I think is easy for a german to learn a scandinavian language or any other germanic language, just like for a russian is easier to learn any other slavic language like polish, ukrainian for example. As a romanian I found germanic languages quite difficult to learn while spanish, italian are very easy for me since it's a latin based language.
I speak both English and Polish fluently, and I am (quite obviously) also learning Norwegian. I can confirm that Polish (which is a slavic language) is way more complicated and difficult to learn than germanic languages. Also, I find English easier than Norwegian. I do find however, that in a way, Norwegian has more similarities to polish than I expected. (in terms of sentence structures, similar words etc)
Maybe it depends on one's individual perception cause i'm native Rus speaker too and i do not find Norwegian harder than English for any reason (even considering the fact it has got a lot of dialects). In some places it's even easier e.g. the grammar and pronunciation (but this one is quite subjective though).
English actually has a lot of dialects in England. For example, Yorkshire Tyke, it has many Old English and Old Norsk roots. I can understand it but I don't think many other people could and there are many words (especially farming terms) that most people in Britain will never have heard of before in there life. Here's an example if anyone wants to try to understand it:
A Yorkshire Tyke (1917)
Lines to my Friend, Walter Hampson
Ah’m glad to tell tha, Walter, ‘at thi book is gooin’ well, An’ when tha writes another Ah knaw ‘at it’ll sell; The’r lots gooan into th’ trenches, an’ on to th’ battlefield, An’ caused monny a rahnd o’ laughter when it’s wit hes been revealed. An’ “Tykes Abrooad” ‘ll bless tha for monny a year to come, An’ Tykes at hooam’ll not forget when marchin’ to the drum. Sooa heears my paw, Ah’ll let tha knaw ‘at Ah’m a Yorkshire Tyke, An’ glad to meet a brother pup--especially one Ah like. Ah’m hoapin’ Ah’ s’all see tha, an’ that afooar so long, An’ then we’ll chat things ower wi’ bacca, pipe an’ song.
HENRY HUDSON May, 1917
I am a native Ukrainian and Russian speaker as well, but since I know English to a decent extent, Norwegian is not as hard as it would have been if for example I hadn't had sufficient knowledge of English prior to taking this course, but there are words similar to our languages, such as tallerken, appelsin, sjåfør, kontor et cetera.
I agree about the 'sh' sound in Norwegian- 'sj,' 'skj,' 'ski,' 'ki,' 'kj,' 'ky,' 'sl-,' 'rs'- BUT to be fair, English is just as bad- all the following words are pronounced with 'sh' and all of them represent the sound differently: flesh, sugar, pressure, fuchsia, patient, ocean, machine, special, crescendo. And that is just one sound- English has a very irregular orthography in general (the sounds represented by 'ough' is another often cited example).
easy / simple
used to describe content in beverages (typically referring to fat, sugar, alcohol)
- Dette kryssordet er lett! (This crossword is easy!)
- Denne boken er kjempelett/veldig lett. (This book weighs very little.)
- Dette er lettmelk. (This is lowfat milk.)
- Dette er lettøl, ikke lettbrus. (This is lager beer, not diet soda.)
- En lettlest bok. (An easy read (book))
- Lette vekter på treningssenteret. (Light weights at the gym.)
- Litt lett lesing (A bit of light reading.)
- Det er lett å lære Norsk. (It's easy to learn Norwegian.)
- Lett som en fjær. (Light as a feather.)
light (source of light)
å lyse = to shine
- Det lyser fra lanternene (Light shines from the lanterns.)
- Et lys har en flamme. (A candle has a flame.)
- Lyset ute er skarpt. (The light outside is bright.)
- Denne veggmalingen er lysere enn den i/på kjøkkenet. (This wall paint is brighter than the one in the kitchen.)
- Månelys / sollys. (moonlight / sunlight.)
- Å lyse opp veien. (to light up the way.)
- Så lyst det er her! Jeg trenger solbriller. (It's so bright here! I need sunglasses.)
That's good! You could also say "Norsk er lett å lære bort". (literally: Norwegian is easy to teach away) implying that someone with knowledge is giving it away with the means to teach what they know to someone else. Anyone can do this, be it a grandparent to a grandchild or a teacher in school. When you say "Norsk er lett å undervise i" (I added an extra i at the end), it's is technically correct too, although the immediate picture that comes to mind is a school setting with a professional educator. A lesson given in school is called "en undervisning", and the teacher "underviser i faget". If you google "undervisning" or "underviser" and go to images, a bunch of classroom setting photos with teachers and students should show up. So both are correct, and a teacher in a classroom is doing both ('lære bort' and 'undervise'), but you could also think of 'lære bort' as more of an informal term, and 'undervisning' implying that the educator has a degree or at least a certificate in what they are teaching.
On the one hand: Yes, it is! At least if your native language is from the same family of languages (german for me). Grammar is about the same, no trouble understanding how grammatical genders work and even some expressions are very much the same ("Det står i avisen" for example. It's just the same in german!).
On the other hand: It's very difficult to get the difference between "vanskelig" and "veldig" into my head. I still confuse the two. And those little differences between german and norwegian drive me crazy. "bruke" sounds so much like the german "brauchen", which means "to need". But "bruke" means "to use" (similar to the german "gebrauchen"). And the grammar in constructs like "boken min" still confuses me. I mean, I understand that this is how you say it in norwegian, but I still want to use "min bok" at first glance.