Introduction

Reading a dictionary seems like it should be something that isn't too difficult to understand without reading the instructions, but in many cases, this simply isn't true; much like in text speak common terms can be reduced to informal spellings (think ttyl or wuu2) for ease of brevity, the same is done for Latin dictionaries. The only downside to this is that it can sometimes be difficult to gauge what a dictionary is telling you amongst all the shorthand. This article assumes you're aware Latin has grammatical case and gender, but apart from that, you don't need to have any proficiency whatsoever.

Common Abbreviations in Dictionaries

Primarily, it's important to make sure that common terms that will occur in a dictionary are understood. The following are common abbreviations used by dictionaries; you don't need to memorise these, but it may help to at least be aware of them:

Often the cases will be expressed with their first three letters, e.g. nom. voc. abl.
Often the genders are reduced to m./masc., f./fem., and n./neu. respectively
abbr. = the term is an abbreviation
acc. to = according to
act. = active (e.g. I eat as opposed to I am eaten)
adj. = adjective
adv./advbs. = adverb
cf. = confeconferatur (compare)
conj. = conjunction/connective
defect. = the term is defective (doesn't have the full conjugation pattern)
dep. = deponent (the term conjugates in the passive to give an active meaning)
exclam. = the term is an exclamation
imper. = the term is a command (imperative) or the term is impersonal
interrog. = the term is a "question word"
irreg. = the term is irregular (doesn't follow the expected conjugation)
neg. = the term makes the sentence negative
prep. = preposition
prop. = properly
reflex. = reflexive (the verb requires the reflexive pronoun)
sg. = the noun is singular
v. = the term is a verb

These are only the general ones you may run into, and each dictionary has their own abbreviations they use, especially for more well-known authors and their respective works; to find the meaning of a specific abbreviation, every dictionary should have a General List of Abbreviations. Here is the list for Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary, generally considered the best of the English-language Latin dictionaries available.

What are Lemmata?

A lemma, put simply, is the main form of any word — the one you would recognise when reading a dictionary. To give an example in English, bigger is a form of the lexeme big, as is cities to city, the latter of which are the entries you would find the terms alphabetised under in a dictionary.
To see an example in Latin, amāvimus, amātūrō, and amāvisse are all forms of the verb amō, which is the term one would want to look up in a dictionary to find the entry for the verb to love.
In many cases, without being already familiar with a word, it can be impossible to identify the lemma form of a noun given only an unknown form of it; matris, for example, could have any of the following terms as its lemma: mater, **matra, **matrus, matrum, matris, where two of those aren't even real words. The only way to perfect knowing the lemma form of any word you run into is to learn it — since you are reading this article it can be presumed that you'll have no objection to learning Latin.
A very useful tool for working out the lemma form of a noun is this tool here, which gives you the lemma for each possible word it could be along with the ability to search for any use of that word in attested works, and the link to a dictionary entry for it. Likewise, it's always good practice to try to predict the lemma form before using this tool.

What are the Principal Parts of a Word?

In Latin, there exist declensions and conjugation groups in which each word will follow the same pattern, so I know that every first declension noun will decline -a, -ae, -ae -am etc. To know how to properly decline/conjugate a word, we must be told a little more about it: this comes in the form of principal parts. Adjectives have two or three (adjectives with two principal parts are known as two-termination adjectives), nouns have two, and verbs have four (dictionaries often don't list the second principal part as it can be inferred from the verb's conjugation group). To give an example, friō comes up in the L&S (Lewis & Short) dictionary as "frĭo, āvi, ātum, 1", which is to be interpreted as "friō, friāvī, friātum, first conjugation" (dictionaries often don't mark vowel lengths when it can be inferred, which is one of the reasons why it is so important to become familiarised with the general conjugation paradigms).

Vowel Length and Syllable Quantities

As a Latin learner, you’ve probably heard of vowel length – that in Latin a vowel can be pronounced for two different lengths. Syllables, in fact, also have length – most notably significant in poetry – and are likewise either long or short; this is called syllable quantity.
Traditionally, long vowels are written with a macron (ā ē ī ō ū ȳ) and short vowels with a breve (ă ĕ ĭ ŏ ŭ ў), and both if both alternations occur (as in ĕgō̆); here are a few rules that can help identify length when left unmarked:

Any vowel after another vowel or “h” is short: viă = vĭă; nihĭl = nĭhĭl (some notable exceptions do apply such as the -iēī suffix in fifth declension nouns).
A diphthong (two vowels pronounced as a “glide” from one to another) is long; in Latin, these are “ui”, “ei”, “eu”, “oe”, “ae”, “au”, and “yi” (the latter extremely rare from Greek loanwords only).
A vowel derived from a diphthong is long: ĕxcludō = ĕxclūdō (prop. ĕx-claudō).
A vowel formed from a contraction is long: mi = mī (prop. mĭhĭ).
Any vowel before the consonant clusters “ns”, “nf” and “gn” is long: ămans = ămāns. (Please note that the rule specifically for gn is disputed, and may not be the case for every instance.)
A vowel before the clusters “nd” and “nt” is often (but not in every single instance) short: sĕcundŭs = sĕcŭndŭs; ămantēs = ămăntēs.
A sort of not-rule, these rules only apply to words of Latin origin. This may sound obvious, but Latin takes many words from the Classical Greek language, words which would thusly not follow the same phonological restrictions as a word of Italic origin.

The following are the rules for determining the quantity (long or short) of a syllable:

Any syllable containing a long vowel or diphthong is called long by nature, such as the first syllables of “mā-tĕr”, “au-dăx”, and “ī-ră”.
A vowel coming before two (or more) consonants (except “l” or “r” which are called mute in this position), or double consonants “x” and “z” makes the syllable that vowel it is in long, such as in the first syllables of “ĕst”, “hăs-tă” and “ĭn-trā”; this also goes for double consonants, such as “ăn-nŭs” and “mĭt-tō”, and is called long by position.
If the final syllable of a word ends in a consonant, this is another example of a syllable being long by position, such as in “ăl-tĕr” and “ăl-tŭs”.
A syllable with a vowel of “a”, “e”, “o” or “u” followed by “i” – irrelevant of length – is short, occasionally marked with a circumflex (â ê î ô û ŷ) to show the shortening, such as "â-iō" and "pê-iŏr".

Lewis & Short Dictionary Entry Examples

L&S is a Latin-to-English dictionary (linked here) generally considered among classicists to be one of the best dictionaries available for Latin. Given that these are dictionary entries, there are going to be some grammatical terms used with which you may be yet to learn, however terms will be explained as and when necessary.
Here is the entry for "īnsula":

1. insŭla, ae, f. [in-sul; cf. con-sul, prop. in-land].
I. An island, isle, whether formed by the sea, a lake, or a river: insulam Britanniam, Cic. Fam.15, 16, 2; id. de Imp. Pomp. 11 fin.; Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 64, § 144; Verg. A. 1, 159; 3, 211: in lacu, Cic.Mil. 27, 74: Rheni amnis, Tac. G. 29; Ov. F. 1, 292: in medio flumine nata, Gai. Inst. 2, 72 al.
B. Transf.: apud fustitudinas ferricrepinas insulas, i. e. the mills in which, as apunishment, slaves were forced to grind, Plaut. As. 1, 1, 18.
II. A house for poor people, which was let out in portions to several families; opp. domus, whichwas the mansion of a rich family, Cic. Off. 3, 16, 66: intellego Clodii insulam esse venalem, id.Cael. 7, 17; Tac. A. 6, 45; 15, 43; Suet. Tib. 48; id. Caes. 41; Mart. 4, 37, 4 al.; sometimes also ofa single lodging in such a house, Suet. Ner. 38; cf. Preller, Regionen der Stadt Rom, p. 86 sq.;Becker, Gallus, 2, p. 146 sq. 2d edit.
III. A temple (eccl.); cf. Is. Voss. ad Just. 32, 2, 2.

Primarily, we can see the principal parts, namely "insŭla, ae"; this tells us that īnsula is a first declension feminine ("f.") noun, and as such we know how to decline it. Next, there is, contained in square braces, the phrase “[in-sul; cf. con-sul, prop. in-land]”; this text is reanalysing īnsula as “in-sul”, and comparing it to “con-sul” (written out fully, it would be something like “īnsula can be reanalysed as in-sul, much like cōnsul and con-sul, and can be interpreted as in-land”).
Following this, come the English definitions of the term; for each of these, there is a definition, followed by an example attested in a text, and (in II,) an example of a word that means the opposite. As dictionaries have abbreviations for grammatical terms and frequently used words, so do they for classical works of literature; to take an example from the first sense of īnsula, “Cic. Fam. 15, 16, 2” is short for “Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, book 15, letter 16, section 2”: on looking this up, we can find the text “sed si insulam Britanniam coepero cogitare” (“but if I begin thinking about Britain…”), which indeed uses the word īnsula in the expression “insulam Britanniam” (“the British island”). The subsequent references do not contain quotes, but looking them up will provide numerous references to the term’s usage in a particular sense, which can be invaluable when dealing with a sparsely attested term.
Indented under the first sense of meaning, there is a quote from Plautus’ Asinaria, “apud fustitudinas ferricrepinas insulas” (“in the mills where slaves were forced to grind”), which is listed as transferred (transf.) from the original meaning.
Likewise, the second sense of īnsula is further described with “opp. Domus”; this intends to further make clear this sense of the word by giving its antonym (opp. = opposite), in this case the pauperism of īnsula compared to the affluence of domus.
The final third sense is described as only being “eccl.”, that being ecclesiastic, in use – often words will have special meanings under certain environments, such as the word “rēte”, which usually means “fishing net” but in New Latin has the added meaning of “internet” by calque (word-for-word translation) of the English clipping (shortening) “’net” for “the Internet” (L&S doesn’t actually include New Latin entries, however).

To give a second example, here is the entry for the verb “pariō” (try to see if you can make sense of any of it yourself before reading the explanation):

1. părĭo, āvi, ātum, 1, v. a. and n. [par].
I. Act.
A. In gen., to make equal; hence, pass., with force of mid., to be equal (postclass.): pariarideo, Tert. Res. Carn. 6.
B. In partic., to settle, pay in full a debt: nummos alicui, Dig. 40, 1, 4: QVISQVIS MENSIB.CONTINENTER NON PARIAVERIT, has not paid his share, Inscr. Lanuv. (a. p. Chr. 136) inMomms. Collegg. et Sodalicc. Romann. In part. perf. mid.: PARIATVS, that has paid hisshare, Inscr. Lanuv. in Momms. Collegg. et Sodalicc. Romann.
II. Neutr., to be equal, Tert. Anim. 30 fin.; 32 fin.
2. părĭo, pĕpĕri, părĭtum, and partum, 3 (fut. part. parturam, Plaut. Am. 2, 2, 86; fut. paribis for paries, Pompon. Non. 508, 3; inf. parire, Enn. ap. Varr. L. L. 5, § 59 Müll., and in Diom. p. 378 P.; Plaut. Fragm. ap. Philarg. Verg. E. 2, 63), v. a. [cf. Gr. root πορ- in ἔπορον, gave, πέπρωται, is fated; Lat. portio, partus, puerpera, perh. parare], to bring forth, to bear; of animals, to drop, lay, spawn, etc. (syn. gigno).
I. Lit.: si quintum pareret mater ejus, asinum fuisse pariturum, Cic. de Or. 2, 66, 267: ut ealiberos ex sese pareret, Sulp. ap. Cic. Fam. 4, 5, 3: gallinas teneras, quae primum parient,concludat, Cato, R. R. 89; so, quae gallina id ovum peperisset, Cic. Ac. 2, 18, 57; cf.: ova pariresolet, etc., Enn. l. l. (Ann. v. 10 Vahl.): nam audivi feminam ego leonem semel parire, Plaut. l.l.Of plants, to flower, Plin. 16, 25, 39, § 94.
B. Transf.:
1. Of males, to beget (poet.): apud tragicos: et jam leo pariet, at pater est, Quint. 8,6, 34; Caecil. ap. Non. 464, 22 (in a corrupt passage).
2. In gen., to bring forth, produce: ligna putrefacta per imbres Vermiculos pariunt,Lucr. 2, 899: ut sarmentum in pariendis colibus vires habeat majores, Varr. R. R. 1,32, 2; cf. id. ib. 1, 41, 5: fruges et reliqua, quae terra pariat, Cic. N. D. 1, 2; Plin. 16,37, 68, § 174; 31, 10, 46, § 112: spiritum, Vulg. Isa. 26, 18.
II. Trop., to produce, create, bring about, accomplish, occasion, devise, invent, procure, acquire, etc. (syn.: genero, creo, gigno): ars dicendi habet hanc vim, non ut aliquid pariat et procreet, verum ut educet atque confirmet, Cic. de Or. 2, 87, 356: qui famam multo peperere labore, Enn. ap. Philarg. ad Verg. G. 4, 188 (Ann. v. 427 Vahl.): dolorem, voluptatem, Cic. Fin. 1, 15, 49: discidium, Lucr. 1, 220: taedium, Quint. 9, 4, 43: spinosiora multa pepererunt, Cic. Or. 32, 114; so, quibus etiam verba parienda sunt, id. Fin. 3, 1, 3; and: hinc fabulae Scyllam et Charybdim peperere, Just. 4, 1, 13: ne quicquam nobis pariant ex se incommodi, Plaut. Most. 2, 1, 17: alicui aegritudinem, id. Trin. 2, 2, 35: fiduciam, Sall. H. 1, 41, 22 Dietsch: alicni curas, Prop. 1, 18, 23: obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit, Ter. And. 1, 1, 41: sibi maximam laudem, Cic. Off. 2, 13, 47: meis laboribus dignitas salusque pariatur, id. Cat. 4, 1, 1; id. Sull. 17, 49: praedā improbe partā, id. Fin. 1, 16, 51: aliquem honeste partis bonis privare, id. Quint. 23, 74; id. Sull. 28, 77: sibi salutem, Caes. B. C. 3, 69: ante partam rei militaris gloriam amittere, id. B. G. 6, 39: gratiam ingentem apud aliquem, Liv. 34, 44: sibi decus et victoriam, id. 30, 14: amicos officio et fide, Sall. J. 10, 4: alicui somnum mero, Tib. 1, 7, 27 (6, 23): qui sibi letum Insontes peperere manu, Verg. A. 6, 434; Tib. 4, 13, 20.Hence, partus**,** a, um, P. a., that has borne: parta nutrici consociata, etc., the ewe that has dropped the lamb, Col. 7, 4, 3.
B. Gained, acquired.Hence, as subst.: parta,** ōrum, n., acquisitions, possessions: quod majusdedecus est parta amittere, quam omnino non paravisse, Sall. J. 31, 17; cf. id. C. 51, 42; d. H.1, 41, 17 Dietsch: tantis parta malis curā majore metuque Servantur, Juv. 14, 303.
3. părĭo, īre, the ground form of aperio and operio.

Now this entry contains many more terms and examples which may be more foreign to you, but the same logic can be applied (as well as that handy abbreviations page) as with the other entry to make sense of it.
The term “pariō” is, in fact, the lemma form for three different entries, hence why the results show three different sections.
First, we have three of the four participles followed by some notes on the verb “părĭo, āvi, ātum, 1, v. a. and n. [par]”; the 1 means that the verb is first conjugation, and the “v. a. and an. [par]” means that the verb can be transitive (a. = active) or intransitive (n. = neutral), and is derived from the adjective “pār”, meaning “equal”.
The first sense given is “to make equal”, which takes a genitive (gen.) object, and in postclassical Latin, has the passive meaning of “to be equal”, “with a force of mid.” (mid. = middle, where the agent of the verb acts on itself). Next, the entry points out that, in particular (partic. = particular) sense, the verb can mean “to settle/pay in full a debt”, which is then shown in the sentence “quisquis mensibus (mensib. = mensibus) continenter non pariaverit” (“each month continuously he has (literally: will have) not paid off his debt”). Likewise, there is also another intransitive (neut. = neutral) sense of the verb – a verb that need not take an object – “to be equal”, attested in Tertullian’s treatise De Anima (“Tert. Anim.”).
Continuing through the definitions, we arrive at the second term that has a lemma of “pariō”. The principal parts are listed initially as “părĭo, pĕpĕri, părĭtum, and partum, 3”, which lists two possible supines (the fourth principal part) of the verb. Next, we encounter some more notes on how the conjugation changes under different attestations of the verb, such as a future participle (fur. part.) of “partūrus” in Plautus’s Amphitryon, a future tense of “paribis” in Pomponius’ Atellanae, and a nonstandard infinitive “parīre” in Ennius’ Annales.
Next, much like in the earlier example, comes a half-etymology comparing (cf. = compare) the relation between Latin “pariō, peperī” and Classical Greek “ἔπορον, πέπρωται”, and then gives several examples of other Latin words with the same “papor-” root.
Then the term is defined, “to bring forth, to bear”, as well as a synonym (syn. = synonym) “gignō, genuī, genitum”.
Below this, we are given a list of attestations of the verb in its literal (lit. = literal) meaning, such as in Cicero’s De Oratore and Ad Familiares, as well as another sense of the verb when talking about plants – “to flower” – attested in Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis Historia.
Under “B”, there is listed an extension of meaning (transf. = transferred) when talking about males meaning “to beget”, and likewise “to produce” in conjunction with the genitive (gen. = genitive).
The second sense of this term is listed as figurative (trop. = tropical), meaning “to produce” or “to acquire”, and has listed several synonyms as well as attestations in texts. There also exists a substantive (verb-to-noun) derivation of the term “parta”, meaning “acquisitions, possessions”, likewise followed with attestations.
Finally, there is a third entry listed as the ground form of verbs “aperiō” and “operiō”, that being a form deduced to have existed despite there being no actual attestations of its existence.

Exercises

To see how well you can understand dictionary entries, here are snippets of different entries from L&S in increasing difficulty:

melliflŭus, a, um, adj. [mel-fluo], flowing with honey, honey-dropping (post-class.).

ne-scĭo, īvi or ĭi, ītum, 4,
I. v. a., not to know, to be ignorant (syn. ignoro)

sĭne (old form sē or sēd; v. the foll.), prep. with abl. [si and ne; si, the demonstrative instrumental, and the negative ne; hence, nesi was also found, Fest. p. 165; cf. Rib. Beiträge, p. 15; Corss. Ausspr. 1, 201; 1, 778].

dŭŏdĕcăjŭgum, i, n. [vox hybr., δυόδεκα + jugum], a team of twelve animals, Ambros. in Psa. 118, Serm. 4.

ĕgō̆ (ŏ always in poets of the best age, as Cat., Verg., Hor., etc.; ō ante-class. and post-Aug., as Juv. 17, 357; Aus. Epigr. 54, 6, v. Corss. Ausspr. 2, 483; gen. mei; dat. mihi; acc. And abl. me; plur., nom., and acc. nos; gen., mostly poet., nostrum; gen. obj. nostri, rarely nostrum; for the gen. possess. the adj. noster was used, q. v.; cf. Roby, Gram. 1, § 388; dat. and abl. nobis; mi in dat. for mihi, part.
II. Emphasized.
A. By the suffixes met and pte: Am. Quis te verberavit? So. Egomet memet, Plaut. Am. 2,1, 60: credebam primo mihimet Sosiae, id. ib. 2, 1, 50: quasi per nebulam nosmetscimus, id. Ps. 1, 5, 48: med erga, id. Capt. 2, 3, 56: cariorem esse patriam nobis quamnosmetipsos, Cic. Fin. 3, 1 fin. Et saep.: mihipte, Cato ap. Fest. p. 103: mepte fieriservom, Plaut. Men. 5, 8, 10.
B. By repetition: meme ad graviora reservat, Sil. 9, 651 (but Verg. A. 9, 427, is writtenme, me); cf.: met and pte.

Useful Recourses

The following are a list of very useful recourses it would be prudent to keep a note of:

Latinitium Dictionary – four searchable dictionaries in an accessible format.
Neo-Latin Lexicon – a list of terms (CTRL+F to search) for more modern terms for which Latin would otherwise not have words; the site is currently undergoing a rejig, but the entire lexicon is still available through sections Adumbratio and Silva.
Perseus – an indispensable recourse for finding classical texts, and attestations of terms in its wide body of classical texts.
Packhum – a site containing essentially all Latin texts before A.D. 200 (and a bunch from after), where you can search for attestations of words (under Word Search) as well as search through by author.
LacusCurtius – Latin (and Greek) texts with English and Latin/Greek versions available.
Internet Archive – a giant online library containing effectively everything of interest that’s been on the web since the ‘90s (including Latin materials). Here is a link searching for only Latin-language materials.
Wiktionary — a community-edited dictionary designed for all languages, with Latin included in that.
Whittaker's Words an online dictionary using both English-to-Latin and Latin-to-English entries.

The french conjugation part 2: how to conjugate?

revising french tenses :(

Learning Spanish - Hard fought battle to level B1 in Spanish in seven months - WHAT WORKED AND WHAT DIDN'T WORK

Some people says learning english is hard. In english are there any basic grammar rules that are complicated? Examples?

Summary
Was looking for specific examples of basic grammar rules that were complicated
Or said by a user replying to a differenet user

They want to know if there are any basic, complicated rules.

Basic gramamr rules are when they always are absolutely needed for sufficient clarity when communicating
A simple test is if it doesnt belong in a year 1 / 1st grade / age 5-6 class then it's not basic

List of examples
I don't consider any of these examples as basic. None of them seems basic to me.
but if you think any of these examples are always are absolutely needed, please explain / let me know why?

I have a degree in linguistics, have taught ESOL for years and studied several languages at an introductory level. I have never seen anything that suggests to me that English is a difficult language to learn, compared to other languages.
Two grammar rules do come to mind that I think are common but also difficult/different compared to other languages.
English marks singular vs uncountable nouns:
A very common mistake with learners are mistakes like Car is more expensive than ring, correction being obviously to add a//my/that or another determiner. rule behind this is actually rather obscure and complicated: Singular countable nouns in argument position require determiners. It seems that this is done to mark out singular nouns from uncountable nouns, but in my experience, most languages don't have any such marking. My guess is that closely related European languages would.
English doesn't drop subject in finite clauses:
In most languages you could say sentences like am hungry or is raining, but not in English, you must say I am hungry or It is raining. French is only language I know that also doesn't drop subject in these clauses, I at least know that Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Russian, Thai, Vietnamese, Spanish, Portuguese, even an Inuit language I once studied... list goes on, all these languages drop subject.
I can think of one or two difficult things about pronunciation two but I'm guessing you mean syntax.

Verbs:

Many verbs are barely conjugated.
- For example, "to put" is same in present and past tense.
- Other verbs are called "strong verbs"
  - and have a very different form in past tense,
  - which can be confusing (for example, fight and fought).
- There are also a number of "phrasal verbs,"
  - which are a combination of a preposition and a verb.
  - For example, verbs "to run out of," "to run into," and "to run up" are all based on "to run," even though they don't actually refer to running

Verbs are same. Most follow predictable patterns, but then we have a variety that then completely break those rules and make up their own:
Regular verb: jump, jumps, jumped, did jump, had jumped, will jump, will be jumping
Irregular verb: sing, sings, sang, did sing, had sung, will sing, will be singing
Irregular verb: catch, catches, caught, did catch, had caught, will catch, will be catching.
All three of those use different rules to do exact same conjugation

James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on teacher
example refers to two students, James and John, who are required by an English test to describe a man who, in past, had suffered from a cold. John writes “ man had a cold” which teacher marks as being incorrect, while James writes correct “ man had had a cold.” Since James’ answer was right, it had had a better effect on teacher. sentence can be understood more clearly by adding punctuation and emphasis: James, while John had had “had”, had had “had had”; “had had” had had a better effect on teacher.

puncation counts as grammar rules

sentence Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo is grammatically correct...

Compare words dogs, dog's, and dogs'.
Although pronounced and written slightly differently,
there are five different meanings established by adding s:
"multiple dogs", "belonging to / of a dog", "belonging to / of multiple dogs", "dog is", and "dog has".

Prepositional phrases that are simply learned and internalized.
Pluralizing borrowed words like moose and octopus.
with plural verb tense when noun comes before a phrase with a singular noun.
Irregular verbs

Here’s a poem that illustrates rules that are quickly broken:
Linguistic humor, English lesson
We'll begin with box, and plural is boxes; But plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.
Then one fowl is goose, but two are called geese, Yet plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice, Yet plural of house is houses, not hice.
If plural of man is always called men, Why shouldn't plural of pan be called pen?
cow in plural may be cows or kine, But plural of vow is vows, not vine.
I speak of my foot and show you my feet, If I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth, and a whole set are teeth, Why shouldn't plural of booth be called beeth?
If singular is this and plural is these, Why shouldn't plural of kiss be named kese?
Then one may be that, and three may be those, Yet plural of hat would never be hose;
We speak of a brother, and also of brethren, But though we say mother, we never say methren.
masculine pronouns are he, his and him, But imagine feminine she, shis, and shim!
So our English, I think, you all will agree, Is craziest language you ever did see.
I take it you already know Of tough and bough and cough and dough? Others may stumble, but not you, On hiccough, thorough, slough, and through?
Well done! And now you wish, perhaps To learn of less familiar traps?
Beware of heard, a dreadful word, That looks like beard and sounds like bird.
And dead; it's said like bed, not bead; For goodness sake, don't call it deed! Watch out for meat and great and threat; They rhyme with suite and straight and debt.

English grammar is insanely simple without complications.
It makes me wonder how did other nations managed to naturally develop languages with complicated grammar.

False friend type of things

Situations in which English has a similar rule to Dutch,
- but it's just slightly different so they get confused.
like time indicator only at end (or beginning) of sentence.

In Dutch you can say "I'll give you tomorrow a present",

which obviously sounds wrong in English. But many Dutchies miss that when starting out.

One grammar rule we follow but don’t really teach is order of adjectives,
order is “opinion-size-age-shape-color-origin-material-purpose”.
For instance, you could say “Great big old round blue Irish steel shovel” and you’d be fine, but if you said “Blue steel round big great old Irish shovel” you’d sound mad AskAmericans

I know that you can have a big red ball, but never a red big ball.
English adjective order is Opinion, Size, Age, Shape, Color, Origin, Material, Purpose.

Contractions
Subject-verb agreement
simple rule to make a plural noun is to add an s to end. But then there's literally hundreds of nouns that then break that rule or amend that rule in multiple ways.
Using auxilary do/does to form questions is unique
periods go at end of statements, unless said statement is part of a quotation
heard it repeated that aside from irregular spelling and phonology rules, it is tense system which is most complicated

I think a lot of learners have difficulty with articles,
especially when to use "zero article". way most verbs need "do-support" to make a question.
difference between simple present and continuous present.
Words whose intonation depends on whether they are used as verbs or nouns, e.g. project, desert, compound.

Stop.

Yeah no= no. No yeah= yes

These were not grammar rules examples:
Spelling:

English uses an alphabet that was designed to write Latin, not English;
- and because way many words are pronounced has changed over time, but spelling rarely has.
I before E except after C to be a pain because there are a plethora of words that make this rule redundant
like "real eyes realize real lies" and "through thorough thought"
- or "lead rhymes with read but read is said like lead" that makes English difficult, not grammar.

Pronunciation

English has several sounds that are relatively rare, such as "th" sounds and its "r" sound

Contextual interpretation
redundancies.

That’s when you state same word or phrase twice when you don’t need to.
Take your title for example.
There’s no need to use word “English” in 2nd sentence.
We already know that’s what you’re talking about.

Spelling

'i" before "e" except after "c". You mean rules like that?

obviously [.....] one of biggest things you need to understand about English language is how to identify a word and replicate it elsewhere.
For instance, your use of" Austrailia" proves to be quite poor grammar, as subreddit is called "Ask an Australian", and contains many instances of word "Australia". It is then, rather perplexing, that you would be incapable of spelling this word correctly, on account of how frequently it is used here.

.....
........

There is a reason that they don't directly teach Grammar in Australian schools any more.
They actually found that teaching grammar could lead to worse outcomes because it can be so confusing.

If this is accurate, then it makes sense why nobody in austrilia was able to answer this question or knew of any gramamr rules examples

This was my inital ask

Some people says learning english is hard. In english are there any basic, always needed, grammar rules that are complicated? Examples?
Basic grammar rules, that are always needed, and are complicated? Examples?
For Basic grammar rules (that are always needed)? I don't think there any?

A user rewrote my inital ask

with more correct grammar. Make of it what you will.
Hey Australia, some people say that learning English is hard. Are there any grammar rules that seem basic but are actually complicated? Do you have any examples?
What are some basic grammar rules that are always needed but are complicated? I can’t think of any.

Holy... smokes..

This is just way too much to copy
- https://www.reddit.com/AskUK/comments/j8f4f6/some_people_says_learning_english_is_hard_in/
Also way too much to copy...
- https://www.reddit.com/AskABrit/comments/j8f4sk/some_people_says_learning_english_is_hard_in/

I guess... shouldve gone uk first with this
But this english topic is now a completed topic;
but if you think any of these examples are always are absolutely needed for sufficient clarity, and if it'd be needed to be taught to year 1 / 1st grade / age 5-6 class, then please explain / let me know why it'd be basic, and always abosutley needed?

Basic grammar rules are 101 level. I don't consider any of these examples as basic.

Basic gramamr rules are when they always are absolutely needed for sufficient clarity when communicating
For examples there were non-grammar rules examples said by some users
If someone was able to make up grammar rules that would aid in relying to those users what are and are not grammar rules, then those grammar rules would qualify as sufficiently basic

Some people says learning english is hard. In english are there any basic grammar rules that are complicated? Examples?

Summary
Was looking for specific examples of basic grammar rules that were complicated
Or said by a user replying to a differenet user

They want to know if there are any basic, complicated rules.

I have a degree in linguistics, have taught ESOL for years and studied several languages at an introductory level. I have never seen anything that suggests to me that English is a difficult language to learn, compared to other languages.
Two grammar rules do come to mind that I think are common but also difficult/different compared to other languages.
English marks singular vs uncountable nouns:
A very common mistake with learners are mistakes like Car is more expensive than ring, correction being obviously to add a//my/that or another determiner. rule behind this is actually rather obscure and complicated: Singular countable nouns in argument position require determiners. It seems that this is done to mark out singular nouns from uncountable nouns, but in my experience, most languages don't have any such marking. My guess is that closely related European languages would.
English doesn't drop subject in finite clauses:
In most languages you could say sentences like am hungry or is raining, but not in English, you must say I am hungry or It is raining. French is only language I know that also doesn't drop subject in these clauses, I at least know that Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Russian, Thai, Vietnamese, Spanish, Portuguese, even an Inuit language I once studied... list goes on, all these languages drop subject.
I can think of one or two difficult things about pronunciation two but I'm guessing you mean syntax.

Verbs:

Many verbs are barely conjugated.
- For example, "to put" is same in present and past tense.
- Other verbs are called "strong verbs"
  - and have a very different form in past tense,
  - which can be confusing (for example, fight and fought).
- There are also a number of "phrasal verbs,"
  - which are a combination of a preposition and a verb.
  - For example, verbs "to run out of," "to run into," and "to run up" are all based on "to run," even though they don't actually refer to running

Verbs are same. Most follow predictable patterns, but then we have a variety that then completely break those rules and make up their own:
Regular verb: jump, jumps, jumped, did jump, had jumped, will jump, will be jumping
Irregular verb: sing, sings, sang, did sing, had sung, will sing, will be singing
Irregular verb: catch, catches, caught, did catch, had caught, will catch, will be catching.
All three of those use different rules to do exact same conjugation

James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on teacher
example refers to two students, James and John, who are required by an English test to describe a man who, in past, had suffered from a cold. John writes “ man had a cold” which teacher marks as being incorrect, while James writes correct “ man had had a cold.” Since James’ answer was right, it had had a better effect on teacher. sentence can be understood more clearly by adding punctuation and emphasis: James, while John had had “had”, had had “had had”; “had had” had had a better effect on teacher.

puncation counts as grammar rules

sentence Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo is grammatically correct...

Compare words dogs, dog's, and dogs'.
Although pronounced and written slightly differently,
there are five different meanings established by adding s:
"multiple dogs", "belonging to / of a dog", "belonging to / of multiple dogs", "dog is", and "dog has".

Prepositional phrases that are simply learned and internalized.
Pluralizing borrowed words like moose and octopus.
with plural verb tense when noun comes before a phrase with a singular noun.
Irregular verbs

Here’s a poem that illustrates rules that are quickly broken:
Linguistic humor, English lesson
We'll begin with box, and plural is boxes; But plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.
Then one fowl is goose, but two are called geese, Yet plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice, Yet plural of house is houses, not hice.
If plural of man is always called men, Why shouldn't plural of pan be called pen?
cow in plural may be cows or kine, But plural of vow is vows, not vine.
I speak of my foot and show you my feet, If I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth, and a whole set are teeth, Why shouldn't plural of booth be called beeth?
If singular is this and plural is these, Why shouldn't plural of kiss be named kese?
Then one may be that, and three may be those, Yet plural of hat would never be hose;
We speak of a brother, and also of brethren, But though we say mother, we never say methren.
masculine pronouns are he, his and him, But imagine feminine she, shis, and shim!
So our English, I think, you all will agree, Is craziest language you ever did see.
I take it you already know Of tough and bough and cough and dough? Others may stumble, but not you, On hiccough, thorough, slough, and through?
Well done! And now you wish, perhaps To learn of less familiar traps?
Beware of heard, a dreadful word, That looks like beard and sounds like bird.
And dead; it's said like bed, not bead; For goodness sake, don't call it deed! Watch out for meat and great and threat; They rhyme with suite and straight and debt.

English grammar is insanely simple without complications.
It makes me wonder how did other nations managed to naturally develop languages with complicated grammar.

False friend type of things

Situations in which English has a similar rule to Dutch,
- but it's just slightly different so they get confused.
like time indicator only at end (or beginning) of sentence.

In Dutch you can say "I'll give you tomorrow a present",

which obviously sounds wrong in English. But many Dutchies miss that when starting out.

One grammar rule we follow but don’t really teach is order of adjectives,
order is “opinion-size-age-shape-color-origin-material-purpose”.
For instance, you could say “Great big old round blue Irish steel shovel” and you’d be fine, but if you said “Blue steel round big great old Irish shovel” you’d sound mad AskAmericans

I know that you can have a big red ball, but never a red big ball.
English adjective order is Opinion, Size, Age, Shape, Color, Origin, Material, Purpose.

I think a lot of learners have difficulty with articles,
especially when to use "zero article". way most verbs need "do-support" to make a question.
difference between simple present and continuous present.
Words whose intonation depends on whether they are used as verbs or nouns, e.g. project, desert, compound.

Stop.

Yeah no= no. No yeah= yes

These were not grammar rules examples:
Spelling:

English uses an alphabet that was designed to write Latin, not English;
- and because way many words are pronounced has changed over time, but spelling rarely has.
I before E except after C to be a pain because there are a plethora of words that make this rule redundant
like "real eyes realize real lies" and "through thorough thought"
- or "lead rhymes with read but read is said like lead" that makes English difficult, not grammar.

Pronunciation

English has several sounds that are relatively rare, such as "th" sounds and its "r" sound

Contextual interpretation
redundancies.

That’s when you state same word or phrase twice when you don’t need to.
Take your title for example.
There’s no need to use word “English” in 2nd sentence.
We already know that’s what you’re talking about.

Spelling

'i" before "e" except after "c". You mean rules like that?

obviously [.....] one of biggest things you need to understand about English language is how to identify a word and replicate it elsewhere.
For instance, your use of" Austrailia" proves to be quite poor grammar, as subreddit is called "Ask an Australian", and contains many instances of word "Australia". It is then, rather perplexing, that you would be incapable of spelling this word correctly, on account of how frequently it is used here.

.....
........

There is a reason that they don't directly teach Grammar in Australian schools any more.
They actually found that teaching grammar could lead to worse outcomes because it can be so confusing.

If this is accurate, then it makes sense why nobody in austrilia was able to answer this question or knew of any gramamr rules examples

This was my inital ask

Some people says learning english is hard. In english are there any basic, always needed, grammar rules that are complicated? Examples?
Basic grammar rules, that are always needed, and are complicated? Examples?
For Basic grammar rules (that are always needed)? I don't think there any?

A user rewrote my inital ask

with more correct grammar. Make of it what you will.
Hey Australia, some people say that learning English is hard. Are there any grammar rules that seem basic but are actually complicated? Do you have any examples?
What are some basic grammar rules that are always needed but are complicated? I can’t think of any.

Holy... smokes..

This is just way too much to copy
- https://www.reddit.com/AskUK/comments/j8f4f6/some_people_says_learning_english_is_hard_in/
Also way too much to copy...
- https://www.reddit.com/AskABrit/comments/j8f4sk/some_people_says_learning_english_is_hard_in/

Basic gramamr rules are when they always are absolutely needed for sufficient clarity when communicating
For examples there were non-grammar rules examples said by some users
If someone was able to make up grammar rules that would aid in relying to those users what are and are not grammar rules, then those grammar rules would qualify as sufficiently basic

For those that saw my english grammar question. Here's a helpful compilation of examples of complicated grammar rules that could be used to teach anyone, including your friends and future 100+ babies english in the future =)

Summary
Was looking for specific examples of basic grammar rules that were complicated
Or said by a user replying to a differenet user

They want to know if there are any basic, complicated rules.

I have a degree in linguistics, have taught ESOL for years and studied several languages at an introductory level. I have never seen anything that suggests to me that English is a difficult language to learn, compared to other languages.
Two grammar rules do come to mind that I think are common but also difficult/different compared to other languages.
English marks singular vs uncountable nouns:
A very common mistake with learners are mistakes like Car is more expensive than ring, correction being obviously to add a//my/that or another determiner. rule behind this is actually rather obscure and complicated: Singular countable nouns in argument position require determiners. It seems that this is done to mark out singular nouns from uncountable nouns, but in my experience, most languages don't have any such marking. My guess is that closely related European languages would.
English doesn't drop subject in finite clauses:
In most languages you could say sentences like am hungry or is raining, but not in English, you must say I am hungry or It is raining. French is only language I know that also doesn't drop subject in these clauses, I at least know that Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Russian, Thai, Vietnamese, Spanish, Portuguese, even an Inuit language I once studied... list goes on, all these languages drop subject.
I can think of one or two difficult things about pronunciation two but I'm guessing you mean syntax.

Verbs:

Many verbs are barely conjugated.
- For example, "to put" is same in present and past tense.
- Other verbs are called "strong verbs"
  - and have a very different form in past tense,
  - which can be confusing (for example, fight and fought).
- There are also a number of "phrasal verbs,"
  - which are a combination of a preposition and a verb.
  - For example, verbs "to run out of," "to run into," and "to run up" are all based on "to run," even though they don't actually refer to running

Verbs are same. Most follow predictable patterns, but then we have a variety that then completely break those rules and make up their own:
Regular verb: jump, jumps, jumped, did jump, had jumped, will jump, will be jumping
Irregular verb: sing, sings, sang, did sing, had sung, will sing, will be singing
Irregular verb: catch, catches, caught, did catch, had caught, will catch, will be catching.
All three of those use different rules to do exact same conjugation

James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on teacher
example refers to two students, James and John, who are required by an English test to describe a man who, in past, had suffered from a cold. John writes “ man had a cold” which teacher marks as being incorrect, while James writes correct “ man had had a cold.” Since James’ answer was right, it had had a better effect on teacher. sentence can be understood more clearly by adding punctuation and emphasis: James, while John had had “had”, had had “had had”; “had had” had had a better effect on teacher.

puncation counts as grammar rules

sentence Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo is grammatically correct...

Compare words dogs, dog's, and dogs'.
Although pronounced and written slightly differently,
there are five different meanings established by adding s:
"multiple dogs", "belonging to / of a dog", "belonging to / of multiple dogs", "dog is", and "dog has".

Prepositional phrases that are simply learned and internalized.
Pluralizing borrowed words like moose and octopus.
with plural verb tense when noun comes before a phrase with a singular noun.
Irregular verbs

Here’s a poem that illustrates rules that are quickly broken:
Linguistic humor, English lesson
We'll begin with box, and plural is boxes; But plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.
Then one fowl is goose, but two are called geese, Yet plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice, Yet plural of house is houses, not hice.
If plural of man is always called men, Why shouldn't plural of pan be called pen?
cow in plural may be cows or kine, But plural of vow is vows, not vine.
I speak of my foot and show you my feet, If I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth, and a whole set are teeth, Why shouldn't plural of booth be called beeth?
If singular is this and plural is these, Why shouldn't plural of kiss be named kese?
Then one may be that, and three may be those, Yet plural of hat would never be hose;
We speak of a brother, and also of brethren, But though we say mother, we never say methren.
masculine pronouns are he, his and him, But imagine feminine she, shis, and shim!
So our English, I think, you all will agree, Is craziest language you ever did see.
I take it you already know Of tough and bough and cough and dough? Others may stumble, but not you, On hiccough, thorough, slough, and through?
Well done! And now you wish, perhaps To learn of less familiar traps?
Beware of heard, a dreadful word, That looks like beard and sounds like bird.
And dead; it's said like bed, not bead; For goodness sake, don't call it deed! Watch out for meat and great and threat; They rhyme with suite and straight and debt.

English grammar is insanely simple without complications.
It makes me wonder how did other nations managed to naturally develop languages with complicated grammar.

False friend type of things

Situations in which English has a similar rule to Dutch,
- but it's just slightly different so they get confused.
like time indicator only at end (or beginning) of sentence.

In Dutch you can say "I'll give you tomorrow a present",

which obviously sounds wrong in English. But many Dutchies miss that when starting out.

One grammar rule we follow but don’t really teach is order of adjectives,
order is “opinion-size-age-shape-color-origin-material-purpose”.
For instance, you could say “Great big old round blue Irish steel shovel” and you’d be fine, but if you said “Blue steel round big great old Irish shovel” you’d sound mad AskAmericans

I know that you can have a big red ball, but never a red big ball.
English adjective order is Opinion, Size, Age, Shape, Color, Origin, Material, Purpose.

I think a lot of learners have difficulty with articles,
especially when to use "zero article". way most verbs need "do-support" to make a question.
difference between simple present and continuous present.
Words whose intonation depends on whether they are used as verbs or nouns, e.g. project, desert, compound.

Stop.

Yeah no= no. No yeah= yes

These were not grammar rules examples:
Spelling:

English uses an alphabet that was designed to write Latin, not English;
- and because way many words are pronounced has changed over time, but spelling rarely has.
I before E except after C to be a pain because there are a plethora of words that make this rule redundant
like "real eyes realize real lies" and "through thorough thought"
- or "lead rhymes with read but read is said like lead" that makes English difficult, not grammar.

Pronunciation

English has several sounds that are relatively rare, such as "th" sounds and its "r" sound

Contextual interpretation
redundancies.

That’s when you state same word or phrase twice when you don’t need to.
Take your title for example.
There’s no need to use word “English” in 2nd sentence.
We already know that’s what you’re talking about.

Spelling

'i" before "e" except after "c". You mean rules like that?

obviously [.....] one of biggest things you need to understand about English language is how to identify a word and replicate it elsewhere.
For instance, your use of" Austrailia" proves to be quite poor grammar, as subreddit is called "Ask an Australian", and contains many instances of word "Australia". It is then, rather perplexing, that you would be incapable of spelling this word correctly, on account of how frequently it is used here.

.....
........

There is a reason that they don't directly teach Grammar in Australian schools any more.
They actually found that teaching grammar could lead to worse outcomes because it can be so confusing.

If this is accurate, then it makes sense why nobody in austrilia was able to answer this question or knew of any gramamr rules examples

This was my inital ask

Some people says learning english is hard. In english are there any basic, always needed, grammar rules that are complicated? Examples?
Basic grammar rules, that are always needed, and are complicated? Examples?
For Basic grammar rules (that are always needed)? I don't think there any?

A user rewrote my inital ask

with more correct grammar. Make of it what you will.
Hey Australia, some people say that learning English is hard. Are there any grammar rules that seem basic but are actually complicated? Do you have any examples?
What are some basic grammar rules that are always needed but are complicated? I can’t think of any.

Holy... smokes..

This is just way too much to copy
- https://www.reddit.com/AskUK/comments/j8f4f6/some_people_says_learning_english_is_hard_in/
Also way too much to copy...
- https://www.reddit.com/AskABrit/comments/j8f4sk/some_people_says_learning_english_is_hard_in/

Basic gramamr rules are when they always are absolutely needed for sufficient clarity when communicating
For examples there were non-grammar rules examples said by some users
If someone was able to make up grammar rules that would aid in relying to those users what are and are not grammar rules, then those grammar rules would qualify as sufficiently basic

Some people says learning english is hard. In english are there any basic grammar rules that are complicated? Examples?

Summary
Was looking for specific examples of basic grammar rules that were complicated
Or said by a user replying to a differenet user

They want to know if there are any basic, complicated rules.

I have a degree in linguistics, have taught ESOL for years and studied several languages at an introductory level. I have never seen anything that suggests to me that English is a difficult language to learn, compared to other languages.
Two grammar rules do come to mind that I think are common but also difficult/different compared to other languages.
English marks singular vs uncountable nouns:
A very common mistake with learners are mistakes like Car is more expensive than ring, correction being obviously to add a//my/that or another determiner. rule behind this is actually rather obscure and complicated: Singular countable nouns in argument position require determiners. It seems that this is done to mark out singular nouns from uncountable nouns, but in my experience, most languages don't have any such marking. My guess is that closely related European languages would.
English doesn't drop subject in finite clauses:
In most languages you could say sentences like am hungry or is raining, but not in English, you must say I am hungry or It is raining. French is only language I know that also doesn't drop subject in these clauses, I at least know that Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Russian, Thai, Vietnamese, Spanish, Portuguese, even an Inuit language I once studied... list goes on, all these languages drop subject.
I can think of one or two difficult things about pronunciation two but I'm guessing you mean syntax.

Verbs:

Many verbs are barely conjugated.
- For example, "to put" is same in present and past tense.
- Other verbs are called "strong verbs"
  - and have a very different form in past tense,
  - which can be confusing (for example, fight and fought).
- There are also a number of "phrasal verbs,"
  - which are a combination of a preposition and a verb.
  - For example, verbs "to run out of," "to run into," and "to run up" are all based on "to run," even though they don't actually refer to running

Verbs are same. Most follow predictable patterns, but then we have a variety that then completely break those rules and make up their own:
Regular verb: jump, jumps, jumped, did jump, had jumped, will jump, will be jumping
Irregular verb: sing, sings, sang, did sing, had sung, will sing, will be singing
Irregular verb: catch, catches, caught, did catch, had caught, will catch, will be catching.
All three of those use different rules to do exact same conjugation

James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on teacher
example refers to two students, James and John, who are required by an English test to describe a man who, in past, had suffered from a cold. John writes “ man had a cold” which teacher marks as being incorrect, while James writes correct “ man had had a cold.” Since James’ answer was right, it had had a better effect on teacher. sentence can be understood more clearly by adding punctuation and emphasis: James, while John had had “had”, had had “had had”; “had had” had had a better effect on teacher.

puncation counts as grammar rules

sentence Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo is grammatically correct...

Compare words dogs, dog's, and dogs'.
Although pronounced and written slightly differently,
there are five different meanings established by adding s:
"multiple dogs", "belonging to / of a dog", "belonging to / of multiple dogs", "dog is", and "dog has".

Prepositional phrases that are simply learned and internalized.
Pluralizing borrowed words like moose and octopus.
with plural verb tense when noun comes before a phrase with a singular noun.
Irregular verbs

Here’s a poem that illustrates rules that are quickly broken:
Linguistic humor, English lesson
We'll begin with box, and plural is boxes; But plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.
Then one fowl is goose, but two are called geese, Yet plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice, Yet plural of house is houses, not hice.
If plural of man is always called men, Why shouldn't plural of pan be called pen?
cow in plural may be cows or kine, But plural of vow is vows, not vine.
I speak of my foot and show you my feet, If I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth, and a whole set are teeth, Why shouldn't plural of booth be called beeth?
If singular is this and plural is these, Why shouldn't plural of kiss be named kese?
Then one may be that, and three may be those, Yet plural of hat would never be hose;
We speak of a brother, and also of brethren, But though we say mother, we never say methren.
masculine pronouns are he, his and him, But imagine feminine she, shis, and shim!
So our English, I think, you all will agree, Is craziest language you ever did see.
I take it you already know Of tough and bough and cough and dough? Others may stumble, but not you, On hiccough, thorough, slough, and through?
Well done! And now you wish, perhaps To learn of less familiar traps?
Beware of heard, a dreadful word, That looks like beard and sounds like bird.
And dead; it's said like bed, not bead; For goodness sake, don't call it deed! Watch out for meat and great and threat; They rhyme with suite and straight and debt.

English grammar is insanely simple without complications.
It makes me wonder how did other nations managed to naturally develop languages with complicated grammar.

False friend type of things

Situations in which English has a similar rule to Dutch,
- but it's just slightly different so they get confused.
like time indicator only at end (or beginning) of sentence.

In Dutch you can say "I'll give you tomorrow a present",

which obviously sounds wrong in English. But many Dutchies miss that when starting out.

One grammar rule we follow but don’t really teach is order of adjectives,
order is “opinion-size-age-shape-color-origin-material-purpose”.
For instance, you could say “Great big old round blue Irish steel shovel” and you’d be fine, but if you said “Blue steel round big great old Irish shovel” you’d sound mad AskAmericans

I know that you can have a big red ball, but never a red big ball.
English adjective order is Opinion, Size, Age, Shape, Color, Origin, Material, Purpose.

I think a lot of learners have difficulty with articles,
especially when to use "zero article". way most verbs need "do-support" to make a question.
difference between simple present and continuous present.
Words whose intonation depends on whether they are used as verbs or nouns, e.g. project, desert, compound.

Stop.

Yeah no= no. No yeah= yes

These were not grammar rules examples:
Spelling:

English uses an alphabet that was designed to write Latin, not English;
- and because way many words are pronounced has changed over time, but spelling rarely has.
I before E except after C to be a pain because there are a plethora of words that make this rule redundant
like "real eyes realize real lies" and "through thorough thought"
- or "lead rhymes with read but read is said like lead" that makes English difficult, not grammar.

Pronunciation

English has several sounds that are relatively rare, such as "th" sounds and its "r" sound

Contextual interpretation
redundancies.

That’s when you state same word or phrase twice when you don’t need to.
Take your title for example.
There’s no need to use word “English” in 2nd sentence.
We already know that’s what you’re talking about.

Spelling

'i" before "e" except after "c". You mean rules like that?

obviously [.....] one of biggest things you need to understand about English language is how to identify a word and replicate it elsewhere.
For instance, your use of" Austrailia" proves to be quite poor grammar, as subreddit is called "Ask an Australian", and contains many instances of word "Australia". It is then, rather perplexing, that you would be incapable of spelling this word correctly, on account of how frequently it is used here.

.....
........

There is a reason that they don't directly teach Grammar in Australian schools any more.
They actually found that teaching grammar could lead to worse outcomes because it can be so confusing.

If this is accurate, then it makes sense why nobody in austrilia was able to answer this question or knew of any gramamr rules examples

This was my inital ask

Some people says learning english is hard. In english are there any basic, always needed, grammar rules that are complicated? Examples?
Basic grammar rules, that are always needed, and are complicated? Examples?
For Basic grammar rules (that are always needed)? I don't think there any?

A user rewrote my inital ask

with more correct grammar. Make of it what you will.
Hey Australia, some people say that learning English is hard. Are there any grammar rules that seem basic but are actually complicated? Do you have any examples?
What are some basic grammar rules that are always needed but are complicated? I can’t think of any.

Holy... smokes..

This is just way too much to copy
- https://www.reddit.com/AskUK/comments/j8f4f6/some_people_says_learning_english_is_hard_in/
Also way too much to copy...
- https://www.reddit.com/AskABrit/comments/j8f4sk/some_people_says_learning_english_is_hard_in/

Basic gramamr rules are when they always are absolutely needed for sufficient clarity when communicating
For examples there were non-grammar rules examples said by some users
If someone was able to make up grammar rules that would aid in relying to those users what are and are not grammar rules, then those grammar rules would qualify as sufficiently basic

Ærsk: The Phonology and Etymological Orthography of a Nordic West Germanic language

For ad werþe zen nýe Mannen, bez mann hæbbe allhjarted.
[ɸɔɾ ɑ ˈɰɛrːs̪ə ʃɲ̩ ˈnœʏ̯ːjə ˈmɑnːn̩ bəʃ ˈmɑnː ˈʃæbːə ˌɑlːˈʃɑrːtə]
for to become-inf the.m.sg new-def.m.sg Manne-the.m.sg be.fut.sg man.sg have-inf all-heart-def.n.sg
"To become God, you have to walk in everyone's shoes."
- Erish proverb

Erish (ærsk), an a posteriori West Germanic artlang, isn't the first constructed language I've worked on, but it is the first one I can say has come to a point where it is presentable. The concept is that, in the conworld, Erish arises from Proto-West Germanic nearby North Germanic languages as they arise from Proto-Norse, and is still in a sort of sprachbund with them. Intelligibility, particularly in speech, is hampered by Erish's own innovations, especially phonologically.
Here, I would like to provide a summary of the closest thing to a standard Erish pronunciation, as well as an account of the orthography, as its depth tells a bit about the changes that Erish has undergone. With each, I'll give a snippet about the goals I had going into them, as well as feedback questions I myself have - Erish is and will always be a work-in-progress. I am greatly indebted to a variety of resources, so I will provide several of them at the end of this post and the others that may follow it, as well as a concluding gloss.

Phonology

Most Erish speakers simply use their own dialects when speaking, up to and including the King or Queen. The pronunciation taught to foreigners, as well as the one used in national broadcasting, is that of Hamnstead, which was the city where radio broadcasting first developed in Erishland, and which is still a center of national media. The Hamnstead dialect is a Western dialect close enough to Southern dialects that its phonology is sort of a mixture of the two groups, plus its own quirks.
Goals
Personally, this phonology is my attempt at creating one reminiscent of the older stages of Germanic languages, but which feels plausibly modern and plausible in a place where North Germanic contact and influence continues into present. A bit of a summary and highlights of what that means:

The vowels, especially as phonemes, are not too dissimilar from contemporary and historic relatives, as Germanic languages were and are known for their many vowels.
- Hamnstead Erish doesn't have the /ɵ,ʉː/ of Southern Erish dialects, but the realization of /eː,øː,oː/ is similar to the Norwegian and Old Norse diphthongs. They even sort of correspond, but with the asterisk that they also correspond to Norwegian /iː,yː,ʉː/ and /eː,øː,oː/.
The consonants may seem more akin to Spanish than Swedish, though in my view, it's a blend of the latter and Gothic. I do give props to the interpretation of Spanish /ɾ/ being ungeminated / for Erish /'s allophony, though.
- Word-initial /ɕ,j,ɧ/ in Swedish corresponds to /t͡ʃ,ʝ,ʃ/ in Erish; /ʝ/ is similar phonetically to Old English /j/. However, one word with Erish initial /ʝ/ also corresponds to Swedish /h/; initial /ʃ/ also corresponds to many Swedish /h/'s, and even a few /d/'s.
Many of the apparent archaisms are actually re-innovations. Why cling to an old way of pronunciation when a change closer to present day can plausibly re-introduce something similar?
- Case in point: Is the [β] allophone of /b/ you lenited decades ago hard to distinguish from the /v/ you and your neighboring languages have had for centuries? Just merge /v/ with /b/!
The only notable phonological archaisms of Hamnstead Erish, to my knowledge, are that there is still a short /æ/ from i-umlauted /a/ (something uncommon even among Erish dialects), and that Proto-Germanic *h is still pronounced as /x/ where it hasn't merged with other phonemes.
- There's /ɣ/ as well, but Dutch and Low German also preserve it. It's also a bit misleading, since /ɣ/ is actually /ɰ/. The /ɣ/ transcription is used for consistency with what otherwise varies between /ɣ/, /ɰ/, and /w/ between dialects.

Vowels
Hamnstead Erish has a rather bland vowel inventory for an Erish dialect. About the only notable feature, phonemically speaking, is that there is still a short /æ/ distinct from /ɛ/, though that's typical of Western dialects. Phonetically, though, the story's a bit more complicated - Hamnstead Erish is amongst the few dialects that can be argued to, in some limited way, preserve most of the original Old Erish diphthongs, and has re-innovated a very limited form of allophonic u-umlaut.

	Front unrounded	Front rounded	Back
Close	ɪ • iː	ʏ • yː	ʊ • uː
Mid	ɛ • eː	œ • øː	ɔ • oː
Open	æ • æː		ɑ • ɑː

The short vowels are phonetic monophthongs
- The close vowels are near-close [ɪ,ʏ,ʊ]
- The mid-front vowels, especially /ɛ/, are mid-front [ɛ̝,œ̝]; /œ/ may also be open-mid [œ̝]
  - /ɛ/ in unstressed syllables is generally [ə], though broadcasters tend towards using an [ɛ̠]
- The mid-back vowel is either open-mid [ɔ] or, less often, mid [ɔ̝]
  - In unstressed syllables, it may be realized as a retracted, raised [ɞ̟˔], but this is far less common than the [ə] realization of /ɛ/. This may have to do with unstressed /ɔ/ always being morphologically associated with some marked feature, namely the feminine gender, neuter plural, and plural subject of the past tense.
- The open front vowel may be near-open [æ] or open [a]
- The open back vowel in regular syllables may vary between completely unrounded open back [ɑ], or a very weakly rounded [ɑ̜]
  - /ɑ/ is fully rounded to [ɒ] if a following syllable contains /ɔ,ʊ/, or the allophone [ɒ]
The long vowels /iː,uː/ are phonetic monophthongs [iː,uː]
/ɑː/ is phonetically a monophthong, but may be raised [ɑ̝ː], and follows the allophonic rounding pattern of its short counterpart
All other long vowels are realized as diphthongs
- The mid-vowels /eː,øː,oː/ are realized as closing diphthongs [ɛɪ̯ː,œʏ̯ː,ɔʊ̯ː], or [eɪ̯ː,øʏ̯ː,oʊ̯ː]
- /yː,æː/ are realized as backing diphthongs [yʉ̯ː,æɐ̯ː]

Consonants
Hamnstead Erish, like most Erish dialects, has a consonant inventory that is phonemically similar to the Nordic languages, but the allophony of these consonants is less so. Voiced stops regularly lenit to approximants that devoice and fricate word-finally; this leads to the notorious "Erish hiss". Notable aspects of Hamnstead's phonology are the merger of /ʂ/ and /ɕ/ into /ʃ/, a change which is common but still absent in Southern dialects, and that /ɣ/ is a velar approximant, instead of the labiovelar common to Western dialects.

	Vclss. labial	Vcd. labial	Vclss. coronal	Vcd. coronal	Vclss. palatal	Vcd. palatal	Vclss. velar	Vcd. velar
Nasal		m		n		ɲ		ŋ
Stops	p	b	t	d	t͡ʃ	(d͡ʒː)	k	(gː)
Cntnts.	f	(β)	s	(ð)	ʃ	ʝ	x	ɣ
Laterals				l		ʎ
Trill				r

The nasals are generally realized as [m,n,ɲ̟,ŋ], with the palatal and nasal being inherently geminate. Before a coronal obstruent, they are typically realized as [ɱ,n̪,ɲ̟,ŋ].
- After a syllable initial voiceless obstruent, /n,ɲ/ are voiceless [n̥,ɲ̟̊].
- Unstressed, word-final /ɛm,ɛn/ are commonly realized as syllabic [m̩,n̩].
  - Unstressed sequences of /ʃɛn/ and sometimes /t͡ʃɛn/ may be realized as [ʃɲ̩,t͡ʃɲ̩]
Similar to many other Germanic languages, the voiceless stops /p,t,t͡ʃ,k/ are realized as aspirated [pʰ,t̪ʰ,t͡ʃʰ,kʰ] in stressed onsets if they are not preceded by a sibilant.
The voiced stops /b,d/ are plosive [b,d̪] if they are morpheme initial, geminated, or post-nasal. Elsewhere, they lenit to the approximants [β̞, ð̞], which devoice and spirantize word-finally to /f,s/.
- The process of /d/ to /s/, in tandem with /ʝ/ to /ʃ/, is a well-known feature of Erish phonology. Uneducated Erish speakers using other languages may apply it, making the "Erish hiss".
The voiced continuants /ʝ,ɣ/ are approximants [j,ɰ]; when geminated, they harden to stops [d͡ʒː,gː]. Similar to the voiced stops, the approximants devoice and spirantize to /ʃ,x/ word-finally.
In emphatic speech, or speech mimicking Eastern dialects, the phonemic and allophonic voiced continuants may be pronounced as [β,ð,ʝ,ɣ], though never with the same frication as the voiceless continuants.
The voiceless continuants /f,s,ʃ,x/ are consistently realized with strong constriction as [ɸ,s̪,ʃ,x].
- Some dialects have free variation in the realization of /f/ from [ɸ] to [f], and a few consistently realize it as the labiodental /f/.
- After a voiced stop, /f/ is realized as [v], which usually has less frication than the voiceless allophone, but is not an approximant like the phonemic voiced continuants.
The coronal lateral /l/ is normally realized as [l], but when in contact with /t,d,s/, it is laminal denti-alveolar [l̪].
- After a voiceless consonant, it is voiceless [l̥~l̪̊].
The palatal lateral /ʎ/ is a traditional phoneme of Erish, but younger generations outside of the South have begun to merge it with /ʝ/. It is realized as an alveolo-palatal [ʎ̟].
- After a voiceless consonant, it is voiceless [ʎ̥˖].
The trill / is realized as a full trill morpheme-initially or when geminated; in other contexts, it is an alveolar tap [ɾ].
- After a voiceless consonant, it is voiceless [ɾ̥].
- Unstressed, word-final /ɛ is commonly realized as [ɐ].
As described throughout, the coronal obstruents /t,d,s/ are dental [t̪,d̪,s̪]. Other dialects may use an alveolar realization [t,d,s].
- Before /k/, /s/ is usually alveolar [s].
The palatal and velar obstruents /t͡ʃ,ʃ,ʝ,k,ɣ,x/ are all allophonically rounded to [Ḱʷ,Kʷ] before rounded vowels.

Phonotactics
Valid onset consonants:

Zero consonant
All consonant phonemes other than /ɲ/ and /ŋ/
Obstruent + nasal: sm, sn, ʃɲ, kn, xn
Obstruent + continuant: tf, df, sf
Obstruent + lateral: pl, bl, fl, sl, ʃʎ, kl, ɣl, xl
Obstruent + trill: pr, br, fr, tr, dr, sr, kr, ɣr, xr
Continuant + stop: sp, st, sk
Continuant + stop + lateral: spl
Continuant + stop + trill: spr, str, skr

Valid coda consonants:

Zero consonant
Consonant: m, n, p, t, t͡ʃ, k, f, s, ʃ, x, l, r
All consonant phonemes as geminates
Nasal + nasal: mn, ɲn, ŋn
Nasal + obstruent: mp, nt, nd, ns, ɲt͡ʃ, ɲʃ, ŋk
Obstruent + obstruent: sp, pt, ft, st, ʃt, kt, xt, ps, fs, ts, ks, xs, sk
Lateral + nasal: lm
Lateral + obstruent: lp, lt, ld, ʎt͡ʃ, lk, lf, ls, ʎʃ, lx
Trill + nasal: rm, rn
Trill + obstruent: rp, rf, rt, rd, rs, rt͡ʃ, rʃ, rk, rx
Trill + lateral: rl

Valid medial consonants:

All consonant onsets and codas above, excluding zero consonants
- If hiatus occurs, /j/ is inserted if the first vowel is front; if back, /ɣ/ is inserted.
Nasal + obstruent: mb
Lateral + obstruent: lb, lɣ
Trill + nasal: rŋ
Trill + obstruent: rb, rʝ, rɣ

All stressed syllables are inherently heavy - if there is no long vowel, the first consonant to follow is geminated. Neither long vowels nor geminates may occur in unstressed syllables.
Prosody
Like most other Germanic languages, the most common syllable to be stressed is the first (and often only) of a given word. Loanwords can follow different patterns, but a rule of thumb is that the syllable before the last consonant of a root is the one to be stressed.
Feedback Questions
Questions I personally have are:

For those familiar with the phonologies of older Germanic languages as well as Proto-Germanic, does the consonant system seem like a good "modern version" of that type of phonology?
Is it a good idea to leave all long vowels other than /ɑː,iː,uː/ as phonetic diphthongs? Would it take a short time before the diphthong allophones become phonemes of their own, or would they remain stable?
I'm fairly comfortable with /ʝ/ devoicing and spirantizing to /ʃ/ word-finally because there are direct attestations of such final-obstruent devoicing, but is it plausible for /d/ to similarly go to /s/?
Does anybody have a resource that consistently gives phonemic transcriptions of Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish words, especially regarding pitch-accent/stod?

Orthography & History

Erish is written with the standard 26 letters of the Latin alphabet and the additional letters þ, æ, and œ. Unfortunately, pronunciation cannot be succinctly described for Hamnstead Erish because the orthography is fairly etymological, essentially reflecting the pronunciation of Old Erish with a few simplifications and updates. It is, though, fairly regular, and the hope of Jugar Raskson, the father of modern Erish orthography, was that the written language would let as many people as possible derive their own pronunciation from the spelling.
Goals
Erish orthography is essentially fighting two battles: the battle to modernize spelling and keep the rules as regular as possible, and the battle to keep important cultural and religious texts from the Old Erish period as intelligible as possible. I've looked at Icelandic and Faroese for inspiration, but also incorporated principles from languages with less orthographic depth.

As will be seen, Erish orthography is more than willing to keep native spellings a millennium old. It is less concerned about loanwords, which may be mangled to keep regularity.
With no small amount of resistance from traditionalists, many old graphemes have either been dropped or restricted in usage. Joches "horses", for example, used to be spelled johves.
The use of the letter k for /k,t͡ʃ/ is actually fairly recent; the traditional letter in Erish was c, and this is still seen in the basic long forms of k, g, and h being ck, cg, and ch.
- Similarly, the use of w is a modernism; v was used for both itself and w, and this is still seen in the spellings of Cv clusters.
Erish tries as much as it can to avoid diacritics and special characters, so it makes use of every letter of the Latin alphabet as a regular part of its orthography.
- The accented vowels are there because digraphed vowels would suggest vowels in hiatus or perhaps even long vowels.
- The letters æ and œ are used along with þ more or less out of in-universe tradition.

Vowels
The following table presents the pronunciation of vowel graphemes in Erish. Note that the "jV" digraphs are only pronounced in this way if the j is word-initial or can soften a preceding consonant:

Letter(s)	a	e, í, eì, aì	i	o, á, ú, aù, où	u, ó	y	æ, já	œ, jó, jú, ý, oì, eù
Short	/ɑ/	/ɛ/	/ɪ/	/ɔ/	/ʊ/	/ʏ/	/æ/	/œ/
Long	/ɑː/	/eː/	/iː/	/oː/	/uː/	/yː/	/æː/	/øː/

The long vowels are only used if the vowel is stressed and followed by no more than a single consonant; when there is a long vowel before multiple consonants, an apostrophe is inserted after the first consonant, as in gód't "good (n.)" /ˈɣuːst/. In all other cases, the short vowels are used.
- Several common grammatical words are pronounced in common speech with a short vowel, such as jis "ye" [jɪs], mostly because they are unstressed.
The grave accented letters ì and ù are used to represent the second element of potential diphthongs in Erish dialects that arose from loanwords. In Hamnstead Erish, they are simply (phonemically) monophthongs.
Because it is impossible for vowels to stand in hiatus, any sequence where two vowels stand in hiatus, such as fríen "free" /ˈfreːʝɛn/, is treated as though a g stood between the two vowels.
The accented letters correspond to Old Erish /aː,iː,oː,uː,yː/, which shifted during the Middle Erish period. In the Hamnstead dialect, /aː,oː/ shifted to /ɔ~oː,ʊ~uː/.
- /iː,uː,yː/ merged with the Old Erish diphthongs /ɛi̯,ɔu̯,œy̯/, and then later monophthongized to /ɛ~eː,ɔ~oː,œ~øː/
- The demonstrative pronouns zó "this, that (f.)", zád "this, that (n.)", zós "these, those (f.)", zóm "these, those (dat.)" are written with acute accents, but their sound value is that of the unaccented letter. This is done to distinguish them from the definite article.
The Old Erish glides /jaː,joː,juː/ became /æː,øː,yː/, so long as the /j/ didn't palatalize the preceding consonant and wasn't word-initial; this /yː/ would go through the process described above,

Consonants
To keep Erish consonants simple, and as allophony has already been covered, their transcription here is phonemic. In educational materials for Erish, consonants are generally divided into four groups, plain, strong, weak, and the letter g, which are grouped based on whether and how they can soften.
Basic rules about consonants include:

Consonants are long if they are not word-initial, and they are doubled, their grapheme is composed of more than one letter, or they precede another consonant without an intervening apostrophe.
- The one exception is qu, which is treated like a short consonant for both consonant and vowel length.
Several consonants can also become fricatives word-finally if they are short.
Before another d, s, t, frication may also occur, with the resulting consonant, in line with pronunciation rules, being long or short.

Plain consonants
Plain consonants are so-called because they cannot soften under any circumstances.

Letter(s)	Hard	Fricative
b	/b/ binde "to bind" /ˈbɪnːdɛ/	/f/ lab "lab(oratory)" /ˈlɑːf/
f	/f/ faþer "father" /ˈfɑːsɛ
m	/m/ móte "must" /ˈmuːtɛ/
ng	/ŋ/ wing "wing" /ˈɣɪŋː/
p	/p/ pá "on" /ˈpoː/
r	/ rotte "rat" /ˈrɔtːɛ/
v	/b/ virus "virus" /ˈbiːrʊs/	/f/ livte "lived" /ˈlɪfːtɛ/

V may also represent /f/ after a consonant, such as in tves "two" /ˈtfeːs/, as least in Hamnstead Erish. Erish dialects generally vary between this v representing /f/, /w/ (the original Old Erish value), or /x/.
- V otherwise reflects non-initial instances of Old Erish /f/, which was realized as [v], and later became its own phoneme. When /b/ began to be lenited to [β] around the 1700s, this facilitated the merger of /v/ with /b/ (as well as the shift of /f/ to [ɸ]).

Strong consonants
Strong consonants are "strong" enough it takes a j or z to soften them. Because strong consonants are long when softened and non-initial, they lack soft fricative forms. They include the coronal consonants which got palatalized to retroflex consonants, though z was retroflex for most of Erish history. The retroflex spellings tend not to occur in modern loanwords unless Henskland adopts a retroflex form; it's the only Land left that hasn't merged the retroflex consonants with the palatals.

Letter(s)	Hard	Soft	Fricative
d	/d/ dœr "door" /ˈdøː	/ʝ/ bedje "to ask" /ˈbɛʝːɛ/	/s/ sæd "seed" /ˈsæːs/
l	/l/ láte "to let" /ˈloːtɛ/	/ʎ/ ljúht "light" /ˈʎɔxːt/
n	/n/ naht "night" /ˈnɑxːt/	/ɲ/ hænje "to hang" /ˈʃæɲːɛ/
s	/s/ synge "to sing" /ˈsʏŋːɛ/	/ʃ/ sjelv "self" /ˈʃɛlːf/
st	/st/ stóren "big" /ˈstuːrɛn/	/ʃ/ stjarne "star" /ˈʃɑrːnɛ/
t	/t/ sten "stone" /ˈsteːn/	/t͡ʃ/ sitje "to sit" /ˈsɪt͡ʃːɛ/
z	/ʃ/ meze "more" /ˈmeːʃɛ/
þ	/s/ þing "thing" /ˈsɪŋː/	/ʃ/ þjúv "thief" /ˈʃoːf/

In the definite article -ed as well as core grammatical words like ged "it" /ˈʝeː/, zad "the; that (n.)" /ˈʃɑː/, and gvad "what" /ˈɣɑː/, d is silent.
D does not fricate after l or r, as in hald "hold (imp.)" /ˈxɑlːd/ and gard "farm" /ˈɣɑrːs/, but does after t, as in wlet'de "searched" /ˈɣleːstɛ/
The use of j or z for softening strong consonants is largely predictable.
- J is only used at the beginning of words, whilst z is normally used word-medially.
- Word-medial palatalizing j is an indication that the verb - and it is always a verb - has an irregular conjugation that involves hardening (depalatalization).
  - J, however, is always used after l or n; lz and nz indicate /ʎʃ,ɲʃ/
Lj and nj can only soften initially if they are word-initial, or part of the onsets hlj, hnj, slj, or snj.
Before k, n is pronounced /ŋ/, as in tank "tank (container)" /ˈtaŋːk/
- Before c, sk, tz, or z, it is pronounced as /ɲ/ as in lunc "lunch" /ˈlʊɲːt͡ʃ/
S softens before lj and nj to /ʃ/, such as in snjó "snow" /ˈʃɲuː/
T fricates before d, tt, or apostrophized t, as in hlot'de "allotted" /ˈxloːstɛ/
Z reflects Old Erish /ʂ/, which was the main reflex of Proto-Germanic *z in Old Erish (some earlier instances did get devoiced to /s/ instead).
- /z/ never occurred word-initially in Proto-Germanic, but it did in Old Erish, such as in zat "the; that (n.)" (whence modern Erish zad). This developed from some instances where a weakly stressed /θ/ got voiced to [ð], which soon assibilated to /z/, which later devoiced to /ʂ/.
Þ reflects Old Erish /s/, the main reflex of Proto-Germanic *þ in Old Erish. Around the late 900s, the original dental fricative /θ/ assibilated to /s/, but remained contrastive with /s̺/, the reflex of Proto-Germanic *s. Although this contrast was lost by the 1400s, it is still reflected in Erish orthography.

Weak consonants
Weak consonants are "weak" enough that vowels can soften them in addition to j; in instances where a soft pronunciation is used, it is either because a hard letter is used, or because there is a v "shielding" them. They include the reflexes of the Old Erish velar consonants /x,k,sk/, as well as the labiovelars /xʷ,kʷ,skʷ/. The basic principle governing their softening is that they do so before certain vowels initially, and after other vowels elsewhere. If neither of these conditions are met, they use a hard pronunciation. It is to be noted that, barring one exception, acute accented letters have the same effects as their unaccented counterparts, and so they are not treated seperately here (grave accented vowels never soften a consonant).

Letter(s)	Conditions or example	Softens initially	Softens elsewhere	Hard
h (short), ch (long)	Conditions	to /ʃ/ before e, i, y, æ, œ	to /ʃ/ after e, i, y, æ, œ	/x/ in all other conditions
	Examples	himmel "sky" /ˈʃɪmːɛl/	reht "justice" /ˈrɛʃːt/	hús "house" /ˈxoːs/
k (short), ck (long)	Conditions	to /t͡ʃ/ before e, i, y, æ, œ	to /t͡ʃ/ after i, y	/k/ in all other conditions
	Examples	kyng "king" /ˈt͡ʃʏŋː/	rík "realm" /ˈreːt͡ʃ/	bók "book" /ˈbuːk/
sk (short and long)	Conditions	to /ʃ/ before e, i, y, æ, œ	to /ʃ/ after a (not á), e, i, y, æ, œ, or a consonant	/sk/ in all other conditions
	Examples	skíne "to shine" /ˈʃeːnɛ/	fisk "fish" /ˈfɪʃː/	busk "bush" /ˈbʊsːk/

The use of h to represent /ʃ/ is more or less confined to native Erish vocabulary. Sk is far more common in loanwords.
Similarly to s, h may also soften before lj and nj, as in hnjóse "to sneeze" /ˈʃɲuːse/
Soft non-initial k is confined to native Erish vocabulary, as Eastern dialects failed to palatalize it in those conditions. Instead, c and zk are used in loanwords.
The behavior of sk palatalizing after a but not á is because sk palatalized non-initially unless a back vowel preceded (or, technically, followed). Though in Old Erish they were phonemically /a,aː/, /a/ was not a back vowel (most likely being [ä]), but /aː/ was, being either [ɒː] or [ɔː].

Erish used to be far more inconsistent in representing when exceptions to these conditions occurred, but modern spelling is extremely regular in this regard. Soft consonants in instances where a hard consonant is expected are represented in different ways depending upon if they are initial, non-initial and short, or non-initial and long.

Desired soft consonant	Location and length	Grapheme(s)	Example
h /ʃ/	Initial	hj	hjarte "heart" /ˈʃɑrːtɛ/
	Non-initial and short	N/A
	Non-initial and long	hj (singular instance)	hlæhje "to laugh" /ˈxlæʃːɛ/
k /t͡ʃ/	Initial	kj	kjúe "to chew" /ˈt͡ʃoːɣɛ/
	Non-initial and short	c	koc "coach" /ˈkoːt͡ʃ/
	Non-initial and long	zk, rarely kj	þækje "to think" /ˈsæt͡ʃːɛ/
sk /ʃ/	Initial	skj	skjá "cloud" /ˈʃoː/
	Non-initial and short	N/A
	Non-initial and long	sc	broscyre "brochure" /ˈbrɔʃːʏ

The use of non-initial hj, kj is, similar to the strong consonants, a signal that the verb's conjugation is irregular and involves hardening.
Hj is an etymological grapheme that mostly occurs in native Erish vocabulary. Hlæhje "to laugh", is the only example in Erish of a non-initial hj.

Hard consonants are represented with similar treatments, with the grapheme depending upon whether the instance is word-initial, non-initial and short, or non-initial and long:

Desired hard consonant	Location and length	Grapheme(s)	Example
h /x/	Initial	hv	hvint "hint" /ˈxɪnːt/
	Non-initial and short	x	exo "echo" /ˈeːxɔ/
	Non-initial and long	hh, rarely hv	sehve "to see" /ˈsɛxːɛ/
k /k/	Initial	qu	quinne "woman" /ˈkɪnːɛ/
	Non-initial and short	qu	kliqu "clique" /ˈkliːk/
	Non-initial and long	kk, rarely kv	republikk "republic" /rɛpʊbˈlɪkː/
sk /sk/	Initial	squ	squeìt "(ice/roller) skate" /ˈskeːt/
	Non-initial and short	N/A
	Non-initial and long	squ	fresque "fresco" /ˈɸrɛsːkɛ/

Hv is irregularly used before a in native Erish vocabulary, such as in hval "whale" /ˈxɑːl/
Medial hv, kv have similar uses to the consonant plus j digraphs, indicating that the verb's conjugation is irregular and may result in softening.
The hv, kv, qu spellings are rooted in how Old Erish, in contrast to the rest of the West Germanic languages, never resolved labiovelars into /Kw/ sequences. Instead, these were preserved into Old Erish, and failed to palatalize. When they were lost as phonemes, they simply delabialized from /Kʷ/ to /K/, helping phonemicize the palatal allophones.

G-Consonants
The letter g is not the only consonant grapheme of the last group of Erish consonants, but the set is essentially used to indicate hardness and softness not unlike h, k, and sk. It is grouped by itself because it represents six phonemes and has less consistency in which graphemes are used to represent hardness and softness for those phonemes. In principle, g is just the voiced counter part to h, k, and sk, with the addendum that before nasals it has a nasal pronunciation that can be hard or soft; the fricativization it experiences is expectable because it is voiced.

Letter(s)	Conditions or example	Softens initially	Softens elsewhere	Hard
g (short), cg (long)	Regular conditions	to /ʝ/ before e, i, y, æ, or œ, and another vowel	to /ʝ/ after e, i, y, æ, or œ, and another vowel	/ɣ/ in all other regular conditions
	Regular examples	gæst "guest" /ˈʝæsːt/	weges "ways" /ˈɣeːʝɛs/	gá "to go" /ˈɣoː/
	Fricative conditions	N/A	to /ʃ/ between the vowels e, i, y, æ, and œ, and the end of a word or the consonants d, s, or t	to /x/ between all other vowels or l or r, and the end of a word or the consonants d, s, or t
	Fricative examples	N/A	ig "I" /ˈiːʃ/	dag "day" /ˈdɑːx/
	Nasal conditions	N/A	to /ɲ/ between the vowels e, i, y, æ, and œ, and n	to /ŋ/ between all other vowels or l or r, and n
	Nasal examples	N/A	regn "rain" /ˈrɛɲːn/	Ragnar /ˈraŋːnɑ

cg softens only if there is a preceding i or y, similar to k and ck.

Ideally, g should have a regular distribution of "soft in hard contexts" graphemes and "hard in soft contexts" graphemes, but the reality is that etymology means different graphemes are used in what should be regular contexts. Nonetheless, there aren't so many graphemes in use:

Desired consonants	Location and length	Grapheme(s)	Example
Soft g (/ʝ/, /ʃ/, /ɲ/)	Initial	j, gj (less common)	jorþ "earth" /ˈʝɔrːs/, gjos "they (f.)" /ˈʝoːs/
	Non-initial and short	j	garaj "garage" /ɣaˈrɑːʃ/
	Non-initial and long	zg, gj (rare)	brizg "bridge (game)" /ˈbrɪʝː/
Hard g (/ɣ/, /x/, /ŋ/)	Initial	w, gv	gvad "what" /ˈɣɑː/, west "west" /ˈɣɛsːt/
	Non-initial and short	w	intriw "intrigue" /ɪnˈtriːx/
	Non-initial and long	gg	rigg "rig" /ˈrɪɣː/

Gj is mostly confined to native Erish vocabulary, and is not particularly common initially, and even more so non-initially. As with other Cj graphemes, non-initial gj indicates irregular conjugation.
J is the main grapheme for representing soft-g in hard contexts, and g for representing regular soft-g, but there exceptions like Jesu "Jesus".
In native Erish vocabulary, gv is restricted to wh-words such as gvad "what", but it is regularly used in loanwords when the donor language has g, such as gverilja "guerrilla" /ɣɛˈrɪʎːa/.
- The wh-words in Erish were originally /xʷ/, but underwent the same vocalization as the third-person and demonstrative pronouns, making Old Erish have /ɣʷ/ as a marginal phoneme, until it delabialized during Middle Erish.
W is the main consonant used to represent initial hard-g in native Erish vocabulary, and is more rare with loanwords. However, it is mandatory in non-initial, short contexts, much like j.
- W was originally /w/ in Old Erish. It merged with /ɣ/ as a consequence of the fricative leniting to an approximant, effectively making /w/ first merge with /ɣʷ/, and then delabialize /ɣ/.
Similar to the situation with k, long /ɣː/ failed to palatalize in Eastern dialects, and so zg is used, even though the grapheme is redundant in Hamnstead Erish.

Feedback Questions
Questions I personally have are:

Does the type of spelling I have decently blend etymological orthographies like Icelandic and more phonemic ones? I recognize this is more an aesthetic question, but I'm interested in opinions.
- One area I wonder about in particular is whether j and w should be used for representing non-initial /ʝ/ and /ɣ/. In my mind, they make sense since they are representing approximants, but w strikes me as rather... odd.
Do the phonological developments seem like a good mixture of sharing some of the innovations that occurred in Norwegian and Swedish and Erish following its own path?
I know a sibilant like [ʐ] (the likely realization of Proto-West Germanic *z, if not Proto-Germanic *z) devoicing to /ʂ/ isn't abnormal. However, given how universal the change of /z/ to / was throughout the surviving Germanic languages, how plausible is it to have Erish do this?

Resources

This last section is dedicated to the resources I think have been most useful in the creation of Erish, and that are valuable to people looking to make a Germanic language, or even a conlang in general. I'm certain some of these sources will be familiar to many members of this sub, but they're there for those to whom they aren't:

Agee, A Glottometric Subgrouping of the Early Germanic Languages - This thesis provides a pretty good overview of how the Germanic languages developed at their earliest stages after Proto-Germanic. Even if you're not trying to make a Germanic language, I can't imagine that this wouldn't give you at least some ideas.
Index Diachronica - Index Diachronica is a good site in concept and mostly in implementation. If you want to search for a general to sometimes comprehensive idea of the phonological histories of languages, or how certain phonemes tend to change over time, this is a good place to stop by.
- I got a history of Proto-Norse to Old West Norse here, although I wound up having to directly go and sift through the """""human-readable""""" source because ID wasn't clear at times (and apparently misinterpreting at points). That's the major problem with ID - its sources or interpretation of those sources may be "sketch" or incomplete, to say the least.
Jackson Crawford - It's one thing to read internet articles, or even textbooks about old Germanic languages. It's another to have some sort of access on demand to somebody who can actually explain to laypeople an old Germanic language, much less its culture. I cannot recommend his channel enough as a starting and reference point for somebody interested in Germanic conlanging, especially if you're going for a (sort-of-)North Germanic language.
Ringe, A Linguistic History of English, vols. 1 & 2 - If you are looking for information about old Germanic languages, these are some of the best materials to look through for vocabulary, morphology, and phonology. Erish would not exist as it does without Ringe's reconstruction of Proto-West Germanic in Vol. 2, much less the far more consistent account of the phonological history of Northwest and West Germanic than is available on Wikipedia.
Simon Roper - Though I can't say Simon has been as much a resource for me as Dr. Crawford - and as Simon himself acknowledges, his field is archaeology, not linguistics - he still provides good material about the phonological history of English, and information about Old English.
Wikipedia - Wikipedia has articles about all manner of languages and their phonology, grammar, vocabulary, orthography, and so on (much less articles about those in and of themselves). Although obviously I've mainly relied on Germanic languages, I would be remiss to say that one should look exclusively at a particular family. Case in point, /d,ʝ/ devoicing and spirantizing to /s,ʃ/ was a feature inspired by Nahuatl.
Wiktionary - Wiktionary has multiple features which are extremely useful. Beyond a Proto-Germanic category and Germanic Swadesh list appendix, Wiktionary has an immensely handy feature where translations are often provided through individual senses of English words - anybody wanting to reduce relexing should take note.

Conclusion

It's been a long post, so I won't take up so much more space. Seeing as how it's a common enough translation in initial posts, though, I would like to provide the Lord's Prayer in Erish:
Written Erish:

Faþern osren, Hlárden gwen bez í Hjomn,
Be namen zín werþe heligende;
Be ríked zítt kome;
Be wiljo zí skehe pá jorþo zí som í Hjomn;
Be geve til oss í dag ossert daglige brod,
end forláte oss skuldostos osros sá som wid forláte osros skuldos;
End be bringe ick pá oss í fresnos, men frælse pá oss frá yvel.
Zítt bez ríked, end mahten end ero í œighedo.
Amen.

Hamnstead Erish pronunciation:

[ˈɸɑːs̪ɐn ˌɔs̪ɾn̩ ˈxl̥ɔrːd̪n̩ ɰn̩ bəʃ ˌɛɪ̯ ˈʃɔmːn]
[ˈbɛɪ̯ː ˈnɑːmn̩ ˌʃɛɪ̯n ˌɰɛɾs̪ə ˈʃɛɪ̯ːlɪjn̪̩d̪ə]
[ˈbɛɪ̯ː ˈrɛɪ̯ːt͡ʃə ˌʃɛt̪ ˈkʷʰoːmə]
[ˈbɛɪ̯ː ˈɰɪʎ̟ːɔ ˌʃɛɪ̯ ˈʃɛɪ̯ːʃə ˌpɔʊ̯ ˈjʷɔrːs̪ə ˌʃɛɪ̯ s̪ɔm ˌɛɪ̯ ˈʃɔmːn]
[ˈbɛɪ̯ː ˈjɛɪ̯ːβ̞ə ˌt̪il ˌɔs̪ ˌɛɪ̯ ˈd̪ɑːx ˌɔs̪ɐt̪ ˈd̪ɑːxˌlijə ˈbɾoːs̪]
[n̪̩d̪ ɸɔɾˈlɔʊ̯t̪ə ˌɔs̪ ˈs̪kʷʊl̪ːd̪ɔs̪t̪ɔs̪ ˌɔs̪ɾɔs̪ ˌs̪ɔʊ̯ s̪ɔm ˌɰi ˈɔs̪ːɾɔs̪ ˈskʷʊl̪ːd̪ɔs̪]
[n̪̩d̪ ˈbɛɪ̯ː ˈbɾɪŋːə ˌɪt͡ʃ pɔ ˌɔs̪ ˌɛɪ̯ ˈɸɾ̥eːs̪ˌnɔʊ̯s̪ mn̩ ˈɸɾ̥æl̪ːs̪ə pɔ ˌɔs̪ ˌɸɾ̥ɔʊ̯ ˈyʉ̯ːβ̞l̩]
[ˌʃɛt̪ bəʃ ˈrɛɪ̯ːt͡ʃə n̪̩d̪ ˈmɑxːt̪n̩ n̪̩d̪ ˈɛɪ̯ːɾɔ ˌɛɪ̯ ˈœʏ̯ːˌjiˌʃːɛɪ̯s̪ɔ]
[ˈɑːmɛ̠n]

Gloss:

father-the.m.sg our.incl-m.sg lord-the.m.sg who.m.sg.dir be.fut.sg in Heaven
be.fut.sbjv name-the.m.sg thy.m.sg become-inf sanctify-ptcp.prs.m.sg
be.fut.sbjv realm-the.n.sg thy.n.sg come-inf
be.fut.sbjv will-the.f.sg thy.f.sg happen-inf on earth-the.f.sg thy.f.sg as in Heaven
be.fut.sbjv give-inf to us.incl.dat in day our.incl-n.sg daily-def.n.sg bread
and forgive-inf us.incl.dat guilt-the.f.pl our.incl-f.pl so as we.excl forgive-inf our.incl-f.pl guilt-pl
and be.fut.sbjv bring-inf not acc us.incl.acc in temptation but free-inf acc us.incl.acc from evil
thine be.fut.sg realm-the.n.sg and power-the.m.sg and glory-the.f.sg in eternity-the.f.sg
amen

English translation:

Our father, the Lord who will always be in Heaven,
May it always be that thy name sanctifies itself;
May it always be that thy kingdom comes;
May it always be that thy will comes upon your Earth as in Heaven;
May it always be that thou givest us our daily bread,
and forgive our guilts for us, as we forgive our guilts;
And may it always be that thou dost not bring us into temptation but free us from evil.
Thine will always be the kingdom, and the power and the glory in eternity.
Amen.

Notes about the translation:

In essence, bez in this Prayer is used for "(will always) be...", and be for "(may it always be that)...". Bez and be are the future tense forms of weze ("to be") (the only verb with them), but this tense is often gnomic, indicating a timelessness and fundamental-fact-of-the-universeness.
- Be is used here as a relic subjunctive with optative mood. In Erish, it is often used in prayers - Christian, Ardist (the native Erish religion), or otherwise - as a sort of "polite asking".
Hjomn "(Christian) Heaven" in lines 1 and 4 is, similar to many Erish terms relating to Christianity, a loanword from Old Anglic (English) heofon, and is a doublet of Erish himmel ("sky")
Werþe heligende (lit. "become sanctifying") in line 2 is an analytic mediopassive voice construction, similar in function to the -s suffix of North Germanic languages.
When the consistently inclusive "we" (Christians and non-Christians) throughout the prayer changes to the exclusive wid in line 6, it indicates that Christians forgive everybody's guilts.
- Christianity never really took off in Erishland beyond the Allamunnic minority, and "wasn't particularly cared for" until recently.
Pá "(up)on" is used here as a direct object marker for "us" in line 7. In Erish, pá is used for animate direct objects.

english irregular verbs conjugation list video

What is an irregular verb? It is a verb that does not follow the common conjugation pattern. The English language has at least 200 irregular verbs. As a reminder, to conjugate a verb in the past tense in English, you have to add "ed" at the end. For example : "to drive" => "She drived" How to memorize irregular verbs? To learn the verbs we advise you to use the four-column table above. Irregular verbs do not follow the standard patterns of conjugation. The following table contains the most common irregular verbs in modern English. Some verbs have regular and irregular conjugations; alternatives are separated by slashes (/). This list contains all the irregular verbs of the English language. Each entry includes the base or bare infinitive first, followed by the simple past (V2) form and the past participle (V3) form. Taking some time to make sentences using each irregular verb form will help you to use these verbs correctly when speaking and writing. The-conjugation.com will help you to correctly conjugate more than 6,500 English verbs. To quickly find a verb, whatever its voice, mode (indicative, conditional, imperative...) or tense, type its infinitive or conjugated mode into our search engine. The-conjugation.com. Menu. Other languages available English French Italian Spanish Portuguese German. English Irregular Verbs. Contact. English Irregular Verbs. Verb Simple Past Past Participle. to abide abode / abided abode / abided / abidden. to alight alit / alighted alit / alighted. to arise arose arisen. e-verbs.com is a website realized by teachers. It was created to facilitate english irregular verbs apprenticeship. Pupils can work in autonomy with their own irregular verbs list. Three exercises modes allow to get acquainted gradually. More and more schools use this website to learn the irregular verbs. Do not hesitate to join us! An English Irregular Verb List — Free PDF Download Improve your English by learning and memorizing the common irregular verbs in English below. If you have any questions about studying English, please contact us. Conjugate an English verb with Reverso Conjugator at all tenses: indicative, past tense, participle, present perfect, gerund. See list of irregular verbs in English and conjugation models. EnglishClub: Learn English: Vocabulary: Word Classes: Verbs: Irregular Irregular Verbs List. This is a list of some irregular verbs in English. Of course, there are many others, but these are the more common irregular verbs. You can test yourself with these fun irregular verbs quizzes. There are about 200 English irregular verbs, many of them very common. Most of the irregular verbs conjugate without following the rules in simple past and past participle. There are irregular verbs that have the simple past identical with the past participle, both very different from the infinitive: sell- sold - sold.

english irregular verbs conjugation list top

Irregular verbs in English - YouTube

http://efl-fle-chezvous.monsite-orange.fr/ Irregular verbs in English are very common. In this lesson, you will learn the base form, past simple form and past participle of the most common irregular v... Estudia todas las lecciones en orden: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL93iwVYt7GG7OMmJZclmGo0ekKOzTi5o- ️📚 ️📚 ️📚Si deseas ser el primero en ... 😃 $1 Grammar E-Books: http://bit.ly/1-Dollar-Grammar-EBooks ️ Advanced English Grammar Course: http://bit.ly/AdvancedEnglishGrammarCourse ️ Free E-Book: 500... This Video will help you to know the conjugation of Verb and present past and past participle forms of verb forms, This Video is very helpful for kids, stude... Learning irregular verbs in English can be a long and difficult process. To help you with it, I will teach you how to break them into categories with recogni... Irregular verbs. We know—they're scary. Especially in English, which has a lot of them. And there are no shortcuts to learning them; they just have to be mem... 100 Most common English irregular verbs, list of irregular verbs in English.This is a list of Irregular Verbs. I will read the base form, the simple past ten... 101 Irregular Verbs in the Past Tense in English with example sentences.You will hear a verb in its base form (infinitive without "TO" e.g. find, write) and ...

English verb conjugation, irregular verbs - Reverso

english irregular verbs conjugation list

english irregular verbs conjugation list - win

Medieval Scandinavia: A Resource for Scholars and Enthusiasts of Medieval Scandinavia

Guide : How to Understand a Latin Dictionary

Introduction

Common Abbreviations in Dictionaries

What are Lemmata?

What are the Principal Parts of a Word?

Vowel Length and Syllable Quantities

Lewis & Short Dictionary Entry Examples

Exercises

Useful Recourses

The french conjugation part 2: how to conjugate?

revising french tenses :(

Learning Spanish - Hard fought battle to level B1 in Spanish in seven months - WHAT WORKED AND WHAT DIDN'T WORK

Some people says learning english is hard. In english are there any basic grammar rules that are complicated? Examples?

Some people says learning english is hard. In english are there any basic grammar rules that are complicated? Examples?

For those that saw my english grammar question. Here's a helpful compilation of examples of complicated grammar rules that could be used to teach anyone, including your friends and future 100+ babies english in the future =)

Some people says learning english is hard. In english are there any basic grammar rules that are complicated? Examples?

Ærsk: The Phonology and Etymological Orthography of a Nordic West Germanic language

Phonology

Orthography & History

Resources

Conclusion

english irregular verbs conjugation list video

english irregular verbs conjugation list top

Irregular verbs in English - YouTube