Funnily enough, that EXACT list is found here -- except for English, as the list is supposed to describe how hard it is/how long it takes for AMERICANS to learn the listed languages (I is easier, IV is harder/longer).  So clearly the claim that it's a list of difficult to learn languages from an objective standpoint is just bullshit, unless English stands at the crossroads, haw haw haw. [edited]

I am also curious as to these rule exceptions; I hope you are not talking about spelling.  But while I'm thinking about it, having inconsistent phonetics is still better than "here's a picture, memorize this word" IMO.

[edit:  "The chart summarizes FSI experience with students taught in its own classes, which are typically quite small and meet a maximum of 30 hours per week.  Note that for American students, the easiest languages include French, Italian, and Spanish,the next group in difficulty includes German, and the third most difficult includes Russian and Hebrew.  Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean are the most difficult languages to master of the 44 languages listed.  (Liskin-Gasparro, 1982)."

[What part of the government uses that chart, did you say?  If you're uncomfortable disclosing that, never mind.]

Lol. After searching some more: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Language_Learning_Difficulty_for_English_Speakers

Same list (expanded, neater), different source. Again, aimed at native English speakers.

I think we need a source from him.

And also this sentence: 'So I misstated a couple things. :rolleyes: The point still stands entirely'. No. If your trying to make a point and you misstate stuff, how can you be taken seriously? And from 'English is statistically absolutely the most difficult language to learn', to 'I didn't say it's the hardest', then that's a huge misstatement. It's just a plain lie that you're trying to cover up. And how can your point stand if you have changed your point???

FinalFan, I'm curious what that site is because it's not a .gov site, nor is it stating specifically what it's trying to be. Its terminology is incorrect on the topics it covers. But the list it uses is taken from the officially used list the government goes by. The list does place English in a unique position, but you've known what I do for a living for quite some time so I'm somewhat surprised you'd try questioning me. Anyways, the US military has a language teaching school, the Defense Language Institute. They have two main branches - the Monterey-based school that focuses on foreign languages, and a DC-based school that does some foreign languages and English, to both native English speakers (to be masters in utilizing the language), and to ESL speakers. Rating English was a difficult job, since it's not just to people with one background but an average behind a number of backgrounds. After the discussion earlier, I went to look into it. They give English a "worldwide overall" rating, then a rating based on your native language. I don't have access to the "based on the native language" section, since they already have me in as native English.

Source is behind a .mil login page, so you're not going to be able to get access unless you have a .gov or .mil email address.

Troll, I changed no point whatsoever. The point I've had the entire time has been the same the entire time - that Rol is incorrect about claiming English is incredibly easy in general. It may be easy to some, but I've provided explanation time and time again that says it comes extremely difficult to others. I apologize for misstating what I meant; I'm not exactly a good debater. Never have been. Note I'm a linguist - my job is to translate what other people say. I don't come up with my own words for my job - I just take someone else's words and put them into a different language. I'm lousy at putting words together on my own at times.

As for exceptions to the rule, here's a few quick sources:

http://esl.about.com/library/weekly/aa102697.htm

http://www.engvid.com/comparative-superlative-adjectives-exceptions/

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/English_Grammar_Exceptions

Nice.

Really, english is pretty easy to learn decently for people who natively speak anything with a similar root. Much easier than, say, German. Sure, at least when you don't formally study it, the relationship between the way words sound and the way they are written is a lot more complex than portuguese, for example. You do get a bit of the hang of it after listening to lots of words, so I guess there's a logic, but it's more complex.

Anyway, other than that I simply don't see how learning english, especially if you consider just reading and writing, could be harder than most other languages for people with similarly different backgrounds.

I forgot your occupation, likely soon after you mentioned it, if I even noticed it; I have no recollection of this at all.  Sue me.  I was hoping to compare the sources, since that site gave a source for the list. 

As for my source, it was one of several sites I found via Google that all sourced the same 1982 document, including the stuff about it being a list of difficulty for Americans learning those languages.  So unless they're all doing a source circle-jerk Wikipedia style*, I don't really care about how inept that website may be -- I don't think it discredits my point that your list is that same one just with English tacked on, which is pretty suspect IMO if it's supposed to be an objective list of relative difficulty, which you claimed. 

*What I refer to here is the way many sites just copy-paste info from Wikipedia, so it doesn't mean anything that it's on many sites instead of just the originator. 

As for your links: 

The first link is interesting stuff. 

The second link is so-so, I would need to see some evidence that most of the languages you say are easier lack irregular verbs or other irregular constructions of equivalent importance. 

The third link doesn't impress me in the least, because I don't even consider those really exceptions.  (I added some to the wiki.) 

"

Both of these exceptions follow this idea:  "the" is used for something specific, and "a" is used for something general or nonspecific.  "The moon is covered by clouds" refers to our moon.  "Without a moon" does not refer to a moon (rather generally lacking one), but you could also say "without the moon" referring to our specific moon being gone. 

"The most interesting idea" uses the meaning of most that is superlative -- it is specifically at the top of the list.  "A most interesting idea" simply adds emphasis, like "very". 

"A third pen" means that you are not necessarily referring to any specific pen; one might have twenty spares and still say it.  If there are three specific pens being discussed, one would say "the third pen". 

"
This "the/a" distinction is exactly the same as the way the and a are used throughout the English language, so I don't consider that exceptional. 

As for your main point, you've only pointed out that cross-culture language learning is harder.  So a Korean might find it harder, all else being equal, to learn English than Japanese.  But that doesn't mean English is harder to learn than Japanese.  So that doesn't really support your point IMO, except insofar as it might support the suggestion that Australians are biased toward English easiness due to being in the same culture.  Or is your point just that English isn't as easy for people from other cultures to learn as it is for Europeans?  You'll have to forgive us for being unsure at this point.

If you say "I have a pen", you're talking about any old pen. If you say "I have the pen", there's a specific pen you mean, one that was probably already the subject of discussion.

Is that a pen in your pocket or is the pen just happy to see me?

Did I make any grammar or spelling mistake? :)

Specially and especially are the same word according to English dictionaries. They both mean particularly. The other uses you may give them are another case.

Was ist ein Strohsack?

Und das soll heilig sein?