Which is easier?

[Mycernius]

I see that this forum has a wide range of nationalities represented on it and a lot speak english or japanese as a secondary language. What I would like to Know from the non-native speakers of English/japanese is which language is easier to learn, English, with it's wierd spelling and grammatical traps(even for native speakers) or japanese, with its particles and kana and kanji scripts?

Ever curious!
:? :beer: :?

[jt_]

I imagine it would depend entirely on their native language and its similarity (or lack thereof) to English and Japanese.

For a speaker of say, Spanish or German, I would imagine that English would be considerably easier. For a speaker of Korean, I would imagine that Japanese would be considerably easier.

"Difficulty" of languages is completely relative. I don't think there's anything that makes one language inherently difficult. Second languages seem more difficult when the structure/vocabulary/sounds/etc. are very different from your own language, and easy when there are more similarities.

Writing systems are another story. Obviously learning kanji is going to present a greater challenge than learning the twenty-six letters of the alphabet, unless you're talking about, say, a native, literate Chinese speaker who already knows a bunch of characters. (though s/he'll still have to learn the Japanese readings of them)

[miu]

I really can't say - English has been a part of my life for too long! I was in a kindergarten where they'd speak English to us and I used to embarrass my mother by suddenly tlaking English to her at the supermarket or wherever when I was 5 ^^; Besides, English is everywhere nowadays.

I'd say that one of the difficult things in Japanese for me are the words because they don't resemble the words from any other language I know. And the infamous particles of course... -_-

[misa.j]

English is taught at school in many more countries than Japanese is, which doesn't necessarily make English easier to learn, although it means that more people start to be familiar w/ it in early ages which is preferable for learning languages.

I agree with It on having similarity in your native language helps for speaking and sentence structure.
For example, I can somewhat make sence when I read Chinese letter even if Kanji used are not exactly same as Japanese ones. I'm not sure about Korean, though, I think Japanese letters are initially developed from Korean letters, but I have no clue what they mean because I never learned it.

[jt_]

I agree with It on having similarity in your native language helps for speaking and sentence structure. For example, I can somewhat make sence when I read Chinese letter even if Kanji used are not exactly same as Japanese ones. I'm not sure about Korean, though, I think Japanese letters are initially developed from Korean letters, but I have no clue what they mean because I never learned it.I've never studied Korean, so I can't say for sure, but I've heard that Korean and Japanese share many similarities in terms of sentence structure, word order, etc. So while a native English speaker will at times have to train their mind to think almost in reverse to form natural Japanese sentences, a Korean speaker will be able to formulate ideas basically the same way they do in their own language, thus making it easier to achieve fluency. This doesn't mean that all Korean students will easily master Japanese, but it does seem like they have an easier time of it than native English speakers.

Likewise, it would probably be easier for a native Japanese speaker to learn Korean than English, I would imagine.

Chinese and Japanese might be linked in some ways by the writing system, but I've heard that the sentence stucture/grammar is entirely different.

[lexico]

English is taught at school in many more countries than Japanese is, which doesn't necessarily make English easier to learn, although it means that more people start to be familiar w/ it in early ages which is preferable for learning languages.Learning English, or any language as a matter of fact, at an early age seems important not only for the pronunciation of the speach sounds, a good foundation of a vocabulary base, and the common norms of speech and writing, but also for the cultural element that is more difficult to pick up if learned at an age beyond 12-14. I've seen grown up who learned English in their 30's who could hardly enjoy comedy at all.

It's also interesting to find that a lot of people whose mother tongue is English and those who started learnning at an early age still hold the view that English is a difficult language. (see more comments in "English as a World Language" thread by member Brooker.) This view probably concerns more abstract features of the language such as 'spelling inconsistencies' or 'loose grammar and vocabulary' found in every day speech and the media.I agree with It on having similarity in your native language helps for speaking and sentence structure. For example, I can somewhat make sence when I read Chinese letter even if Kanji used are not exactly same as Japanese ones.This is also a very interesting and complicated topic, I think. At the beginner's level, it surely helps to be fluent in another language that shares many common features in pronunciation, vocabulary, sentence structure, and manners of speech.

Even at an intermediate level, this may help; nevertheless, there is always the fear that the other language might interfere with assimilating elements of the new language being studied. It often helps to assume all previous knowledge as nonexistent to get a fresh and genuine understanding of the new language. This approach helped me with my classical Chinese for which I relearned every character; readings in Mandarin, sense and syntax in classical usage.

At the more advanced stage, I guess nothing really matters. Speakers at an advanced level seem to enjoy something close to 'native speakers' license,' which allow them to be more creative and experimental to fully express their novel ideas and feelings rather than relying on fixed expressions.
I'm not sure about Korean, though, I think Japanese letters are initially developed from Korean letters, but I have no clue what they mean because I never learned it.You are raising some controversial issues here. Whereas the development of the kana by vastly reducing strokes of Chinese characters is relatively well studied, a parallel or earlier development in ancient to mideval Korea is still a budding field of study. Two very intriguing pieces of information have surfaced recently; 1) of the intralinear Korean translations (before 1346) found in the Buddhist canon 舊譯仁王經 translated from Sanskrit to Chinese by Kumarajiva (344-413). This came out in 1973.

Another piece of evidence that just came out a year ago mostly concernes suffixes at the end of phrases and clauses to faciliatate the reading of Buddhist texts. The tips of the bamboo stylus were formed sharp but smooth so that the monk who applied the stylus without ink could press onto a character's margin and make impressions without damaging the text or the book. These markings could be read by adjusting height and angle of the oil lamp in the dark. (Sorry I have no written article or link right now.)

Then there is the talk about the relationship of the Korean alphabet and Japan's 神代文字 supposed found in southern Japan which appears to be a borrowing of the script style only; the sounds and square syllable formation seem to be at odds in my opinion.