|
|
|
|
In a different thread Eldon made a very serious comment:
But since four years of North Carolina high school French wasn't up the the Forum's high standards, we decided to go without signature lines. What can you expect when the teacher goes home and listens to Berlitz lessons and then teaches them the next day? They don't even offer French in our school anymore.
There really is a solution to the problem of international communication. Please, people, take 10 minutes to look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YHALnLV9XU
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sitting in english class, bored limp. I think Jons teacher imported boring to my class.
I dont know much about different languages and stuff but I do know that English is the internarional trade language. Wonder why? Its not Russian, its not French, its not German, its English. Is it becasue other languages are limited in the ability to express certain ideas. Is it becasue if there isnt a word to discribe something, in english you can invent a word. As far as the French are concerned, who cares. They dont teach French in our school anymore either. It seems to me that French has become a bit unpopular. We butcher english, why should we not butcher other languages, are they sacred and english isnt? Now lets all; get together and nit pic this to death.
Sweet dreams till sunbeams find you......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, that was cool JFR. I have heard of Esperanto all my life but have never been exposed to it. I have never even seen it offered as a course. Yet I have heard that it is a language that anyone can master. It's also interesting that it lends itself equally well to both poetic and scientific expressions.
I realize that English is a very difficult language to master for other cultures, because it is so full of exceptions to its own rules of spelling, pronunciation and grammar. I am as much an Anglophile as any other English speaker and am proud to see it used as an international language, but I wonder just how practical that really is. It just seems to make sense to adopt a language that is, universally, easier to learn and just as expressive.
It will be interesting to read more comments on this subject.
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it would be wonderful if every country would offer Esperanto as a second language along with others. I took Spanish in high school. My Art school did not require a language class. I never needed my Spanish until 22 years after taking the class. Needless to say, all was forgotten. If I had learned a real universal language I could have used it many times.
I agree, each country should keep their own language but also teach Esperanto so you could be understood anywhere in the world. It will never happen, but it would be nice.
[Updated on: Thu, 01 November 2007 18:15] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... for the predominance of English is the fact that Britain was the most successful colonial power, and that in consequence English was introduced to so many territories acxross the world. Not that the Brits were covered in glory - in many maritime areas, and particularly in what used to be known as the East Indies, the language which developed was 'Pidgin English' - basically, a form of English based upon the supposition that the natives would understand you if you shoulted loudly enough and used baby talk.
Statistically, English is the logical international language, simply because it is so widely spoken; it's true that more people speak Chinese dialects, but they all live in China.
It's also true that English is particularly rich in idiom, but other languages are catching up fast. Obviously, this causes problems in the short term, but the language will modify to accommodate those who begin to use it.
The essential fact is that langusge develops organically. There are lots of langusges still spoken daily across the world, but in the normal course a language will die when it ceases to have any real function. Hence Welsh, and to a lesser extent Scots and Irish Gaelic, are dead languages - everyone needs to speak English to survive. There is a rich literary tradition in each of these langusges, which must be preserved - but the preservation should be an academic concept; compulsory usage of these languages as a means of basic communication in schools is inherently divisive and, frankly, stupid. Unity offers so much more than unnecessary and illogical division.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not only did I visit this link, but I could listen to this dude for hours. His voice sounds wise and reasonable. I checked out the links from the link, and also Googled "Esperanto" and got enrolled in the on-line course. I think a universal language is a great idea, but my personal opinion is that English is still a better language for international use. Learning Esperanto seems like learning any other foreign language in that fluency comes with practice and use. I wish I had time for it as a hobby but I don't.
Additionally, it seems that Esperanto isn't really as "international" as I thought. It's written in the Roman alphabet? Yes? No? And large populations of the world, and the fastest growing parts of the world population-wise, use writing which is not Roman at all. I mean specifically India and China. In fact, I learned from an Indian boy at my school that English is used in India as a universally understood second language because of the tremendous numbers of indiginous Indian languages and dialects.
I asked my Mom and Dad who have traveled pretty much all over Europe, and they said that everybody spoke English, and when they tried to use phrase books and speak the local language out of courtesy, the local people wanted to speak English for practice, and seemed proud of being able to do so. Except of course, in France. There my Dad said they pretend not to understand either English OR your attempts at French, until you start to walk out and they see the Dollars disappearing, then they suddenly become instantly bi-lingual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
LOL, of course the French!! No more comments!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitewaterkid said,
>Except of course, in France. There my Dad said they pretend not to understand either English OR your attempts at French, until you start to walk out and they see the Dollars disappearing, then they suddenly become instantly bi-lingual.
I know it's a humorous observation, but in my experience this depends on the attitude on both sides, and to a certain extent the area you're in. If you appear to be making an honest attempt to speak French, they'll reply in French and/or switch to English if they can. If you give the impression -- even inadvertently -- that you think they have some sort of obligation to speak English, they may well pretend they don't have a clue what you're on about. The rule is never to imply that English is better or more convenient, even if it is for you. Remember, the French are just as, if not more proud of their country and customs as Americans. Parisians have a reputation for being more difficult than the rest of the country, possibly because it's the most popular city and, since people would be coming there anyway, they feel they don't have to make so much effort, though I can't say I've experienced it myself.
I get the impression that the French are not as well-liked in America as they are in the UK. Which is odd, because we are, of course, much closer; more British people have been to France than Americans. This makes me suspect that ill-feeling in America may be engineered more through propaganda and ignorance than actual experience. My personal experience of French individuals has always been excellent.
David
[Updated on: Mon, 05 November 2007 19:02] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
Sorry to imply anything other than to see the humor in it. The last "regime" in France was pointly critical and outright rude of America, and as a result Americans responded in a more negative image of that country. I won't delve into too much of the past, as I don't want to start a post war. I found it funny when "we" boycotted the term French-fry though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, I spent a week in France and most of that in Paris. This is what I found. In Paris the people seemed to instantly dislike you if you are American. They will snub you, be rude to you, and very simply ignore you. I think they cant bear the thougth that it took the Americans and the English to drive the Germans out when their own government was all for just giving up and giving in to the Germans. However, when I went away from the city and into the country, I found that the people loved the Americans and went out of their way to be hospitable.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly, but politics don't necessarily reflect a people as a whole, and certainly not all individuals. I'm always a bit concerned when a whole country is tarnished by its government's actions; it's important to remember that you can't ever know what a country is really like unless you've been there and preferably lived there for a while. Precisely the same thing has happened, of course, with the Bush government in America; I have to remind myself sometimes that Bush's cowboy attitude is not representative of the country as a whole.
Incidentally, I wasn't thinking of your post, Benji, when I posted, because I hadn't seen it before I submitted mine.
I think we in the UK found the whole 'freedom fry' thing amusing as well, but possibly because it goes to show that the French and the Americans are rather more similar than they would like to think.
David
[Updated on: Mon, 05 November 2007 19:54] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
Actually the the President would have been deemed wrong no matter which way he went as in regards to Iraq. But I respect other peoples opinions, don't always agree but respect their right to opinion. And Roger, I have heard exactly what you said from many other people the people who live inside Paris have extreme negative views on Americans, while those outside are friendly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji said,
>Actually the the President would have been deemed wrong no matter which way he went as in regards to Iraq. But I respect other peoples opinions, don't always agree but respect their right to opinion.
Is that 'actually' aimed at me? I didn't say anything about Iraq. Please don't start reading things into my words that aren't there. As a matter of fact, I readily admit that I didn't and still don't have the information to know what the 'right' decision would have been.
I do, however, hold the opinion that Bush is a cowboy, and held it long before the invasion of Iraq was on the cards.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
Good G_d! I didn't mean anything by it, but the "Bush Cowboy" mantra is definitely held in deference to the US policy involvement in Iraq by the media. I did not mean to aim at anyone in here, my pen is not loaded. Peace!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's forum (n)etiquette, basically. If you reply to someone's post, without other quotation, it implies you're replying directly to it. Especially if you use a word like 'actually', which implies contradiction. If you don't mean to contradict the parent poster in particular, it's best to avoid words like 'actually', or otherwise to explain who you're refuting ('the media commonly say X, but actually...').
When you say 'deference', do you mean 'reference'? I ask not out of pedantry but because I don't really understand the sentence otherwise.
I don't know that the cowboy thing is so closely linked to Iraq over here, because both our Labour and Tory parties were in support of the invasion too, and that doesn't automatically make them cowboys. Bush is a cowboy not only for his actions but for his style and demeanour, which are peculiarly American.
Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. 
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
Must of picked the word from the subject line LOL. The "other" political party in this country of ours which leans way left, has considerable hold over the media. I have never seen such disrespect for the office of the Presidency as I have in the Bush Administration, you may have heard it yourself, the media calls him Mr. Bush, not President Bush. No one ever called Clinton, Mr. Clinton, even today they refered to him as President Clinton. Of course this is mild stuff. The Speaker of the House called "Mr. Bush" a liar and thug, when speaking to school age children. I've heard them compare him to Hitler....yadda, yadda yadda. It goes on and on, so I may not agree with all policies of the President's administration. Being a former Marine I draw a line when it is disrespectful to the Commander in Chief in times of war. They started to refer to him as "Cowboy Bush" in reference to his Irag polices, suggesting that he shoots from the hip, shoot first ask questions later etc. The media's use of "Bush Cowboy" is meant to be derogatory, and implies anti-Bush sentiment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Whitewaterkid were you refuting my post when you started yours with 'actually'? You young wippersnapper! ::-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The course that some threads seem to take is really interesting. My Grandad was U.S. Army surgeon in WWII. He served in France in Lorraine and the assult on the Siegfried Line, and into Germany. I heard from him that the reception Americans receive when visiting France in modern times depends upon several things. The amount of destruction to the locality during the liberation, the way American soldiers conducted themselves during and after the liberation, and how obnoxious or otherwise the behind-the-lines servicemen behaved. There are good stories and bad stories.
When discussing the current administration in Washington, please remember that both Bush victories were very narrowly finished things, and most people who are like me think that the elections were "stolen." But let's not open all that. Also, even the Republicans I know acknowledge that bush is a mental lightweight, and serves merely as a front man for Chaney, who from his "undisclosed location" really controls the government.
Politics in my country seem to drift back and forth like a pendulum, and the arc of travel looks like a thirty year cycle. I think we're swinging back past the center to the left right now, but I could be wrong.
Yes the President is a yaahoo and a cowboy. It's not so much a general American thing as it is a Texas thing. All this saber rattling and posturing against Iran is starting to get people nervous here. The military forces are stretched pretty thin, and there's talk of needing a draft again to fill the ranks back up. If that happens, I don't know what might happen here. Campus riots and everything else I guess. I wouldn't mind serving in the military to defend this country, but I won't enlist to make Dick Chaney's cronies wealthier by invading another country. We knew back in 1973 that the Arabs were gonna hose us over oil, and that was twenty years before I was born, and nothing was done to make us less dependent on "foreign oil," or oil in general. All wars are based in economics, correct? I heard that someplace.
In many ways I wish we had a Parliamentary system like Our Mother Country. Localities should elect members to a lower house, and those would very accurately reflect local opinions and standards, and then the party in the majority would name the Prime Minister. And an upper house with past prime ministers and college presidents and other really smart people. What I really would like to have is Canada and the United States unite to form the Dominion of British North America, and we could get His Royal Hunkiness Prince William over as Governor General and he would let me be his personal body servant. And our local National Guard Regiment could become Her Majesty's Own Royal Albemarle Rifles... okay, you know all this is tongue in cheek, right? I love my country, and it's traditions, it's the present President I can't stand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
"His Royal Hunkiness Prince William over as Governor??" OMG!! LOL, G_d, Whitewaterkid, that is much better than looking at Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're fortunate in this country. If the Prime Minister does something stupid, we can call him an idiot and not worry about being disrespectful to the country, because he's not the head of state. If someone dislikes the Queen, at least s/he can mitigate their dislike by feeling that she doesn't have much real power, and put his or her trust in the democratic political system.
I can't say that I see any problem with disrespect when it's justified. Criticism and satire are crucial to a healthily-functioning democracy. Freedom of speech means freedom to criticise. That doesn't necessarily mean being rude to a political leader's face (that would go against common politeness), but over here all those who go into politics know that stinging criticism comes with the job, and that they'll have to have a thick skin to survive. As for being 'disrespectful to the Commander in Chief in times of war'... that may be fair enough if war is imposed upon a leader against all his efforts, but if he makes the decision to create one, he should be accountable for the consequences of his decision. This means taking the criticism that comes with it, regardless of his decision -- even if apparently, at the time, right -- because he holds that office by his own choice.
David
P.S. The Democratic Party 'leans way left'? Hmm. I guess that 'way left' has a totally different definition in America to that in Europe.
[Updated on: Mon, 05 November 2007 22:42] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I think I feel a ramble coming on - you may wish to reconsider whether you really want to read this post!
I've got to say that this thread has meandered even faster an further from the original topic than is usual on this forum, so I'll start with Esperanto. It is, of course, an excellent idea in theory, but it seems to me that the chances of converting theory into practice are so slight that it really doesn't justify spending time learning the langusge. I first read about Esperanto umpty-um years ago, and being a language freak I was interested in the concept, which is absolutely logical. Simple grammatical rules, consistently applied, are obviously relatively easy to learn - no strong or irregualar verbs or deviant pronunciations or idiomatic constructions; sounds like heaven! But even then I felt that it could never attract widespread use, for two distinct reasons. Firstly, despite the 'cost savings' claimed in the video, it would be hugely expensive to add it to the school curriculum, and I can't see that there will ever be the political will in the United States, Britain, or the rest of the English-speaking world to incur that expense in the absence of any clear political advantage from so doing. There IS no such advantage, since the countries concerned have no problem with English, and if the English speakers do not actively promote Esperanto, it hasn't got a snowflake's chance in hell of universal acceptance. Secondly, languge is a living thing; it is constantly changing and developing. That doesn't simply mean that new words are coined; existing words subtly change meaning, and even the rules of grammar are subject to alteration in line with accepted usage. So Esperanto would either act as a true language, in which case the tendency would be for usage to develop differently in different nations, ultimately destroying its supposed universality, or it would be artificially maintained as an arid and unchanging medium for limited political and business communication, which no-one except those involved in such communication would be motivated to learn. Either way, I don't think Esperanto has a real prospect of wide acceptance.
Well, I guess that was all pretty boring, so let's move on to the digressions. I've got to side firmly with Deeej about the French. I've travelled farly widely and frequently in France, and my French remains at a mistily-remembered schoolboy level, but I've found that so long as I begin an exchange in French, however stilted or just plain wrong my attempt may be, I have been met with courtesy and the response has either been slow and French or, much more often, English. I don't think that pounds, dollars or euros are as important as attitudes. Speaking generally, the quality of service I have enjoyed in France is considerably superior to that often found in England and Wales (I use that term advisedly; service in Scotland and Ireland is usually rather better.) Of course, the situation in Paris is not so good, but that's a characteristic of capital cities; service in London can be even more abysmal.
Remember, France and England were number one mutual enemies for centuries, and there is still a noticable element of mutual distrust between the French and English governments, but that doesn't change the generally friendly relationship between French and English people.
Now. where should I meander next? Ah, yes - the perception of Americans in Europe. In a recent post I mentioned how different the Muslims I know personally are from the stereotype we see in the press. The same is true of Americans; most of those with whom I have come into direct contact have been likeable guys. But there IS a widespread perception in much of Europe that Americans are brash, arrogant and self-orientated, and there are sufficent tourists fitting that stereotype to keep the perception alive. There is also the problem that many European historians and political commentators take the view that American intervention in the European theatre of World War II was by no means as altruistic as American history books suggest, but was a device to secure American domination as a world power; interestingly, that argument was advanced in another thread, by another poster, no more than a week ago. I don't want to start an argument about this; I accept that the view generally depends on the viewpoint. It is nevertheless demonstrably true that one of the driving forces behind the development of the European Union has been a desire to neutralise US influence in European affairs.
I stress again that I am not taking a partisan view; rather, I am inviting our US posters to consider the sentiments expressed in my signature line.
And finally - 'cos even I'm getting bored now! - there's the question of George Dubyah. There is absolutely no doubt that he has been a figure of derision in Europe since well before the Iraq invasion. "We have a problem here; too many of our imports are coming from abroad." Whether true or apocryphal, such quotes have circulated here throughout his presidency. It seems self-evident from his public persona that the man is an intellectual lightweight, and we Brits have a quaint, old-fashioned expectation that our principal politician should be a genuine leader, even if we disagree with his policies. At least in the latter years of his term of office. it was clear that Reagan was not in control, but at least he didn't try to pretend otherwise. It seems equally clear that Bush is not in control; the worrying aspect is that he may not realise this. Certainly, recent policy on Iran has made the rest of the world pretty nervous!
In conclusion, these meanderings have responded to comments already made. I am not for a moment claiming that Britain is any sort of example for the world to follow; as a nation, we have made more than our share of mistakes, some of them manifestly stupid and leading to disastrous consequences. Rather, I am suggesting that if you wish to understand what your government is doing, it's wise to seek answers beyond your national boundaries - as I, for many years, have tried to do.
And that, you'll be glad to hear, is that!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a favourite trick of the meedja, particularly the left inclined meedja. Our own Mrs Thatcher, later Baroness Thatcher and so entitled to the title Lady, was and is so often referred to as 'Thatcher' while in the same breath other people are given their correct title.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if anyone has any experiences to tell of how they were received lingustically when speaking French in Wallonia, Belgium, and la Suisse Romande?
You will be met with stony silence if you use French in Belgian Flanders. You get a better response using German.
I'm told that I speak French with a German accent which of course is a whole new can of worms.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I were to refer to either Thatcher or Blair by their full titles, everyone would (rightly) assume that I was being heavily ironic.
I'm not sure it's specifically a "meedja, particularly the left inclined meedja" trick, though - I think that most people who have spent much time active in politics - at local, national, or even student level, tend to do this.
Exceptions occur where there are a lot of politicians with the same surname (eg Milliband, Smith, Powell in the UK,) or where the politician has risen to the status of "much-loved eccentric" - Tony Benn, and the late Bernie Grant and Manny Shinwell spring to mind.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: Actually, this is pretty interesting 
