Sure, but that’s my point. The tones don’t really add more complexity than an extra few letters would, or if you want to measure by phonemes per word, than an extra sound on each word would (which since Vietnamese is mono-syllabic, probably still leaves it less complex on that score then French).
They make the language much harder to learn (for an English speaker), but I don’t think they make it much more complex.
In any case, Expano’s cite would seem to indicate that, by at least some measures, languages aren’t all “equally complex”.
My posts may have missed the point. I’ll challenge the assertion Languages are equally adept at human communication
Or is it argued that even if the simplicity of Thai’s grammar, infrequent use of tense markers, etc. degrades its ability to describe simple events, that Thai recovers total “complexity” with its rich system of pronouns and interjections because Thai is adept at conveying mood or attitude toward listener
Certainly pronouns in Thai are awesomely complicated. The generic he/she/they word is often used as 1st person when speaking to a friend. Many common pronouns, e.g. /nuu/, phii/ are used for 1st, 2nd or 3rd person, etc.
Replacements for the politeness words /khaa/ and /khrab/ are often heard. (A plethora of such words can be found on Thai social media.) Learning enough of the vocabulary and grammar for much practical, if unnuanced, communication is rather easy, however. But he same grammatical simplicity creates much ambiguity. A very typical sentence would be, translated word by word, That market, pig expensive
Often no follow-up question will be needed after hearing this 4-word utterance, and one should then applaud the informational efficiency here. Other times, a series of question-answer turns may be needed to convey information. That unwieldiness may be detrimental in some scenarios.
All languages are equally acquirable by babies (assuming no mental impairments). That is the spoken language. It’s not necessarily true that the written language is equally masterable for everyone, even native speakers. That’s one point that requires clarification. When you talk about the complexity of a language, which language are you referring to? There are four: oral (speaking and listening) and written (composing and reading). All people, including native speakers, have varying competences in each of the four.
Are all languages equally capable of communicating the full breadth of human experience in each of the four areas? That’s a complicated question and requires many caveats to attempt any answer. We know that every language has words or phrases that are not directly translatable in all its nuance into other languages. We also known that every language can convey a sense of those untranslatable words or phrases through circumlocution. We can equally say that languages acquire new words and phrases through borrowing and invention as the need arises. Hebrew has been re-established as a language and speakers/writers needed to create or borrow many thousands of words for things and concepts that didn’t exist in the ancient language. Does that mean that Hebrew is equally capable or less capable because it did not evolve them organically?
I think you’re asking a bad question. What does it mean for one language to be less capable than another if all languages can invent, borrow, translate, reassign, or create new meanings, words, or phrases as the need arises? What if the need doesn’t arise? Most new things and concepts have not been added to all the several thousands still-living languages of the world because there’s been no need to. Are those languages lesser?
Languages work. Even creoles and pidgins and invented languages work for most of the needs they meet in real-world experiences. If you say otherwise, then it’s up to you to create a precise set of definitions for “adeptness”. I don’t think it can be done, but you’re free to have at it.
More likely due to sloppy or incomplete academic work, since Creoles are know to arise from similar situations with all the complexity of other languages in a generation or two.
Note this in the introduction of that wikipedia article (emphasis added):
Chinese has very simple grammar. For example, to change verb tenses, add a modifier that works in all cases (at least no obvious exceptions). For example, “to eat” + past tense modifier “le” = ate (吃了).
Chinese is also a pretty logical and in some ways a modular language. If you know the meaning of one word (character) and the meaning of a second word, and the two are combined into a compound word, there’s a fighting chance one can figure out the meaning even if have never seen the compound before. For example, iron (铁) + road (路) = railroad or iron (铁) + tube (管) = iron tube or pipe.
Of course the tones and characters are horrendously complicated.
Yes, this is clearly visible in real life. Let’s consider a hypothetical. If there was a society out there that, for whatever reason, lacked a language that was “good enough” to handle the real life experiences that they had to handle (e.g. gathering food, handling disputes, etc.), then one of the following things would happen:
The society would collapse due to incompetence.
The society would invent ways to say the important things that they couldn’t say before but needed to say.
The society would borrow ways to say the things in #2 from some other language.
The society would select another language for use in their society and begin to learn and use it. E.g. “Our language doesn’t provide a way for us to tell others how to get to a hunting ground, but French does. Let’s learn French so we can tell each other the best places to hunt.”
