> It's actually "hlyab" / "hleb", without the extra "k". Not to worry, it's just transliterated like that because it's a velar fricative, sort of like—but not

> It's actually "hlyab" / "hleb", without the extra "k". Not to worry, it's just transliterated like that because it's a velar fricative, sort of like—but not completely similar to—the Ch-sound in the German word ach. In any case I think you'll agree that it's pretty distinct from the breathy H-sound commonly found in Germanic languages. > He used to say Norwegian is very similar to English. Is that true? Yes and no. Bessides both being Germanic languages, English has a ton of Germanic loan-words from the viking age, and indeed older related words from the Saxons themselves. This makes part of the languages familiar to each other, and thus easier to learn. But really, the thing that makes English the most easy to learn for Scandinavians is the lack of dubbing on British and American films and TV shows over here. Being smaller nations, it's viewed as more economic to simply subtitle foreign shows. On the other hand, the guys who seems to have the easiest time learning Norwegian, outside other Scandinavians, are the Dutch. On the other hand English has way more Latin and French loanwords than in Scandinavian (though, granted, Swedish probably have more modern French loanwords due to their French lineage king). You've got a similar situation, if you picture the different Slavic languages, such as Polish vs Bulgarian. I bet you think Bulgarian is easier to learn than Polish. Correct me if I'm wrong. :)