Which foreign language is the most easy to learn for native?

Shuimo   Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:32 pm GMT
For all the kinds of prejudices you experienced AGAINST CHINESE at the school, in the company, and even in socializing (where English names are preferred to Chinese personal names, even though everybody in the conversation is Chinese).... speaking as an outsider of Hong Kong, I must say while I understand such prejudices and feelings due to reasons I mentioned above, I also look down with both pity and contempt on people harboring an inferiority complex (as I put it) to such an extent.

I am convinced with this: If you want other people to treat you fairly with respect, you yourself have to treat yourself with self-respect first and foremost.

What you said of the Chinese language's experience in Hong Kong has offered me some clues to reasons why the city has long been ironically regarded as a cultural desert here in the mainland, which of coz is just another stereotypical view we don't have to take so seriously. But I'd rather consider it as partially indicative of the cultural environment and conditions Hong Kong has had, of which I come to know a thing or two through various channels available to me in the mainland.

Culturally speaking, I wish my Hong Kong compatriots could develop a little dose more of confidence in themselves and our nation, which can of course be a great nation again, albeit not within our immediate reach yet, but certainly foreseeable.
Buddy   Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:37 pm GMT
<<Spanish (castellano o español) is usually considered the easiest foreign language for a typical English speaker. >>

Only out of the languages typically offered to English students. I have never seen a curriculum which listed Dutch or Afrikaans as one of their choices.

And a further note about the ease of Spanish: Spanish does have this misrepresentation as the easiest language for English speakers to learn, but I have rarely seen mastery of Spanish by English speakers.

I took Spanish in college, and we never progressed beyond the simple-phrase level ("Good Morning", "I like it", "How are you?", etc). Sure, ANY language is easy when all you do is minimal contact expressions like these, and honestly, that's all English students ever really get exposed to.

With Dutch, it is easier for an English speaker to go beyond this minimal point. And it is reported that it is easier for an English speaker to translate something into Dutch and even German without ever having learned idiomatic expressions, as long as they are armed with some basic knowledge, because of how close the two languages are because they translate word for word and it ends up being correct.

You cannot usually do this with Spanish, or any Romance language for that matter.
Xie   Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:55 pm GMT
I don't really adopt an absolute yes-or-no stance when commenting on sociolinguistic discussions. Lazy pronunciation is of no concern to me, and indeed "lazy" pronunciation has been there since before Hong Kong was founded by the Brits, so I wouldn't hesitate to criticize

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ho

Richard Ho as harshly as some other scholars do, if I could. Having said that, I do apply the standard speech in daily life, and thus I'm often judged as having very "standard" speech - namely, I'm speaking the RP of Cantonese in both Guangzhou and Hong Kong. In this case, I'm more liberal; but in the case of code-switching and -mixing, no. I do code-mix quite a lot, but not to the level of mixing phrases.

你今天這個project ready沒有?

ready would be outright "improper" (according to me, yeah, just my opinion) code-mixing, thinly veiled evidence of _incompetency_ in both languages, with tendency towards loathing perfect equivalents in the users' true native language (I can't even describe the gender distribution, or else I'd be frowned on.)

>>why the city has long been ironically regarded as a cultural desert here in the mainland

indeed, I remember very clearly that, back in those days, before 1997, when I was still a kid watching the TV, the hosts on cultural shows on the morning were already claiming this; and this hasn't changed at all after more than a decade.

And I often remember two examples of such cultural conflicts.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Pier

One day I was reading a newspaper, and a woman who was interviewed, and who returned from Australia after some brief years of emigration, was saying that 皇后碼頭這種英帝殖民主義的東西,早就應該鏟除掉!統統都給我們拆掉!

And I think this was even more outright Fenqing than the real Fenqings on many of our forums in Chinese (in different regions)...

2) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enHK276HK276&q=%E5%A6%82%E6%9E%9C%E4%B8%8D%E6%98%AF%E4%B8%AD%E5%A4%AE%E6%94%BF%E5%BA%9C%E7%85%A7%E9%A1%A7%E4%BD%A0%E5%80%91%E3%80%80%E4%BD%A0%E5%80%91%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E6%97%A9%E5%B0%B1%E5%AE%8C%E8%9B%8B%E4%BA%86&btnG=Search

http://www.gaforum.org/showthread.php?t=178199

(Just some random googling in the Hong Kong cyberspace)

(getting impatient while waiting for a delayed flight) 如果不是中央政府照顧你們, 你們香港早就完蛋了

This time, the speaker was a traveler from the mainland. While I often suspect the PRC govt might have been manipulating public opinion thru its tacit co-operation with the SAR govt, it's obvious that some HK people themselves are doing the same - self-belittling, and hence such a slighting remark from their northern visitor.

==

Indeed, I often think, linguistically, this city is pretty like a tiny country of Europe, where people are supposed to (this could be unfair) learn multiple languages - but southern China isn't as linguistically diverse. It'd be too pathetic to compare me and a Dutch person, for example, but I do think I'm pretty like such a person, having to learn multiple languages to serve others.

It'd pathetic, specifically, simply because the Netherlands IS A COUNTRY, but it just happens to be geographically stuck between three "biggie" languages - and, actually, this region also, as I can see, succeeded in becoming a rare, multi-lingual area in Europe, and properly among the developed countries in general.

As I put it earlier, Hong Kong (along with its neighboring cities who share the same local language) is stuck in the southern flanks where... pretty much... only those South/Southeast Asian domestic helpers and immigrants would bother to learn the local language, with a significant portion of other expats who either just aren't in the right social circle to learn any Chinese, or... they just wouldn't under any circumstances when English is so handy.

==

Just like how Asians might be mistaken for fresh-off-the-boats simply because of their (naturally) Asian looks, despite their, perhaps, having only been in the US for all their lives, I just _cannot_ help assume that almost all (I wanna just say ALL) foreigners, and including the great majority of other Chinese, don't know and wouldn't (I also wanna say bother) to learn the local lingo here.

That is to say, precisely becoz I also think I should even be somewhat more competent than many young people too (I'm learning more languages than they do, and I can speak [low] primary school level German and tourist level French now...), I'm very used to "serving" others. I'd only wait until my northern acquaintances offer their very limited Cantonese...and foreigners their rudimentary Chinese.

So, yes, on the individual level, besides my passion for lingoes, I understand both the bad and GOOD things of, for example, not being an Anglophone/Beijing-er. Less popular languages tend to be more difficult, perhaps because their speakers... just cannot help serving so much.
K. T.   Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:13 pm GMT
>>Love can make things seem easier (aw...)<<-K. T.

Huh? Why?-Xie

Because if you are crazy about a language and its culture, it will seem easier. Lexical similarity isn't the only indicator of how easy a language will be for the learner. If you ask most polyglots they will tell you the same thing: interest is motivation, so choose a language you love if you can.

Frankly, if I have reservations about a culture or I dislike their cultural practices, it's hard for me to learn the language.
Shuimo   Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:44 pm GMT
<< 皇后碼頭這種英帝殖民主義的東西,早就應該鏟除掉!統統都給我們拆掉!>>
<<如果不是中央政府照顧你們, 你們香港早就完蛋了 >>

You comletely missed my point when you used the two examples of such cultural conflicts to "testify" why Hong Kong has long been ironically regarded as a cultural desert here in the mainland.

<< I do think I'm pretty like such a person, having to learn multiple languages to serve others. >>

Nodody can and have the right to force you to learn a language to serve them!


<< I just _cannot_ help assume that almost all (I wanna just say ALL) foreigners, and including the great majority of other Chinese, don't know and wouldn't (I also wanna say bother) to learn the local lingo here. >>

Remind you: about two decades ago Cantonese as a dialect, along with Cantonese songs and movies, was VERYYYYYY popular here across the mainland. But two decades later and today, the dialect, still influential, is nowhere near "popular", and is just a dialect. Cantonese remains unchanged, and what's been changed is the influence of the region and people who use the dialect. That makes all the difference to the popularity of Cantonese!
Shuimo   Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:02 pm GMT
<< 皇后碼頭這種英帝殖民主義的東西,早就應該鏟除掉!統統都給我們拆掉!>>
All the good things left by the former colonizer to Hong Kong should be well preserved, e.g. the rule of law. All the bad things should be discadred, e.g. the post-colonial mentality.

<<如果不是中央政府照顧你們, 你們香港早就完蛋了 >>
By all means that mainlander made a correct remark albeit on a wrong occasion.

Just put the remark out of context, I believe there is a truth therein, i.e. Hong Kong has been under the delicate care of the Central Government of PRC. As the Taiwan question is yet to be resolved, Hong Kong serves as an example of how to "correctly" the "one country, two systems".
Shuimo   Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:04 pm GMT
Sorry, I missed a word.
The last sentence should be:
As the Taiwan question is yet to be resolved, Hong Kong serves as an example of how to "correctly" implement the "one country, two systems".
Guest   Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:02 am GMT
ESPERANTO!
Xie   Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:55 am GMT
http://antimoon.com/forum/p178443.htm#178443

(I decide to move my new post here to avoid hijacking the other thread)

This is a unique scene, probably in almost all of my country and another famous country famous for being quite homogeneous (namely Japan, which both my counterparts and westerners here have given testimony). Instead of avoiding to speak a lingo, here people IMMEDIATELY switch to English when any foreigner bumps into them. We don't normally think we should be a homogeneous group - rather, we're afraid that our English is too bad for outsiders, and some of us often believe ours should be the most difficult to learn on the planet.

An overly simple rule of thumb, thus, is to assume everybody foreign to be completely ignorant of our language, and switch to English immediately.. even when young Hongkongers bump into their young northern counterparts...(in which case it is their poor Mandarin that is the culprit)

As a land of utilitarianism... and over concentration on the service (financial) sector, business is the most important for us, and it doesn't matter which language we actually use. While I don't agree with some language policies here, I'm personally perfectly fine with English and it's very useful - often even more useful than Mandarin, which I read far more than speak.
Xie   Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:01 am GMT
It's very easy to empathize with other Chinese who use English dominantly for foreign business, and with the local authorities who have to save the face of both themselves and their mother (PRC) government. Whoever leads the government would also support English anyway.

It's quite impractical to think of... eh... Esperanto? Or even Mandarin? An in-human-esque culture of utilitarianism just leaves no place for the art of language and all that, and you are supposed to work like a machine until you cannot.

In many cases, it's impractical, and even blunt, stupid, dumb, to try to understand an academic subject at university here in my native language. There's simply no point of doing so. Just study, and get out of the hell, and hunt for jobs. It isn't a place for studies, either; more affluent families would rather have their kids sent to western countries to study "barbarian books" (i.e. to pursue studies abroad), and to become bananas, than to suffer in their own home country, despite it's being their real home...
Shuimo   Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:33 pm GMT
<<In many cases, it's impractical, and even blunt, stupid, dumb, to try to understand an academic subject at university here in my native language. There's simply no point of doing so. >>
Considering the historical background of the city, I think there is nothing surprising about that in Hong Kong. As there's simply no point of doing so, why bother worrying about that?
If you are personally so interested in studying an academic subject in your native language, I can recommend you to pay a good visit to the bookstores of the neighboring Shenzhen city, which boasts, as far as I know, a couple of truly superb bookstores. I am most sure you can find the academic books you want, written in native Chinese and in simplified Chinese characters of coz, which I guess may pose some sort of reading difficulty to my Hong Kong compatriots who are used to traditional Chinese characters only.

<<Just study, and get out of the hell, and hunt for jobs. It isn't a place for studies, either; >>
Does't this hinge on what subject you major in? If you want to major in business or economics, I guess Hong Kong universities are a good place to be, which in fact did attract even a handful of the best high school graduates from the mainland in recent years. I guess subjects like literature, history, philosophy, theoretical physics... would be frowned upon at Hong Kong universities, wouldn't they?

<<more affluent families would rather have their kids sent to western countries to study "barbarian books" (i.e. to pursue studies abroad), and to become bananas, than to suffer in their own home country, despite it's being their real home... >>
Same here in the mainland. Rich families would, more often than not, like to send their adolescent kids abroad to attend Western universities once they finish their secondary education in high school. But not every one of them would like to stay in the West. After all, the West is not the HOME to them.
Luca   Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:58 pm GMT
As English is a strange mix between the Germanic languages and the Romance ones I'd say one of those groups.
Among the Germanic languages...yes Afrikaans and I think also Swedish and Norwegian could be very easy for an English speaker. Danish has a very easy grammar like the two before but you should work on the pronunciation and I would put languages like German and Dutch a bit at the bottom because it's true that a lot of words are similar and that can help you acquiring the vocabulary but the grammar and the word order are not so intuitive so that's something to spend some time on.
Between the Romance languages maybe French, Spanish, Italian or even Portuguese but one must pay some attention to get the right accent and be prepared to learn a bit of additional grammar.
Guest   Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:19 pm GMT
Are you the same Luca from those polyglot videos?
fangf   Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:37 am GMT
I think English maybe easy for their native speakers, especially American English, which speaks casually. However I think Chinese maybe difficult for Chinese, as even Chinese should learn almost 12 years to understand most of it. It contains so many ancient copies which are really complicated. So hard work is a necessary in your Chinese learning. To learn Chinese online, check http://www.learnchinese.bj.cn
Adam   Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:27 pm GMT
Apparently, the easiest language for native English speakers to learn is Norwegian.

I went for a trek in the jungle of the Internet and I discovered this article explaining why:





Now to why Norwegian is so easy to learn:


1) Norwegian is a Germanic language.

Being a Germanic language, you will notice a lot of cognates right at the start. Here's the front of the Norwegian Wikipedia:


Velkommen til Wikipedia!

Wikipedia er en encyklopedi på over 200 språk, som skrives av frivillige bidragsytere fra hele verden.
velkommen - welcome
til - to (think 'till')
encyklopedi - encyclopedia
over - over
språk - language (think 'speak')
skrive - write (skrives means 'is written', think 'scribe')
av - of
frivillige - volunteer (think 'free-willing'
fra - from
verden - the world (verd - world. -en means 'the', we'll get to that later)

So that's a big advantage right there. But German and Dutch have the same thing, right? Yes, and moreso with Dutch than German (eten is eat where it's essen in German, water is water, German is Wasser, etc. etc.). You can bring up example after example of cognates in both Norwegian and Dutch and point out places where one has an English cognate and the other doesn't, but suffice to say they're both about equal here. So let's look at why Norwegian is easier to learn even than Dutch:

2) Norwegian has a much easier grammar than other Germanic languages.

Scandinavian verbs have some of the easiest conjugation you can find in Europe. Present tense is made by adding an -r to the verb, regardless of who's doing it. That gives us:

ha - to have

jeg har - I have
du har - you have
han har - he has
vi har - we have

and so on with the rest.

Past tense is generally formed by putting a -te on the end of the stem, like the -(e)d in English (walk, walked)....but Verbix does a much better job at showing how verb conjugation works. Take a look at this page for the verb argumentere (to argue):

Present (I, you, he argues)
jeg argumenterer
du argumenterer
han argumenterer
vi argumenterer
dere argumenterer
de argumenterer

Past (argued)
jeg argumenterte
du argumenterte
han argumenterte
vi argumenterte
dere argumenterte
de argumenterte

Future (will argue)
jeg vil argumentere
du vil argumentere
han vil argumentere
vi vil argumentere
dere vil argumentere
de vil argumentere

Present Perfect (have argued)
jeg har argumentert
du har argumentert
han har argumentert
vi har argumentert
dere har argumentert
de har argumentert

Past Perfect (had argued)
jeg hadde argumentert
du hadde argumentert
han hadde argumentert
vi hadde argumentert
dere hadde argumentert
de hadde argumentert

Future Perfect (will have argued)
jeg vil ha argumentert
du vil ha argumentert
han vil ha argumentert
vi vil ha argumentert
dere vil ha argumentert
de vil ha argumentert

Conditional Present (would argue)
jeg ville argumentere
du ville argumentere
han ville argumentere
vi ville argumentere
dere ville argumentere
de ville argumentere

Conditional Perfect (would have argued)
jeg ville ha argumentert
du ville ha argumentert
han ville ha argumentert
vi ville ha argumentert
dere ville ha argumentert
de ville ha argumentert

Now that is easy for an English speaker, so much so that it almost feels like you're cheating somehow when learning verbs. Let's compare the same thing in Dutch:

(it's a bit unfair because Dutch doesn't use a similar word for argue, but the conjugation alone shows it to be that much more complex)

Edit: People have been pointing out that Dutch does use the verb argumenteren. I'll leave the below as is though because it's merely to show how conjugation works.

Present (I argue)
ik redetwist
jij redetwist
hij redetwist
wij redetwisten
jullie redetwisten
zij redetwisten

Past (argued)
ik redetwistte
jij redetwistte
hij redetwistte
wij redetwistten
jullie redetwistten
zij redetwistten

skip ahead to the present perfect where things get even more different with the ge- prefix:

Present Perfect
ik heb geredetwist
jij hebt geredetwist
hij heeft geredetwist
wij hebben geredetwist
jullie hebben geredetwist
zij hebben geredetwist

and last the conditional perfect:

Conditional Perfect (would have argued)
ik zou geredetwist hebben
jij zou geredetwist hebben
hij zou geredetwist hebben
wij zouden geredetwist hebben
jullie zouden geredetwist hebben
zij zouden geredetwist hebben

Now we are starting to see some of the differences in word order as well.

English used to have this ge- prefix, as you can see in Beowulf:

(line 356)

Hwearf þā hrædlīce, • þǣr Hrōðgār sæt,
eald and unhār • mid his eorla gedriht;
ēode ellen‐rōf, • þæt hē for eaxlum gestōd
Deniga frēan, • cūðe hē duguðe þēaw.

With that he turned to where Hrothgar sat,
an old man among retainers;
the valliant follower stood four-square
in front of his king: he knew the courtesies.

(Seamus Heaney's version in case you're curious)

English doesn't look like that anymore though, so the ge- prefix is now foreign to the English student of Dutch and German.

Now that we've touched on word order, let's take a closer look:

3) Norwegian word order is different from other Germanic languages, and much closer to English.

You can see how Norwegian word order is more similar to English than Dutch and German in verb conjugations here:

English "I can speak German" becomes "Jeg kan snakke tysk" in Norwegian, with the same word order as English. In German however, this is "Ich kann Deutsch sprechen", or "I can German speak".

English "I haven't eaten today" becomes "Jeg har ikke spist i dag" in Norwegian (ikke = not, i dag = today), with the same word order as English. In German this is "Ich habe heute nicht gegessen.", or "I have today not eaten".

It gets even worse in longer sentences such as the following from the German Wikipedia on the war in South Ossetia right now:

Russische Truppen sind in Südossetien eingerückt, um die georgische Offensive zur Eroberung der Hauptstadt Zchinwali zu stoppen.

"Russian troops are enlisted in South Ossetia to Georgian offensive to capture the capital Tskhinvali to stop", but the word order here has now become quite different, literally "Russian troops are in South Ossetia enlisted, for the Georgian offensive to recapture the capital Tskhinvali to stop".

A similar sentence in the Norwegian Wikipedia only shows one difference in word order from English:

Samtidig fortsatte Russland å benekte at deres hensikt var å okkupere Georgia.

"At the same time Russia continued to deny that their intention was to occupy Georgia." The one difference here is that it begins with "At the same time continued Russia..." with the verb switched to the front.

Norwegian word order is slightly different from English, but it's that much closer that the student of Norwegian will be able to get by most of the time without having to think about word order all the time.


There's another language that I haven't yet mentioned here, and that's Afrikaans. Afrikaans is another language that is often claimed to be the easiest language for an English speaker to learn, and having spent some time with it (because I like it quite a bit) I can ascertain that it really is easy. I still have to give the edge to Norwegian though, for a few reasons.

First of all a short introduction to Afrikaans: Afrikaans used to be Dutch, but changed into a language of its own after a lot of isolation and other influences, and is sometimes referred to as a half-creole in the way it simplified so much over a short period of time (kind of like the difference between Old English and Medieval English). It's easier to learn than Dutch because it has no verb conjugation by person, grammatical gender is gone (like in English), the writing system is easier ('my' for me or my and is pronounced like English my, but it's written mij in Dutch), etc.

Here are a few points comparing Afrikaans and Norwegian grammar which should show why Norwegian is easier to learn (once again, ever so slightly as they are both quite easy for anyone that puts in the effort):

Afrikaans doesn't express the perfect and pluperfect (I had done, she has gone, they have seen, we have drank, etc.) like in other Germanic languages. That means that Ek het gebreek meaning "I broke", could also be translated in English as "I have broken" or "I had broken." This actually makes it an easier language to learn for a lot of non-English speakers, but for those that are used to using it it's easier to express oneself in a language that has it, and if it's easily learned and used (like in Norwegian) then it's easier on the student if it has it. In Norwegian it's jeg brekker, jeg har brekt brukket, jeg hadde brekt brukket. Norwegian has the edge on this one.

Norwegian has two genders. Technically it has three, but the male and female are grouped into the 'common' gender, and it's not really necessary to learn anything but the two (common and neuter). My dictionary for example doesn't even list nouns as anything but those two. Luckily the majority of words are of the common gender, meaning the student only has to keep an eye out for neuter gender words. Not too difficult, but since Afrikaans doesn't have gender in the first place it has the edge here.

Plurals. Norwegian plurals are very regular. Add an -r to the end if it ends in a vowel, add an -er if it ends in a consonant. Problem becomes problemer. Bilde (picture) becomes bilder. Only a very few are irregular here. Afrikaans generally uses an -e, so land becomes lande (lands). Sometimes though it'll use an -s, so artikel becomes artikels. Afrikaans also has a few irregular plurals. Remembering to look out for words with an -s plural is at the same difficulty as remembering to look out for neuter gender nouns in Norwegian, so this point and the one above cancel each other out.

Word order. Afrikaans also has much the same word order as Dutch and German, so Norwegian is closer to English here.

Pronunciation. They both are quite easy except for the Afrikaans g, which is that guttural sound you hear in the Scottish loch. It's certainly not impossible but the Afrikaans g is a bit unnerving to the English speaker when you get a few of them in quick succession: From Google you can see an example (ek added by me) Ek het gister terug gegaan London toe, which means I went back to London yesterday, but the part in the middle is pronounced like khister terukh khekhaan, which is a bit hard to get used to. It's a small point though.

Adjectives. Like in other Germanic (and other Indo-European) languages adjectives change a bit before a noun. Norwegian and Afrikaans are about the same here.

Verbs. Norwegian has strong verbs, meaning that they are irregular in conjugation, like English sing/sung (not singed), fly/flew (not flied). A lot of these verbs are irregular in the same way English is though, meaning that you will see verbs like se (see) becoming så in the past tense (å sounds similar to English 'aw'), drikke (drink) becomes drakk (drank) in the past tense, gi (give) becomes gav (gave). They're not all like that, but enough that it makes learning them kind of fun, and the others are generally very easy to learn (bli for become for example becomes ble, nice and short). Here's a list of some common Norwegian verbs if you want to take a look yourself.

Finally, this has nothing to do with the language itself, but with the countries they are used in. Afrikaans is used primarily in South Africa and Namibia, in South Africa it's one of 11 official languages, and English is an official language there too (and in Namibia as well). That makes it that much harder for the student of Afrikaans to use it even within the country. Norwegians are generally quite good at English as well, but it's not an official language there and since Norwegian is the only official language in Norway at least you know that once you step off the plane at the airport everyone around you is going to be using the language. Norwegian also has a stronger online presence (Wikipedia for example and the volume of news in Norwegian is actually quite large), and the majority of English speakers (United States, England, and English-speaking Canada put together) are geographically closer to Norway.

Lastly, the question remains: why Norwegian and not the two other Scandinavian languages? Swedish is spoken by more people for example. Well, if you have some reason to learn Swedish instead of Norwegian, go for that. They are both quite easy. Swedish has a bit more complexity in the plural and a vowel sound that is quite particular, but in general it is quite easy too. However, Norwegian is often promoted as the best language to go with for those with a general interest in Scandinavia as it is located in the centre of the other languages (not geographically but in terms of intelligibility). A post on this forum gives the following details (I don't know where it is sourced from but it agrees with my personal experience as well):

Fig. A. an understanding of spoken language

Norwegians understand 88% of the spoken swedish language
understand 73% of the spoken danish language

Swedes understand 48% of the spoken norwegian language
understand 23% of the spoken danish language

Danes understand 69% of the spoken norwegian language
understand 43% of the spoken swedish language

Fig. B. An understanding of the written language

Norwegians understand 89% of the written swedish language
understand 93% of the written danish language

Swedes understand 86% of the written norwegian language
understand 69% of the written danish language

Danes understand 89% of the written norwegian language
understand 69% of the written swedish language.
In short, Norwegians have the easiest time understanding other Scandinavian languages and speakers of other Scandinavian languages have the easiest time understanding Norwegian. You'll notice that Swedes have a very hard time understanding spoken Danish.

http://mithridates.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-norwegian-is-easiest-language-for.html