# Hardest major Romance/Germanic Language to Learn



## JLanguage

Is German the hardest Germanic language to learn?
Or is it something else? English?

What about Romance?
It is French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Latin?
Is French harder than Spanish?
What about Italian?

I would like to start a discussion on the subject. Please include your linguistic background in your opinion.

The only Romance language I'm learning is Latin, but I'll try to start:

The only language in which I'm truly fluent is English, but I have a moderate knowledge of Hebrew as well. I'm currently learning Latin, and one of the easiest ways to a remember a word's meaning is by the English derivatives.
For example, "faber, fabrum" is a craftsman, similar to English "fabric"
However grammar is completely different from English, as Latin is a highly inflectional language, while English has lost most inflection over the years.

EDIT: If it would be easier for you guys who don't speak English as your first language, you can write in your native tongue. Then another member more proficient in English could provide a translation.

 For my own sake, and that of other English speakers, most of this thread should be in English, if not in original posts, then in translation. I'm not biased or anything, but I would think that English is understood by the greatest number of people on the forum. As such it would be proper for it to serve as the lingua franca of this thread.


----------



## Edher

Saludos,

       I've spoken Spanish my whole life, and English for half of it. I took French a few years ago and I found it more difficult to learn than Spanish when I was in grammar school in Mexico. Of course, there are many variables that are responsible for that, age, surroundings, interest, necessity, etc. However, I find it harder to spell in French than in Spanish since at times words are spelled with extra consonants with no other apparent use other than aesthetics perhaps. Of course, there are also diphthongs in French that change the pronunciation of words. In Spanish, all you have to do is memorize the pronunciation of each vowel and with that you're able to read in Spanish even if you don't understand a word of what you're saying. Though, I haven't taken Italian, I think it would be easier to learn than French because I can already more or less understand Italian when spoken or when I read it. In addition, the pronunciation seems to be quite similar to that of Spanish, therefore, I wouldn't have to split my mind into a check and balance system (one part thinking how to tranlate and the other how to pronounce it)

         Therefore, to answer the original question, French to me harder to learn than Spanish.

Edher


----------



## alc112

German is difficult but when you realize about the gramar case adn the preositions all is easier


----------



## JLanguage

alc112 said:
			
		

> German is difficult but when you realize about the gramar case adn the preositions all is easier


 
Care to expand on this?
Clearly, you have a background in Spanish, but for the sake of this thread it would be good if you write it out. You can write it in Spanish if ti's easier, for you and someone can translate it.
Only a suggestion, of course.


----------



## Jana337

I have read a couple of introductory Spanish lessons. My impression is that I am just stripping the Italian grammar, with which I am familiar, of all frills, thereby simplifying it a great deal.

Jana


----------



## Whodunit

Hardest Romance language:
- Latin, because of it's cases

Hardest Germanic language:
- German, because not even a native speaker can speak it PERFECTLY.


----------



## timpeac

whodunit said:
			
		

> Hardest Germanic language:
> - German, because not even a native speaker can speak it PERFECTLY.


 
What do you mean by that?


----------



## Razvann

Romanian : very simple to read, cause is phonetic,(whith few exceptions), also very simple to write. 
Gramar is difficult, is identical to latin language gramar.
Words are 98% latin words
Italians learn very fast romanian, but most of them keep similar words in vocabular, or sufixes
Ex: He is a very good player / correct "Este un jucator foarte bun" / italian "style" "Este uno giucator molto buno"

For me, as romanian, spanish and italian are very easy, but i mixed the words betwen them . Latin is hard. Franch i used since primary school, is .. nice. 

Germanic languages are... mission imposible


----------



## Whodunit

timpeac said:
			
		

> What do you mean by that?



Well, if you're speaking German in a conversation as a native German speaker, it's easy to speak it, but—when you're "contemplating" about the German grammar as a native, you can see there are so many unsolved problems, e.g.

Es kostet ihn die Stelle. = Es kostet ihm die Stelle.

(It costs him the job.)

Almost every German would answer that the first one is correct. I think less would prefer the second and even less would choose both of them. BUT in fact, the last option is correct.


----------



## timpeac

whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, if you're speaking German in a conversation as a native German speaker, it's easy to speak it, but—when you're "contemplating" about the German grammar as a native, you can see there are so many unsolved problems, e.g.
> 
> Es kostet ihn die Stelle. = Es kostet ihm die Stelle.
> 
> (It costs him the job.)
> 
> Almost every German would answer that the first one is correct. I think less would prefer the second and even less would choose both of them. BUT in fact, the last option is correct.


 
But if almost every German considers that the first one is correct, then on what do you base the fact that the second is correct?


----------



## alc112

timpeac said:
			
		

> But if almost every German considers that the first one is correct, then on what do you base the fact that the second is correct?


 
Let me explain you what i know
German has 4 grammar cases:
Nominativ E.g: Das ist mein Hund -----> that's my dog
Akusativ E.g: Ich kaufe einen Tisch-------> I buy a table
Dativ E.g: Ich bleibe im Hause---------> I stay at homme
Genetiv E.g : Des Tisches meiner Lehrerin (i'm not sure of this) My teacher's table

Th BIG BIG BIG BIG   problem students have is to know when to use the Akusativ and Dativ case.
Akusativ: with moving verbs, it asks which (i think)
Dativ: With no-moving verbs, it asks to whom
In Who's sentence


> Es kostet ihn die Stelle. = Es kostet ihm die Stelle


 
the wrong sentences is wrong because is using Akusativ.
It costs him the job
YOu have to ask "To whom does the job cost? to a person
If you ask in Akusativ "Which job does cost? I don't find sense.
So the correct is
Es kostet ihm die Stelle


what do you think Who???


----------



## timpeac

Thanks for the reply alc. I learnt German for a few months many years ago and what I remember of all the cases can now be written on the back of a postage stamp... 

Actually, what I was really getting at is if the vast majority of a people say one thing, then surely it has become correct even if it wasn't in the past. In this way, for example, Latin became Spanish (and French etc) little by little. In the early days people must have been speaking "incorrect Latin" etc until one day someone said "hey let's just call this French (or whatever)".

I would say that if the vast majority of a people believe a certain expression to be correct, then ipso facto it has become correct. After all, who are the best judges of what is correct in German grammar if not the majority of the German people?

It just doesn't make sense to me to suggest that there is a whole people walking round constantly talking their own language wrong. 

I hope I've made what I meant clearer, rather than just confused things further....


----------



## mirandolina

But you can't deny that of ANY language, especially English ....!
Just because people all over the country use slovenly grammar doesn't mean that it has to become the accepted form.  
The whole point of this forum is to help people use the _*correct*_ form of the various languages.


It just doesn't make sense to me to suggest that there is a whole people walking round constantly talking their own language wrong.


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply alc. I learnt German for a few months many years ago and what I remember of all the cases can now be written on the back of a postage stamp...
> 
> Actually, what I was really getting at is if the vast majority of a people say one thing, then surely it has become correct even if it wasn't in the past.


What if you tell them it's wrong, and they agree, and correct themselves?



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> I would say that if the vast majority of a people believe a certain expression to be correct, then ipso facto it has become correct. After all, who are the best judges of what is correct in German grammar if not the majority of the German people?


Practice is important, but so are logic and tradition. Sometimes people forget about traditions, and they need to be reminded of them. Sometimes, illogical extrapolations become popular, and they need to be challenged.


----------



## timpeac

mirandolina said:
			
		

> But you can't deny that of ANY language, especially English ....!
> Just because people all over the country use slovenly grammar doesn't mean that it has to become the accepted form.
> The whole point of this forum is to help people use the _*correct*_ form of the various languages.


 
You can say it of any language, I agree, and I _would_ say it of any language.

I beg to disagree. "slovenly" according to who? If people all round the country are doing something then I would say that it does mean it has become the accepted form. Why should the opinion of a tiny minority be enforced on the majority.

Let me put it another way - why do you yourself not say "thee" and "thou" and end your 3 person verb forms with "eth"? Because the language moved on. There is no point at which something becomes "acceptable", language is what it is. Sooner or later someone writes a grammar book and includes the new form and then everyone's happy.

When did Latin become French? In linguistic terms there was never one day that it changed, it is a constant move. In socio-political terms, however, it is the day that the current day "power" or "authority" says that they think something is alright, and i think you are confusing these two facts. 

You say -
YouThe whole point of this forum is to help people use the _*correct*_ form of the various languages.


I'm sorry, but that's very big-headed of you. The point of this forum is to give your *opinion* of what is the correct form. No one made you god to decide this. Do you really think you have the right to tell a whole people who say something in a certain way that they are "wrong"? Do you think that the majority of people who speak their own language day-in day-out but don't care about traditional linguistics or language forums care what we say? No, of course not. They go on speaking their own language in the way they want to speak it and always will. It is a mistake to ignore this fact. You have a certain point in reference to a genuine "error" made by one person through inattention - yes then you can say "sorry but that's wrong, we say xxx in English (or German etc). But to tell a whole people that all do a certain thing that it is wrong is so presumptuous!

I apologise for not writing this reply to you in Old English but I'm afraid that all of these mistakes and slovenly grammar and picking up of foreign words over the years that English has undergone have left me quite unable to write English as it was "meant" to be used. I do hope you forgive my terrible expression.


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> What if you tell them it's wrong, and they agree, and correct themselves?


 
Fair point, but I suspect that you are only taking about a minority of the general population, people like you and me who are interested in language and scholarship generally. Obviously I'm not German and so can't know for sure but I suspect if you went up to one of the millions of Germans working in a factory or a building site or wiring up the electricity etc and said (in German obviously) "I'm sorry but I notice you just said "ihn" I think you'll find you should have said "ihm"" then you would find a fist in your face rather than polite agreement and a reply of "oh yes, thank you for pointing that out"!!



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Practice is important, but so are logic and tradition. Sometimes people forget about traditions, and they need to be reminded of them. Sometimes, illogical extrapolations become popular, and they need to be challenged.


 
I can see an argument for us all speaking a standard form so that I can happily converse with you or an American or an Australian and we all understand each other. However, language is very seldom "illogical" or "logical" it just is what it is. It has been shown that the opinion of traditional grammarians has very little effect on what the general population want and do say.


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> Obviously I'm not German and so can't know for sure but I suspect if you went up to one of the millions of Germans working in a factory or a building site or wiring up the electricity etc and said (in German obviously) "I'm sorry but I notice you just said "ihn" I think you'll find you should have said "ihm"" then you would find a fist in your face rather than polite agreement and a reply of "oh yes, thank you for pointing that out"!!


If you go to the factory, perhaps not, but if you discuss the matter in a casual conversation, and explain to them why your way is preferable--not just tell them "You're wrong and I'm right!"--it's my impression that most people will listen, and, depending on how persuasive you are, even agree.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> However, language is very seldom "illogical" or "logical" it just is what it is.


I think that each language has its own "logic". We just need to understand what it is.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> It has been shown that the opinion of traditional grammarians has very little effect on what the general population want and do say.


_Eppur si muove_. 
And yet, careful writers still avoid ending their sentences with prepositions.
And yet, many people pronounce the _t_ in "often".
And yet, people write "doubt" with a _b_.
Etc., etc., etc...


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> If you go to the factory, perhaps not, but if you discuss the matter in a casual conversation, and explain to them why your way is preferable--not just tell them "You're wrong and I'm right!"--it's my impression that most people will listen, and, depending on how persuasive you are, even agree.
> 
> 
> I think that each language has its own "logic". We just need to understand what it is.
> 
> 
> _Eppur si muove_.
> And yet, careful writers still avoid ending their sentences with prepositions.
> And yet, many people pronounce the _t_ in "often".
> And yet, people write "doubt" with a _b_.
> Etc., etc., etc...


 
Hi

Answering in order of your paragraphs -

1 - But you can't discount this majority of people who don't care at all about conversations about language. Also, remember we are talking specifically about "mistakes" that everyone makes (as opposed to errors most people don't make). I don't speak a lot of German, so to transpose the discussion to something I can talk about in English - more and more we are abandoning "i have done" for "i did" (like the Americans). So instead of "your friend has just called" we often say "your friend just called". Now, that is a break with traditional grammar and is arguably losing a distinction between recent and further past. Now, you go onto the streets or into a shop and try to explain to people they are "wrong". If you're nice and polite then maybe they won't hit you but you will get a look of confusion and people will just ignore you and carry on. Particularly since their friend/brother/boss are all doing it too. Many people will genuinely fail to see what you are trying to get at.

2 - true. It was you who suggested that some new forms were "illogical". I would say they are not, they just do not necessarily conform to the "logic" of the traditional form.

3 - True again. I didn't say grammarians had no influence. Note that 2 of your 3 example relate to vocabulary alone. This is easiest to regulate since we produce written dictionaries that only give "doubt" and so it is easy to accuse someone of being wrong in writing "dout" (even though these spellings are just made up by other people). So given that these traditional spellings are strong it is not surprising that people start to pronounce words in a similar way. The modern age is so much more literate than in the past that it is hard to compare with the past, when many people didn't read and therefore of course couldn't be influenced by spelling. Finally, I disagree with what you have written about prepositions at the end. This "rule" has largely been debunked, and many many good and respected writers completely ignore it.


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> 1 - But you can't discount this majority of people who don't care at all about conversations about language.


How do you know it's a majority?



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> Also, remember we are talking specifically about "mistakes" that everyone makes (as opposed to errors most people don't make). I don't speak a lot of German, so to transpose the discussion to something I can talk about in English - more and more we are abandoning "i have done" for "i did" (like the Americans). So instead of "your friend has just called" we often say "your friend just called". Now, that is a break with traditional grammar and is arguably losing a distinction between recent and further past. Now, you go onto the streets or into a shop and try to explain to people they are "wrong".


It would never cross my mind to do that. Like I wrote above, I believe one should _explain_ why one's way is preferable, in an appropriate setting, not try to impose it the wrong context.

In any case, not being a native speaker, I can perfectly sympathize with those who confuse the present perfect with the simple past--it gave me plenty of headaches, too. Part of me wishes you would get rid of it, but then I think it's part of the beauty of the English language...  

And even if you do eventually get rid of that nasty present perfect, it will be too late for me, anyway. 



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> 2 - true. It was you who suggested that some new forms were "illogical". I would say they are not, they just do not necessarily conform to the "logic" of the traditional form.


Let's go back to the original example: someone, or many people, use the wrong declension in a particular expression. What's the problem with that? No problem; it's an exception. We know languages often have many exceptions to the rules.
Except that if you start allowing more and more exceptions to the rules, you end up making your language more and more difficult to learn and to teach. It's in this sense that I see some worth in being consistent.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> 3 - True again. I didn't say grammarians had no influence. Note that 2 of your 3 example relate to vocabulary alone.


You said the opinion of "traditional grammarians" (are there any others whose opinion would be relevant?) "has very little effect on what the general population want and do say". That's not always true. There are documented instances of how the opinion of grammarians--sometimes even a single grammarian!--made the public change its habits, or keep habits it was about to lose.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> Finally, I disagree with what you have written about prepositions at the end. This "rule" has largely been debunked, and many many good and respected writers completely ignore it.


I've read that some institutions demand that it be followed, for instance by job applicants or students. Word hasn't got out to them that it's an unreasonable demand, apparently. Then again, who are we to say it's unreasonable, right?


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> How do you know it's a majority?


 
Because although these forums have about 1000 new members a month, it would be millions otherwise . Also personal experience, there are many people who are not interested in "intellectual" subjects full stop, and of those that there are not all are going to be interested in language, in the same way I'm not interested in say history.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> It would never cross my mind to do that. Like I wrote above, I believe one should _explain_ why one's way is preferable, in an appropriate setting, not try to impose it the wrong context.
> 
> In any case, not being a native speaker, I can perfectly sympathize with those who confuse the present perfect with the simple past--it gave me plenty of headaches, too. Part of me wishes you would get rid of it, but then I think it's part of the beauty of the English language...


I agree, but many people wouldn't understand what you were trying to get them to do if you tried to explain. They're not really confusing it they're just not using it. 



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> And even if you do eventually get rid of that nasty present perfect, it will be too late for me, anyway.
> 
> 
> Let's go back to the original example: someone, or many people, use the wrong declension in a particular expression. What's the problem with that? No problem; it's an exception. We know languages often have many exceptions to the rules.
> Except that if you start alowing more and more exceptions to the rules, you end up making your language more and more difficult to learn and to teach. It's in this sense that I see some worth in being consistent.


Yes, i agree because it aids intercommunication. You'd have a hard job though trying to make people in English who pronounce "th" as "f" to stop doing it. They might agree that it makes "three" and "free" sound the same, but as soon as the conversation was over they would go away and carry on... 


			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> You said the opinion of "traditional grammarians" (are there any others whose opinion would be relevant?)


 
Yes there are others. You are talking about prescriptive grammarians who tell people what to do as opposed to descriptive grammarians who note what people do do. I was just trying to keep the vocab from getting too specialised.


			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> "has very little effect on what the general population want and do say". That's not always true. There are documented instances of how the opinion of grammarians--sometimes even a single grammarian!--made the public change its habits, or keep habits it was about to lose.


True, but as I tried to say, this is mainly true in terms of vocab which is easy to enforce, because you can write all the prescribed spellings in a dictionary. It is much harder to enforce grammatical prescription. For example the "no ending prepositions at the end" rule (more about that later!) may be respected by some in writing but no one at all goes around doing it in speech even at a job interview. You might as well as the French to chat in the past historic. 


			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> I've read that some institutions demand that it be followed, for instance by job applicants or students. Word hasn't got out to them that it's an unreasonable demand, apparently. Then again, who are we to say it's unreasonable, right?


 I just have to disagree. This "rule" is well known as being ridiculous and just made up. I certainly have never once been criticised for using it in an essay (and I definitely did!!). I might consider not doing it in a CV (if it crossed my mind) but only in case the interviewer might be an idiot who it would really matter to . Mind you, I probably wouldn't want a job in such an environment anyway!!

In summary - I don't think our view-points are really that different. I like language to be respected and for people to care about their method of expression. I also believe that it is better for all of us if there is some consensus as to what is "standard" so that we can understand each other.

I suppose I have a problem with people going round telling others that they are "wrong" about things for which there is no absolute bench mark. When it is in terms of a whole people doing a certain something then I think people should ask themselves if the prescriptive rules need updating rather than attempting to change the speech habits of millions of native speakers. I think we need to be careful about issuing absolute statements about what is right and wrong. A "standard" usage is not right and a non-standard not "wrong" (in absolute linguistic terms), one is just the accepted form. This is not to say that we can't give our opinion, of course. Particularly if it is a foreign speaker who is asking for guidance.

Anyway, my question to Whodunit as to why he thought German was hardest language because not even it's own speakers can get it completely right is answered. Apparently those prescriptive rules in German are such that no one but the hardiest of linguists can pick through the linguisitic mine field!


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> Yes, i agree because it aids intercommunication. You'd have a hard job though trying to make people in English who pronounce "th" as "f" to stop doing it. They might agree that it makes "three" and "free" sound the same, but as soon as the conversation was over they would go away and carry on...


I don't regard regional accents as errors. (That's the cockney accent, isn't it?)



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> Yes there are others. You are talking about prescriptive grammarians who tell people what to do as opposed to descriptive grammarians who note what people do do. I was just trying to keep the vocab from getting too specialised.


But descriptive grammarians, by their very attitude, have no effect at all on how the general population speaks...



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> I just have to disagree. This "rule" is well known as being ridiculous and just made up. I certainly have never once been criticised for using it in an essay (and I definitely did!!). I might consider not doing it in a CV (if it crossed my mind) but only in case the interviewer might be an idiot who it would really matter to . Mind you, I probably wouldn't want a job in such an environment anyway!!


Perhaps that varies with the type of institution. Your background is apparently in languages, so you know a lot about these issues, but people with other backgrounds may not be as aware of them.


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> I don't regard regional accents as errors. (That's the cockney accent, isn't it?)


 
Well, nor do I but I don't see why it's acceptable for someone to make a pronunciation that differs from the standard if it's not acceptable for them to make a grammar or vocab difference. I have genuinely misunderstood someone in the past thinking that something was "free" when in fact it was "three", I've never been confused by someone saying "me and my sister went on holiday". (it certainly is cockney, but it is used very generally by many in the south of England).


			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> But descriptive grammarians, by their very attitude, have no effect at all on how the general population speaks...


 
And nor should any of them, in my humble opinion! Trying to keep to the theme of this thread - this (very interesting!) discussion all started because Whodunit said that "correct" German was so difficult almost no German could speak it "correctly"! Do we really need grammarians to do this to our languages?



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Perhaps that varies with the type of institution. Your background is apparently in languages, so you know a lot about these issues, but people with other backgrounds may not be as aware of them.


 This is fair comment. As I say you might want to avoid them in a CV, but then do you want to work somewhere where someone would mark you down for something as silly as that?


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> [...] I don't see why it's acceptable for someone to make a pronunciation that differs from the standard if it's not acceptable for them to make a grammar or vocab difference.


Grammar is usually more constant across regions than pronunciation.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> Trying to keep to the theme of this thread - this (very interesting!) discussion all started because Whodunit said that "correct" German was so difficult almost no German could speak it "correctly"! Do we really need grammarians to do this to our languages?


I souldn't really comment on Whodunit's example, specifically, since I don't speak German.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> As I say you might want to avoid them in a CV, but then do you want to work somewhere where someone would mark you down for something as silly as that?


I think many people wouldn't mind... 
But you asked me. I would be a bit annoyed by it, but I wouldn't throw away a good job, or points in an exam, because of a difference of opinion on grammar.


----------



## Whodunit

alc112 said:
			
		

> Let me explain you what i know
> German has 4 grammar cases:
> Nominativ E.g: Das ist mein Hund -----> that's my dog
> Akusativ E.g: Ich kaufe einen Tisch-------> I buy a table
> Dativ E.g: Ich bleibe im Hause---------> I stay at homme
> Genetiv E.g : Der Tisch meiner Lehrerin (i'm not sure of this) My teacher's table



All correct. But you used to genitives in your last example.   



> Th BIG BIG BIG BIG   problem students have is to know when to use the Akusativ and Dativ case.
> Akusativ: with moving verbs, it asks which (i think)
> Dativ: With no-moving verbs, it asks to whom
> In Who's sentence



The thing with moving and non-moving statement doesn't fit each sentence. That is why my example is an exception.



> the wrong sentences is wrong because is using Akusativ.
> It costs him the job
> YOu have to ask "To whom does the job cost? to a person
> If you ask in Akusativ "Which job does cost? I don't find sense.
> So the correct is
> Es kostet ihm die Stelle
> 
> 
> what do you think Who???



Both ways are correct and I will explain why with Timpaec's quote in my next reply.


----------



## Whodunit

timpeac said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply alc. I learnt German for a few months many years ago and what I remember of all the cases can now be written on the back of a postage stamp...



That's a little poor, but I'm sure if you want to learn, you can manage it.



> Actually, what I was really getting at is if the vast majority of a people say one thing, then surely it has become correct even if it wasn't in the past. In this way, for example, Latin became Spanish (and French etc) little by little. In the early days people must have been speaking "incorrect Latin" etc until one day someone said "hey let's just call this French (or whatever)".



That's a good point, because Dutch is a German dialect. Soon, the Saxon dialect will become an own language.



> I would say that if the vast majority of a people believe a certain expression to be correct, then ipso facto it has become correct. After all, who are the best judges of what is correct in German grammar if not the majority of the German people?


 
The best judge is the Duden (like English Oxford dictionary and French Robert). What the Duden says has to be correct. That's why, let me explain why both of my examples are correct, but simultaneously incorrect:

Every German would say "Es kostet mich (acc.) die Stelle" and not "... mir (dat.) ...!" But since there's almost no difference in understanding "ihn" and "ihm" in conversation, no one can be say for sure what's correct. After thinking of "mich" which is very clear we can decide in favour of "ihn". Nevertheless, the Duden proposes "ihn _and_ ihm", but _only_ "mich" in this case.

I don't know if I made myself clear, but it's hard to explain such things I can't say for sure.



> It just doesn't make sense to me to suggest that there is a whole people walking round constantly talking their own language wrong.



I think you misunderstood me. We don't talk our language "wrong", but we aren't sure what to use in some situations, that's why we use grammatically wrong words. I think you don't know either what's correct in English sometimes. Let me ask you what do you prefer:

I haven't still figured out ...
I haven't yet figured out ...
I haven't figured out ... yet.


----------



## timpeac

Hi whodunit



Thanks for your reply. I do understand what you mean. We are getting into specifics here, but really I am just trying to get people to accept that they don't _have_ to do something just because they are told to. For example you say the "Duden" is the best judge. According to who? Why? Who wrote it? Is it always right? How would you know if it wasn't?


As I say I perfectly understand you, I'd just like people to question their own assumptions about language. For example you wrote -


"Almost every German would answer that the first one is correct. I think less would prefer the second and even less would choose both of them. BUT in fact, the last option is correct."


Now if almost every German would answer "a" but in fact "b" is correct then you must agree that you have just said that almost every German is speaking his own language wrong. Now, if you say that "b" is correct because the "Duden" says so, then wouldn't it be better to question whether that bit of the "Duden" is correct rather than assume millions of people are wrong?


These prescriptive grammars are just written by men (and it is usually men, I'm not being sexist!) Just ordinary, human, men. It is just their personal opinion.There is value in having a standard form, so we can all understand each other and you can say "this usage is incorrect in standard usage (according to the Duden or whatever)", but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with what is not standard in the way that it is "wrong" to say that the speed of light is 10 kph.


I hope you can see my point because I feel quite exhausted on the subject!!


----------



## mirandolina

I'm not going to reply to you point by point because I just don't have the time.
I am not setting myself up as an authority on the use of the English language. But I do think we are here *to help one another* with our use of the various languages. If I go to the French or German forum and ask a question, I hope some native speaker will point me in the right direction. Obviously with the correct grammatical form. (I can make my own mistakes, thank you!) I know I may get several opinions - not everyone translates the same sentence in the same way. 

I am well aware of the fact that most people don't care tuppence about how they speak their own language, and I wouldn't presume to correct anyone, native speaker or otherwise, apart from people I know well who are still learning the language and welcome that kind of guidance.

So let the Brits say "I didn't do nothing", let the Italians get their subjunctives wrong, let the Germans bungle their cases...... call it evolution of the language if you like.... we can all relax at home and chat away in our local patois, as long as we know when to drop it and use our language correctly (I know you don't like that word, but that's just too bad!).






			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> You can say it of any language, I agree, and I _would_ say it of any language.
> 
> 
> 
> You say -
> YouThe whole point of this forum is to help people use the _*correct*_ form of the various languages.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that's very big-headed of you. The point of this forum is to give your *opinion* of what is the correct form. No one made you god to decide this. Do you really think you have the right to tell a whole people who say something in a certain way that they are "wrong"? Do you think that the majority of people who speak their own language day-in day-out but don't care about traditional linguistics or language forums care what we say? No, of course not. They go on speaking their own language in the way they want to speak it and always will. It is a mistake to ignore this fact. You have a certain point in reference to a genuine "error" made by one person through inattention - yes then you can say "sorry but that's wrong, we say xxx in English (or German etc). But to tell a whole people that all do a certain thing that it is wrong is so presumptuous!
> 
> .


----------



## timpeac

Mirandolina - my comments were quite specifically that describing a speech habit used by the majority of a native population as "incorrect" usage makes no sense because if most people do something, who are we to tell them otherwise? I don't mind the word "correct" used to refer to the "standard" form of the language. We can therefore inform foreign speakers, or isolated mistakes by natives speakers who would wish to know, that they are "incorrect" when their usage varies from this and give our opinion of what it would be better to say.


----------



## Whodunit

Hey Tim,

I think you're right again, I'm confused myself now. I don't even know if I talk my own language correctly. Well, have you ever doubted if the Oxford or whatever dictionary is right? I think you English speakers must have any reference book, e.g. the WR dictionary or this site. Have you ever doubted any entry? Nor I do with the Duden. The Duden is a cooperation of very many linguists/Germanists.

If the Duden is wrong, I'll kick myself   . Because it's revised every month and contains the words of the new spelling reform. It's expensive, but very useful. It's used at school for dictations and compositions. What the Duden says is what's correct.

Please understand my point: I'm young and I don't know how to draw up such a book so that there's no error and no typo. It's not my work and it's not my fault if there are millions of people use the wrong word or grammatical thing.


----------



## timpeac

Whodunit -

Oh, I doubt everything!! An old cynic me.

If I ever try to brush up my German, at least I know a very good book to learn from then!


----------



## Whodunit

timpeac said:
			
		

> Whodunit -
> 
> Oh, I doubt everything!! An old cynic me.
> 
> If I ever try to brush up my German, at least I know a very good book to learn from then!



Oh, you can't learn from the Duden, I think. It's not a grammatical guide. I  can't learn from the WR dictionary either. Buy a "German owner's manual   " and learn from that. The Duden is ONLY in German and I'm sure it's useless for beginners.


----------



## timpeac

whodunit said:
			
		

> Oh, you can't learn from the Duden, I think. It's not a grammatical guide. I can't learn from the WR dictionary either. Buy a "German owner's manual  " and learn from that. The Duden is ONLY in German and I'm sure it's useless for beginners.


 
It was a joke whodunit...

Ok, I'll go on ebay and see if I can find a German to get an owner's manual for...


----------



## Whodunit

timpeac said:
			
		

> It was a joke whodunit...
> 
> Ok, I'll go on ebay and see if I can find a German to get an owner's manual for...



I kept joking.

And I keep joking: Please do it. Go do eBay and ask one.


----------



## timpeac

whodunit said:
			
		

> I kept joking.
> 
> And I keep joking: Please do it. Go do eBay and ask one.


 
I did and he's just arrived clutching a copy of Duden and getting all of his grammar wrong!


----------



## timpeac

Here he is! -

He even writes the word klein with a "c" instead of a "k"!


----------



## Whodunit

timpeac said:
			
		

> I did and he's just arrived clutching a copy of Duden and getting all of his grammar wrong!



Let me tell you what I've just read in the Duden:

"All rights reserved. Reprint forbidden, even in parts.
This reference work must not be reproduced without any written consent of the publishing company (no photocopy, microfilm or any other procedure), not even for classes [blah, blah, blah ...]"


----------



## jmx

Let me interfere in this interesting thread.

I'm very much on Timpeac's side. For me, linguistics should be descriptive, not prescriptive. In my opinion, at least judging from what happens in my own country, prescriptive grammarians do something most people don't notice : they protect an ideology. Namely, spanish nationalism. 

Regional differences are huge in Spain, and therefore nationalism has a lot of threats to overcome. Establishing a standard, "correct" spanish is one of the many ways to counter these differences. I remember being very shocked, long ago, when I first visited Madrid. I expected madrilenians to speak the "standard" spanish I had heard on TV, Radio, etc., and found they don't speak that way at all. The spanish spoken on the media is an artificial, concocted language nobody speaks at home.

Then you can turn to aesthetics. You can argue that speaking this or that way is 'more ellegant' or the like, but I don't think you will ever find a really objective base to support those points of view. Beauty is only in each person's eye (or ear).

That's not to say that there is not such thing as a "standard" language. There are forms, words, sentences that any speaker can understand, while others would be used or understood only by a part of those speakers. In places like this forum, it is clearly better to recommend to students of your language only those forms that you feel as "standard", but never renouncing to use "non-standard" forms when you are, for example, among your countrymen.

And finally, a suggestion about german. I have a rather blurred idea, that standard german was, not long ago, only spoken by educated people, while most people spoke regional dialects most of the time. Something similar might be true of italian. If this is really the case, then that would possibly have as a consequence, that germans are more prone to accepting the "correct" way to speak their language from some external authority, while in countries where the language was more unified, people are more prone to "rebel" against such impositions.


----------



## Outsider

On the other hand, if a language has no standard, then it tends to disintegrate into dozens of diverging dialects, and becomes powerless to compete with rival languages that do have a standard.

A conversation that touches this problem has been going on in another thread.

And here are some quotes about the death of Scots, a language of Scotland. Notice the contrast:



> No education takes place through the medium of Scots, though English lessons may cover it superficially. This is often not much more than reading some Scots literature and observing local dialect. Much of the material used is often little more than Standard English disguised as Scots. One example of the educational establishment's approach to Scots is _"Write a poem in Scots. (It is important not to be worried about spelling in this – write as you hear the sounds in your head.)"_ whereas guidelines for English require teaching pupils to be _"writing fluently and legibly with accurate spelling and punctuation."_ revealing the institutionalised disregard for the idea of treating Scots as a language on par with English. Scots can also be studied at university level. Nowhere in the education system is the objective to produce people able to read, write, and speak Scots as an autonomous alternative to English, thus confirming its de facto status as a series of local dialects of English.
> 
> Wikipedia


----------



## timpeac

jmartins said:
			
		

> That's not to say that there is not such thing as a "standard" language. There are forms, words, sentences that any speaker can understand, while others would be used or understood only by a part of those speakers. In places like this forum, it is clearly better to recommend to students of your language only those forms that you feel as "standard", but never renouncing to use "non-standard" forms when you are, for example, among your countrymen.


 
Yes, this is the main thrust of my argument. There are many (good) reasons to have a standard form of the language. However, we must remember that there is nothing intrinsically better or correct in this standard, it is just a form chosen (usually for socio-political reasons) to be used by all. This is certainly the best form to recommend to foreign speakers, but I do not agree that native speakers of a different variety should be told that what they are saying is "wrong", although as Mirandolina says they should be at ease with the standard to use it when appropriate.

If you get to a situation where the majority of a people do something different from the recommended standard form, then I would say it is time to revisit that standard rather than censor the majority of speakers.

I believe (although it is not a subject I know a great deal about) that in countries like Italy regional usage can vary from the standard to such an extent that you would really have to consider many speakers as bilingual in regional language and the standard.


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> I believe (although it is not a subject I know a great deal about) that in countries like Italy regional usage can vary from the standard to such an extent that you would really have to consider many speakers as bilingual in regional language and the standard.


I don't know about Italian, but that does seem to be the case of Swiss German. But the Swiss still prefer to use Standard German as their official language...


----------



## seb1021

Outsider said:
			
		

> I don't know about Italian, but that does seem to be the case of Swiss German. But the Swiss still prefer to use Standard German as their official language...



Well, I know that most Germans have a hard time understanding Swiss-German. I  wouldn't say that it's a completely different language, though.

As for us Germans not being able to speak our own language   : I do have to admit that people I know that study German as a foreign language often catch me using incorrect grammar (especially the subjunctive in indirect speech), even though I would consider myself to have a fairly good education. It's simply a fact that the grammatically correct German differs quite a bit from the day-to-day German that is spoken by the people, even those that have enjoyed an excellent eduaction. But then, I guess that this gap is quite prevalent amongst a great number of languages. This does not mean, however, that the colloquial should replace the correct grammar. That's my 2 cent worth, anyway.


----------



## timpeac

seb1021 said:
			
		

> It's simply a fact that the grammatically correct German differs quite a bit from the day-to-day German that is spoken by the people, even those that have enjoyed an excellent eduaction. But then, I guess that this gap is quite prevalent amongst a great number of languages. This does not mean, however, that the colloquial should replace the correct grammar. That's my 2 cent worth, anyway.


 
Why wouldn't you want to see the colloquial grammar replace the standard grammar? (note my change of word from "correct", it's best to get away form judgemental words like this in such a discussion).


----------



## seb1021

Simply because the 'textbook' grammar might not be used in daily conversation, this doesn't mean that people don't acknowledge that the grammar they are using is wrong, strictly speaking. I would never want the German language to change in that way, because it would lose much of its beauty and elegance - things which foreigners understandably associate with the German language rather seldomly  . If German was indeed simplified, it would be a great loss for literature and the arts, because these do profit greatly from the high complexity of our language. But for the average conversation, it simply sounds too pompous, too exaggerated.


----------



## timpeac

seb1021 said:
			
		

> Simply because the 'textbook' grammar might not be used in daily conversation, this doesn't mean that people don't acknowledge that the grammar they are using is wrong, strictly speaking. I would never want the German language to change in that way, because it would lose much of its beauty and elegance - things which foreigners understandably associate with the German language rather seldomly . If German was indeed simplified, it would be a great loss for literature and the arts, because these do profit greatly from the high complexity of our language. But for the average conversation, it simply sounds too pompous, too exaggerated.


 
I suppose complexity does have its advantages if you need to get a message across that needs to be very very nuanced. Personally I would rather have a language where people can be "right" most of the time - but I see your point of view too.


----------



## Outsider

A pertinent related discussion.


----------



## jmx

seb1021 said:
			
		

> ... the grammatically correct German differs quite a bit from the day-to-day German that is spoken by the people, even those that have enjoyed an excellent eduaction. But then, I guess that this gap is quite prevalent amongst a great number of languages. This does not mean, however, that the colloquial should replace the correct grammar...


Mmm... One thing is *Standard language against non-standard language*. A different thing is *Literary language against colloquial language*. I'm not sure if we are not mixing up both things here.


----------



## abc

Mine is in purple.



			
				JLanguage said:
			
		

> Is German the hardest Germanic language to learn?
> 
> I don't know since I haven't studied German.
> 
> Or is it something else? English?
> 
> But English...Hmm, yes, very very very very.... difficult.  The intensifier *very* could be something like *very^n*.
> 
> ---
> 
> What about Romance?
> It is French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Latin?
> 
> I think Latin would be the most difficult.
> 
> Is French harder than Spanish?
> 
> French is harder than Spanish in some ways (e.g. phonology).
> 
> What about Italian?
> 
> Isn't Italian very similar to Spanish?
> .


----------



## JLanguage

abc said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by *JLanguage*
> 
> Is German the hardest Germanic language to learn?
> 
> I don't know since I haven't studied German.
> 
> Or is it something else? English?
> 
> But English...Hmm, yes, very very very very.... difficult. The intensifier *very* could be something like *very^n*.
> 
> ---
> 
> What about Romance?
> It is French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Latin?
> 
> I think Latin would be the most difficult.
> 
> Is French harder than Spanish?
> 
> French is harder than Spanish in some ways (e.g. phonology).
> 
> What about Italian?
> 
> Isn't Italian very similar to Spanish?


 
 
I agree with you about Latin, it is a very difficult language. Virtually every word in the language is inflected. As for the difficulty of English, many consider it an easy language to learn initially but difficult to master. I suspect this opinion comes mostly from speakers of other Indo-European languages, especially Germanic and Romance such as German and Spanish. Vietnamese is very different from English, so you're at a disadvantage. Besides, it seems like you're English is very good.


----------



## melanota

I vote English as the most difficult Germanic language because of all of its influences...


----------



## jmx

Outsider said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if a language has no standard, then it tends to disintegrate into dozens of diverging dialects, and becomes powerless to compete with rival languages that do have a standard.   ...
> And here are some quotes about the death of Scots, a language of Scotland.


In the case of minority languages like Scots, it can certainly be a big help to develop a standard of writing where one didn't exist. But for _major_ languages such as english or german, I can't see the advantage or benefit of telling their own speakers what is _wrong_ and what is _right_. I don't think that the existence or unity of those languages is threatened by a few differences in use.


----------



## Outsider

jmartins said:
			
		

> In the case of minority languages like Scots, it can certainly be a big help to develop a standard of writing where one didn't exist. But for _major_ languages such as english or german, I can't see the advantage or benefit of telling their own speakers what is _wrong_ and what is _right_. I don't think that the existence or unity of those languages is threatened by a few differences in use.


That's because major languages already have a standard.


----------



## realmadridfan

Razvann said:


> Romanian : very simple to read, cause is phonetic,(whith few exceptions), also very simple to write.
> Gramar is difficult, is identical to latin language gramar.
> Words are 98% latin words
> Italians learn very fast romanian, but most of them keep similar words in vocabular, or sufixes
> Ex: He is a very good player / correct "Este un jucator foarte bun" / italian "style" "Este uno giucator molto buno"
> 
> For me, as romanian, spanish and italian are very easy, but i mixed the words betwen them . Latin is hard. Franch i used since primary school, is .. nice.
> 
> Germanic languages are... mission imposible



You might what to consider you opinion of Italian being very easy. What you wrote is completamente sbagliato.  

I am Italian and I used to teach it to adults.  People who had studied French and then Italian always told me Italian grammar is harder than French.  I think that is true.  Think about all the ways we say "the" il, i, la, le, lo, gli, l', vs. le, la,l', les. The subjunctive is more complicated in form and use than French. 

I also speak Spanish.  I didn't find it hard to learn but things like ser and estar, por and para, are difficult.  Also, I thing the subjunctive in Spanish, which is more or less like the Italian subjunctive, is harder than in French. 

It's true pronunciation and spelling in French is much harder than in Spanish and Italian but apart from that I would say Italian grammar is the hardest, followed by French and then Spanish.  

Germanic languages are, I agree, mission impossible but I would love to be able to speak Dutch.  I have no idea why. On that note I will say

Tschuess


----------



## avok

realmadridfan said:


> I am Italian and I used to teach it to adults. People who had studied French and then Italian always told me Italian grammar is harder than French. I think that is true. Think about all the ways we say "the" il, i, la, le, lo, gli, l', vs. le, la,l', les. The subjunctive is more complicated in form and use than French.
> 
> It's true pronunciation and spelling in French is much harder than in Spanish and Italian but apart from that I would say Italian grammar is the hardest, followed by French and then Spanish.
> 
> Germanic languages are, I agree, mission impossible but I would love to be able to speak Dutch. I have no idea why. On that note I will say
> 
> Tschuess


 
Are you sure of that? ..I do think that the grammar of French is noooooo way easier than Italian. But on the other hand, I find the pronunciation of French easier. Because you always know where to put the accent when it comes to French words unlike Portuguese or Italian.   

Why a mission impossible ? Look everyone here in this forum speaks English and they do it well, I guess. English is Germanic 

yet again, I would say: 
*romance, oh la la*
in terms of grammar French is harder,
in terms of pronunciation European Portuguese is harder

*germanik, ja wohlllllllll*
in terms of grammar German must be harder
in terms of pronunciation Scandinavian languages, mainly Danish......


----------



## palomnik

After spending considerable time trying to teach the language, I will have to weigh in on English being the most difficult Germanic language to learn.  Yes, it's true that German has all those _noun cases.  _But in the final analysis they only lead to more clarity.  

And don't neglect the fact that German is spelled pretty nearly phonetically.  English is one of the hardest languages to learn how to spell correctly; for English speakers it's a life-long task.

I think it was Sapir that said that all grammars "leak."  If so, I think the leakage in English is extreme, and there are areas of English grammar that are so unclear that it is difficult to find two experts agreeing on the underlying structure of some areas of the language, such as verbals.

All in all, it makes English a difficult language to sound educated in.


----------



## Athaulf

palomnik said:


> After spending considerable time trying to teach the language, I will have to weigh in on English being the most difficult Germanic language to learn. Yes, it's true that German has all those noun cases. But in the final analysis they only lead to more clarity.
> 
> And don't neglect the fact that German is spelled pretty nearly phonetically. English is one of the hardest languages to learn how to spell correctly; for English speakers it's a life-long task.
> 
> I think it was Sapir that said that all grammars "leak." If so, I think the leakage in English is extreme, and there are areas of English grammar that are so unclear that it is difficult to find two experts agreeing on the underlying structure of some areas of the language, such as verbals.
> 
> All in all, it makes English a difficult language to sound educated in.



For what that's worth, when I wrote open-dictionary essays in German and English in high school, I was usually able to get my German right with a pretty low error rate (say, one mistake per paragraph), but my English essays were always dripping with red ink when I got them back. My German teacher was perhaps a bit more lenient, but I guess this still says something about the relative difficulty of both languages at intermediate levels from a Slavic speaker's perspective.

I disagree about spelling being particularly relevant for advanced learners. Compared to the difficulties of syntax at advanced levels, English spelling is a very minor concern. All the advanced English learners I know have kept making gross syntactic mistakes in English long after they had already mastered the spelling to a level as good as anyone will ever need. Personally, even at this moment, I would find it easier to re-learn English spelling all over again from scratch than to eliminate my remaining problems with syntax (mainly articles). I would guess that English learners exaggerate the relative difficulty of spelling because they are well aware of their spelling mistakes, while they are blissfully oblivious of their much worse syntactic ones.

I also disagree that English has much more "leakage" than other languages. Every other language I've ever looked at has such impenetrably obscure or impossible to memorize points, be it definiteness, verbal aspects, unpredictable stress and/or gender, pronoun dropping, subtleties of word order, etc.

As to the overall relative difficulty of languages, it depends on your native language, as well as the level of proficiency you're aiming for. This is my impression from observation and experience:
Completely reaching the native speaker level is equally difficult (i.e. impossible) for any language, regardless of your background.

Highly advanced fluency and written proficiency is also more or less equally difficult, because each language has its own "leakage" that takes an immense amount of practice to get even approximately right. Speaking a closely related language helps somewhat, though (but far less than at beginner levels).

At lower levels, speaking a closely related language helps drastically. Also, at the beginner level, analytic languages are easier, because it's enough to learn some basic vocabulary to be able to immediately say and understand simple things, whereas in a highly inflected one, you have to learn tons of grammar to get even a basic subject-verb-object sentence right. Simpler spelling rules also make things easier at this point.


----------



## palomnik

Athaulf:  Perhaps you're right, and I'm exaggerating about the difficulties of English.  Certainly gender is not a problem, and the number of verb paradigms are few.  Speakers of Slavic languages have a hard time with the articles in English, as I know from my wife's persistent problems after over thirty years.

I was thinking mainly of those areas that challenge the advanced learner.  I have spent hours trying to explain the intricacies of English verbals (i.e, gerunds, participles and infinitives) or phrasal verbs only to see my students' eyes glaze over.  It's an unpleasant sight!


----------



## avok

palomnik said:


> After spending considerable time trying to teach the language, I will have to weigh in on English being the most difficult Germanic language to learn. Yes, it's true that German has all those _noun cases. _But in the final analysis they only lead to more clarity.


 
Do you mean that ? In English, one has to say "I love you" in order to express their love. "I" is the subject, "love" is the verb and "you" is the object. 
I mean, how easier can it be? 

subject + verb + object : "I" "LOVE" "YOU" just fill in the blanks  nothing ever changes, even the word order. But yes, English is hard to learn how to spell correctly; yet I doubt it is a life-long task. 

I think, the hardest part of the English language would be its phonology....unlike any other germanic languages

Easy or hard, English is a beautiful language... 




> Originally Posted by *Athaulf*
> 
> Completely reaching the native speaker level is equally difficult (i.e. impossible) for any language, regardless of your background.
> 
> Highly advanced fluency and written proficiency is also more or less equally difficult, because each language has its own "leakage" that takes an immense amount of practice to get even approximately right. Speaking a closely related language helps somewhat, though (but far less than at beginner levels).
> 
> At lower levels, speaking a closely related language helps drastically. Also, at the beginner level, analytic languages are easier, because it's enough to learn some basic vocabulary to be able to immediately say and understand simple things, whereas in a highly inflected one, you have to learn tons of grammar to get even a basic subject-verb-object sentence right. Simpler spelling rules also make things easier at this point.


 
I agree with you, ( if it means anything to you)


----------



## Sxejn Karlson

Although probably not widely considered to be a "major" Germanic language, I believe Icelandic to be the most difficult. One of the most difficult aspects of Icelandic grammar is its abundance of prepositions which govern which case the noun after it is in (I assume German is to some extent similar.) Icelandic has three voices: active, passive, and middle, which I think is one more than German and most other Germanic language. Also, in general, Icelandic grammar is very irregular, so the learner has to look-up every word and its inflections/conjugations to be 100% certain. Other difficulties (outside the language itself) is the limited amount of resources for learning Icelandic, and, depending where you live, you may never speak to an Icelander unless you travel to the country. But, on the bright side, Icelandic is relatively easy to pronounce.


----------



## jonquiliser

Sxejn, I'd agree on Icelandic. Despite not knowing much about the language, only a few descriptions of its grammar seem to be enough to make it stand out in a comparison to English or German, for example. I'm surprised no one's mentioned this language yet. (Maybe it's just because most people won't start learning it to begin with? )


----------



## Tashulina

Hello everyone,

The issue here I think it is not the difficulty to learn a specific language, but how easy / hard two persons can learn the same language. It is not enough to have the will to learn that foreign anguage, it takes also a native talent in doing this, an attraction for it's specifics.

For example, even if I stayed in Spain only for 6 months, time to finish my last faculty year, I've managed to learn the Spanish language very well, due to some practical courses offered by *nidolanguagetravel.com* , specialised in easy methods to learn the language. also there they explained us the differences between the latin languages and the germanic ones, in terms of grammar and literature.


----------



## Sepia

melanota said:


> I vote English as the most difficult Germanic language because of all of its influences...




You can't be serious about this. English grammar is so simple compared with High German. Even simpler than Danish or Swedish. The influences on English by other languages, I'd say, is mainly in the vocabulary and not in the structure of the language. And just like Danish, Norwegian and Swedish it has turned less complex over the centuries. 

However, it surprises me that nobody mentioned Icelandic so far (although it is not a major language). But it is said to be pretty close to the origin of the modern Germanic languages.
Icelandic is really complex. Extremely! Compared with Icelandic, German seems really simple.


----------



## jonquiliser

Sepia said:


> Icelandic is really complex. Extremely! Compared with Icelandic, German seems really simple.


 
Someone did . See post #58.


----------



## Athaulf

Sepia said:


> You can't be serious about this. English grammar is so simple compared with High German. Even simpler than Danish or Swedish. The influences on English by other languages, I'd say, is mainly in the vocabulary and not in the structure of the language. And just like Danish, Norwegian and Swedish it has turned less complex over the centuries.



English _morphology _is indeed very simple, but the overall English grammar is every bit as complicated as the grammar of any other natural language. And it's a big mistake to think that a transition to a more analytic grammar somehow makes a language "less complex", unless you count only the most basic beginner level.

The lack of inflections makes it relatively easy to learn a very basic level of conversational English, but as soon as one moves from very simple utterances and attempts to speak and write really properly (and not just in a pidgin-like way that will barely get the point across), the overwhelming complications of English syntax kick in. At more advanced levels, the issues of English grammar that we were discussing above are so incomprehensibly obscure that even the most complicated and irregular tables of conjugations and declensions pale in comparison.

Generally, people often grossly overestimate the importance of morphology in the overall "difficulty" of the grammar of different languages. Simple morphology helps at the beginner level, but even for people learning highly inflected languages, problems with syntax and semantics will persist long after the morphology has been mastered. For example, in Russian and other Slavic languages, conjugations and declensions may look like the most scary part to a beginner, but a more advanced learner who can readily recite the inflections of any verb or noun is likely to still be stumped by the verbal aspect, and to make mistakes in the choice of words that don't have an exact context-independent English translation.


----------



## palomnik

Athaulf, you're arguing precisely the reasons why I cited English as the most difficult Germanic language!

To amplify your comments on Slavic languages, I studied Russian for several years, and it's true that the ultimate difficulty for the learner is not the conjugations and declensions; this is a simple matter of internalization and just requires practice. And while the syntactical vagaries of aspect are a problem, the ultimate challenge to being truly literate in Russian is learning the word combinations, particularly matchups of verbs with objects - словосочетания in Russian - which are fairly inflexible and a requirement for expressing yourself intelligently in the language. 

I am digressing, it's true, but as the subject of comparison with Slavic languages came up I felt the need to put my two cents in. To get back to English, it is a little bit like playing the piano - any idiot can bang out a little melody, but it's a difficult instrument to play well. In that respect - and not in many others, I dare say - it resembles French.


----------



## Juan Carlos Garling

timpeac said:


> But if almost every German considers that the first one is correct, then on what do you base the fact that the second is correct?


Stay with *Es kostet ihm die Stelle*. It's correct.


----------



## Juan Carlos Garling

Razvann said:


> Romanian : very simple to read, cause is phonetic,(whith few exceptions), also very simple to write.
> Gramar is difficult, is identical to latin language gramar.
> Words are 98% latin words
> Italians learn very fast romanian, but most of them keep similar words in vocabular, or sufixes
> Ex: He is a very good player / correct "Este un jucator foarte bun" / italian "style" "Este uno giucator molto buno"
> 
> For me, as romanian, spanish and italian are very easy, but i mixed the words betwen them . Latin is hard. Franch i used since primary school, is .. nice.
> 
> Germanic languages are... mission imposible


You are right. Romanian should not be difficult for Spanish speakers.
_*Este un jucator foarte bun*_ makes sense.
_*jucator*_ (Rom.) = jugador (Sp.) giocatore (It.) jogador (Port.)
_*foarte*_ = fuerte (Sp.) forte (It.), forte (Port.), in this sense _*very*_
*bun* = bueno (Sp.) = buono (It.) bom (Port.)

In the Roman days _Dacia_ (present-day _Romania_) was settled by old veteran legionaries who were given land as reward for their services (and would still help to keep the region under control). Thus _Romanian_, a _romance_ language derived from the uneducated Latin spoken by those legionaries, came into being.


----------



## Athaulf

palomnik said:


> Athaulf, you're arguing precisely the reasons why I cited English as the most difficult Germanic language!
> [...]
> I am digressing, it's true, but as the subject of comparison with Slavic languages came up I felt the need to put my two cents in. To get back to English, it is a little bit like playing the piano - any idiot can bang out a little melody, but it's a difficult instrument to play well. In that respect - and not in many others, I dare say - it resembles French.



That's an excellent analogy. Learning analytical vs. synthetic languages is very much like learning to play the piano vs. the violin. For an absolute beginner, it's easier to learn to play a few simple melodies on the piano, but becoming a virtuoso on either instrument is equally hard. 

Where we apparently disagree is that you seem to claim that at advanced levels, English is even more difficult than, say, German. In my opinion, issues that make the difference between an intermediate-level speaker and one close to a native level are more or less equally hard in any language.

Also, I don't think we're getting off-topic by introducing comparisons with Slavic languages, because they can provide useful _a fortiori_ arguments for the discussion of how various more synthetic Germanic and Romance languages compare to the more analytic ones.


----------



## argentina84

My first language is Spanish..and I have been studying English for several years. I have recently taken up French and Italian...and I find the former  to be the most difficult for me because of its silent letters. I have no problems with Italian.

I have had some contact with Portuguese speakers..and I can understand it. I haven't had the time to study it yet.

As regards Germanic languages...English was not very difficult for me..perhaps because it is everywhere..I mean..everywhere in the media here...the most difficult aspect was the pronunciation. But practice makes perfect.

I am currently attempting to learn Dutch. I don't dare to say it's the most difficult Germanic language...but it is certainly more difficult than English. I think that the lack of  teachers,books, and study material makes it even harder for me.The internet is not enough for me. 

Know nothing of German, but many people speak it in Argentina.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Athaulf said:


> Also, at the beginner level, analytic languages are easier, because it's enough to learn some basic vocabulary to be able to immediately say and understand simple things, whereas in a highly inflected one, you have to learn tons of grammar to get even a basic subject-verb-object sentence right.



I always thought that was true and I still think it's very common-sensical, but recently I was listening to someone speaking broken Greek, a decently inflecting language, and every noun they said was in the nominative case, every verb in the 3rd person singular, and so on (basically saying "I sees he"), yet it wasn't difficult to figure out what they were saying and they seemed to have no problem understanding what others said. Context is very powerful in disambiguating statements. I wonder if you, or others, have had similar experiences with inflecting languages. (Although, of course, everything was much more obviously ungrammatical than it would be with a more analytic language.)

But about the hardest language, for the Romance languages, my minimal experience (I really only have knowledge of French) leads me to say Romanian, but I don't really have a good reason. I mean, theoretically, it seems to me that Romanian should be no more difficult than the other languages, but every time I've tried to learn a bit, it didn't go too well, and I don't have a clue why.

For the Germanic languages I'm going to say German solely because of separable verbs. I never understood how German speaker can see a verb in the second slot of a sentence and something like 5 lines later see the prefix (or worse hear it 20 seconds later) and put it all together and understand everything perfectly .


----------

