Are some languages more "complex" than others?

[lpetrich]

Separate roots ("suppletion") are also found in pronouns, like English I/me/my/mine and we/us/our/ours. These ones are inherited from Proto-Indo-European, with *ego-/*me- and *wei/*nos- In some others, some of the separate nominative (subject) forms dropped out. Latin 1p nôs, 2p vôs, 1s in Celtic (Irish, Welsh me) and Indic (Hindi mai, Sinhalese mama).

But in some languages, the plural ones are plural forms of the singular ones: Turkish 1s ben, 1p biz, 2s sen, 2p siz. BTW, the usual plural suffix in Turkish is -lar/-ler, depending on the preceding vowel.

Some languages also distinguish between inclusive and exclusive we: you and I, we without you.

 

[lpetrich]

Here is another example of complexity: multiclause sentences.

Second clause with a non-finite verb:
I watched Sophie scratch the cat's head.

Second clause a relative clause:
I watched Sophie, who scratched the cat's head.

Second clause introduced with a subordinating conjunction:
I watched Sophie as she scratched the cat's head.

Second clause introduced with a coordinating conjunction:
I watched Sophie, and she scratched the cat's head.

Both clauses separate (apposition):
I watched Sophie. She scratched the cat's head.

Stripped-down grammar:
Me watch Sophie. Sophie scratch cat head.

 

[Swammerdami]

Complexity may be measured by how many individual forms one has to learn. For N numbers and C noun cases, a modular sort of noun inflection would have only N + C forms, while a non-modular sort would have N*C forms. In general, N*C > N + C, so modularity is lower in complexity.

I'm sure your point is interesting and well-argued, but I don't understand a word. C=1 is the number of "noun cases" that Thai has, I suppose. I.e. Thai's noun inflection is neither "modular" nor "non-modular" -- it just doesn't exist.

A further problem is that a language can be simple in one thing and complex in another.

Obviously. The point is: Spoken Thai seems NON-complex in nearly all ways.

Chinese, Vietnamese, and Thai have highly modular and thus relatively simple grammar, but they have a kind of complexity that may seem odd to many of us:  Classifier (linguistics) using classifiers with counts. How do measure words work in Mandarin Chinese?
liǎngwèi lǎoshī - two person teacher
yīpǐ mǎ - one animal horse
sìbǎ yǐzi - four holdable chair
yībǎ huā - one holdable flower (bunch of flowers)
yīshuāng xié - one pair shoe
yītiáo yú - one long-and-narrow fish
...

Korean, Japanese, Khmer, and Burmese also have classifiers. The closest thing in English is "head of cattle", but that's very unusual.

As you go on to admit, English needs lots of words playing the role of classifiers. Three cups of ice-cream, two pieces of pizza, two herds of elephants, that school of fish, etc. etc.

English distinguishes between countable and uncountable nouns,

But unlike English, Thai is SIMPLE in that it doesn't distinguish these two types of noun. Some nouns serve as their own classifiers: "Bring glass beer three glass"; "Person come three person"; etc. And superfluous classifiers are sometimes optionally omitted.

Treating ALL nouns as "uncountable" may seem DIFFERENT from European languages, but it hardly seems COMPLEX.

like countable "cup" vs. uncountable "water". Thus, "three cups" but not "three waters". One must specify something countable with an uncountable noun, like "three cups of water". But one can use "bottle" or "gallon" or "drop" or several other such words, words that can be used on their own.

Another sort of complexity is selection of pronouns by level of formality and social status:  T–V distinction and  T–V distinction in the world's languages

Most of Thai's pronouns are used in intimate speech rather than formally. Whereas English needs 2 or 3 words to say "You, my dear" Thai makes do with a single word (an affectionate 'You'). English "He", "She", "They" all translate as THE SAME WORD (/khao/). Complex?? (Full disclosure: This same /khao/ can also serve to mean "I" when speaking to an intimate friend!)

เขา • (kǎo)
1. he; she; they.
2. (childish) I; oneself.

Slavic languages distinguish verb aspects, imperfective (incomplete, continuing) and perfective (complete, momentary). These are formed in a variety of ways, usually from affixes (prefixes and suffixes), but sometimes from separate roots, like Russian impf govorit' pf skazat' "to speak".

Thai lacks inflections, verb affixes, and obligatory markers. Yes, this makes many utterances ambiguous. Is ambiguity "complexity"? What few markers (or "helping verbs") there are, are multi-purpose: Consider /dai/ which can mean any of

1. to get; to obtain; to receive.
2. (auxiliary) used before a verb to indicate that one has done or has an opportunity to do the action.
3. (auxiliary) used after a verb to express that the action can be or has been done.

Reduplication^* includes "friend friend" to mean "friends" and "red red" to mean "very red." Complex?
* - why the RE in reduplication? The words are duplicated, not triplicated.

I've previously displayed a 13-word sentence actually overheard by a professor of Thai linguistics, that consists of 1 pronoun (/khao/, see above!) followed by TWELVE verbs! Complex? Each of the 12 verbs is used in its ordinary meaning.

 

[Swammerdami]

(I'm going to add to this discussion, partly in hopes that one of our linguist experts will pose the question on a professional linguists' board. And partly because, with my key laptop "on the fritz" this is one way for me to create a permanent record!)

First let me say that Thai has no real plural marker. My brain "needs" a plural marker when speaking Thai and I've fallen into the habit of prefixing พวก - phuak for plural. But this word is actually a noun meaning 'group.' Like many nouns, it is its own classifier so three groups of people would be 'group person three group.'

REDUPLICATION

I think this term includes invented rhyming words, like English "roly-poly" or "easy-peasy." Cockney slang has very complicated patterns. So, although Thai has LOTS of invented rhymes used as slang or colloquially, I don't think that adds much "complexity."

As mentioned, duplicating an adjective is like prefixing "very." Duplicating a noun to make it plural however, is used only in a tiny number of cases I think.

Here's a duplicated word that becomes ambiguous:

ล้านล้าน - lan-lan (million, million)​

Conversationally the duplication usually just creates a plural: 'millions.' BUT 'million' is the largest number the language has, so 'thousand million' means 'billion' and 'million million' can also mean 'trillion.'

Instead of rhyming, the initial consonant can be repeated. In each case I show (a) Thai spelling, (b) Romanized rendering per the Royal Institute standard, (c) meaning [in most cases the slangy compound is missing from wiktionary; in some cases it is missing from thai-language.com], (d) definitions for each of the two syllables separately, with "X" denoting absence from both dictionaries.

เยอะแยะ - yoe-yae = many (many, X)​

งี่เง่า - ngii-ngao = clumsy, idiot (X, stupid)​

เซ่อซ่า - soe-sa = clumsy foolish (foolish, X)​

ฟุ่มเฟือย - fum-fueai = extravagant (X, X)​

ฟุ้งเฟ้อ - fung-foe = extravagant (to spread, extravagant)​

Color words often have a specific suffix applied to mean 'very.' In only the first case ('pee') does the word appear in a dictionary. 'Pee' also means 'very' when prefixed to words for sour, bitter or tight.

ดำปี๋ - dam-pee = very black (black, very*)​

แดงแจ๋ - daaeng-jaae = very red (red, X)​

ขาวจั๊วะ - khaao-jua = very white (white, X)​

'Reuai', which wiktionary translates as 'usually, continuously, always', is often accompanied by a rhyming syllable. (The 'rotten' meaning is not cognate?)

เรื่อยเปื่อย - rueai-pueai = continuously and aimlessly (continuously, rotten)​

เรื่อยเบื่อย - rueai-bueai = continuously and aimlessly (continuously, X)​

เรื่อยเฉื่อย - rueai-chueai = unhurried (continuously, slow/inert)​

เรื่อยเจื้อย - rueai-jueai = on and on without stopping (continuously, X)​

เฉย - choei by the way is a near-homonym of เฉื่อย - chueai and has related meaning. Wiktionary shows etymology for neither.

Finally, here are two common words built by adding a nonsense syllable to 'messy' or 'dirty.' The two words are definitely NOT exact synonyms, but the separate connotations may be dialect-dependent!

เละเทะ - le-the = messy (messy, X)​

เลอะเทอะ - loe-thoe = sloppy (dirty, X)​

 

[Swammerdami]

PRONOUNS

Pronouns were proposed as an example of Thai's alleged complexity. I think its pronouns instead show simplicity!

Many words ("Uncle", "Child", "Sarge", "Doctor" etc. etc.) can play the role of pronouns, and operate as 1st-, 2nd- or 3rd-person. In English we might say "Doctor, what medicine do you recommend?" "Doctor" is a noun here but what role does it play in the sentence? (How do you diagram it?) In Thai ("Doctor recommends medicine which?") the "Doctor" functions as a simple subject, and almost as a pronoun.

One couple speak Thai to each other exclusively, but use English "Babe" as the "You" pronoun. Many couples use เอง (/eng/, 'oneself') as the "You" pronoun for each other. Some pronouns come in pairs: Couples that use /eng/ for "You" will use เขา (/khao/, 'he/she') as the "I" pronoun when speaking to each other.
Cute! But complicated? I don't think so.

เธอ /thoe/ is a pronoun often used as an affectionate "You." Here's the definition Wiktionary shows

1. a second person pronoun, used of a person of equal or lower status.
2. a third person pronoun, used of a person of equal or lower status.
3. a third person pronoun, used of a monarch.

It's used as 3rd-person for BOTH a person of equal or lower status and for a monarch?!
Weird? I think so. But is it a significant complexity?