The easiest IE language (morphologically)
I'd say English
to be more precise:
amongst Germanic languages : English and maybe Swedish
amongst latin languages: Spoken French and Brazilian portuguese
amongst slavonic languages: Macedonian and Bulgarian
And what about Baltic land Celtic languages?
As for Baltic languages
Latvian
Celtic languages
Probably Breton
Afrikaans is also very poor from a morphological point of view
What about the Farsi language? It's indo-european and quite simple from a morphological point of view. Isn't it?
Well, the answer is too easy: English
Bulgarian is really not that easy. It has no cases, but the tense system is much more complicated than the rest of the Slavic languages.
Farsi wasn't simple for ZF.
I don't think Bulgurian Verbal system is more complicated than the portuguese or even Spanish verbal systems. The other slavonic languages retain lots of cases (6-7) but they have a simplificated verbal system, particularly Russian, compared to romance languages. However the verbal aspect is tricky in most slavonic languages
I was comparing Bulgarian to the rest of the Slavic languages. I was not aware that Spanish and portuguese were Slavic languages :)
But while we're at it, Spanish has 7 indicative tenses, Bulgarian has 9. You might say, ok, but Spanish also has subjunctive for each one, but Bulgarian (which also has it but less comlpicated) also has the renarrative mood (for doubtful and unwitnessed events). And there are 3 genders, not 2.
I speak Spanish and I never thought the verb system was that difficult while I was learning it. But my first language isn't English.
All in all, it's difficult to say which language is more complicated and which is not.
Ziad Farah the man of many tongues. I don't think any language for him is difficult.
<< Afrikaans is also very poor from a morphological point of view >>
Simple, perhaps, but poor? Poor means inadequate. In what respect is Afrikaans morphologically inadequate?
furrykef : « Simple, perhaps, but poor? Poor means inadequate. In what respect is Afrikaans morphologically inadequate? ».
Peut-être que "pauvre" signifie ici "peu développé" ou "restreint" et non "médiocre" ou "insuffisant".
Je ne sais pas pour l'afrikaans, mais pour l'anglais on peut affirmer sans risque que sa morphologie verbale est très limitée, par comparaison avec d'autres langues plus fécondes sur ce point précis.