EU countries resist Spain on making Catalan official language

German can be very precise. However it requires people to pay attention to the details, which they often don't.

The nuances become dependent on context and the respective knowledge of the originator and receptor.

Legal German for instance is very precise, in that every word matters. But then you need to analyze every word and understand its context.

I have taken a random paragraph from the civil law (BGB) (note that i am not a lawyer and only learned some of the interpretation of civil laws in basic courses for non legal professionals, so it is just my best guess. It should suffice for getting the point accross.)

§ 851 Ersatzleistung an Nichtberechtigten

Leistet der wegen der Entziehung oder Beschädigung einer beweglichen Sache zum Schadensersatz Verpflichtete den Ersatz an denjenigen, in dessen Besitz sich die Sache zur Zeit der Entziehung oder der Beschädigung befunden hat, so wird er durch die Leistung auch dann befreit, wenn ein Dritter Eigentümer der Sache war oder ein sonstiges Recht an der Sache hatte, es sei denn, dass ihm das Recht des Dritten bekannt oder infolge grober Fahrlässigkeit unbekannt ist.

Actually this example is perfect. First of all, it is just one construct of main sentence and side sentences. Lets dive in:

Leistet der wegen der Entziehung oder Beschädigung einer beweglichen Sache zum Schadensersatz Verpflichtete den Ersatz an denjenigen

"If the person who is liable for the damage or withholding of a movable object pays the replacement to the person who"

in dessen Besitz sich die Sache zur Zeit der Entziehung oder der Beschädigung befunden hat

"the person who, had ownership (not the same as property rights) on the object at the time of the damage or withholding"

So this second sentence is specifying the person in question.

so wird er durch die Leistung auch dann befreit

"so he will be freed of the duty even if"

Note that the "he" here is the person who has the duty to pay liability

wenn ein Dritter Eigentümer der Sache war oder ein sonstiges Recht an der Sache hatte

"if a third person is proprietor of the object or had another right on the object"

es sei denn, dass ihm das Recht des Dritten bekannt oder infolge grober Fahrlässigkeit unbekannt ist.

"except that he had known the right of the third person or his lack of knowledge comes from gross negligence."

Again the "he" is the one who owes the liability.

What does all of that mean? Take for example you damage the car of a rental company. If you didn't see the car to be of a rental company and the driver tells you "give me 1,000 € and the damage is covered" and you pay that to him, you don't owe another 1,000 € to the rental company when it comes to you. However if you had known it to be a rental car or you must have known, as for instance the logo of the rental company is on the car with the notice that this car is rentable, then you owe the money to the rental company.

However this has a few caveats for which it is crucial to read every single word and understand it. First of all the object needs to be movable. So if you damage a house this paragraph does not apply. Then you have to have the duty to pay the compensation and you have to give compensation for this law to apply. All of this is in the first sentence.

Then it is important that the object has been in the control/ownership of the person you give it to at the time of the damage. Now obviously if the driver is inside the car that is clear. But what if he was about to pick up the car from the parking lot and he has already unlocked it, but not entered yet as you damage it. Is he in ownership of the car yet? Here lawyers will start to have fun arguing. Also important is that the right was "had". When was it "had"? At the time when the liability was created.

Third is then pretty straightforward for the example of a rental car. The car is property of the rental company. However what if the property is disputed, say because it is a slightly damaged shipment from one business to another business and they argue if the property was transferred or not? Which brings us to the exception that this does not work if you know or would have had to know that the property rights belong to someone else. Again something lawyers will have fun with.

There's still exceptions.

For example, Spanish is my first language. I didn't really care for it much, but the more I learned other languages the more I've come to really like Spanish because it has well defined rules and a LACK of EXCEPTIONS (looking at Finnish specifically. English at least is so broken you can understand it when grammatically wrong, but Finnish clearly needs a revision).

What's the point of learning the grammar rules when 25% is "actually there's no reason behind this word not following the rules so you'll just have to remember it's different"??? Even more frustrating when the rules can still perfectly work with covering the topic or the word! To the point of you can say it "wrong" by following existing grammar rules but still be understood sometimes because it makes more sense than the damn actual usage of the word!

And then some rules are dumb. Either go full out like Chinese and make a writing system separate from your spoken system or actually have one comply with the other.