Grammarwaywith answers is a series of four books for self-access study and/or classroom use.Grammarway with answers contains a full key to all the exercises and is an ideal supplement to any main coursebook of English language learning at secondary level. The two versions of Grammarway are not interchangeable.
The renowned linguist Eddie Izzard devoted at least one of his standup comedy routines to the proposition that English grammar is unusually straightforward, at least in comparison (if I recall correctly) to Latin and French. It's a sentiment that I've heard expressed by various people, and my gut tells me it's correct, but I was wondering if there was any concrete evidence for it - or for the contrary.
Like most Englishmen, I was traumatised by being forced to learn French at school. That language occupies a frightful region of my brain to this day: a tangled octopus of elaborate conjugations, pointless genders and historical spellings. I had a better time with Latin; its structure is intricate, but it's also clear and - for the most part - logical. As a man, I made a couple of attempts a few years ago to learn Italian; while I'm hardly fluent, I have always been struck by the minimalism and elegance of Italian grammar. (I've been told that Italian is afflicted with a painfully large number of irregular verbs, but I never got far enough to suffer through that.)
As a native speaker of English, I'm obviously not qualified to judge the grammatical complexity or simplicity of my own language compared to someone else's. And yet all those languages - even Italian - left me with the impression that their grammar was more convoluted than my own - even when I try to compensate for my familiarity. But is that right? Does the picture change very much when we consider languages outside the Indo-European family?
When Eddie Izzard, and many other lay people, talk about complexity of a language's grammar, they usually refer specifically to the number of distinct inflections present in a language. As English is pretty isolating, it is certainly pretty straightforward by this metric.
Unfortunately this perspective ignores the fact that English conveys a lot of grammatical information through syntax, something that probably seems fiendishly complex to a monolingual speaker of a polysynthetic language with very free word order. English is also renowned for its enormous lexicon and, despite much of it being so infrequently used that one has to wonder the extent to which it actually exists in people's heads, this does result in some distinctions of nuance that might seem like needless nitpicking to many second language speakers, rather than simple straightforward language.
Examining the underlying assumption (that the number of distinct inflections reflects the complexity of a language's grammar), Finnish is often given as an example of an incredibly complicated language (after all, just look at how huge any of the verb tables on Wiktionary are), and yet each suffix behaves in a fairly predictable way and looks pretty much the same no matter what word it appears on, all whilst being able to put the words in different orders with much less risk of accidentally asking a question or saying something unintelligible.
Ultimately I think it's just a perspective bias. As English-speakers we take our complex syntax for granted, but we aren't used to complex inflectional morphology and so that is the only thing we tend to notice when asking "is this language's grammar simple or complex". Add to this the fact that native English-speakers are less likely to be exposed to other languages at a young age than speakers of many other languages and so don't have our assumptions challenged so much, and that bias can get pretty overwhelming (and on the converse, this means that, e.g. native Finnish-speakers, being exposed to English and other more isolating languages like Swedish from a young age, are less likely to take the biased position that Finnish is straightforward, and it is the English and Swedes who are overly complex with all their rules on word order).
In Ukraine, everybody speaks Ukrainian and Russian, so the idea of being able to speak different languages is present since the early childhood. However, Ukrainian and Russian are very similar, they don't have any principal differences, although differences are present on all the levels of the language, beginning with alphabet and phonemes and ending with syntax. When Ukrainians start learning English they are usually shocked with the idea of how enormously different a language can be from what they thought a language should be.
The English noun doesn't have any genders, a luxury which only learners of French and German can fully appreciate. And no case forms! Still, it has something that is so complicated that most Ukrainian and Russian learners of English never master it fully. As for me, I cannot dare swear I've mastered it as much as I would like to. That thing is the number-countability-definiteness complex. The very idea of the noun category of definiteness / indefiniteness is alien to the majority of the Slavic languages except for the closely related Macedonian and Bulgarian languages. In order to begin using articles correctly Ukrainians have to learn to analyze the reality in quite a new way, to change their way of thinking from the moment they learn about the existence of articles and to the end of their lives. Few succeed. I think this category is much more complicated than gender and case taken together, since remembering the gender and case forms of a noun is mechanical work, you use this or that form automatically, the syntax suggests which form should be used. Definiteness is different. It's up to you which one you choose, a or the, but! the meaning of the whole utterance depends on this choice of yours, and you cannot skip the choice since it is mandatory in English that definiteness / indefiniteness should be explicitly marked on every noun, which means you really have to learn the analysis of the reality for definiteness, a skill which is needed only when you talk or write in English, that is, which is useless for most learners who usually use English for reading or watching films and who talk English only at English lessons.
As for the syntax, it's been already mentioned in other answers here, the fixed, rigid word order of English is what makes it complicated. Slavs are used to beginning a sentence with whatever word first comes to one's mind. Subject pronouns are often dropped (Polish, Czech, and Slovak are consistent pro-drop languages). Not so in English, the SVO sequence is practically never broken, which means that to be able to speak English correctly you've got to know what the subject and what the object in the utterance are, that is, you have to learn the sentence analysis, which can be rather difficult, especially for adult learners (children study sentence analysis at school and they usually remember how to do it). Additionally, the ability to find the main clause of the utterance is needed for following the sequence of tenses rule.
For me, when learning English, the complex syntax as mentioned by Tristan was never taken for granted. I had to learn it from scratch, as Portuguese is, in structure (in syntax, morphology, and grammar) far more similar to French, and I would dare to say nearly identical apart from some typical constructions and idioms that have no sense whatsoever in the other language.
However, that may not have "unbiased" me as I, today, continue to perceive English grammar as much more simple than French and even my native Portuguese. I normally see native English speakers in this site saying that the perception of English as a simple language is native bias. I disagree. (Maybe that is my bias on its own?)
As for your so-called "concrete evidence" mentioned in your question... I think that it is complicated. We cannot provide concrete evidence of A being more complex than B without having a very precise definition of what complex is. If it is indeed a matter of perspective, I would say that yes, English is simpler than French or Portuguese, even from a POV of a non-native speaker.
English has roots in multiple ancient languages, from the various tribes who conquered the country up to the Norman Conquest and beyond, as well as loan words from other languages, and entirely new words constructed from (usually) Greek or Latin roots. Historically, England had literally hundreds of local dialects, which may even have been different enough to constitute a different language - remember Caxton's story about people trying to buy eggs. Most of these have not completely survived, but there are still many local dialect words which remain, perhaps the most obvious example being what you call a bread roll.
Caxton and printing generally started to apply some standardisation to spelling, but this was not entirely consistent. In some ways, this started the development of written English as at best a separate dialect of English and at worst a separate language - consider the similar issue of Mandarin and Cantonese using the same spelling system, but translating those written characters to different spoken words. Unfortunately, just as spellings started to become somewhat standardised, the Great Vowel Shift took place and pronunciations changed dramatically, making the written language entirely non-phonetic. This leads to obvious problems with teaching systems such as phonics, which inherently assume that English spelling has phonetic patterns. It does sometimes, but there are many rules, and many exceptions. English schoolchildren quite literally have lessons dedicated to memorising these exceptions, typically lasting from around age 6-7 until they start secondary school at age 11.
Spelling English words is hard enough that we actually have the concept of competitive spelling. This is a concept which is completely alien to any language such as German where spelling is (almost) entirely phonetic. (Of course German has its own complexities - Germans have a similar challenge to learn the gender of words, and some very irregular prefixes, but that's another story.) The problem of irregular spelling makes dyslexia a major issue for English people.
3a8082e126