Enough with japanese..how hard was it for you to learn english?

[GoldCoinLover]

How hard was it for you to learn english(英語)? And how long did it take?

-------
Also, could someone please translate the above in japanese(日本語,ください
), so a person learning english could respond (that doesn't know enough to respond..)
Im' sorry I wish I could say the above in japanese but I'm learning it myself. And it's a slow process. I plan to go to colleage and take japanese.

[RockLee]

I picked it up when I was younger, without any problem.English is one of the most easy languages I EVER learned ! I wish my japanese was this good :(

[Brooker]

You Belgians (Germans, and Scandinavians) are freakily good at speaking (or in this case writing) English. It boggles my mind a bit. In Japan I met a German guy who I mistook as a native English speaker. WTF(!) It makes 0% sense. I don't get it. I was proud of myself when I learned to say "Anata no shumi wa nan desu ka?"

So, once and for all, on the behalf of native English speakers everywhere, I'd like to apologize for sucking so much at speaking anything other than English. We know it's true, but hey, what can ya do?

[tristasusen]

I learned english pretty fast, After 6 months that my family moved to the US, I already knew how to speak. I guess it was easy because I was really young.

[RockLee]

You Belgiuns (Germans, and Scandinavians) are freakily good at speaking (or in this case writing) English. It boggles my mind a bit. In Japan I met a German guy who I mistook as a native English speaker. WTF(!) It makes 0% sense. I don't get it. I was proud of myself when I learned to say "Anata no shumi wa nan desu ka?"

So, once and for all, on the behalf of native English speakers everywhere, I'd like to apologize for sucking so much at speaking anything other than English. We know it's true, but hey, what can ya do?Belgians :)...well, english has a lot of words familiar to germanian language + everything is english these days..like tv for instance, more english programs etc.. :)

[NANGI]

Konnichiwa GoldCoinLover-san!

How hard was it for you to learn english(英語)? And how long did it take?

I have started to learn English in my junior high school days. I think English is the most easy language too. But I can not speak English because I have not necessary to speak English in daily life and forgeted. :p

NANGI

[epigene]

I have started to learn English in my junior high school days. I think English is the most easy language too. But I can not speak English because I have not necessary to speak English in daily life and forgeted. :p
Wow, NANGI-san must have a gift for foreign languages!! :cool:

My observations are that Europeans are very good in acquiring foreign languages because there are so many languages spoken within the continent and they easily accept the fact that there are many languages & cultures other than their own.

It's places like US and Japan where "one-language-only" is regarded acceptable that foreign language learning becomes difficult. American education places little importance on foreign languages (maybe a bit better now with Spanish). In Japan, English language study is just a vehicle used for school entrance examinations and was not planned for practical usage until recently (that is, the past couple of decades). (That is the reason for the many English language schools in Japan.)

Still, every person I know with the enthusiasm and drive to acquire a foreign language has succeeded in achieving at least conversational level. When you're young, your success rate is higher. So, gambatte-ne! :cool:

[Sakari]

I was born in Canada so English was sort of... easy, I suppose. English is a pretty simple language, in my opinion, compared to Chinese or something. XD

[Elizabeth]

How hard was it for you to learn english(英語)? And how long did it take?

Konnichiwa Kevin-san! The first sentence in my opinion is somewhat awkward and unnatural for Japanese people, so I simplified it to this : 英語を習うのはとても大変だった？ For 'how long did it take'.....if they actually learned it you mean or how long did they feel compelled to study it ? :relief:

[Leroy_Brown]

As easy as A, B, C. :D

[advigilo]

i agree with rock-lee and epigene :-)
still i think english is easier then german.

[NeoXtremeX]

Easiest way to learn a language is to go to a school that uses that specific language, your mind will get used to it real quick, i got used to french and in 2 months, i could listen to radio stations and TV programs... and talked in conversational level too. Now if i could find a japanese school around here...

[Maciamo]

I was born in Canada so English was sort of... easy, I suppose. English is a pretty simple language, in my opinion, compared to Chinese or something. XD

If you had learned Chinese, you'd known how ridiculous this statement is. :p Few (major) languages are as simple as Chinese, apart from the writing and tones (but it's just a matter of getting used to it, afterwards it's much easier than English).

[lexico]

Few (major) languages are as simple as Chinese, apart from the writing and tonesAre you serious, Maciamo ? Now that's as ridiculous an argument as the one you are ridiculing.

1) As for writing, I'll let you slide, but as for "tones," what is Chinese with without them ? For example if a Uighur lady from the western region said "WO CONG XIN JIANG LAI" without any tones, as is often heard at a Beijing raisin kiosk, would you be able to tell what she was saying if you didn't already know that there was a province called Xinjiang ? How would you argue if someone interpreted it as, "I will bring some green onions and new bean paste," and not "I'm from Xinjiang" ?but it's just a matter of getting used to it2) What language isn't ? Have you heard of learning a language without getting used to ?afterwards it's much easier than English.3) Afterwards, anything would be easier.

Conclusion: Although it may be copntroversial to calim one language being easier than another, a native speaker will almost always find his/her own language far more superior, more logical, easier, and simpler than any other language. That perception is valid in itself in a subjective statement. But if the context of refutation becomes a universal one, reversing and generalizing it may cause logical errors. Hence modern descriptive linguists reserve any such statements as to which is easier or more difficult. Nevertheless, a comprehensive evaluation of the level of complexity of languages may be possible, and quantified. Even in that case, the numerical result employed for comparison will totally depend on the rather subjective selection of language complexity features and the method of quantifying such.

[Glenn]

1) As for writing, I'll let you slide, but as for "tones," what is Chinese with without them ? For example if a Uighur lady from the western region said "WO CONG XIN JIANG LAI" without any tones, as is often heard at a Beijing raisin kiosk, would you be able to tell what she was saying if you didn't already know that there was a province called Xinjiang ? How would you argue if someone interpreted it as, "I will bring some green onions and new bean paste," and not "I'm from Xinjiang" ?

Now that's just funny. :D:D

Conclusion: Although it may be copntroversial to calim one language being easier than another, a native speaker will almost always find his/her own language far more superior, more logical, easier, and simpler than any other language. That perception is valid in itself in a subjective statement. But if the context of refutation becomes a universal one, reversing and generalizing it may cause logical errors. Hence modern descriptive linguists reserve any such statements as to which is easier or more difficult. Nevertheless, a comprehensive evaluation of the level of complexity of languages may be possible, and quantified. Even in that case, the numerical result employed for comparison will totally depend on the rather subjective selection of language complexity features and the method of quantifying such.

I beg to differ. I don't think that my native language is more superior, simpler, easier, or more logical than most languages (well, of the ones that I've come across in my limited experience).

Also, the difficulty of a language can be measured, but only in relative terms. That is, a language is difficult for a native speaker of one language if it differs greatly in grammar, syntax, lexicon, etc. from the native language. Also, things like tones and unfamiliar phonemes play a large role. But you're right about the absolute difficulty of languages: there is none (that I'm aware of from my reading). Any claims opposite what I've said are welcome, and I'll be intrigued by them. :-)

[Maciamo]

2) What language isn't ? Have you heard of learning a language without getting used to ?

Of course. When I learned Italian, I didn't need to get used to the sonority, pronuciation, grammar, word order, etc. It was almost just translating words from French and adapting a bit the expressions. My point is, English speakers may have difficulties with the tones in (Mandarin) Chinese, but speakers of Thai, Vietnamese or other variety of Chinese (Cantonese, Wu, Hokkien, Hakka...) would need to get used to the tones, as they already are.

3) Afterwards, anything would be easier.

What I meant is that Chinese grammar is almost inexistent. No conjugation, no inflections, no countable/uncoutable, few tenses, not as many synonyms as in a hybrid language like English or Japanese, etc.

Conclusion: Although it may be controversial to claim one language being easier than another, a native speaker will almost always find his/her own language far more superior, more logical, easier, and simpler than any other language.

Don't know. I find English easier, simpler and more logical than my native language (French). In fact, I can't think of a more difficult language than French both for native and non-native speakers (especially non-native of course). It's just so irregular (grammar, spelling, reading), idioms are just so difficult to guess (in comparison "to pop one's clogs" or "to be on cloud nine" seem so obvious in English) and the pronuciation so unlike any other languages (for non natives)...

Just the idiom part is already extremely difficult in English (esp. if you add phrasal verbs and proverbs too), and they are so different in BrE and AmE that it would take a lifetime to learn them all (there are dictionaries only for idioms, only for phrasal verbs and only for proverbs). Even Japanese doesn't have really any idioms (=expressions which one cannot understand just by knowing the words it is composed of). I think many people underestimate the real difficulty of English. Saying what you want is easy, but understanding all the words, idioms, slangs, regional differences, formality levels, etc. is almost impossible even for a native speaker. In French, just making one correct full sentence is a challenge for non native speakers. As a matter of fact, I have never seen a French restaurant in Japan with a menu without any mistakes, except where the chef was French.

That perception is valid in itself in a subjective statement. But if the context of refutation becomes a universal one, reversing and generalizing it may cause logical errors.

Was my explanation above so subjective ?

[Glenn]

What I meant is that Chinese grammar is almost inexistent. No conjugation, no inflections, no countable/uncoutable, few tenses, not as many synonyms as in a hybrid language like English or Japanese, etc.

It is true that Chinese (Mandarin) is not inflected, but the less inflected a language is, the more it relies on syntax to mark grammatical function. For example, in Latin word order is almost arbitrary: you could place the verb first or last and change the orders of the other words in the sentence at your whim as long as you inflect correctly. Japanese is similar, being agglutinative. It marks grammatical function, and its word order is flexible, as long as the verb comes last. This rule does have its exceptions, of course, with general use being SOV and the so-called "inverted" sentences (like nanda, sore wa?) seem to violate the "verb last" rule. Chinese however requires that you learn the word order very strictly, because the placement of words in the sentence determine topic, subject, object, verb, complement, etc. Also, Chinese has quite a few coverbs, which function like prepositions in English but seem to be much more numerous. Then there are considerations like the aspect marker 了 (le) and how its placement in a sentence can change the overall feel and nuance of it. I can't speak to synonyms too much; I mostly wanted to point out that the lack of inflection of a language does not equal a lack of grammar.

[Maciamo]

It is true that Chinese (Mandarin) is not inflected, but the less inflected a language is, the more it relies on syntax to mark grammatical function.
...
Chinese however requires that you learn the word order very strictly, because the placement of words in the sentence determine topic, subject, object, verb, complement, etc.

But English does also have a quite strict word order. Just take the order of the adjectives. The order is : size/length, shape/width, age, colour, origin, material + noun (eg. "a large round old brown Japanese wooden table", although we wouldn't normallly use all the adjectives together)

The adverbs' position is also not flexible, so that you can't say "He fluently speaks English" but "He speaks English fluently".

Without mentioning that "Who called you?" and "Who did you call?", or "Bill likes Emma" and "Emma likes Bill" have opposite meanings. So it's not that different with Chinese from this viewpoint, is it ?

[bossel]

In fact, I can't think of a more difficult language than French both for native and non-native speakers (especially non-native of course).
That seems very open to personal preference. When I learned French, I didn't consider it particularly difficult, at least no more so than English.
Chinese, on the other hand, is a real pain in the arse to me. I simply can't get a grip on the tones (although most of my friends are Chinese & I hear it spoken quite often) & my memory seems too bad to memorize all those characters. Grammar is a piece of cake, though.

But English does also have a quite strict word order. Just take the order of the adjectives. The order is : size/length, shape/width, age, colour, origin, material + noun (eg. "a large round old brown Japanese wooden table", although we wouldn't normallly use all the adjectives together)
I don't think, order of adjective is really that strict. I have seen similar lists with a different order.

The adverbs' position is also not flexible, so that you can't say "He fluently speaks English" but "He speaks English fluently".
Are you sure? I'm not 100% positive, but the 1st option seems just as valid to me.

[lexico]

I beg to differ. I don't think that my native language is more superior, simpler, easier, or more logical than most languages (well, of the ones that I've come across in my limited experience).To avoid facing a counter-example like yours, or many other individuals with exposure to non-native languages, I qualified my statement with "almost always." But you point is not bad, and we can take the opportunity to examine the idea of langauge difficulty (ease).

Since you stated your opinion, I'd like to know excatly how you personally view English relative to other languages. It is unclear from the context only what the "don't" is negating. In symbolic logic, my statement that you are refuting can be expressed as in the following 0). To compare with your case, let us fix the native langugage to English.

0) English > AND (superior, simple, easy, logical) THAN ALL Languages

Which one is your idea ?

1) NOT ( English > OR (superior, simple, easy, logical) THAN MOST Languages)
= English < AND (superior, simple, easy, logical) THAN A FEW Languages

2) NOT ( English > OR (superior, simple, easy, logical)) THAN MOST Languages
= English < AND (superior, simple, easy, logical) THAN MOST Languages

3) NOT ( English >) OR (superior, simple, easy, logical) THAN MOST Languages
= English < OR (superior, simple, easy, logical) THAN MOST Languages Also, the difficulty of a language can be measured, but only in relative terms. That is, a language is difficult for a native speaker of one language if it differs greatly in grammar, syntax, lexicon, etc. from the native language. Also, things like tones and unfamiliar phonemes play a large role.That would all depend on how one decides to evaluate a language. One can start with a reference langauge and measure the difference, which would result in a relative ordering of the languages under examination.One could also start from a universal standard of measurment. I'm only saying "relative" because the kind of universal standard depends on what the researcher wants to see with his study. Is it pronunciation of the consonats, vowels, syllables, coloring, tone, intonation, stress, pitch, or length ? Is it the productive rules of word formation and the extent of prevalence of non-productive word patterns ? Is it the ratio of analytic to non-analytic syntax, and the degree of particle development ? Designing the details of a frame would surely affect the result, and in that sense be relative to the particular method employed.But you're right about the absolute difficulty of languages: there is none (that I'm aware of from my reading).I'm not sure I understood this sentence. What is absolute difficulty of a language ? :?

[Glenn]

@bossel's points 2 and 3: I agree.

Since you stated your opinion, I'd like to know excatly how you personally view English relative to other languages. It is unclear from the context only what the "don't" is negating. In symbolic logic, my statement that you are refuting can be expressed as in the following 0). To compare with your case, let us fix the native langugage to English.

I think I missed that "almost," or I just ignored it. :sorry:

Since I really only know Japanese aside from English, I can't say with much detail. I think that Japanese is more well laid out than English. Mostly my criteria for that feeling is that English pronunciation is not expressed well in the orthography, and I know that Spanish and Japanese are much more accurate in this regard; and that there are so many irregular verbs in English that it seems as though there is a 1:1 ratio with the regular verbs.

That would all depend on how one decides to evaluate a language. One can start with a reference langauge and measure the difference, which would result in a relative ordering of the languages under examination.One could also start from a universal standard of measurment. I'm only saying "relative" because the kind of universal standard depends on what the researcher wants to see with his study. Is it pronunciation of the consonats, vowels, syllables, coloring, tone, intonation, stress, pitch, or length ? Is it the productive rules of word formation and the extent of prevalence of non-productive word patterns ? Is it the ratio of analytic to non-analytic syntax, and the degree of particle development ? Designing the details of a frame would surely affect the result, and in that sense be relative to the particular method employed.

Actually, I was thinking of a universal standard: the distance from the native language. The further the distance, the greater the difficulty. This covers all of the areas that you mentioned. Still, though, since the difficulty is based on the native language, it is a measure of relative difficulty. Japanese is probably easier for Koreans and Turks than it is for native English speakers in terms of syntax and case marking, because it's closer to those languages. Maybe I was a bit vague, though.

I'm not sure I understood this sentence. What is absolute difficulty of a language ? :?

I mean the difficulty of a language without reference to one's native language. That is, can we say that Finnish is a difficult or easy language for everyone, even Finlanders?

[Maciamo]

That seems very open to personal preference. When I learned French, I didn't consider it particularly difficult, at least no more so than English.

French should be the easiest from my point of view. I also base my comment on how well most of the people I met could speak/write French, and on my experience of teaching French and English (and a bit of Italian) in Japan. Although French and Italian are similar, Italian is much easier to learn for Japanese people, not only because of the pronuciation, but also the more logical/regular grammar (otherwise very similar), and because the Italian spelling follows exactly the pronuciation (like in German or Spanish). One of the most difficult things in French is not to forget all those silent letters when one writes it (double consonnants, silent final letters, silent grammatical changes, and other strange readings).

Another point is that French is one of the most intolerant languages I know regarding pronuciation. If you don't speak with a pure Parisian accent (as I do), it will be considered wrong or "funny" (=wrong) by most French people. It is amazing how the French have suceeded in erradicating almost all regional variants in pronuciation, except for a few people in Provence.

So for speakers of non Latino-Germanic languages, French is probably one of the most difficult. English is easier at the beginning but maybe more difficult to acquire all the vocabulary to understand anything written in English (including regional differences, slangs, formality levels, old-fashioned English, idioms, etc.).

I don't think, order of adjective is really that strict. I have seen similar lists with a different order.

That comes from my Cambridge Grammar book. They don't say it is flexible, but could be in non British English.

[Vunde]

In fact, I can't think of a more difficult language than French both for native and non-native speakers (especially non-native of course).

Well.. I can mention you one..

Try danish.. I can give you a taste of it.. For example, we got letters not excisting in other languages besides swedish and norwegian, I think.
With a whole new prenounciation. I do think it is a simple language talk when you've learned it, but to learn, it's a nightmare. You can all have a test at it.

"Dansk er et meget indviklet sprog, der paa grund af sine mange betydninger, indviklede udtaler etc. g&oslash;r det ekstremt sv&aelig;rt at l&aelig;re. Sproget indeholder mange kompleksiteter og ligheder med forskellig betydning at fransk er et meget let sprog i forhold til"

You go translate that one.. :P At the moment I speak fluent english, german, danish and I'm catching up on my spanish. Considering Japanese as my next goal.

But how hard it was for me to learn english.....
That's an easy question.. It was so frickin' easy.. Never learnt an easier language. I sometimes catch myself wanting to say something I can only express in english and cannot translate to my maiden language.
But that's how things go when everything around you is english, and you're forced to learn it.. Although it's a very nice language.. Better than german that is..!

Vunde

[lexico]

Of course. When I learned Italian, I didn't need to get used to the sonority, pronuciation, grammar, word order, etc. It was almost just translating words from French and adapting a bit the expressions. My point is, English speakers may have difficulties with the tones in (Mandarin) Chinese, but speakers of Thai, Vietnamese or other variety of Chinese (Cantonese, Wu, Hokkien, Hakka...) would need to get used to the tones, as they already are.But you don't speak a tonal language, and we don't know whether Sakari does either. Here are two major misunderstandings that I must clarify.

1) Tones are suprasegmental phonological features originating from segmental units. Therefore tones behave like independent phonemes or syllables that distinguish one word from another by way of opposition. Tones are different from vowel length, pitch, or stress which have only subphonemic feature values; although they may serve to distinguish words, they operate at the subphonemic level, and thereby exert force on the lexical level. Tones are also different from intonation, which has no distinguishing function on the lexical level at all. Example: pre-classical/Archaic Chinese ending sibilant -s was replaced by the departing tone 去聲 in 7th century Tang Chinese, which also gave rise to the 4th tone in Madarin, the falling tone.

2) Transition from a non-tonal language to a tonal one/one tonal language to another: Tones are like color. Imagine moving from a 7-colored system to a 4-colored system. Because the finer distinctions are partially collapesed in the move, the speaker might have less difficulty in the transition. The opposite might prove to be several-fold difficult because new categories have to be created where none were beforehand. It takes years of assimilation to get the tones ingrained as a basic feature of speech. Mandarin has around 500 distinct syllables if we collapase the tones. Considering the tones, theoretically the figure could go up to 2,000 distinct syllables. The distinction has to be made at natural speed to be fully functional in the language. Therefore "simply getting used to it" would be a rather drastic understatement than not.What I meant is that Chinese grammar is almost inexistent. No conjugation, no inflections, no countable/uncoutable, few tenses, not as many synonyms as in a hybrid language like English or Japanese, etc.As Glenn said, Mandarin has such syntactic mechanisms as the more strict word order, profuse use of coverbs and markers of aspect and modality, let me only mention briefly on synonyms. By the very fact that several phonemes and whole affixes in Archaic Chinese were greatly reduced, replaced by tones, or lost over time, combined with the fact that the langauge spans over a vast time range, space, and speakers of various tongues, it would be extremely difficult to find a language with more synonyms that the Chinese languages. Just think about it. No less than 3,0000 years of literary tradition that was maintained by the literati. Around 10,000 neolithic sites have in one way or another contributed to the people, culture, and the language. By the early bronze period, they were reduced to circa 1,000 chiefdoms; by the late Warring States period, to 7 states including the vastly dimished Zhou region. During the Late Zhou period, dialects and local varieties of songs and words were major areas of the Zhou court's interest as stated in 1st century BCE Standard Speech 爾雅 by 劉向, and the 1st century Dialects 方言 by 揚雄, both of the Former Han period, and their Commentaries 爾雅注, 方言注 by 4th century philologist 郭璞 of the 晉 period. Interestingly much of what they said can be verified in the vocabulary of the classical written tradition which continues to this day.Was my explanation above so subjective ?Ahhh...Mac, feigning innocence again, ay ? :p
You were making a general statement, which obliged me to comment, and you know it. I take that as an apology to Sakari, and I'll forgive you for once. Yet let the discussion resume its course...

[lexico]

Chinese ... I simply can't get a grip on the tones (although most of my friends are Chinese & I hear it spoken quite often) & my memory seems too bad to memorize all those characters. Grammar is a piece of cake, though.I quite agree with you on the tones. It took me nose-bloody 2 years just to get comfortable with the 4 tones of Mandarin. I hope that means I can learn all 8 tones of Cantonese in 4 years without too much blood shed, but still I'd have to work my arse off at it ! :evil:I don't think, order of adjective is really that strict. I have seen similar lists with a different order.The subject of adjective strings coming before a noun is quite an interesting one. The written pattern does away with the conjunctions AND or OR in the last position. This can be the cause of serious unclear speech, inaccuracies and misunderstandings because the logical relationship allows several distinct combinations.Are you sure? I'm not 100% positive, but the 1st option seems just as valid to me.My favorite adverb-verb word order is the split infinitive that prescriptive grammar books shun.

"To boldly go...."

Native speakers have no problem with split infinitives at all, and neither do I. Also quite a few poems employ the adverb-verb word order, and not really excercising much poetic license; it is a natural sequence that is oft used ! ;-)

[Index]

"to be on cloud nine" seem so obvious in English)

You think that is obvious?　Why is cloud nine any better than cloud eight or fifty...

Even Japanese doesn't have really any idioms (=expressions which one cannot understand just by knowing the words it is composed of)

I don't know many Japanese idioms, but the ones I do know aren't necessarily that literal:

頭にきた（あたまにきた）
足を洗う（あしをあらう）
首になる（くびになる）

[Glenn]

But English does also have a quite strict word order. Just take the order of the adjectives. The order is : size/length, shape/width, age, colour, origin, material + noun (eg. "a large round old brown Japanese wooden table", although we wouldn't normallly use all the adjectives together)
As Glenn said, Mandarin has such syntactic mechanisms as the more strict word order, profuse use of coverbs and markers of aspect and modality...

Also I thought I would mention that L2 speakers of English can get the syntax off a bit and still make sense, but if you were to do this with Chinese I get the feeling that you would just end up with some confused looks. From my understanding, English is strict in its syntax to mark subject, object, and verb, but you could get away with "the sky blue is a sight vast." That violates one of the stricter rules of syntax, and it still makes sense (although it has a very poetic feeling to it, and sorry for my bad attempt at poetry, by the way). Chinese is strict in that any movement of a word in a sentence changes its function, not just makes the sentence sound awkward. lexico can correct me if I'm wrong here. He knows more about Chinese than I do.

[sadakoyamamura]

In response to the original question.

I didn't find it hard because I learned reading before I went to kindergarten school. When I was 9, I started practicing what I learned by speaking to myself in english. I spoke english in classes. In college I got to practice more when I became friends with a German guy. Now I speak it more often than my native tongue since I'm a college instructor.

@Brooker: I agree that German are good speakers of english (at least this German whom I know personally is). One time he wrote a book review for an Iranian friend who was having a hard time understanding Shakespeare and the paper came back with this comment : "This paper is too professional, you must have downloaded this." :-)

[Dutch Baka]

You Belgians (Germans, and Scandinavians) are freakily good at speaking (or in this case writing) English. It boggles my mind a bit. In Japan I met a German guy who I mistook as a native English speaker. WTF(!) It makes 0% sense. I don't get it.


sorry brooker, im sorry to say but i disagree a bit, i met a lot of germans, and scandinavians in australia when i was backpacking there for some months, and there where a lott of them that went to english school there first.

the thing is that in some countrys like netherlands and belgium ( please tell me if there are other european country's) they dont dub the languaqe like german does,,, when you watch I ROBOT in germany, will smith talks german....

its been proven that dutch-belgium (the flemish part , am i right...sorry i missed belgium history etc, would like to learn more,,,) are the best non-native english people in the world... i think thats because of there is so much english/american on tv, and on the music charts i think that around 50% is english music.... also dutch looks like english a lott with some words. for example :

huis-house
deur-door
kaart-card
etc etc

so i learned, english by watching tv, and listen to the radio more then i learned on school itself

btw, about the best non-native,,, i think my writing sucks...

[Pararousia]

Dearest creature in creation, study English pronunciation.
I will teach you in my verse sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.
I will keep you, Suzy, busy, make your head with heat grow dizzy.
Tear in eye, your dress will tear. So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.
Just compare heart, beard, and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word, sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it's written.)
Now I surely will not plague you with such words as plaque and ague.
But be careful how you speak:
Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;
Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.
Hear me say, devoid of trickery, daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore,
Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles, exiles, similes, and reviles;
Scholar, vicar, and cigar, solar, mica, war and far;
One, anemone, Balmoral, kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel;
Gertrude, German, wind and mind, scene, Melpomene, mankind.
Billet does not rhyme with ballet, bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet.
Blood and flood are not like food, nor is mould like should and would.
Viscous, viscount, load and broad, toward, to forward, to reward.
And your pronunciation's OK when you correctly say croquet,
Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve, friend and fiend, alive and live.
Ivy, privy, famous; clamour and enamour rhyme with hammer.
River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb, doll and roll and some and home.
Stranger does not rhyme with anger, neither does devour with clangour.
Souls but foul, haunt but aunt, font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant,
Shoes, goes, does.
Now first say finger, and then singer, ginger, linger,
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age.
Query does not rhyme with very, nor does fury sound like bury.
Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth.
Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath.
Though the differences seem little, we say actual but victual.
Refer does not rhyme with deafer.
Foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Mint, pint, senate and sedate; dull, bull, and George ate late.
Scenic, Arabic, Pacific, science, conscience, scientific.
Liberty, library, heave and heaven, rachel, ache, moustache, eleven.
We say hallowed, but allowed, people, leopard, towed, but vowed.
Mark the differences, moreover, between mover, cover, clover;
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise, chalice, but police and lice;
Camel, constable, unstable, principle, disciple, label.
Petal, panel, and canal, wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal.
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair, senator, spectator, mayor.
Tour, but our and succour, four.
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.
Sea, idea, Korea, area, psalm, Maria, but malaria.
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean.
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.
Compare alien with Italian, dandelion and battalion.
Sally with ally, yea, ye, eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key.
Say aver, but ever, fever, neither, leisure, skein, deceiver.
Heron, granary, canary.
Crevice and device and aerie.
Face, but preface, not efface.
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.
Large, but target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging.
Ear, but earn and wear and tear do not rhyme with here but ere.
Seven is right, but so is even, hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen,
Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk, ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.
Pronunciation -- think of Psyche!
Is a paling stout and spikey?
Won't it make you lose your wits, writing groats and saying grits?
It's a dark abyss or tunnel:
Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale,
Islington and Isle of Wight, housewife, verdict and indict.
Finally, which rhymes with enough --
Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough?
Hiccough has the sound of cup.
My advice is to just give up!!!

:p