Our English language. How difficult is English, compared to other languages, for a foreign speaker to learn? In some ways, very easy. English is a highly-uninflected language, meaning that we don’t have varying endings of verbs to denote person, except for the "s" at the end of the third person singular (I walk, you walk, he walks...); nor do we have adjective endings to denote the singular/plural nouns, or the gender of nouns, that they go with; nor do our nouns have genders (like the masculine/feminine of the romance languages and the masculine/feminine/neuter of German).

Nor do we have to bother much about indicative/subjunctive cases of verbs. "If I were rich, I would buy..." The "were" here is subjunctive because it denotes a condition contrary to fact. But it is the very same word as in "We were at home yesterday"–which is the preterite (past tense) of the verb "to be" and is thus indicative (a forthright statement).

Indicative/subjunctive cases are not so simple in other languages. For example, in Spanish the subjunctive must be used when speaking about anything that is to happen in the future: to say "I go" (or "I am going") in Spanish one says "Yo voy" but to say "When I go tomorrow" one says "Cuando yo vaya mañana". ("Voy" is indicative, "vaya" subjunctive.) French (and also Spanish) uses the subjunctive to denote "so that" (or "in order that") in reference to a verb: one ordinarily says "il peut" for "he can" (the indicative), but when speaking of taking some action "so that he can", the French say "pourqu’il puisse" (the subjunctive).

Nor do we in English have to differentiate personal pronouns depending on whether a verb associated with them in a statement is transitive or intransitive. We always use "him" for a male person or animal: I saw him, I gave him, I spoke to him, I helped him, etc, etc. Similarly, we always use "her" for a female person or animal.

Not so in Spanish. In that language "lo" is used for the male individual if the verb is transitive–example: "Yo lo ayudé a llevar una maleta" (I helped him carry a suitcase); "lo" is used here because the verb "ayudar" (to help), as used here, is transitive. However, I would say "Yo le dije.." (I told him...) because the verb "decir" (for which "dije" is the conjugation for the first person singular) is intransitive.

The French have a similar situation as to personal pronouns. If I want to say "I know him" it is "Je le connais." But if I say "I gave him the book" it is "Je lui ai donné le livre" (literally, "I to him have given the book"). Again two forms for "him" where English only has one.

In English, as in most languages, there is only one verb "to be" (I am, you are, he is, etc.). Again, not so in Spanish–there are two such verbs: ser and estar. The first denotes a permanent condition–example, "Yo soy el padre de..." (I am the father of...), "soy" is the first person singular of "ser." The second, a temporary situation–example, "Yo estoy cansado." (I am tired), "estoy" is the first person singular of "estar." Seems simple, and usually is. But in some everyday situations the correct form is uncertain (at least for a non-native speaker).

So all of the above makes English easy for a foreigner to learn–right? Wrong, very wrong. For one thing, as we all know, our orthography is chaotic–the spelling of a word is frequently no guide at all to its pronunciation. (There’s the old saw that "fish" could be spelled "ghyti"--the "gh" from enough, the "y" from daily, and the "ti" from nation.)

Then there is the almost limitless number of idiomatic expressions that combine a preposition with a verb to come up with something that is much more than the combined sense of the two words. Think about the word "look" that can be joined with different prepositions: look into, look out for, look down on, look up; If I say "I am looking into buying a car", a foreigner who is fairly well acquainted with English but not with all of our idiomatic usages, might ask "Where is the car? I don’t see you looking into anything." Then, of course, there are get up, run down, run into, up to you, foul up, screw up, made up, turn up, turn down, turn into, etc., etc.

Yes, other languages do have idiomatic phrases, but I don’t know of, nor have heard of, any that have anything like the number of this type that we have in English.

And we also have our idiosyncracies. Some years ago when I was visiting a family in their home in Ecuador, although we had been speaking in Spanish, the husband turned to English to tell me something that he didn’t want the maid who was present in the room to understand. So he said "I don’t want to let her to understand." Perfectly logical–we say "permit her to understand" and "allow her to understand", so why not to with "let’? No reason–just how it is. Similarly, I heard a French woman in Africa say that, because of oppressive heat, "I could not to sleep last night." Same thing as in the Ecuadorian man's case: one would say, "I was unable to sleep.." or "I wanted to sleep...", so why not to with could not"?

American vs British English. George Bernard Shaw was onto something when he said that Britain and the United States were two nations separated by a common language. In addition to the different accents of British and American speakers, there are in quite a few cases different spellings, different pronunciations, and entirely different words.

A good place to start with different words is the automobile:

American, British

hood, bonnet
spark plug, sparking plug
fender, wing
windshield, windscreen
trunk , boot

Then there are the things associated with an automobile. An American wrench is a British spanner, a shoulder (of a road) a verge. A curb in America is a kerb in Britain, a tire a tyre (all pronounced the same).

There are the many different words in other areas, just a few of which are: lift/elevator, intermission/ interval, gasoline/petrol, carry out/take away, apartment/flat, transom/fanlight.

Among same spellings but different pronunciations are: schedule in America, shedule in Britain, controVERsy vs conTROversy. An American might ask a Briton why, since he pronounces schedule as "shedule", doesn’t he pronounce school as "shool" or scheme as "sheme"? But then the Briton could turn the tables and ask an American why, since we pronounce seen and keen as we do, why do we say "bin" for been (why not pronounce it as we do "bean")?