Clearly you missed the point, or rather, you seem to be wanting to miss the point in order to take my point out of context to look smart. The point was that you don't need grammar to understand what is being said in most cases, as long as you understand the vocabulary. I'm not contradicting the field of linguistics, but it seems you are. It is a fact that English and French vocabulary are largely intertwined. It is, as i said, for that reason that English is not seen as a regular German language but a bridge language. Unlike what you seem to believe, this is not something i'm making up. That means that it borrows from both Roman as well as German languages, the voc from the Roman side as opposed to the grammar. What's so difficult to understand about that, Youngest? I've studied latin for 6 years. Sentences of half a page long where you need to dissect every word in order to see it is an adjective that relates to a word 3 lines up, is not something we see often in everyday life in modern languages, and especially not in modern English. That means the importance of grammar in order to understand and be understood, has taken a back seat.Look, it's all perfectly fine you want to contradict the entire scientific field of linguistics, but it's also funny if you then produce the most basic sentence you could come up with, 'me go store buy bread', without noticing the irony that it's a sentence containing no French or Latin words. That's the point: the basics of English are Germanic. Everything ornamental tends to be French or Latin. What's so difficult to understand about that?
In any case, with most of it's vocabulary finding it's origin in Latin and French, the initial statement that English relates much more to Dutch than French, which is why French speakers have a harder time to understand the language, is simply not true.
But let's agree to disagree.