Why is this primitive ape language such a clusterfuck to learn?

...

you just using verbs at the beginning or at the end and this is all

But a language without cases, like English, seems pretty primitive compared to a language with them.

Shouldn't it be pretty easy if you know English already?

if you cannot learn primitive language then I'm sorry

Well considering that 70% of English words derive their origin from Latin or French, of the Germanic most of them are from either the West German or North German languages rather than the branch that German derives from, and that the simplification of the grammar makes the language quite different from German the answer is no, it isn't pretty easy if you know English.

Why is this so much better than english, lads?

>Speaking turk.
>Not Italian or French.

What? The reverse is true. Plus, English has cases. Sort of.

a tricolor is a primitive ape language.. Interesting

english evolved to lose cases... indo-european had them. we make up for it with articles, possessive pronouns, and word order.

Why can't non germs say "ch" in both it's variations?

The concept of not being able to make a sound is so strange to me.

Wot? German is a piece of cake. Maybe you should try learning Scots or Patwa if this is too difficult.
Or just stab yourself in the abdomen because you know you'll never have enough intellect to achieve anything noteworthy.

OP here. I have almost reached fluency in reading French. I'm not that stupid, and i'm sure I could learn German easily if I tried - it just has a retarded grammar system.

>Why is this primitive ape language such a clusterfuck to learn?

>i'm sure I could learn German easily if I tried

yeah, you sound like a faggot to me.

Who gives a fuck when you already speak no. 1

There are 44 phonemes in English but there are hundreds upon hundreds, possibly thousands of distinct phonemes. Sure Germans have trouble with that, but many English people have trouble with the French R, with the g and gh in van Gogh from dutch, with the tsch sound from Japanese.

*whispers" you're rohjy and loys of people learn gerwoman And crap, so learn a useless language like NORWEGIAN... because you know not many learn norsk! BOKMÆL

if you speak french and english, why on earth would you even bother with such a terrible language of such a terrible people

What do you mean?

>Er glaubt "deutsche Sprache, schwere Sprache"
Seh ihn an. Seh ihn an und lache.

Because it's the lingua franca of philosophy.

Hvorfor lærte jeg Bokmål? Jeg skal aldri reise i Norge. Jeg kjenner ingen Norsk forfatterene.

Ask in German

read SSÌGRÍD ŪÑDSËT, my feiebd. her book Madame Dorthea, I just ordered recently. byt, my suggestion is her famous bewks: Kristin Lavrandatter, etx.

>andeletet mitt når alle dei beste norske forfattarane og diktarane skriv på landsmål eller nynorsk

Good to know. I spent the past year learning Norsk because it was easy and I was bored. I would like to try some literature, but all I know is Hamsun.

>Have to take xanax for my certificate tomorrow which will tell me if i'll pass to A1.2

Well fuck, jeg ble memed på

Alle dei fire store skreiv på riksmål då, du kan jo lese kven som helst av dei?

Knausgård skriv forovreg og på bokmål, han er absolutt ikkje verst.

A1.2? You'll probably make it.

>Greatly simplify the tense and case system of an existing language
>Too lazy to even fully pronounce words
Is French the original Ebonics?

Do you actually believe that over the last hundred thousand years French is the first language to do this?

>Greatly simplify the tense and case system
>has almost 20 tenses

Because you're a brainlet.

If you already know English, German is easymode

>almost completely different vocabulary
>extremely different grammar
>easymode

RÄÄÄÄ norskjävla använd inte finsk meemi!!!

Isn't it annoying that there's multiple languages?
Sure, they all got their own aesthetics and beauty, but what would be missed if everyone spoke one language from the beginning?

>but what would be missed if everyone spoke one language from the beginning?
Maybe we did in a prot-human days but languages change and diverge. It makes as much sense to ask what if there was only ever one unchanging language as what if Swedes are secretly Martians. Sure it's possible but it's so far fetched as to be effectively impossible.

lol no. Outside fundamental words like Vater and besser German is extremely alien

If your verbs don't have over 100 endings, (3 persons x 2 numbers x 6 tenses x 2 moods x 2 voices + participles, infinitives, and supines) I don't want to hear it.

Deutschsprechen ist nicht so schwer. Ich bin sie fuer ein Jahr lernen. Ich kann etwas druecken mir aus. Auch ich bin nicht fuer drei oder zwei Monaten tranieren.
Vielleicht sollt ich.
That took me like 10 minutes, with lots of ENG -> DEU dictionary use, but I assume it's coherent. And, as of finishing my last course, I was only roughly equivalent to B1.
Try harder, take some courses.

Voiced and unvoiced? It's something one learns, and then becomes second nature.
Also, there isn't just one unvoiced 'ch' in German. The first city in Germany I visited was Berlin, and they didn't sound like my Hochdeutsch lessons.

The grammar is not extremely different and there are countless cognates.
Stop making excuses.

>You don't get to say that the French tense system isn't radically simplified from Latin because other languages exist
Where you dropped on your head as a baby?

>The grammar is not extremely different
>practically free sentence order
>a developed case system
>three genders
>is literally closer in grammar to French than German, a language from a different language family from English

>there are countless cognates
The vast majority of the English language is not made up of words descending from the Germanic family, so no not countless. Guess what, the word for head and capital are cognates. Cognates mean fuck all unless they are recognisable as such. English and German come from two different branches of the Germanic family which split over two thousand years ago and has been subsequently influenced by North German. Because of how distantly related modern German and English are is related very few of the words that are cognates which will be at the very most 26% (and that is a charitable amount) of the language. Factor into that that most cognates are not recognisable and you are looking at maybe 5% of Enlglish helping in learning German.
Also with English Germanic words make up the bulk of simple words where Latin, French and Greek influence give us the more complicated words. So of that potential 5% a lot of those words would only make the very early phases of language learning easier.

Do you not agree that english speakers are better at approximating foreign phonemes than other languages, though? Perhaps it's plain bias that makes me think so.

I completely disagree. You only think English speakers are better at it because you are living in an English speaking echo chamber. You hear other English speakers and people struggling with English. You aren't living in a country where you have to learn a language with nine tones or a Semitic language with lots of the throat to control sounds.

GLORIÆ ROMÆ

Yeah, I got that. Did you not get to my second sentence?

In reality I'm wondering something that can never be known, I suppose. That is, whether any language is better at assimilating phonemes of foreign tongues than another. Does the average englishman who passably speaks mandarin cause more cringing than a chinaman who passably speaks english? This, of course could never be known without mind reading, in a similar conundrum to "how would we know if someone saw two colors as perfectly swapped compared to everyone else."

And at the end of it all, it's irrelevant because in theory any accent can be trained away with enough effort.

I think English speakers have great potential for this, but are incredibly tone deaf thanks to their horrid orthography. Many don't realize that the s in pleasure is not an sh sound; that it's the "French J". Less know there's two "th" sounds (thy, thigh). To make the most of it, you have to be semi-literate in a language with a consistent orthography, preferably one that doesn't stray too much from Latin's in terms of vowels. This becomes your new, usable frame of reference if you're too lazy to learn IPA. Plus many people, not English speaker exclusive, think certain consonants are pronounced the same way because of superficial resemblance. These subtle 'invisible' sounds are often what makes one sound horrifically English/American. The rolled R is another animal compared to the English R for instance and requires a wholly different acrobatic feat with your tongue. The only similarity is that they're both represented with R.

>Yeah, I got that. Did you not get to my second sentence?
I got what you meant, your second post only confirmed that and what I wrote was to explain why you probably believe that and to confirm that as you suspected it is just a bias.

>That is, whether any language is better at assimilating phonemes of foreign tongues than another.
No. A language which has similar phonemes to the ones to be imitated will be easier than one with radically different phonemes. It's all relative from which languages you know to what ones you want to speak.

>In reality I'm wondering something that can never be known, I suppose
Well you could ask people. It only takes a short search to see that the French strongly prefer the upper class English accent of French preferable to the American French accent. You could also learn another language. It's hardly something that's unknowable.

>Does the average englishman who passably speaks mandarin cause more cringing than a chinaman who passably speaks english
Comparing that to
>how would we know if someone saw two colors as perfectly swapped compared to everyone else
Is ridiculous false equivocation.

Gloria Romae, plebs.
If I'm a complete chump who learned Bokmål from duolingo and the internet, Riksmål or Nynorsk shouldn't be too hard, right?