusative case. That is, since "Bruder" is the object of the verb "habe", and "Bruder" is a masculine noun, I have to add the accusative ending "-en." In the next example, "der Ball" is changed to "den Ball" for the same reason. There is also an example of the dative ending, "-em" because I am giving the ball to my brother (which is a dative construction). The thing is, the word "zu" is also there, which means "to." In addition, I'm using masculine nouns here. If I were using feminine or neuter ones, then different endings would have to be memorized. It's also different in the plural.

The other thing that strikes me in these examples is that the case ending doesn't really contain any meaning. It's just there because the grammar says it has to be. An example from English to demonstrate this would be the difference between "me" (which is used in accusative and dative constructions) and "I" (which is used in nominative constructions, or as the subject). If I ask, "Are you talking to I?" it sounds a little strange, but you still understand it. In fact, add another noun in there, and you might not know which is correct anymore. "Are you talking to John and I?" Or is it supposed to be "John and me?" Unless you're a real stickler for grammar, both probably sound fine because the meaning is identical in both (but so you know, "John and me" is correct).

Cases in Hungarian are almost entirely meaning based, which I think makes them really easy. Also, Hungarian doesn't have any grammatical gender, so you don't have to memorize endless charts. Again, the vowel changes based on rules of vowel harmony, but other than that the ending ends up being exactly the same.

az asztal - the table
az asztalra - onto the table (sublative case)
az asztalon - on the table (suppressive case)
az asztalról - off the table (delative case)

A   könyvet        az    asztalra        tettem
the book (+acc) the   table (+sub) put (1sing +past)
I put the book on the table

I personally don't feel that this functions the same as grammatical case in other languages and that it would be more accurate to simply refer to them as suffixes. Whatever you call them, they are fairly straightforward to use.

Gender

Similar to case, gender usually ends up being something that the grammar requires, but doesn't contain any meaning itself. Sure, sometimes it aligns pretty well. Words that describe men often are masculine in gender, while words that describe women can be female (unless you are a young girl in Germany, or Mädchen, which is a neuter word), but for the most part, grammatical gender has nothing to do with whether the noun being described is a boy or girl, but is just there to meet the demands of the grammar.

In some cases, like in Spanish, this is really no big deal because the gender doesn't do all that much. That is, if you want to say "the bread" and say "la pan" instead of "el pan," people are pretty much going to understand you. Gender in Spanish doesn't affect the formation of plurals (like it does in German) and Spanish doesn't use a case system, so there are no problems there.

As I've already shown, other languages do use different plurals and case endings for different genders, but this still isn't that big of a deal if I can figure out what gender the word is by looking at it. I'm sure most people are aware that masculine nouns in Spanish frequently end in an -o and feminine ones in an -a. But what about the many words that end in a different vowel, or in a consonant? How can you tell then?

In Spanish, you just have to memorize them, but in the Slavic languages I've studied (Russian, Slovak, Croatian, and Czech) they make it super easy for you. I'll use Slovak as an example, since that's the one I'm most familiar with, but it's all very similar in each of the languages.

Masculine - ends in a consonant
Feminine - ends with "a"
Neuter - ends with "o" or "e"

And for the most part, that's it. Sure there are some exceptions, but most of the nouns in Slovak follow this rule exactly, and if you can tell what gender a word uses just by looking at it, it makes it that much easier to learn.

I think the language that drives me absolutely up the wall when it comes to gender is Hebrew. Not only is there generally no way to tell what gender a word is just by looking at it, many masculine nouns take the feminine plural ending, and there's no way of knowing this unless you memorize each form individually. When I was in college learning these we called them "cross-dressers", though the joke really doesn't make them any easier to learn.

Masculine plural ending: ים- [im] / Feminine plural ending: ות- [ot]

דבר [davar] thing (masculine singular) / דברים [davarim] things (masculine plural)

מסעדה [misada] restaurant (feminine singular) / מסעדות [misadot] (feminine plural)
מקום [makom] place (masculine singular) /  מקומות [mekomot] (masculine noun with feminine plural)

So if I can close by making two points, it would be 1) though I might be biased, Hungarian grammar really isn't that hard, and 2) anytime I have to memorize forms individually because they don't appear to be governed by rules or patterns, I'm going to think that the grammar is difficult. In reviewing this article, I also noticed that I focused exclusively on nouns. In thinking about it, this might be because I don't really find verbs to be all that difficult in the languages I've studied (with the exception of imperfect and perfect verbs in Slavic languages). Adjectives and adverbs also seem to be pretty straightforward if you understand how the noun works, and prepositions don't follow any rhyme or reason, so there's little point in talking about it.

I also wanted to note that the issues I'm talking about here may make a language difficult to learn, but certainly not impossible. I'm simply sharing things that I have personally experienced that have frustrated me. Remember, every language is simple enough that a small child can figure it out simply by being exposed to it.