So, is Korean the easiest language amongst the big 3?

never

>>212751720
Which one do you think it is then?
For me, Hangul looks simpler than Hanzi and Kanji, at least.

>>212751797
objectively speaking I can only say they are all equally hard. Hangul is the only easy part, Korean grammar is deluxe hell compared to Chinese and Japanese.

>>212752008
I see. I'm gonna try to learn it anyway.

>>212751638 (OP)
I'm gonna become unitedstatian and say Chinese it's the easiest with my absolute 0 knowledge of the three

Language is ultimately a combination of writing and speaking. From this perspective, Korean is arguably the hardest language to speak.

It has several vowel sounds that don't even exist in English. On top of that, Korean has a wide range of speech levels and honorifics, such as formal and informal language, which add even more complexity to speaking.

However, when it comes to writing, Korean is relatively easy because it uses a phonetic alphabet (Hangul). Compared to Chinese characters, Hangul is far simpler and easier to learn.

So, to sum up: Korean writing is one of the easiest, In this sense, Korean may be easier overall than Chinese or Japanese, but speaking is hardest lang

>>212754023
Thanks, ChatGPT!

>>212751638 (OP)
i've studied all 3
Japanese is the easiest to speak at least to a Spanish speaker and i assume for Portuguese is same
Korean the easiest to read and write you can learn it in 1 day
Chinese is hell in both things but has the easiest grammar and no formal language bullshit
So depends what you're better at, to me Japanese was the easiest because i struggle more with Korean or Chinese pronunciation than memorizing 2k kanjis

>>212754023
speaking Chinese is definetely harder than speaking Korean because of the tones

>>212754274
The overall complexity of a language isn't just about tones. Chinese grammar is relatively straightforward, and it lacks the wide range of speech levels and honorifics found in Korean. Korean’s system of honorifics, speech levels, and varied expressions makes its speaking aspect much more complex. So, in my opinion, mastering the nuances of Korean speech is harder than just dealing with Chinese tones

>>212754023
Language is ultimately a combination of writing and speaking. From this perspective, Korean is arguably the hardest language to speak.
My problem with this argument is twofold.

1- Writing and Speaking aren't an equivalent challenge in this case. It takes way longer (years and years) to learn a writing system made up of thousands of characters than it does to learn speaking Korean with a few novel sounds you can learn relatively quickly. Both Japanese and Chinese are much much much harder to write than Korean, Chinese because of the sheer number of characters you need to know, and Japanese because of the clusterfuck of irregularities in kanji use and the 2 or more readings per character.

2- Chinese is divisively harder to speak than Korean, not only does it have a complex phonetic system of vowels and consonants similar to Korean, but it adds the challenge of tones on top of this, which is very difficult for speakers of non-tonal languages to get right.

Japanese, while I wouldn't argue is harder to speak than Korean, is quite hard to sound native-like in because of the pitch accent which takes a long time to master, so speaking is easy to learn but hard to master.

>>212754023
>Language is ultimately a combination of writing and speaking. From this perspective, Korean is arguably the hardest language to speak.
My problem with this argument is twofold.

1- Writing and Speaking aren't an equivalent challenge in this case. It takes way longer (years and years) to learn a writing system made up of thousands of characters than it does to learn speaking Korean with a few novel sounds you can learn relatively quickly. Both Japanese and Chinese are much much much harder to write than Korean, Chinese because of the sheer number of characters you need to know, and Japanese because of the clusterfuck of irregularities in kanji use and the 2 or more readings per character.

2- Chinese is divisively harder to speak than Korean, not only does it have a complex phonetic system of vowels and consonants similar to Korean, but it adds the challenge of tones on top of this, which is very difficult for speakers of non-tonal languages to get right.

Japanese, while I wouldn't argue is harder to speak than Korean, is quite hard to sound native-like in because of the pitch accent which takes a long time to master, so speaking is easy to learn but hard to master.

>>212754419
>Chinese grammar is relatively straightforward, and it lacks the wide range of speech levels and honorifics found in Korean
It still has speech levels and honorifics, and the grammar isn't straight forward at all. Chinese grammar is highly irregular once you get past baby's first sentence, and the highly idiomatic nature of the language (far more so than Korean) makes it fundamentally impossible to learn quickly.

>>212754419
Sure but as a foreigner you get a pass for the honorific bs you can be perfectly understood just speaking informal and grammar is not hard, to master Korean might be harder but to simply communicate is definetly easier

>>212754758
Yeah the Chinese grammar is ez thing is kind of like saying English grammar is ez while sounding like an absolute ESL, it's a noobie trap.
Being a analytic language it relies heavily on proper word order, which makes it deceptively easy to construct simple sentences in, because you don't need to keep track of a bunch of conjugations and cases and complicated inflections, which is what makes synthetic languages seem hard at first glace, the barrier to entry is higher when you need to get all of those things right just to make yourself understood.
On the flip side once you understand that system, synthetic languages become fairly straightforward and easy to use, and that's when the difficulty for analytic languages kicks in, you have to gain an intuition for what sounds "natural" through sheer exposure, the lack of hard-coded rules becomes a pain in the ass.