Can we agree on that simplified Chinese is way simpler than English?

[Oligey]

Just don't participate in this discussion, please, if you don't know Chinese.

I know Mandarin and a bit of Cantonese, hoping to learn some Hokkien in the coming year; as to the other side, mostly Giles-Wade, I believe. Which do you know?

I cannot discuss Latin with you, and I am not frustrated.

To quote a cartoon, "Confucus say, fool know not he be fool." :)

Then you are welcomed to reply me in Mandarin. I don't know what you are complaining about then.

[Oligey]

I am happy to exchange opinions, but please make sure the following before participating in the discussion:

Hi Oligey, I’m one of the site moderators. Since you’re new to the forum, I’d like you to read the House Rules, with particular emphasis on the first.

You’re behaving more than a little rudely by telling fellow forum members that they can’t join this discussion based on your own judgments, and then testing them without consent. If they want to contribute, they’re allowed to.

Further, on an informal basis, it’s good practice on here to include an English translation of any extensive non-English text outside of the monolingual threads in “Language Learning & Non-English.”

My fault.
Indeed that everyone can join the discussion, but I personally will only reply to those who have proved that they know both languages/

I will revise my post to reflect this. Thanks for telling me.

Regarding translating Chinese texts into English, I am afraid I won't do it, because it is an efficient way to filter out ppl who I personally consider unqualified in this discussion and don't want to spend time on.

[Salmoneus]

You are clearly entirely ignorant of basic linguistic terms and concepts, and your English is limited. With respect, I'm not sure there's any point anyone here trying to educate you (and in any case, it's hard to give much credit to your views on English when you're not able to express them in English yourself). In any case, your desire to discuss which language is "better" than others is meaningless in linguistic terms, however much it may appeal to you politically. Perhaps you would be happier finding a Chinese-language political discussion group, where you may feel linguistically and ideologically more at home?

Mods, can we just lock the thread now? There's obviously no intent here to have a discussion in good faith; the only purpose of the thread is to troll people.

[Khemehekis]

Oh, no, Esperanto is way simpler than Chinese! It has only sixteen rules, a claim which is totally not Eurocentric and myopic! That makes Esperanto so muh better than either Chinese OR English!

Let's all chat in Esperanto in this thread.

[Arayaz]

I leave for twenty-four hours and this happens ...

I'll take the advice of the mods and not engage, but I'd just like to say that all Chinese varieties have very complex syntax, and in fact English and Mandarin are very similar in a lot of ways.

Then again, I don't speak any Mandarin, so I guess I'm not qualified to talk here, ignoring all of my other linguistic experience.

Are you even a conlanger??

One thing: only trolls join conlanging forums without being conlangers themselves.

[Oligey]

You are clearly entirely ignorant of basic linguistic terms and concepts, and your English is limited. With respect, I'm not sure there's any point anyone here trying to educate you (and in any case, it's hard to give much credit to your views on English when you're not able to express them in English yourself). In any case, your desire to discuss which language is "better" than others is meaningless in linguistic terms, however much it may appeal to you politically. Perhaps you would be happier finding a Chinese-language political discussion group, where you may feel linguistically and ideologically more at home?

Mods, can we just lock the thread now? There's obviously no intent here to have a discussion in good faith; the only purpose of the thread is to troll people.

You are clearly uneducated in the field of linguistics, and you have zero knowledge about Chinese. That is why you think Chinese is not a language at all but a political propaganda.
And you accuse me of posting this out of a political purpose? LMAO. I can smell your hatred against China from 1 mile away.

BTW, you haven't answered my question: what languages do you think are in the "Chinese language family".
With respect, I'm not sure there's any point for me to teach you, or you trying to join the discussion since you are not qualified at all.
(and in any case, it's hard to give much credit to your views on Chinese when you're not able to express them in Chinese yourself)

In any case, your desire to defend your mother tongue is meaningless in linguistic terms, however much it may appeal to your self-pride.
Perhaps you would be happier finding a English-language political discussion group, where you guys can huddle together for warmth and tell each other "oh! English is the best"?

Mods, I guess I am being rude once again. But this person's language is OK. I am sure he is in good faith and not trolling at all.

[Oligey]

Oh, no, Esperanto is way simpler than Chinese! It has only sixteen rules, a claim which is totally not Eurocentric and myopic! That makes Esperanto so muh better than either Chinese OR English!

Let's all chat in Esperanto in this thread.

Good idea! But I cannot participate because I don't know Esperanto.
See, I know my limit, not like some other ppl here.
I don't know whether Esperanto is better than Chinese or not, but it is 100% possible.
Good luck to your discussion in Esperanto.

[Arayaz]

You are clearly entirely ignorant of basic linguistic terms and concepts, and your English is limited. With respect, I'm not sure there's any point anyone here trying to educate you (and in any case, it's hard to give much credit to your views on English when you're not able to express them in English yourself). In any case, your desire to discuss which language is "better" than others is meaningless in linguistic terms, however much it may appeal to you politically. Perhaps you would be happier finding a Chinese-language political discussion group, where you may feel linguistically and ideologically more at home?

Mods, can we just lock the thread now? There's obviously no intent here to have a discussion in good faith; the only purpose of the thread is to troll people.

You are clearly uneducated in the field of linguistics, and you have zero knowledge about Chinese. That is why you think Chinese is not a language at all but a political propaganda.
And you accuse me of posting this out of a political purpose? LMAO. I can smell your hatred against China from 1 mile away.

BTW, you haven't answered my question: what languages do you think are in the "Chinese language family".
With respect, I'm not sure there's any point for me to teach you, or you trying to join the discussion since you are not qualified at all.
(and in any case, it's hard to give much credit to your views on Chinese when you're not able to express them in Chinese yourself)

In any case, your desire to defend your mother tongue is meaningless in linguistic terms, however much it may appeal to your self-pride.
Perhaps you would be happier finding a English-language political discussion group, where you guys can huddle together for warmth and tell each other "oh! English is the best"?

Mods, I guess I am being rude once again. But this person's language is OK. I am sure he is in good faith and not trolling at all.

"Chinese" is actually a family of many related languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, etc. And Salmoneus is one of the most intelligent and respected members of this community.

Oh, no, Esperanto is way simpler than Chinese! It has only sixteen rules, a claim which is totally not Eurocentric and myopic! That makes Esperanto so muh better than either Chinese OR English!

Let's all chat in Esperanto in this thread.

Good idea! But I cannot participate because I don't know Esperanto.
See, I know my limit, not like some other ppl here.
I don't know whether Esperanto is better than Chinese or not, but it is 100% possible.
Good luck to your discussion in Esperanto.

Are you unable to detect sarcasm?

[Oligey]

I leave for twenty-four hours and this happens ...

I'll take the advice of the mods and not engage, but I'd just like to say that all Chinese varieties have very complex syntax, and in fact English and Mandarin are very similar in a lot of ways.

Then again, I don't speak any Mandarin, so I guess I'm not qualified to talk here, ignoring all of my other linguistic experience.

Are you even a conlanger??

One thing: only trolls join conlanging forums without being conlangers themselves.

I didn't post in the correct section in the first place. This is my fault and it has been corrected by the mod, so if you look at the top of this webpage now, it says "Linguistics & Natlangs".

But you said "conlanging forums", what forums are we talking about? This one? This is a forum for constructed languages only?
Then why it have a section "for discussing linguistics or just languages in general"?
Why it description is "Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more"?

One thing: only trolls twist a forum's nature to call other ppl trolls.

[Arayaz]

I leave for twenty-four hours and this happens ...

I'll take the advice of the mods and not engage, but I'd just like to say that all Chinese varieties have very complex syntax, and in fact English and Mandarin are very similar in a lot of ways.

Then again, I don't speak any Mandarin, so I guess I'm not qualified to talk here, ignoring all of my other linguistic experience.

Are you even a conlanger??

One thing: only trolls join conlanging forums without being conlangers themselves.

I didn't post in the correct section in the first place. This is my fault and it has been corrected by the mod, so if you look at the top of this webpage now, it says "Linguistics & Natlangs".

But you said "conlanging forums", what forums are we talking about? This one? This is a forum for constructed languages only?
Then why it have a section "for discussing linguistics or just languages in general"?
Why it description is "Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more"?

One thing: only trolls twist a forum's nature to call other ppl trolls.

Well, the name of the forum is the Conlanger Bulletin Board. As far as I'm aware, everyone here (who isn't a troll) is a conlanger. Conlangers tend to like linguistics, and concultures, conworlds etc. All of them can be discussed here, but this is *mainly* a conlanging forum.

You clearly haven't joined with the intention of being part of the community, so is your only intention to start this clearly inflammatory thread? If so, you qualify as a troll.

[Oligey]

You are clearly entirely ignorant of basic linguistic terms and concepts, and your English is limited. With respect, I'm not sure there's any point anyone here trying to educate you (and in any case, it's hard to give much credit to your views on English when you're not able to express them in English yourself). In any case, your desire to discuss which language is "better" than others is meaningless in linguistic terms, however much it may appeal to you politically. Perhaps you would be happier finding a Chinese-language political discussion group, where you may feel linguistically and ideologically more at home?

Mods, can we just lock the thread now? There's obviously no intent here to have a discussion in good faith; the only purpose of the thread is to troll people.

You are clearly uneducated in the field of linguistics, and you have zero knowledge about Chinese. That is why you think Chinese is not a language at all but a political propaganda.
And you accuse me of posting this out of a political purpose? LMAO. I can smell your hatred against China from 1 mile away.

BTW, you haven't answered my question: what languages do you think are in the "Chinese language family".
With respect, I'm not sure there's any point for me to teach you, or you trying to join the discussion since you are not qualified at all.
(and in any case, it's hard to give much credit to your views on Chinese when you're not able to express them in Chinese yourself)

In any case, your desire to defend your mother tongue is meaningless in linguistic terms, however much it may appeal to your self-pride.
Perhaps you would be happier finding a English-language political discussion group, where you guys can huddle together for warmth and tell each other "oh! English is the best"?

Mods, I guess I am being rude once again. But this person's language is OK. I am sure he is in good faith and not trolling at all.

"Chinese" is actually a family of many related languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, etc. And Salmoneus is one of the most intelligent and respected members of this community.

Oh, no, Esperanto is way simpler than Chinese! It has only sixteen rules, a claim which is totally not Eurocentric and myopic! That makes Esperanto so muh better than either Chinese OR English!

Let's all chat in Esperanto in this thread.

Good idea! But I cannot participate because I don't know Esperanto.
See, I know my limit, not like some other ppl here.
I don't know whether Esperanto is better than Chinese or not, but it is 100% possible.
Good luck to your discussion in Esperanto.

Are you unable to detect sarcasm?

"Chinese" is actually a family of many related languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, etc.

This is a definition created by you?
Explain why in Wikipedia or any other websites when you choose Simplified Chinese it is not Cantonese or Hakka?
Explain why it is also the case in Microsoft Word?
Keep making up things dude.

Besides, I don't think that is what I am talking about in this post.
If you read it carefully, I said "Cantonese ppl considering Chinese simple doesn't mean it is simple", then how can I include Cantonese in Chinese?
You just twisted my words to fit your purpose, and you call me a troll...
By you definition, English is not a language either, it is family of US English, British English, Australian English and so on.

And Salmoneus is one of the most intelligent and respected members of this community.

And he still has no commonsense about Chinese.
But hey! You respect him, that is all that matters~

Are you unable to detect sarcasm?

This is so funny.
Are you able to detect sarcasm? Read it again if you have any difficulties.

[Oligey]

I leave for twenty-four hours and this happens ...

I'll take the advice of the mods and not engage, but I'd just like to say that all Chinese varieties have very complex syntax, and in fact English and Mandarin are very similar in a lot of ways.

Then again, I don't speak any Mandarin, so I guess I'm not qualified to talk here, ignoring all of my other linguistic experience.

Are you even a conlanger??

One thing: only trolls join conlanging forums without being conlangers themselves.

I didn't post in the correct section in the first place. This is my fault and it has been corrected by the mod, so if you look at the top of this webpage now, it says "Linguistics & Natlangs".

But you said "conlanging forums", what forums are we talking about? This one? This is a forum for constructed languages only?
Then why it have a section "for discussing linguistics or just languages in general"?
Why it description is "Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more"?

One thing: only trolls twist a forum's nature to call other ppl trolls.

Well, the name of the forum is the Conlanger Bulletin Board. As far as I'm aware, everyone here (who isn't a troll) is a conlanger. Conlangers tend to like linguistics, and concultures, conworlds etc. All of them can be discussed here, but this is *mainly* a conlanging forum.

You clearly haven't joined with the intention of being part of the community, so is your only intention to start this clearly inflammatory thread? If so, you qualify as a troll.

Oh now you changed your saying to "this is *mainly* a conlanging forum"?
If you don't have dyslexia you should know "mainly" means the opposite of exclusiveness, meaning non-conlangers CAN post in this forum.
Then what are you accusing me of? Keep changing your saying and just don't admit your mistake.

This thread is now inflammatory because of ppl like you and Salmoneus who trolled me first.
My replies used to be very peaceful if you ever read them.
Keep trolling and calling other trolls, that is what you do.
But hey, I am the rude one here, right?

[Arayaz]

"Chinese" is actually a family of many related languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, etc. And Salmoneus is one of the most intelligent and respected members of this community.

Oh, no, Esperanto is way simpler than Chinese! It has only sixteen rules, a claim which is totally not Eurocentric and myopic! That makes Esperanto so muh better than either Chinese OR English!

Let's all chat in Esperanto in this thread.

Good idea! But I cannot participate because I don't know Esperanto.
See, I know my limit, not like some other ppl here.
I don't know whether Esperanto is better than Chinese or not, but it is 100% possible.
Good luck to your discussion in Esperanto.

Are you unable to detect sarcasm?

"Chinese" is actually a family of many related languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, etc.

This is a definition created by you?
Explain why in Wikipedia or any other websites when you choose Simplified Chinese it is not Cantonese or Hakka?
Explain why it is also the case in Microsoft Word?
Keep making up things dude.


Besides, I don't think that is what I am talking about in this post.
If you read it carefully, I said "Cantonese ppl considering Chinese simple doesn't mean it is simple", then how can I include Cantonese in Chinese?
You just twisted my words to fit your purpose, and you call me a troll...
By you definition, English is not a language either, it is family of US English, British English, Australian English and so on.

Chinese (simplified Chinese: 汉语; traditional Chinese: 漢語; pinyin: Hànyǔ; lit. 'Han language' or 中文; Zhōngwén; 'Chinese writing') is a group of languages spoken natively by the ethnic Han Chinese majority and many minority ethnic groups in Greater China.

From Wikipedia.
I'm not going to argue the point about which language is simpler, because I doubt it's possible to compare them. I'm protesting your implication that Chinese is one language. You also seem to be unable to differentiate a script and a language: Simplified Chinese is a writing system. Not a language.

Oh now you changed your saying to "this is *mainly* a conlanging forum"?
If you don't have dyslexia you should know "mainly" means the opposite of exclusiveness, meaning non-conlangers CAN post in this forum.
Then what are you accusing me of? Keep changing your saying and just don't admit your mistake.

This thread is now inflammatory because of ppl like you and Salmoneus who trolled me first.
My replies used to be very peaceful if you ever read them.
Keep trolling and calling other trolls, that is what you do.
But hey, I am the rude one here, right?

1. Dyslexia doesn't have anything to do with understanding the meanings of words.
2. There are other things than conlanging discussed here, but there aren't really people here who aren't conlangers.
3. You created a thread discussing an idiotic question that anyone with any knowledge of linguistics would know has no answer, and yet I'm the troll? I'll admit that I've been a bit rude to you, but I do believe that I am correct here.
4. I read the whole thread, and you were peaceful, yes. You're not a flame warrior, but you are a nonlinguist who is peddling a stupid question.
5. Most trolls don't last over a year without getting banned...I've been here for longer, and I've never been banned. Feel free to look through my profile and find *one* reason I'm a troll.

[Arayaz]

(merged with previous post)

[Khemehekis]

Explain why in Wikipedia or any other websites when you choose Simplified Chinese it is not Cantonese or Hakka?

Just to clear something up for you, Oligey:

The reason why websites that allow many languages don't break "Simplified Chinese" up by dialect (Cantonese, Hakka, Taiwanese, Mandarin, etc.) is that in writing, all these languages/dialects look IDENTICAL. Same characters. This is because the Chinese languages/dialects are all written with the same logography that was invented many centuries ago (and later simplified, as you no doubt know). The SPOKEN languages have since diverged, but you wouldn't know just by reading it. It is the SPOKEN language that makes a language a separate language, at least with languages that aren't sign languages.

English also uses the same spelling across all dialects, aside from some minor differences like vapouriser/vapourizer/vaporizer. This helps speakers of all dialects of English read an English text, even if it's written in another country -- just as Mandarin speakers can read a text in Chinese characters even if it was written by a Cantonese speaker. HOWEVER -- and this is a big however -- Brits can understand Americans, who can understand Canadians, who can understand New Zealanders when they speak. With the exception of Scots, and arguably Jamaican patois, the dialects of English are MUTUALLY INTELLIGIBLE. They are a lot more closely related than Mandarin is to Cantonese. Unless they've learned another language, a Mandarin speaker can't understand a Cantonese speaker, who can't understand a Taiwanese speaker, who can't understand a Toisanese speaker.

And Arayaz is right -- I was being sarcastic about Esperanto.

[Arayaz]

[Oligey]

"Chinese" is actually a family of many related languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, etc. And Salmoneus is one of the most intelligent and respected members of this community.

Oh, no, Esperanto is way simpler than Chinese! It has only sixteen rules, a claim which is totally not Eurocentric and myopic! That makes Esperanto so muh better than either Chinese OR English!

Let's all chat in Esperanto in this thread.

Good idea! But I cannot participate because I don't know Esperanto.
See, I know my limit, not like some other ppl here.
I don't know whether Esperanto is better than Chinese or not, but it is 100% possible.
Good luck to your discussion in Esperanto.

Are you unable to detect sarcasm?

"Chinese" is actually a family of many related languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, etc.

This is a definition created by you?
Explain why in Wikipedia or any other websites when you choose Simplified Chinese it is not Cantonese or Hakka?
Explain why it is also the case in Microsoft Word?
Keep making up things dude.


Besides, I don't think that is what I am talking about in this post.
If you read it carefully, I said "Cantonese ppl considering Chinese simple doesn't mean it is simple", then how can I include Cantonese in Chinese?
You just twisted my words to fit your purpose, and you call me a troll...
By you definition, English is not a language either, it is family of US English, British English, Australian English and so on.

Chinese (simplified Chinese: 汉语; traditional Chinese: 漢語; pinyin: Hànyǔ; lit. 'Han language' or 中文; Zhōngwén; 'Chinese writing') is a group of languages spoken natively by the ethnic Han Chinese majority and many minority ethnic groups in Greater China.

From Wikipedia.
I'm not going to argue the point about which language is simpler, because I doubt it's possible to compare them. I'm protesting your implication that Chinese is one language. You also seem to be unable to differentiate a script and a language: Simplified Chinese is a writing system. Not a language.

I see, you consider dialects like Shanghainese and Cantonese languages, so Chinese is a family.
But now I am telling you they are just dialects. It is funny that you and Salmoneus said this out of political purposes but accused me of it.

At the end of the day, there could be narrow and broad definition of Chinese, I used the narrow one and you know it, but you just want to argue that only your defintion is correct because you want to troll.

You don't accept it? You think Cantonese is a lang so HongKong can be independent?
It is OK, I don't mind, because it doesn't have anything to do with my original post at all!
Keep diverging the whole question.

I doubt it's possible to compare them.

Because you cannot read or write Chinese, so you can only doubt.

You also seem to be unable to differentiate a script and a language: Simplified Chinese is a writing system. Not a language.

What I mean is Chinese with the simplified chars. I said that because some ppl may think Chinese is hard due to the traditional chars.
Again, why it is related to the question itself?
You strategy is when you are unable to participate in the original discussion you just introduce unrelated topics to muddy the water.

[Arayaz]

Chinese (simplified Chinese: 汉语; traditional Chinese: 漢語; pinyin: Hànyǔ; lit. 'Han language' or 中文; Zhōngwén; 'Chinese writing') is a group of languages spoken natively by the ethnic Han Chinese majority and many minority ethnic groups in Greater China.

From Wikipedia.
I'm not going to argue the point about which language is simpler, because I doubt it's possible to compare them. I'm protesting your implication that Chinese is one language. You also seem to be unable to differentiate a script and a language: Simplified Chinese is a writing system. Not a language.

I see, you consider dialects like Shanghainese and Cantonese languages, so Chinese is a family.
But now I am telling you they are just dialects. It is funny that you and Salmoneus said this out of political purposes but accused me of it.

At the end of the day, there could be narrow and broad definition of Chinese, I used the narrow one and you know it, but you just want to argue that only your defintion is correct because you want to troll.

You don't accept it? You think Cantonese is a lang so HongKong can be independent?
It is OK, I don't mind, because it doesn't have anything to do with my original post at all!
Keep diverging the whole question.

I doubt it's possible to compare them.

Because you cannot read or write Chinese, so you can only doubt.

You also seem to be unable to differentiate a script and a language: Simplified Chinese is a writing system. Not a language.

What I mean is Chinese with the simplified chars. I said that because some ppl may think Chinese is hard due to the traditional chars.
Again, why it is related to the question itself?
You strategy is when you are unable to participate in the original discussion you just introduce unrelated topics to muddy the water.

Okay, so here we might have a civilized discussion. I misunderstood you ─ I thought you were arguing that SImplified Chinese was a language in and of itself.

I'm not sure what you mean by "you think Cantonese is a lang so HongKong can be independent," but I can assure you I don't have any political beliefs I wish to discuss here.

As for the original question:

English is an isolating language with a somewhat complicated phonology, which relies heavily on analytic strategies rather than morphology.
Standard Chinese is an isolating language with a somewhat complicated phonology, which relies heavily on analytic strategies rather than morphology.

They are very similar from a grammatical point of view. As for the "complexity" of the languages ─ it's not very easy to measure complexity without making inherent assumptions based on your native language. English speakers would consider Inuktitut a very complicated language ─ look at all those suffixes! But a Yup’ik speaker would view Inuktitut as simple, since their structures are so similar.

Similarly, from an English point of view without linguistic education, "complexity" is really just "difference from English." Since one of the main areas that languages tend to differ from English is morphology, we look at languages that don't rely heavily on it and think that they're simpler. But this is a perception based on the native language of the person.

I don't think you speak English natively. I'd guess some Chinese language is your native tongue, since you pose the question, but I have no way of knowing for sure. But know that people always consider their language the simplest until they look into linguistics and realize that "simple" is a relative term.

[Oligey]

"Chinese" is actually a family of many related languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, etc. And Salmoneus is one of the most intelligent and respected members of this community.

Oh, no, Esperanto is way simpler than Chinese! It has only sixteen rules, a claim which is totally not Eurocentric and myopic! That makes Esperanto so muh better than either Chinese OR English!

Let's all chat in Esperanto in this thread.

Good idea! But I cannot participate because I don't know Esperanto.
See, I know my limit, not like some other ppl here.
I don't know whether Esperanto is better than Chinese or not, but it is 100% possible.
Good luck to your discussion in Esperanto.

Are you unable to detect sarcasm?

"Chinese" is actually a family of many related languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, etc.

This is a definition created by you?
Explain why in Wikipedia or any other websites when you choose Simplified Chinese it is not Cantonese or Hakka?
Explain why it is also the case in Microsoft Word?
Keep making up things dude.


Besides, I don't think that is what I am talking about in this post.
If you read it carefully, I said "Cantonese ppl considering Chinese simple doesn't mean it is simple", then how can I include Cantonese in Chinese?
You just twisted my words to fit your purpose, and you call me a troll...
By you definition, English is not a language either, it is family of US English, British English, Australian English and so on.

Chinese (simplified Chinese: 汉语; traditional Chinese: 漢語; pinyin: Hànyǔ; lit. 'Han language' or 中文; Zhōngwén; 'Chinese writing') is a group of languages spoken natively by the ethnic Han Chinese majority and many minority ethnic groups in Greater China.

From Wikipedia.
I'm not going to argue the point about which language is simpler, because I doubt it's possible to compare them. I'm protesting your implication that Chinese is one language. You also seem to be unable to differentiate a script and a language: Simplified Chinese is a writing system. Not a language.

Oh now you changed your saying to "this is *mainly* a conlanging forum"?
If you don't have dyslexia you should know "mainly" means the opposite of exclusiveness, meaning non-conlangers CAN post in this forum.
Then what are you accusing me of? Keep changing your saying and just don't admit your mistake.

This thread is now inflammatory because of ppl like you and Salmoneus who trolled me first.
My replies used to be very peaceful if you ever read them.
Keep trolling and calling other trolls, that is what you do.
But hey, I am the rude one here, right?

1. Dyslexia doesn't have anything to do with understanding the meanings of words.
2. There are other things than conlanging discussed here, but there aren't really people here who aren't conlangers.
3. You created a thread discussing an idiotic question that anyone with any knowledge of linguistics would know has no answer, and yet I'm the troll? I'll admit that I've been a bit rude to you, but I do believe that I am correct here.
4. I read the whole thread, and you were peaceful, yes. You're not a flame warrior, but you are a nonlinguist who is peddling a stupid question.
5. Most trolls don't last over a year without getting banned...I've been here for longer, and I've never been banned. Feel free to look through my profile and find *one* reason I'm a troll.

2. There are other things than conlanging discussed here, but there aren't really people here who aren't conlangers.

Read your rules: "This is a forum for those interested in constructed languages, worlds, cultures and so on, as well as for those with a general interest in languages and linguistics."
Keep up your chicanery, really.

3. You created a thread discussing an idiotic question that anyone with any knowledge of linguistics would know has no answer, and yet I'm the troll? I'll admit that I've been a bit rude to you, but I do believe that I am correct here.

And I think you are idiotic because you try to act like an expert of a lang that you have no knowledge about! Since you cannot say anything about the question itself, you just keep talking about irrelevant things to muddy the water.
And I believe that I am correct here.

4. I read the whole thread, and you were peaceful, yes. You're not a flame warrior, but you are a nonlinguist who is peddling a stupid question.
Reference to my reply to the last question.

5. Most trolls don't last over a year without getting banned...I've been here for longer, and I've never been banned. Feel free to look through my profile and find *one* reason I'm a troll.

Oh that is such a great achievement! You know who never gets banned? Ppl who don't have a clear and innovative idea and ppl who always stand with the majority to stay safe. They are also usually spineless FYI.
I don't need to look at your other posts at all, you irritated me in this very post.

[Oligey]

Chinese (simplified Chinese: 汉语; traditional Chinese: 漢語; pinyin: Hànyǔ; lit. 'Han language' or 中文; Zhōngwén; 'Chinese writing') is a group of languages spoken natively by the ethnic Han Chinese majority and many minority ethnic groups in Greater China.

From Wikipedia.
I'm not going to argue the point about which language is simpler, because I doubt it's possible to compare them. I'm protesting your implication that Chinese is one language. You also seem to be unable to differentiate a script and a language: Simplified Chinese is a writing system. Not a language.

I see, you consider dialects like Shanghainese and Cantonese languages, so Chinese is a family.
But now I am telling you they are just dialects. It is funny that you and Salmoneus said this out of political purposes but accused me of it.

At the end of the day, there could be narrow and broad definition of Chinese, I used the narrow one and you know it, but you just want to argue that only your defintion is correct because you want to troll.

You don't accept it? You think Cantonese is a lang so HongKong can be independent?
It is OK, I don't mind, because it doesn't have anything to do with my original post at all!
Keep diverging the whole question.

I doubt it's possible to compare them.

Because you cannot read or write Chinese, so you can only doubt.

You also seem to be unable to differentiate a script and a language: Simplified Chinese is a writing system. Not a language.

What I mean is Chinese with the simplified chars. I said that because some ppl may think Chinese is hard due to the traditional chars.
Again, why it is related to the question itself?
You strategy is when you are unable to participate in the original discussion you just introduce unrelated topics to muddy the water.

Okay, so here we might have a civilized discussion. I misunderstood you ─ I thought you were arguing that SImplified Chinese was a language in and of itself.

I'm not sure what you mean by "you think Cantonese is a lang so HongKong can be independent," but I can assure you I don't have any political beliefs I wish to discuss here.

As for the original question:

English is an isolating language with a somewhat complicated phonology, which relies heavily on analytic strategies rather than morphology.
Standard Chinese is an isolating language with a somewhat complicated phonology, which relies heavily on analytic strategies rather than morphology.

They are very similar from a grammatical point of view. As for the "complexity" of the languages ─ it's not very easy to measure complexity without making inherent assumptions based on your native language. English speakers would consider Inuktitut a very complicated language ─ look at all those suffixes! But a Yup’ik speaker would view Inuktitut as simple, since their structures are so similar.

Similarly, from an English point of view without linguistic education, "complexity" is really just "difference from English." Since one of the main areas that languages tend to differ from English is morphology, we look at languages that don't rely heavily on it and think that they're simpler. But this is a perception based on the native language of the person.

I don't think you speak English natively. I'd guess some Chinese language is your native tongue, since you pose the question, but I have no way of knowing for sure. But know that people always consider their language the simplest until they look into linguistics and realize that "simple" is a relative term.

你会不会中文，会的话就讨论我的问题，不会就闭嘴，别跟我扯什么乱七八糟的。
永远是你这种一句中国话都不会的人，蹦出来，使出吃奶的劲给英语辩护。