|
 |
’Must have languages’ for polyglots? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Dark_Sunshine Diglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5707 days ago 340 posts - 357 votes  Speaks: English*, French | Message 105 of 149 31 March 2009 at 8:34pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hmmm... I'm trying to come up with an anglified version of portunhol's list for Brits. Maybe Spanish could be substituted by French (just because they're our nearest neighbours). 2) for me could be any number of languages, including Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese of some sort, Turkish, Polish, Hindi, Urdu etc so there would be overlap with some of the other categories. 3) That leaves only German, or Spanish for Brits- or Russian if you count it as European.
I would struggle to come up with a number 4), as to the best of my parents' knowledge I come from a long line of English-British monoglots from Essex & East London (how boring is that?) so I guess I'd have a 'just for the hell of it' choice. And 5 & 6 apply equally to the UK. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ennime Tetraglot Senior Member South Africa universityofbrokengl Joined 5846 days ago 397 posts - 507 votes Speaks: English, Dutch*, Esperanto, Afrikaans Studies: Xhosa, French, Korean, Portuguese, Zulu | Message 106 of 149 01 April 2009 at 4:32am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just some thoughts on this thread... randomly from different strings in the thread.
My friend speaks Chinese (two different "dialects" aka languages from my point of view), Japanese, Korean, Thai... no English... not a word (well maybe : "how are you? ") so that's four... and if three counts, I got a lot more examples among my friends... if English is out of the equation but french is allowed I can muster up even more polyglots in the range of 5-6 languages who speak no English... Hey, just cause you don't hear of them (on an English speaking board) doesn't mean they don't exist :p Yes English is a global language, I call it the Jack the Ripper of the languages, kill or be killed, no? :p Bottom line, of course European languages have strong influence and importance after centuries of mass murder, colonialism, etc. Doesn't mean I like it though, I pray for the day that I can hand in my English and happily chat and mail in something non-indoeuropean (I vote Euskara~! don't speak it yet, but I guess there is time ^_^) I'm not really sure which languages a polyglot truly should have, as has been said it all depends on context and why one studies languages. My (short) list kinda goes like: Russian, Mandarin, Euskara, Gaelic, Dine Bizaad, Korean (the bane of my existence) I guess I like my languages like I like my wo/men: complicated... ^_^ Just to go further I do would include French, German, Japanese, Malay, Maori For no other particular reason than that I think they're interesting 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Raчraч Ŋuɲa Triglot Senior Member New Zealand Joined 5760 days ago 154 posts - 233 votes Speaks: Bikol languages*, Tagalog, EnglishC1 Studies: Spanish, Russian, Japanese | Message 107 of 149 02 April 2009 at 11:21am | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||
I think its you who needs to open your eyes. Yes currently the most powerful ones, but USA and UK are already both in decline. What goes up must come down. Why would western nations be an exception? Besides, their languages are widespread due to colonization, plunder and oppression of other people. They are only tolerated so long as they are powerful. Change is afoot. They will not be the most powerful in 100 years, at most. Their language is important mostly because they still retain much of the controls. But a lot of developing countries are already clamoring for change. Such is the politics of language.
No need to repeat, since I already conceded to you your definition of "global". I just have to reword "global" to "international" whenever I see it in your post, so it would read "English, French and other mostly European languages *in orgin*... being more important from an international point of view". It makes a difference to me as its more descriptive of the real world.
I thought your Eurocentric. But I had a change of heart (read on why). Now I thought your just a Europhile, in spite of your comments below.
Eurocentric is a dirty word. Don't apply it to yourself.
I am not relativistic, but rather pluralistic. I value all languages and cultures. No language can serve all purposes and no culture is perfect. I like German, French, Spanish, Anglo and Russian cultures. I also like Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Javanese, Arab cultures. Every culture in fact. Why? Because each culture is a rich window to the world, each has a place in the sun and each has strengths that complements the others' defects. That's why I dare not conclude. I am not a hater of people of European origin as well. I have heaps of European friends and Asian friends (Africans & others are too rare here). I have European blood as well through my great grandfather.
This is why I stop calling you "Eurocentric": you're using the word global but you do not actually mean what it means. That's why were having an "argument" about globalness. This definition of global can come in handy for you. And you mean you're Europhile when you say you're Eurocentric. I suggest that you buy either a thesaurus or a descriptionary, seriously. Having that in mind, English, the European language with the largest speakers (both native and non-native) is not spoken by about 60% of the world (I'm being overly generous with that figure), then is not global but limited in scope. And "international" definitely suit it more as a description now. A fellow European, Socrates, said "The unexamined life is not worth living". This can be transformed to "The unexamined question is not worth answering". That might help you in establishing whether there really are "must have" languages in the first place. You are not required to accept loaded assumptions in questions or statements.
In my case, what immediately comes to mind is not whether your "wording is not perfectly accurate". From what I understood with the posts you've traded with Suriya, you sounded like a European supremacist deep inside who advocates dominance, control and rule over those who are non-European in origin. But since its clear now that your not, I retract such "condemnation" of your 'language Eurocentrism'. Edited by Raчraч Ŋuɲa on 02 April 2009 at 11:28am 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Suriya Tetraglot Newbie Thailand Joined 5732 days ago 34 posts - 38 votes Speaks: Thai*, Laotian, English, Japanese Studies: Spanish, French, Welsh | Message 108 of 149 02 April 2009 at 1:05pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||
If I may stress my points: - Global means entire world, or at the very least most of the world. - But most of Asian do not speak a European language, thus they are not global. - English is the most useful perhaps, but maybe less than 15 percent of us speak it. (bear in mind that in most of Asia, English is a mark of status, mostly spoken by well-educated posh people which aren't a lot) - In conclusion, If there was to be a 'global language' it is probably English at the moment, and ONLY English. None of other European languages would stand a chance in Asia since it would be Chinese dialects, Arabic dialects and Hindi, etc. that dominate Asia. But I strongly believe that even English isn't completely 'global', it's just most useful. I'm quite demotivated to carry on because my reasons were either deviated or rejected, so this might be my last post in this topic. Call me ignorant but what does orgin mean? Why does it need to be starred? Edited by Suriya on 02 April 2009 at 1:45pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||
| jbbar Senior Member Belgium Joined 5742 days ago 192 posts - 210 votes Speaks: English | Message 109 of 149 02 April 2009 at 9:24pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
To Suriya:
Suriya, I'm sorry but I find your argument irrelevant to this discussion. Spanish, French and Arabic are even less known in South and East Asia, if at all. Basically you're saying that because a majority of lower and middle class Asians don't speak any of these languages, they cannot be useful and there is no such thing as useful languages in general! Taking India as an example, English is the language of government and politics, the ruling "elite", and the economically more advantaged. It is India's unifying language. Hindi is unlikely ever to replace and it would make no sense for India to ditch English. If North India's population is to become more prosperous, I believe the Indian government will promote the study of English alongside Hindi in this region. Higher education in India is conducted largely in English and not in native languages. Hindi could not possibly replace English in the field of higher education in India. Also, India's knowledge of English is a major advantage over China. So if anything, English is going to grow in importance in that region as India's economy matures. Also, whether you like it or not, it really is the "rich" and "posh" few that determine the future of these countries I mentioned and therefore the usefulness of English remains because their elite use it to the advantage of their countries (or themselves, perhaps). After all, who visits the poor Chinese and Indian countrysides apart from NGOs and maybe a handful of adventurous tourists? It is not the Indian and Chinese countrysides that determine the usefulness of any language. I thought that's quite self-evident. If you hadn't noticed already, I have been talking about the general or global or international usefulness of languages from the beginning just like pretty much EVERYONE else here. I did not call you ignorant. I really do agree with you that overall English isn't spoken by many people in Asia. But it's not the NUMBER of people who speak it but WHO speaks it (and for what *purposes*) that makes it important. That has been my point all the time. So I don't reject your observations but I don't think they go to disprove the points I've made. Also, why do you keep on ignoring that I have mentioned Mandarin and Arabic as important languages? How about re-reading my first two posts in this topic?? If you want to know why I emphasized "in origin" then I suggest you read one of my previous replies in which I talked about the fact that many "European" languages are really spoken more outside Europe and hence I believe my opinion on "must-have" or "useful" languages does not amount to some kind of "language Eurocentrism." Those replies were not even directed at you but at Raчraч Ŋuɲa so I don't see why you're getting so upset over this. To Raчraч Ŋuɲa : Thanks for your reply. Here's what Merriam Webster says: "global" : (2) of, relating to, or involving the entire world "international" : (3) active, known, or reaching beyond national boundaries I think you and I simply have a different perspective on what is to be considered global or international. To me, it really amounts to the same. Also, as I have said in my reply to Suriya, to me it's all about who speaks it and what purposes it serves rather than simply the percentage of the world's population who speaks it. After all, the world still consists of many countries and there is not really a world government and a world identity. So I've been using the word "global" in the sense that its influence is seen all over the world, in various domains such as politics, science or technology. The Oxford English Dictionary says the following on the word "global": Pertaining to or embracing the totality of a number of items, categories, etc.; comprehensive, all-inclusive, unified; total; spec. pertaining to or involving the whole world; world-wide; universal. Frankly I never considered how my usage of the word would be seen as problematic since I've seen it being used exactly in the way I was using it. Merriam Webster on... "Eurocentrism" : reflecting a tendency to interpret the world in terms of western and especially European or Anglo-American values and experiences I do understand your point on this. Perhaps Europhile is more appropriate since "Eurocentrism" means various things to various people. What I am talking about is culture, values and politics. Not racial superiority, as some people interpret Eurocentrism. I also recognize that other civilizations have contributed to ours and quite frankly I think that in spite of all that's been said, assumed or asserted in this topic, I might be considered an Asiaphile in some regards as well since I have a lot of respect for some aspects of Asian civilizations. I also agree that the U.S. appears to be on its way out. But even so the usage of English today is so widespread and covers so many fields that I find it almost unimaginable that it could be replaced in a matter of a few years by another language. It took the English language quite some time before it got to the point where it is today. It will take Mandarin or any other language a lot more to be able to replace English. In fact it makes me wonder if it's even possible at all, but I guess there's always some way... Think of the huge importance of English in the world of electronics, the aerospace industry and especially computer technology, for instance. Other than that I have little I want to add or that I find worth elaborating on since it's basically all contained in my reply to Suriya. I hope this clarifies my position and settles things a bit. People make a fuzz out of something I was hoping there was not going to be a fuzz about as I even wrote a second message about perceived language eurocentrism right after my first message in this topic. But even that was not enough. Perhaps I didn't get the point across, but I thought my original message was quite clear. My first message consisted of two parts dealing with what I thought were "important languages" and then a second part about the "bare minimum" of languages one should study to get around. I don't see how it was any worse or different from that of others, and especially not how it could have offended anyone. jbbar Edited by jbbar on 02 April 2009 at 11:41pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ennime Tetraglot Senior Member South Africa universityofbrokengl Joined 5846 days ago 397 posts - 507 votes Speaks: English, Dutch*, Esperanto, Afrikaans Studies: Xhosa, French, Korean, Portuguese, Zulu | Message 110 of 149 02 April 2009 at 9:42pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
@jbbar... I agree with Suriya. Sorry to say but she is right, English is the most
useful for a traveler, politician, etc. but that doesn't make it global by my definition, it makes it elite (like the status it has in Korea... everyone tries to learn it, few ever succeed).
eh... well it kinda was obvious to me, my personal opinion is that your emphasis on English and European languages tastes of ignorance towards the huge importance other languages have, and considering the history of English and English speaking people in the world's history, and the way English language is often oppressing native languages... do the math. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||
| jbbar Senior Member Belgium Joined 5742 days ago 192 posts - 210 votes Speaks: English | Message 111 of 149 02 April 2009 at 10:04pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||
You're entitled to your opinion but it is not *only* the language of the elite, you know. It is also the main language of business and science, among other things. And most people in Europe do not speak English at an advanced level either. In some Southern European countries, there are few who speak one foreign language fluently, let alone two or more. I also disagree with your theory about English "oppressing" or rather endangering native languages. Your country as well as Japan have pretty high standards of living and English has not harmed your native languages at all. In fact from what I've read most Japanese, for instance, are total monoglots. And just how many Koreans really speak English decently? Of course it's even harder for you than for a native Dutch speaker like myself, but would you rather be forced to speak Japanese instead like you were some sixty years ago? Or Mandarin, maybe? Get real and be thankful you're not one of their colonies anymore. Also I emphasized "European" languages but most of these "European" languages are spoken on various continents. Just look at English and Spanish, not to mention French and Russian. On a "sidenote", I also included Arabic and Mandarin among those languages. But you are of course perfectly welcome to just keep ignoring that and imply I'm an imperialist or something! Hey, how do you think I got to speak English more or less fluently? Studying and working hard for it. You really should not kid yourself into thinking you're so much worse off than people in other parts of the world. jbbar Edited by jbbar on 02 April 2009 at 11:45pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||
| portunhol Triglot Senior Member United States thelinguistblogger.w Joined 6194 days ago 198 posts - 299 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: German, Arabic (classical) | Message 112 of 149 02 April 2009 at 10:48pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don’t mean to open the can of worms any further but I’m not the one mudslinging on this forum. I have to say that, as an American, I find all of this Anti-Americanism to be childish. Unless you are an Iraqi or an Afghan you are not being oppressed by the Americans. It's time for many of you to take responsibility for yourselves and recognize that America only has the influence you allow it to have. Stop blaming us for selling you things that you like to buy, music that you like to listen to and movies and TV shows that you like to watch. If you don’t like how a few aspects of my country’s culture are highly present in yours then please stop buying our products, listening to our music and watching our movies and TV shows. All this talk about how “America is on its way out” is tactless and premature. Please show me, and the other Americans in this forum, the respect that you would like us to show your cultures.
Jbbar’s use of the word “global” is completely correct. Any educated English speaker will tell you that. Trying to make a definition narrower to suit your argument and criticize others is asinine. Just because you use a word a certain way does not necessarily mean that that is the only way the word can be used. It would be like contending that the word universal can only refer to characteristics that are common to the entire universe. If you don’t think that European languages should be so widely studied, that’s fine; list your reasons for what languages should be studied in their place. Criticizing without offering a solution helps no one. I think it would be better for us to talk about what languages we feel are important for polyglots rather than attack languages and cultures that we feel are not. Edited by portunhol on 02 April 2009 at 11:06pm 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
