Why do so many people who speak English as a second language have trouble with pic related?

Why do so many people who speak English as a second language have trouble with pic related?

Is it to do with how the language is taught? Do other languages not have these rules?

In Dutch we say "how is this called" ("hoe noem je dit").

Just like you we do say "what does this taste like" (waar smaakt dit naar) or "how does this taste" (hoe smaakt dit), but not "how does this taste like".
Tbqh I've never seen someone make that mistake at all.

They have a terminal ailment known as being a foreigner

*glasses you*

Is
> how does it taste
Correct?

Kinda. I'd only really say that if I was asking for someone's opinion on the food. So the response wouldn't be "it tastes sweet" or "it tastes sour", it would be more like "it tastes good" or "it tastes bad".

It can be if you wanted to know the taster's preference, not if you want to know what it tastes like.

Soooo wich one is it?

It's just a meme, most people know it isn't right.

things that i mixed

few
a few
little
a little
bit
a bit

we basically said the same thing user, we're both correct

Well for specifically that; it's usually because many languages use 'how' for asking questions like that
>German
Wie heißt das
>Russian
Кaк нaзывaeтcя этo
English retardedly says "what" for everything, that you'd ask "how" in many other languages

Hear, hear

...

Because in English 'how' is the word asking 'by what method/means/way' is something true, not an indefinite pronoun at all.

> How is this called?
is like asking 'by what method is this thing named?', not what the object of 'call' is.

> How are you wrong?
> In what way/by what means are you wrong.

I notice spics always say "on" instead of "in" too. For example:
I am on Columbia right now instead of I am in Columbia right now.

They sound so savage and beanesque.

Because question words are pretty arbitrary. Do you speak anything besides English?

yes

That's because Spanish is weird and uses "en" for both "in" and "on".

Same here, we say "Cómo se llama?" instead of "Qué se llama?"

"What does it taste like?" = "What is its taste similar to?"
possible answer: "It tastes like tomatoes"

"How does it taste?" = "Do you approve of its taste?"
possible answers:"It's great" or "It's fucking horrible"

both are correct, but they ask different things

Because in my experience many languages or at least romance languages do say something that would translate as "How does this taste like" or "How is this called?" while those languages do have different words for "what" and "how" it is grammatically incorrect to use them in the way english does.
People tend to assume all languages follow the same grammar rules as their first languages and often just construct a sentence as they would in their language and substitute the words with what they think is the equivalent in the target language.

Because English is the odd one out in this matter.

Based Slav tells it like it is

in/on/at are the bane of ESL.

t. ESL

>his language has separate words for in and on but only one word for to be
Caveman tier.

Because 'in' and 'on' are two separate situations.

And 'to be' means is the verb of state: something is in the state of something, or not. There is no other verb to describe it.

There is 'to exist' but this has philosophical/existential nuances.

I think English is the weird one

in romance languages and German we use our equivalent of how (Germans use Wie for asking the name of someone, not Was). It seems the Dutch and Russians also do that from comments here.

I think we see "How" as "in what manner"
We think it is short for In what manner is this called.
To use "what" and it sounding natural if your English isnt very good, it would have to be a sentence like "What name does it have?"

The mistake Spanish speakers commit a lot is using "in" when "at" or "on" should be used. Them overusing on seems weird to me because they tend to see it as the same thing as saying "over". So they reserve it for over the table/on the table situations. Sentences like On the beach or On an island dont make much sense to them because you are always over some kind of surface.

>And 'to be' means is the verb of state: something is in the state of something, or not. There is no other verb to describe it.
You can temporaly "be" x or have always been y. Being happy and being a man isn't the same situation.

I see. That's what is meant by 'being in the state of': 'be in the state of happiness'. 'Be in the state of a man'.

Whether it is temporary or permanent is irrelevant... at least in English.

Some things you are permanently, for example You are a male or female. Some things you are momentarily, for example, you are drunk.
Spanish uses two different verbs for that. It's not the only language to do that.

In English you say "He is clean"

In Spanish you say "Él está limpio" which means, he is clean right now, and implies he bathed or washed his hands a short time ago

Or you can say "Él es limpio" which means he is a very clean person, cleanliness is a permanent characteristic of that person.

FUCK YOU MOTHERFUCKER

Permanent implies a particular nature of the self, temporary is just an irrelevant state of being. The difference is kind of a big deal in Spanish, and that's a good example of the in/on case as seen by the other side. We perceive it the same way you perceive the word to be.

Do these two verbs come from the same root?

I like the subtly of English with this:

> He is clean

Can have two interpretations: 'he has just washed', or 'he is a good, nice person'. And it is left to the listener to judge.

In Greek we ask "How is this called" and "What taste does it have".
It is obvious why the first one would confuse Greeks at least.

english is mother tongue of devil

Then why are you speaking it, Mehmet?

I fuck up prepositions all the time. Most people get the just and you grow out of it after a while around people who speak the language
Quit busting people's balls

Basically this

They come from esse and sedere, two different latin words. But latin itself didn't have the distinction.

To fix all of these errors all you have to do is learn the principles of:

Past, Present, Future.

'To be' and 'to sit'? Interesting.

In English, one can say 'to stand' as a kind of circumlocution for 'to be'.

> I stand as a man
means not standing 'literally', but 'being' or 'existing' as a man

> Donald Trump stood as President
again, not literally, but he existed as or was being so.

Nothing to do with it.

Americans really should not comment on English.

It probably happened from locals adopting latin to what they were used to in their native languages. Irish also has 2 verbs for Being that work like in Spanish (situations vs permanent characteristics)

Biggest I've noticed from Russian/Ukrainian/Kazakh girls I've talked to is that they constantly misuse "a" and "the" when trying to refer to general vs. specific things.

For example, I'd hear things like "A CEO in my company said this", or "I want to explore a bottom of the ocean"

Anyone explain why?

Because Russian has neither, and they're trying desperately hard to insert one or the other where naturally they wouldn't have them anywhere.

It is interesting that Latin does not have the distinction, but Latin-derived Spanish does; and that Irish does too.

Perhaps the Gallic/Iberian natives were trying to express an underlying Celtic/Celtiberian concept, where the Romans did not have one?

Slavs in general are genetically incapable of using the word "the" making them all sound like Bond villains or particularly eastern cavemen.

Basque does make that distinction too. Since the Portuguese also have it, it was probably common all over Iberia.

Thanks guys

The Spanish "language" is just really low-class gutter Latin. Look at their words for pork and horse. "Equus" is horse in Latin, "caballus" is like the English term "nag" in referring to a horse. Yet the Spanish word for horse is caballo, they use gutter slang as their proper language. Thats like using the word "ho" as the proper word for "woman".
A really trashy people., the spanish.

So the Romans are to the Spanish, as the English are to...?

The first one I only get wrong if I'm tired or trying to concentrate on too many things at once
The second one I legitimately forget oftentimes

>it would be more like "it tastes good" or "it tastes bad".
More like
>it tastes like chicken

I dunno, the coast guard?

Aluminium.
Herb.

That's a pretty cheeky thing to say you simpliflied english speaker.

The Americans!

An American complaining about 'dumbed down' or 'gutter' language is a little hypocritical, is it not?

I speak the only English worth speaking in todays global climate: American.

> todays
Yes, but not very well.

We dont use low class british slang as proper words for things. Theres no comparison to the example given.

people do it sometimes as a meme. maybe you saw the "how is russian man called" thread earlier today

British linguistic relevance is a dream, and it's morning time

How does more people talking your version of english relevant? It doesn't make it less of a low class gutter English which is already a extremely simple language

Well, compared to many languages English is quite odd. There are rules, many of them, that have many exceptions. It makes it difficult.

Billy Bob BTFO

Thank you my Commonwealth friend.

> becoming the norm
Are they fuck. Literally no one uses the first two, and the third is an easy mistake.

Americanisms are a British hobby; and everyone mercilessly berates anyone who uses them.

American English is the dominant form of English on Earth, its not "gutter" or derived from low-class British slang like Spanish is from Latin.

And what do you mean "how does more people speaking your English make it more relevant?" its more relevant precisely because there are more people speaking it, culero.

There's no denying that American English is a little simplified: no large sentences, no adverbs, minimal diction.

That doesn't make it 'wrong', just less 'good'.

I actually said
>How does more people talking your version of english relevant?
Which I meant to say that "How IS people talking your version of english relevant?", because just because more people talk your english it doesn't make it less grotesque.
And pretty much every romance language is still more complex or better sounding than english. No offense dude, it's just that english works better at being a lingua franca because it's so damn easy to learn.

Your form of English will be extinct in 150 years, however "simplified" or "less good" American Anglais is.

That doesnt make British English "an irrelevant anachronism", it just makes it "not as important"

Spanish is far more similar to Latin than English to what was spoken in England before 1066.

me want fry rice two egg rorr tank you

>a language being complex is a good thing
I suppose, if youre truly up your own ass about lingustics,then ok i guess.
And you thinking English is "grotesque" is a personal matter, neither here nor there.
I will say that as a polyglot, I myself find Mexican Spanish to be verbal abortion when compared to Spanish ftom spain, and even spain's spanish is, as aforementioned, is a VERY poor mans Latin. No offense intended, of course, but since we were editorializing...

what? "to be", "to exist","is/are" which doesn't have an infinitive

It's really hard to know which one to use, I confuse them all the time. Like you confuse ser and estar all the time.
It happens when a language has only one word for as translation for two

Wot? 'To be' is the infinitive of 'is/are', user.

I think grotesque sounds a little bit too harsh, but I couldn't found a better word for it, maybe ungraceful...? And as you said it's up to personal opinion (I don't know why you seemed a little salty from my comment).

they're completely separate words treated as the conjugations of the same word
"Be", "being" "been"
"was", " will"
maybe they are related, my knowledge of old and middle english isn't good enough to say. They certainly don't have the distinction between ser and estar, but they're definitely not the same word

Well, if you want to get into the etymologies:

'is' and 'be' are indeed from two separate words, one Northumbrian Old English, probably from Angle proto-Old English, the other from further south.

The modern 'is/are' is a mixture of the two verbs, where the subjunctive of 'is' uses 'be'.

> If he is good, he will go to heaven.
> If he be good, he would go to heaven.

And it's interesting to note that 'to go' has completely lost its past tense and instead uses the past of 'to wend': 'went'.