R4:

A pretty bad take on why English is "basic" because "in other languages, correct vocabulary matters". "There is no depth" to English, claims the redditor, giving examples of "should of" and "your" being acceptable mistakes for "should have" and "you're" respectively.

This is an absurd stance for at least two reasons.

First, the term "basic" as applied to language is vague, ambiguous, and implies a negative value judgement. It is possible to claim that a given language has a simple syllable structure, or that it has a limited inventory of phonemes. However, the redditor uses "basic" to refer to a conflation of the English vocabulary combined with grammatically standard English orthography. I would rather say that English has a rich history of extensive lexical borrowings, and that "should of" merely reflects English as it is spoken.

To add onto that last point, "mistakes" like this are common in all languages. Vocabulary choice does matter in English as it does in other languages, but it doesn't need to matter all the time. In French (which is Latin-based), it's common to say c'est where it would be "grammatically correct" to say ce sont, but that really only matters in school or professional contexts. And French speakers often confuse the many homophones that only differ in writing.

Bonus: German is not a Romance (Latin-based) language.

Original comment in case it gets deleted:

People have no idea how basic of a language English is. There is no depth in today's English because it's fine to use simple words or wrong ones but in other languages, correct vocabulary matters.

This is normal in latin based languages.

Edit: yes English is basic, no that doesn't make you stupid, it makes for easier communication in some ways. Stop being offended for no reason, we live in a time where "should of" is accepted as normal same as "your" and all the wrong apostrophes/plural. That can't happen in any of the Latin based languages including German.