One thing Japanese lacks, or rather, makes it "worse" in some sense, is the informational density. To convey the same amount of information in Japanese you need more syllables than in e.g. English. Japanese speakers compensare for this, in the same way as Spaniards, by speaking faster: ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/fulltext/pellegrino/…

Japanese does have plurality and pronouns... Just because it isn't necessary to express plurality doesn't mean you can't.

You are saying that Japanese has a "loose structure" and "lack of regulated punctutation". I am not sure if I agree, but if that is the case, then, another way to look at it is that Japanese thus is more flexible, which in some sense makes it richer and more diverse.

I guess I'll try to be constructive though, and say that Japanese doesn't have articles or grammatical gender. Off the top of my head.

What does Japanese lack compared to WHAT other languages? If your answer is "all other languages" then my answer to your question would have to be "nothing."

@Leebo Even if you can use them, they are still mostly not present and avoided. In addition, they have more limitations. These were just examples, but I think they are worth pointing out.

I guess I don't understand how you're using "lack" then.

@a20 I'd say Japanese is quite economical. You only say exactly what needs to be said and no more. すきい 3 mora in Japanese. As equivalent to "I like her", native English speakers think three syllables, a Japanese ear may hear the English as having five mora. When I lived in Japan, native speakers would remark, "that's so long and complicated" or ask "why is English so wordy?"

@Leebo Lack: "the state of being without or not having enough of something."

Then this is also about opinion, similar to the other question. If it's about pure absence or presence, that could be a question of fact. Whether some degree of appearance in the language is "enough" or not is opinion.

@A.Ellett which could very well be one of the ways that Japanese compensates for its low information density, by omitting words and working with the context. I put a link to the study. They aimed to have a variety of data representative for "real life" in their study, but you can see the transcripts there and determine for yourself. Your example with すき requires more analysis in order to be compared to English. You cant' just out of the blue say "すき" in Japanese, maybe it is a reply to a question, and then in English you would say "yea"... it is too lengthy to discuss in comments here...

@a20 "It's on the table" <--- a statement you can't just say out of the blue. I don't think (opinion) that the strength or weakness of a language should be based on sentences uttered out of the blue. That's just not real life. Japanese could legitimately complain that, if I say in English "It's done", I've left out relevant information: was I speaking to a close friend or family matter, was I speaking to a colleague at work, was I speaking to my superior. In Japanese, there would usually be some minimal clues.

@A.Ellett I'm not sure what you want to say. I'm not stating any opinion here, I'm just referring to a study done by linguistics researchers. What they found was that Japanese, compared to other languages, contains less information per syllable, if you use "real life" data as input.

In fact, there was another comment I sometimes got in Japan. It was that English doesn't have a very rich vocabulary. The perception was that the Japanese language has far richer and more nuanced vocabulary.

@Leebo It is a fact that there is a general absence of pronouns and plurality. The question isn't about deciding if it's enough or not. It is a particularity of the language and how it's naturally spoken, which leads to different possibility of natural uses. Some of these possibilities might prevent a speaker to express something like he would want to. This is the question, and it's not at all opinion based, it is a straight up comparison trying to pinpoint what the Japanese doesn't allow to be easily expressed compared to, let's say for the sake of choosing one language, english.

I still wouldn't agree that there is a "general absence." It's totally normal to say わたしたち or specify plural inanimate objects when it's important. If you just mean "it's less frequent than English due to not being required" then sure, but calling that a "lack" or an "absence" is what I disagree with.

Simon, what is a syllable? Is it really an objectively measurable phenomenon? I'm not entirely certain. As I mentioned, when I utter a one "syllable" word, like stretch, which to an English ear sounds simple, to a Japanese ear it sounds like 5 or 6 mora, which is pretty long. To the Japanese ear のばすsounds much shorter; to an English ear it sounds like three syllables. Due to this difference in perception of word length, I question the reasonableness of assessing languages on syllables. Why not do a comparison on mora? Would the linguists reach a similar conclusion?

The more I think about it, the more I feel that even if we could agree on what actually counts as "lacking", I think the question is overly broad. There are countless sounds, individual words, expressions, structures, etc. which could be found in some language somewhere but not in Japanese.

@Leebo See my edit, and also refer to the linked thread. A.Ellett identified very easily the kind of "lacking" of english compared to Japanese. What is asked here is simply the opposite, to give a more comprehensive picture of the differences and more specifically why someone could get this false idea of Japanese being "primitive".

Even if restricted to English, I can imagine two answers with no overlap in their discussion at all, while both covering things they believe to be lacking. To me that's a sign that the question is overly broad. That is even setting aside the discussion of it being opinion-based.

@Leebo I could agree that the question is broad in the sense that it is not an easy question to answer. This could be an example of research subject of someone studying in linguistics. But I think it's definitely possible to pinpoint the main elements (again I think A.Ellet did an excellent job in the answer of the other question), and I also think it could be beneficial. Feel free to close it if it's too broad for this forum.

@A.Ellett eveyrthing is explained in the study I have now referred to several times. It is meaningless to have a discussion about a study and why they chose to measure things in a certain way if you refuse to open the link...

@A.Ellett one can measure the information density in various ways. Syllables was their choice since it is closely related to how long time it takes to say a word. Do you seriously mean that it takes you the same time to utter "stretch" and "sutoretchu"?

@a20 (1) What makes you think I didn't open the link? (2) I made no comment about how long it takes me to say a particular word. But, if I'm speaking in Japanese and then say the English word "stretch" and then again pronounce it as a Japanese person pronounces it, I'm inclined (but don't know for sure) that it neither takes longer than the other to pronounce. And, if I'm speaking in English, and repeat the experiment, then "sutoretchu" definitely feels like a mouthful.

But more to the point I was addressing above: I wasn't making a claim about time duration of the pronunciation. I was making a claim about the perceived length from speakers of an English point of view and from speakers of a Japanese point of view.

Taking a slightly different perspective: there are a number of Japanese authors I enjoy reading in Japanese. When I read translations of them into English, something is lost. The narrative often gets bogged down and wordy. A smooth flowing and engaging narrative in Japanese, becomes a sluggish and uninteresting in English. Perhaps it's poor translation. Or perhaps the translation should sacrifice some fidelity to the literal meaning of the words and seek to reproduce the overall feel.

well, then I do not see the point of your comment. The "percieved" length of a word is irrelevant if it does not conform to reality...

I would say as a general rule of thumb, the original language of a certain book/movie tends to be the best. I'm not sure if that helps to answer the question of OP though. There will always be things that are untranslatable, but that does not mean that one language is better than another...

@a20 (re: perception) Well, I guess we'll have to disagree. To me it seems the vast substance of what the OP asked amounts much more to perception than anything else. Hence the reason a number of consider the OP to be opinion based.

If a certain language is unable to describe the complexities of modern society, then, perhaps, that language could be considered to be lacking. That is certainly not the case here though. Japanese has it all it needs to function in Japan, it does not "need" anything more

I do not think what OP asked is about perception, but rather to get an objective statement about something particular that might be lacking. The problem though is that it is very difficult to answer such a question without basing the reply on subjective perceptions

@a20 I certainly wouldn't disagree with you there. I would go even further and say Japanese has all it needs to function in the modern world in all its complexities: from literature to scientific articles to whatever other forums of discussion one would like to engage in.

yes

Of course I doubt Japanese is lacking in that sense, what I meant by lacking is lacking the tools to express certain things easily. For example, in english we don't have an easy way to express that we heard the information from someone else. We have to literally say another sentence, whereas in Japanese it's simply a suffix. I'm certain Japanese have some areas that are harder to express concisely.

@Simon I do not know how much Japanese you have under your belt. But, when you're starting out in Japanese (and coming from an English perspective), yes there are things about Japanese that boggle the mind and make you wonder whether you can adequately express yourself. But, with time, as you gain fluency, you will discover there's a kind of mental shift one makes, and suddenly you can say things in Japanese quite well and then wonder, "how do I say that in English?"

In particular, I remember returning to the States and finding I'd forgotten how we typically say certain things in English. I got tongue tied once giving someone directions and commented "My English today is awful". The response I got was "You're English is quite good". And I thought, "OMG. That means my English is even worse because they don't realize I'm a native speaker." After a few weeks back in the States, my mind shifted back.

I don't doubt that at all, this does happen to me from French to English and vis-versa. That's why I'm pretty sure there's also things that would be harder to express in Japanese.

But it was an interesting and odd experience those first few week back in the States as my mind had to shift and relearn to think in an English way and not a Japanese way.

It was almost like I'd learned to think in Japanese (even though I wasn't particularly fluent) and I had to relearn to think in English.

I think one aspect might be that (I feel like) particles and words in Japanese often have a lot of roles and definitions which leads to more possibilities. This could also lead to some more ambiguities unless specified. I wonder if there is more misinterpretation in Japanese? It's hard to say I guess...

@Simon well, that's a valid question, considering how much things tend to be implied from context in Japanese. It is not something we can answer here though, it would require a proper study...

@A.Ellett indeed, to learn a langauge, you need to learn the way of thinking. Imo that is way more important than both grammar and vocabulary.

Is the OP's question even answerable on this site? Seems like answers will either be opinion or you would have to do an in-depth study. Either way, it doesn't work for this site.

I agree, and I also think that the question is not even well-defined

I'm pretty sure there's extensive studies done already though and someone knowledgeable would be able to state the main aspects with sources and examples. I don't mind if you want to close it, but I really think it is possible to have a good concise answer. Maybe not for this site.

Maybe I should ask that on the linguistics stack instead, they might know more about studies of differences and such. I feel like the general audience of this stack isn't really comfortable finding weaknesses in its own language.

That seems like it would be worth a shot. And as far as people getting defensive, keep in mind we've had a lot of people ask questions based on the premise that everything should have an equivalent in (usually) English and if it doesn't then it's wrong or stupid or whatever.

So using words like lack and weakness seem to trigger a similar response

I see, but it seems obvious to me that every language is lacking in some areas compared to others. Well, I think it shows all the more the importance of this question in my opinion. Why is there so many learners that get this feeling? There is some key elements that gives us that impression and if we can identify them and understand how they're overcame, we can more easily adapt to the language.

But the argument could be made that such responses purely come from a lack of knowledge of the Japanese language and culture (in terms of how words are used), not a failing of the language.

Why does a difference have to be a weakness anyway?

or a strength for that matter...it's just different

And to be clear, I'm not whining about not liking the words strong and weak, I mean that there is no way to be objective about it.

Simon, I actually upvoted your question. I agree with closing it, because I do not think it is suitable for this forum, but I do find it interesting to compare languages and how they affect how we interact and think. I think you could have phrased it in a better way though, with a more well-defined question/discussion point, and also without using words that can be perceived as "negative". For example, something along the lines of,

"What type of meanings can be conveyed in English that are difficult to translate into Japanese without losing some nuance?"

Ultimately, this question appears to be asking (trying to ask) about comparing the conceptual networks in English and Japanese, and identifying if certain things are difficult to express in one or the other.

While interesting and worthwhile to explore, answers will be inherently subjective, as something that is difficult to one person will be trivial to another. Too much is dependent on particularities of person.

Take, for instance, Simon's contention above that it is difficult to express reported speech in English as compared to Japanese.

I suspect he's thinking about constructions like "～だそうです。"

Consider, however, English constructions such as "She was like, nuh-uh!"

Or even just "He said, XYZ..."

@Simon was the comment.

(Apologies, that didn't work.)

Anyway...

Of note: "For example, in english we don't have an easy way to express that we heard the information from someone else. We have to literally say another sentence, whereas in Japanese it's simply a suffix."

In English, we can use words like "apparently; seemingly; it looks like; I heard that" etc. to express something the speaker doesn't necessarily know for certain first-hand.

These are not very long, and are functionally close to Japanese expressions like 「～だそう・～らしい・～なよう」等。

There are indeed things that the two languages objectively do not share in common:

* Grammatical number

*Grammatical gender

* Grammatical person

* Non-past

Etc. etc.

However, I don't think these differences result in any need to "compensate", as expressed in the initial question.

Any compensation really only comes at the point of translation.

"Any compensation really only comes at the point of translation" - with this I agree. When I started learning Japanese, I was often thinking "I want to say xxxxx in Japanese" and tried to translate it into Japanese, often failing because it is not directly translatable. However, when I got to the point where i started thinking in Japanese, this problem more or less disappearaed.

I still sometimes struggle when trying to translate something from one language to the other, even though I understand both Japanese and English and use them both, naturally, and daily

btw, what is "non-past"?

@a20, by "non-past", I refer to the way that the plain form of a verb in Japanese can be described in English as having the "non-past tense", in that a verb in such a conjugation can refer to something that is simply "non-past" -- it might be happening in the present, or it might be something in the future. English doesn't have quite this same construct.

店に行く！ → "I'm going to the store!" (right now), "I'm going to go to the store!" (in the future).

There are ways to express things in Japanese to make the distinction plain, but often, speakers don't have any particular need to do that. :)

Whereas in English, it's a grammatical necessity.

If I just say instead, "I go to the store!", it comes across as very unnatural in the course of conversation.

The question immediately arises, "okay, but when do you go to the store?"

@Simon I objected to calling things that are actually in the language, and are used regularly, weaknesses or lacking or absent. I offered examples of things that truly are not present in the language instead. That makes me "defensive" I guess.