I majored in linguistics as an undergrad and had a minor in French so, although I don’t speak French especially well, I understand the theoretical stuff. So far in this thread, everything you have written has been right. As I said before, native speakers are often unaware of such things, but you have a very impressive grasp of the linguistics of your language.
Sacre bleu! C’est difficile!
I’m not sure I did too badly with the pronunciation, though it isn’t always the easiest thing in the world. An odd thing, though. Many years ago, I spent some time on Ste Bart’s. The residents there are French-speaking, but they have been there for 300 years or so, and were all from Normandy. Strange to tell, I could converse with them quite well in French, but could barely eke out a conversation with the French tourists on the island.
It might have been the speed of the conversations, but I don’t think it was. I have sometimes thought that, being from Normandy, long ago, they have perhaps an English influence on their spoken French, (one now perhaps no longer prevalent in France) or perhaps we English speakers have a Norman influence, even in pronunciation, or some of both.
An English speaker can sort of get some sense out of reading something written in German. But the structure is truly different. Some say Dutch is the closest language to English. But having studied French a bit, it has seemed to me that it’s almost more similar to English than it’s different, and may be the closest. Yes, I know, there are those pesky Anglo-Saxon words in English. Still, I’m inclined to think it’s so.
Strange to tell, (and perhaps it’s wrong) but an anthropology person who is very big on linguistics informed me that, notwithstanding English contains very few words of Celtic origin, the structure is fundamentally Celtic, not Germanic. Perhaps it’s not for nothing that the terms “Gallic” and “British” still have currency, notwithstanding that the languages are named after the Germanic Angles and Franks.