Doitsujin wrote:
As for the original question, I find it somewhat pointless. Usually, language learners either learn a language because they need to learn it or because they like it or at least find it interesting.
(That's why I pretty much ignored this thread, I only replied to it today, because I stumbled upon rdearman's reply by chance.)
mm, I think that the issue is NOT so much simple or narrow.
I am not linguist , but I know that there are some relations between languages.
( so, the one may be easier to learn than the other. )
when I opened this thread, I was just thinking this point by my side.
but I do not know what others' ideas were.
let consider rdearman's one saying as a model (to respond my own question):
by that,I undestand that just difficulty (even if it is personalized to you) or easeness should NOT be a reason.
because he says : Rust is difficult language, but that does not mean it was worthless , in contrast, it is worthwhile. (Also, difficulty & easeness is personalized idea, therefore, to one; one issue may be very difficult while the other one may find it way easy.This is normal)
ah, interestingly sometimes,I think the reasons for the existence of so many languages. By our view, in fact , there was just one language at first , later , it presumably exposed to something and modified ,mutated and as result: changed. Therefore, today we have so many languages.