Sokath, his eyes uncovered.

qab ronmoh Mupwi’? Doesn’t really make sense if you don’t know who does the hammering…

Excellent.

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/SKwM8f6vzEI?si=csuTzsEWL_hqvl5a

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

In fact, that term is a bit eurocentric

Yeah without a doubt it is. There are a few non-European languages that use a masculine/feminine grammatical split, including Arabic and Hebrew, but both masc/fem and masc/fem/neuter are hugely prevalent in European languages, and I doubt the term got its name from Arabic linguists.

I’ve just done some Googling and learnt that some people prefer the term “noun classes” rather than grammatical gender, especially when the classes are not based on human cultural genders. Other people make a distinction between what “noun classes” means and what “grammatical gender” is, using them for two different concepts. So apparently the term “grammatical gender” is not quite as uncontroversial within linguistics as I thought.

Bong and a blintz?

The grammar rules make no sense and sometimes have more exceptions than cases it applies to.

said the native speakers of like half the languages on this planet

Dutch grammar is about as regular as most West Germanic languages (Germanic grammar tends to be relatively irregular compared to the norm though) but something that may make it less complex in many respects than languages like Icelandic or German is the total lack of cases (in the modern standard) and only 2 grammatical genders. of course, when looking at that part of the language, languages like English and especially Afrikaans are much more straightforward, with a complete lack of grammatical gender, as well as Afrikaans being very regular.

Althoughhh Dutch, and English, do have extremely opaque orthographies in terms of reading, trying to figure out the pronunciation of a word based on the spelling is pretty much useless most of the time, which isn’t super common among writing systems. But that doesn’t mean anything about the languages themselves.

But pretty much every language has a lot of speakers who think it’s super hard and a lot of speakers who think it’s super easy, when in reality no language is inherently hard or easy to learn – 99% of what makes a language easy or hard to learn for someone (other than motivation/passion/necessity/exposure of course) is how familiar it is to their native language(s) and other languages they speak. English speakers will go around saying “English is the hardest language to learn” or “English is the easiest language to learn”, same with Dutch, Hungarian, Hindi, Armenian, Tamil, etc. But English will generally be one of the easier languages to learn for people who speak e.g. German, Dutch, Norwegian, French (although the spelling is a completely different matter). Hungarian and Estonian will be relatively easy to learn if you speak, say, Turkish or Finnish. Ukrainian is pretty easy to learn for Belarusian & Polish speakers, Arabic will be easy to learn for Hebrew speakers. Japanese speakers usually find Korean extremely easy, and vice versa, while both may find English extremely hard, and vice versa.

I mean learning a language well enough to use regularly at all isn’t easy by the slightest measure, and it takes thousands of hours of frequent study & usage, so when I say “easy” I’m speaking relatively. I find Russian knowledge far easier to get/retain than my German skills for various reasons even though German is more similar to the languages I know the best (learning material and liking the language obviously plays a huge part in this).

This is a tad misleading.

I learned on duolingo that computer is called computadora in spanish.

Also, the german word Rechner is only used for Desktop PCs. Like, the actual chassis with all parts inside. A Laptop is a computer but nobody would call it a Rechner.

If you use Rechner without context, everyone would assume you’re talking about a calculator.