Why do you despise Romance languages? --Romanophile (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Only modern ones. I hate them because of what they did to Latin. Mostly what they did to nouns (replacing the nominative with the accusative and turning -um into -o; yes, I acknowledge that -um is nasal, but it's still awful), but also because they messed up the tenses (Spanish even has a future subjunctive, and that's just disgusting) and invented words like desde which is a combination of dē + ex + dē, or, in English, "from out of from".
And I especially despise French because of the unspeakable things it's done to Latin's pleasant orthography and phonology. -āre, -ēre/-ere and -īre into -er, -re and -ir? Unspeakable.
And one of the most enraging things is their "de" obsession. dē should mean from, about or down from, never "of". But essentially all the modern Romance languages (with the exception of Romanian) decided to say "screw you, genitive case" and replace it with a preposition derived from dē. AutisticCatnip (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting opinion, but I think that it’s quite common and normal for languages to degenerate over time. The ancient Romans would probably sympathize with you, though, had they existed long enough to see the birth of Romance. I myself love all Italic languages, though I definitely need to learn more about the classical ones like Latin. --Romanophile (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Heu miseri sint Romani mecum! I'm certainly aware of language evolution and accept that it's inevitable, but that doesn't prevent me from hating changes I find disagreeable. ;) And you should definitely learn about Latin, considering it's the only one (apart from contemporaneous Italic languages like Oscan) that isn't Objectively Disgusting™. AutisticCatnip (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- In what way is a future subjunctive disgusting? ~Eloquio (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- In Latin, the future tense is used only for things you're certain about. The subjunctive is typically used for uncertain things. The two are absolutely incompatible, which is why Latin lacks future/future perfect subjunctives. Of course, the future tense in other languages doesn't necessarily have to be for absolutely certain things, which would make a future subjunctive a perfectly valid thing. I don't recall saying I'm not incredibly opinionated, though. ;) AutisticCatnip (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Lol, that's nothing compared to the degradation of Sanskrit into Indo-Aryan languages. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 02:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting. Examples? :D AutisticCatnip (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know Sanskrit, but I do know Hindi, so I know some. A lot of terms were twice-borrowed with different spellings, like सूर्य (sūrya) and सूरज (sūraj), both meaning "sun". The first was the original Sanskritic spelling; the second was a modification of "y" to "j". Sanskrit's declension system was also simplified a lot, as you can see at सूर्य (sūrya). Also, a lot of words were borrowed from English (बस (bas), एलर्जी (elarjī)), Portuguese (अलमारी (almārī)), Arabic (वलीद (valīd)) and Persian (हरकत (harkat)). Of course, you end up with cool words like गुज़ारिश (guzāriś) and इंतज़ार (intzār), so Hindi is still really fun to learn. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 21:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)