What you descrobe of the properties of English, are typical of Chinese. (I think. Correction or confirmation needed.) Much like in Chinese, in English (for foreigners) the hardest part is the writing (neither is very phonetic), and pronunciation. Grammar is easy in the beginning of learning, but the more foray the students make into learning English properly, the more of its complexity shows. What other languages simply express in terms of conjugation, tenses, moods, etc. with a different ending for each person, English responds with its own particular and unique use of verb tenses. Russian has a verb tense particularity, as well, and so does Hungarian.

It seems like no language lacks in at least a section of its grammar and usage, a highly complex structure that is unique to it. I don't know why that is so. It appears as if the human brain requires this complexity not for the sake of pragmatic usefulness in the language, but for the sake of satisfying its own (the human brain's own) need and hunger for the challenge of complexity.

Just my two cents' worth.

English is probably not the absolute easiest language to learn. I have heard that a language called Esperanto is the easiest but that’s only because the language was basically invented in the 19th century for pretty much the sole purpose of being easy to learn. Nonetheless, I think English is the easiest popular language to learn despite its tricky spelling which is probably the most difficult part about the language(mind you that spelling isn’t actually that important for having a practical understanding of the language but neither is conjugations). I have learned English as my second language when I was 9 in about 6 months but I also had plenty of exposure so I guess it wouldn’t be that hard for any language.

The easiest language to learn is the one you're born with.

The priority alone of English strongly implies it's easiest - and it certainly does have genders. But that alone raises questions as to criteria, potential, and uses. In turn most simply answered by Shakespeare, Shakespeare, and business.

At the same time it's generally acknowledged that some thoughts are better expressed in other languages. Ingrid Bergman offered this: "English for acting, Italian for romance, French for diplomacy, German for philosophy... and Swedish for secrecy, because so few people know it."

And that some thoughts are only expressed in other languages. These thoughts lost when languages die. It seems to me English a tent under which most can fit, and each going as far as he or she can. As to exhausting its possibilities, a similar complaint was made about music. To which Arnold Schoenberg replied, "There is still plenty of good music to be written in C major."

So it would seem English for most days and most of every day. The last word to Winston Churchill, who clearly knew a thing or two.

"We were considered such dunces that we could learn only English. Mr. Somervell—a most delightful man, to whom my debt is great—was charged with the duty of teaching the stupidest boys the most disregarded thing—namely, to write mere English. He knew how to do it. He taught it as no one else has ever taught it. Not only did we learn English parsing thoroughly, but we also practised continually English analysis. Mr. Somervell had a system of his own. He took a fairly long sentence and broke it up into its components by means of black, red, blue, and green inks….It was a kind of drill. We did it almost daily. As I remained in the Third Form three times as long as anyone else, I had three times as much of it. I learned it thoroughly. Thus I got into my bones the essential structure of the ordinary British sentence—which is a noble thing.... Naturally I am biased in favor of boys learning English. I would make them all learn English: and then I would let the clever ones learn Latin as an honour, and Greek as a treat. But the only thing I would whip them for is not knowing English, I would whip them hard for that."

In a Darwinian sense English must have what it takes to keep it ahead of the pack. Some features that make English the alpha are:

1. Military muscle: the Empire is no more but its effects still linger on. A gun in one's face is very persuasive I hear.

2. Parasitic: many loan words, especially those that have a critical role in life, politics, religion, etc. and so other languages lose their edge: what would've made it important to learn another language is anglicized (is that the right word?)

3. Discoveries & Inventions (science): Science is another big player on the world stage and most of what happens in it is reported in English making English an indispensable tool if one wants to stay in the race so to speak.

Is English the easiest language to learn?

I think a lot depends on the prospective learner's native language and how it differs from or how similar it is to English.

Similarity is tricky because it can lead to mistakes that the learner isn't even aware of.


English is probably one the easiest languages to learn in the sense that there are so many (free) resources for learning it (textbooks, courses, online stuff).

certainly does have genders. — tim wood

I can think of several word couples with inherent gender like the word “male/female” “girl” and “boy” “man/woman” “king/queen” “husband/wife” “daughter/son” but they seem to be restricted specifically to people and not inanimate things. Then of course we have the two adjectives “masculine” and “feminine” or “girly” and “boyish”.

As well as this some culturally based ones which are more of an assumption based on historical roles and not at all explicit like “fireman” or “soldier” and “nurse” or “midwife” which we kind of expect to be male and female respectively unless otherwise indicated. But as we are well aware in the modern age there are many male nurses and midwives and female firemen and soldiers (firewoman weirdly doesn’t seem to work).

There are some object genders but highly limited. For example a ship/ boat/ vessel is always “female” and the word “she” can be appropriately used in this context. “I bought a new boat. Where did you buy her?” Agriculture extends this to farming machinery (at least where I come from) a tractor is typically female. I have no idea why.

So of course there are exceptions to the general rule but nothing of the likes of Spanish french etc where every single noun is either male female or neuter and often the verb or adjective must agree.

English is probably not the absolute easiest language to learn. I have heard that a language called Esperanto is the easiest but that’s only because the language was basically invented in the 19th century for pretty much the sole purpose of being easy to learn. — TheHedoMinimalist

Come to think of it my friend learned Swahili and says it’s incredibly easy to learn. Because it uses “phonic mimicry” for many of its nouns and verbs - that means the word they use for something is based on the sound it makes.
It’s essentially like calling a cat “meow” and a dog “woof”. However sounds are subjective and onamatopoiea is specific to each language (see different cultures words for the sound of a heartbeat).

In Swahili the phrase “I’m going to bed” is reduced to the subject and the verb “mimi lala” - lala land supposedly being the dreamworld or “la” as a sound indicating rest and relaxation just as we can derive it from words like “lazing” “lackadaisical” “lounge” “lax” “lacking” or “lay” .

Perhaps the easiest languages would be ones where associations are made on specific sounds like this. If “la” means to rest then any word in the entire language containing “la” would indicate some passive or restful activity.

The language you listen to from an young age is the easiest one for you. So, the language similar to your mother tongue will probably much easier to learn.

I think a lot depends on the prospective learner's native language and how it differs from or how similar it is to English. — baker

Well think in the sense of structure. Would it be easier to go from a highly structured and grammatical language (like German) where say every noun has a gender and every adjective has to agree with it as well as each pronoun having a unique verb conjugation (even the in German must agree with gender and plural/singular = there’s like a dozen “the’s”!) to one where much of that doesn’t matter: you just learn a few basic conjugations and the nouns (like English).

Or would it be easier for an English speaker to go to a language with higher structure many of which are not natural or inherent to the functioning of their own language.

How does one learn a concept it doesn’t have in its own means of describing the world?

For example Spanish has two words for “for” : por and para. This causes massive trouble for English speakers because we just can’t wrap our heads around when to use them and it takes much repetition or rote learning to crack it. For Spanish it’s easier because there is no other option in English to get confused by just use “for”

Parasitic: many loan words, especially those that have a critical role in life, politics, religion, etc. and so other languages lose their edge: what would've made it important to learn another language is anglicized (is that the right word?) — TheMadFool

That makes a lot of sense actually! How does a language master it’s descriptive power? By simply absorbing what it doesn’t already have from other languages with no shame haha.
Examples that come to mind: rendezvous, en route, en force, Bon apetit, chic, debris from french or iceberg, angst and “schadenfreuide” from German.

schadenfreuide — Benj96

I'm more than familiar with that one :smile: I think it's schadenfreude

/ˈʃɑːd(ə)nˌfrɔɪdə,German ˈʃɑːdənˌfrɔydə/

noun

pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune.

"a business that thrives on schadenfreude"

Well think in the sense of structure. Would it be easier to go from a highly structured and grammatical language (like German) where say every noun has a gender and every adjective has to agree with it as well as each pronoun having a unique verb conjugation (even the in German must agree with gender and plural/singular = there’s like a dozen “the’s”!) to one where much of that doesn’t matter: you just learn a few basic conjugations and the nouns (like English).

Or would it be easier for an English speaker to go to a language with higher structure many of which are not natural or inherent to the functioning of their own language.

How does one learn a concept it doesn’t have in its own means of describing the world? — Benj96

Of course.
But in terms of structure, it's relevant to distinguish between analytic and synthetic languages.

As a native speaker of a highly synthetic language, I'm having difficulty learning highly analytic languages, even though theoretically, they should be easier. It just seems to me that, say, in Mandarin Chinese, so many things are missing or can be done away with that it's alien to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language

How does a language master it’s descriptive power? — Benj96

Loaning words from other languages is one way. Another way is the formation of new words (but this depends a lot on the word formation models already available in the language -- some have more of those, some fewer).