Well, English does have a larger technical vocabulary than most other languages. Admittedly, this is more because English accepts other languages technical words into the language, so therefore (to some extent) is the union of the technical language.

With this in mind, i would not call English easy to learn. There are far too many special cases and bizarre twists to get to true fluency (it might be east to get to a passable spoken version, though).

It's both, I think. Basic grammar is fairly easy and succinct. But then there are 60K phrasal verbs (stand up, stand down, understand, stand under, stand over, but never "overstand") and special cases, connotations, figures of speech, etc.

It's difficult to explain to a learner why it is technically correct but not usual to say "This is my election for lunch", or why a "hot chick" goes to college while a "hot chicken" is dinner.

Being fluent in both English and Chinese, I would have to say Chinese grammar is much easier than English. There are no irregular verbs or pluralization, and very few tenses. The difficulty in going from speaking English to Chinese is vocabulary memorization and pronunciation, but that's true for going from Chinese to English as well.

My opinion is based on a limited sampling but how a language is taught is key. My wife and I each took French classes for 6 years prior to meeting. Her teachers emphasized speaking fluency while mine emphasized writing. She was taught to use idiomatic expressions and to "improvise" while I was made to memorize rules. We decided to take some French classes together for fun. She was much better able to communicate in general. I can read/write French okay in a formal way. When speaking though I tend to stumble trying to think through rules in my head. In contrast, I took 4 German classes in college. The professor had us watch German television shows and speak in "street" German. At the end of 4 classes, I was fluent enough to hold full conversations with German people when I visited. Even factoring in the regularity of German the teaching method seemed more effective.

I don't think english is easier to learn, just more fault tolerant. We are used to translating bad english and have no trouble with statements like this:

In the early part of the 1950's in the USA, a game called "Violence Fight" was in vogue among mafia, reckless drivers and general businessmen. The "Violence Fight" was the game to struggle for "No. 1 Quarreler" with fighters who were gathered from all parts of the USA speaking boastingly of their strength. And of course a lot of winning money as well as the honor were given to the "winner".

(Example taken from here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqnBWgrSt30). Other languages (e.g. french) just don't tolerate stuff like this.

For an example of a really easy to learn language, see modern Turkish. For various reasons (vacations and chicks) I've tried and failed to learn many languages. I came closest with turkish, vocabulary was my only sticking point. Ataturk simplified the language only 70 years ago, and it worked fantastically well.

I think the French language tolerates it just fine. French <i>people</i> don't tolerate <i>people</i> who butcher the language, because it's a social thing, but there's not a human language in existence that doesn't degrade gracefully.

You can walk from Paris to Rome, never finding two neighboring villages that can't understand one another. Somewhere along the way, what they're talking isn't exactly French or Italian -- they just polish up their speech when the government men from France come.

That's less true today than it used to be, of course; more people go to the city for education. But it's still true of everybody's grandma.

My point is that all human languages are fault-tolerant.

That's a very good point! I've never thought of it that way. Most corrections are of that nature. I know what someone means, more or less, but the arrangement or words are slightly off.