European Common Language - The Poll

[Angela]

Do you gentlemen know what "sour grapes" means? How about "fighting a losing battle"? Or "tilting at windmills"? Or "too bad, so sad"? How about "suck it up and get over it"? Or, "it's time to join the winning side"? Or "an exercise in futility"? I love the pragmatism and no nonsense attitude you can see in these kinds of phrases.

I thought it was time to interject a little sanity and have some fun with this.

More seriously...

"English has become a universal language. There are many reasons for its dominance: the heritage of the British Empire, and the post-world-war economic hegemony and cultural influence – ranging from Mickey Mouse and Marilyn Monroe to Elvis Presley and Snoop Dogg – of the United States.

But the main reason is the elasticity of the language and the broad-mindedness it communicates. If English grammar is rudimentary, the linguistic equivalent of rock’ n’ roll, the English vocabulary is huge. There are very few things that can’t be expressed in English, and if it can’t be said in English then a word is lifted from another language – like "kindergarten," for example. If it doesn’t exist in English and a word isn’t lifted from another language it’s because what it represents doesn’t make sense to thinking shaped by the English language: a case in point, "Schicksalsgemeinschaft" (companions in fate).The predominance of English in sciences, economy, culture and politics is overwhelming. In Palestine, in the days of Jesus of Nazareth, Latin was the language of the military and government. But to be considered educated you had to speak Greek; if you were Jewish you also had to speak Hebrew; and the language of the masses was Aramaic. In the Europe of the late Middle Ages, Latin was the language of the erudite, Italian the language of trade, and blossoming cultures used their own respective languages..."
http://carloz.newsvine.com/_news/2013/01/29/16755280-why-the-english-language-dominates-the-world

Keep your native languages by all means. Console yourselves with the thought that they are superior if it makes you feel better. The fact remains that in today's world you have to master English, not only for trade and commerce, science and technology and travel, but for diplomacy, and for culture. Learn it or get left behind. That may seem harsh, but it's true.

Another more productive area of discussion was alluded to in the above quote. Language not only reflects culture, it also shapes thinking and thereby creates culture. Certain words are indeed not adopted into English, such as "companions of fate", because the concept is antithetical to the positive, pro-active, individualistic and pragmatic culture of English speakers. Perhaps with the adoption of English some of the passive, resigned, ossified thinking of other groups of people will change.

 

[Ike]

But the main reason is the elasticity of the language and the broad-mindedness it communicates. If English grammar is rudimentary, the linguistic equivalent of rock’ n’ roll, the English vocabulary is huge.

Exactly.
1. It's too elastic = imprecise.
2. It's too much primitive and not subtle enough.

Perhaps with the adoption of English some of the passive, resigned, ossified thinking of other groups of people will change.

They will change and it already happens everywhere, and that's the worse part of it. Especially when the mental change follows linguistic change - thinking pattern simplification.

 

[Drac II]

40 years ago sill in use was french.

Did this ment, that french was the best languge in the world? So why english now?

He did not change so much through last 60 years, really...

Did this mean that french should be one postulate language for Europe then? Why now would be worse?

Yes, but 60 years ago technological developments did not affect people's lives as much as today. One of the main reasons why English has become so widespread all over the planet in the last decades has to do with technological developments, like computers for example, which took place mostly in the United States and from there spread to the rest of the world. The very fact that people from all over the planet are on Internet forums like this one conversing and communicating in English and not another language more than sufficiently illustrates the impact that this technology developed in an English-speaking country alone has had on the popularity of and acquaintance with the English language worldwide. Learning at least basic English has become practically a necessity for millions of people in the non-English-speaking world. Had a French-speaking (or of any other language for that matter) country developed these technologies and then spread them all over the globe, it would have retained more of its previous status and popularity.

 

[Angela]

Exactly.
1. It's too elastic = imprecise.
2. It's too much primitive and not subtle enough.


They will change and it already happens everywhere, and that's the worse part of it. Especially when the mental change follows linguistic change - thinking pattern simplification.

On the contrary, because of its varied vocabulary it can be extremely subtle, and it has great expressive power. "No other language can boast such a rich vocabulary..In addition, the richness of the English vocabulary continues to be enhanced as words acquire new shades of meaning as the language is used in novel situations. The expressive power of English is also enhanced by its great adaptability, as words, roots, affixes and prepositions can be easily combined to make new words. This makes it a very productive language and well suited to be applied to new concepts and in new situations. It is a powerful tool in the hands of writers."

I would go further and say that it's an incomparable language in the hands of writers. Of course, you have barely educated people, even native speakers, on whom most of this richness is lost. That's also the case for many speakers of English as a second language. They don't see the subtleties because they haven't put in the effort to learn all the different words for various phenomena and how they differ and when they should and should not be used to convey not only visual information, but also emotional meaning. That's ok though because they can still use it for their purposes.

Just a small example...all these words have to do with the refraction of light. There are many, many more. The meanings are all different. You can't substitute one for another: dazzle, shimmer, glimmer, glint, glisten, sparkle, twinkle, spark, flicker, flash, glow. Just because a foreign speaker doesn't know the precise meaning of these words doesn't mean there isn't a precise meaning.

As to your second point, there is no up side to being passive and accepting in the face of life's challenges, either for individuals or nations. Saying it's God's Will and leaving it at that is counter-productive. Wallowing in depression is self-defeating. Believing that there is a solution and you can find it is how human society progresses. Do I like everything about modern culture as it is developing? No, I don't. I'm actually quite conservative on social matters, but most decidedly not in terms of science and technology. If some groups or countries want to retreat from the modern world, hugging to themselves ancient modes of living, of being, of thinking, refusing to learn the international language, then that's their choice. I think that in part that's what's going on in the Near East. I suppose on one level it just leaves more of the prosperity for others. It's not what I want for me or mine.

Ed. For what it's worth, I love my native language. I read it and hear it spoken (through the computer, and television, and radio) every day. I also still try to read French authors in French. That doesn't change anything that I said.

 

[Ike]

On the contrary, because of its varied vocabulary it can be extremely subtle, and it has great expressive power. "No other language can boast such a rich vocabulary..In addition, the richness of the English vocabulary continues to be enhanced as words acquire new shades of meaning as the language is used in novel situations. The expressive power of English is also enhanced by its great adaptability, as words, roots, affixes and prepositions can be easily combined to make new words. This makes it a very productive language and well suited to be applied to new concepts and in new situations. It is a powerful tool in the hands of writers."

I would go further and say that it's an incomparable language in the hands of writers. Of course, you have barely educated people, even native speakers, on whom most of this richness is lost. That's also the case for many speakers of English as a second language. They don't see the subtleties because they haven't put in the effort to learn all the different words for various phenomena and how they differ and when they should and should not be used to convey not only visual information, but also emotional meaning. That's ok though because they can still use it for their purposes.

Just a small example...all these words have to do with the refraction of light. There are many, many more. The meanings are all different. You can't substitute one for another: dazzle, shimmer, glimmer, glint, glisten, sparkle, twinkle, spark, flicker, flash, glow. Just because a foreign speaker doesn't know the precise meaning of these words doesn't mean there isn't a precise meaning.

You somehow don't understand it. It's not the number of words, or adjectives. Yes, English is rich in them, but I'm not talking about that. The enormous vocabulary English has got may be very subtle, but the language itself is not. How do I put it better? Lets say I have a jackhammer. I can have 10.000 drill bits ranging from 1 millimeter to 10 cm (in 1 micron steps), and it still wouldn't help me make a better hole than you working with a hand drill with just 10 conventional drill bits.

As to your second point, there is no up side to being passive and accepting in the face of life's challenges, either for individuals or nations. Saying it's God's Will and leaving it at that is counter-productive. Wallowing in depression is self-defeating. Believing that there is a solution and you can find it is how human society progresses. Do I like everything about modern culture as it is developing? No, I don't. I'm actually quite conservative on social matters, but most decidedly not in terms of science and technology. If some groups or countries want to retreat from the modern world, hugging to themselves ancient modes of living, of being, of thinking, refusing to learn the international language, then that's their choice. I think that in part that's what's going on in the Near East. I suppose on one level it just leaves more of the prosperity for others. It's not what I want for me or mine.

The problem arises from the idea of prosperity you have. It is a classical worn-out Western mental concept Or as you've already said:

The world has changed. You change with it or you don't compete.

As you've mentioned, you do understand that there are cultures and people that do not want to compete and despise that form of living. Western countries pick up all talented, young, hard-working, competitive and ambitious people from around the world, but they are somehow now satisfied with that all that, but they also have a burning desire to convince everyone in the world to be as competitive as they are. Ok, I understand, if they manage there goes more potential human resources for them. They have managed to implant the concept of change so deep in your head, that you've mentioned it here just as if it a default state of mind. It is not. Competitiveness is the game they invented, and they are best at it, and now they try to full us all into playing it for our lives. I may like or not like the game but that's not the point, insisting on others playing that game exclusively is a form of cultural genocide.

I personally see no way that Italians, French, Finns or others are safe from that. They will all go down just like Indians did. Not to mention that there is certainly no place for Bushmans or Aborigines in that kind of world. If you ask, I'm not particularly worried about Yugoslavia, I have a strong faith in our Dinaric vacuousness. They're the last to go down (source).:grin:

Ed. For what it's worth, I love my native language. I read it and hear it spoken (through the computer, and television, and radio) every day. I also still try to read French authors in French. That doesn't change anything that I said.

Agreed. Never would I thought that you'd think different.

 

[Angela]

Ike, I am very attached to my central heating, my washing machine, my stove, my bursting supermarkets, my quality medications should I need them, a wonderful education system for my children, media presenting every possible point of view, my car. my laptop, my I Phone, my silk blouses and high heels. I want them for my children too...well, so far it seems as if my son will pass on the high heels.

I would wager that if I spoke to the women of your country they'd want those things too. It's usually men, in my experience, who are far more impractical about life.

Has it been hard to keep hold of my rather more traditional values and my particular Italian sensibility? Yes, it has, but it can be done.

 

[Ike]

Ike, I am very attached to my central heating, my washing machine, my stove, my bursting supermarkets, my quality medications should I need them, a wonderful education system for my children, media presenting every possible point of view, my car. my laptop, my I Phone, my silk blouses and high heels. I want them for my children too...well, so far it seems as if my son will pass on the high heels.

That would be a kind of reductio ad absurdum. Not accepting the change eagerly, doesn't mean one is against it.

As you know, you stove, washing machine etc. work on electricity, which looks like this and makes this; your car battery and pharmaceutical industry leaves this and supermarkets and megacities produce this. Don't know about you, but I am pretty aware that for every 10 kids not having a laptop, one of these kids would be still alive. It's not my point to make your stomach bad, so I'm choosing some random neutral google pics, with the appropriate message, but you can well imagine all aforementioned visual examples better represented in their total gruesomeness.

I guess it's easier to turn our heads away and look at what we've got, what we have gained. Yes, it's easier. I have everything I've ever wanted and imagined, and most of it was not a necessity. It's not the problem we have redundant implements of luxury, it's the self-destructive appetite we've developed for them. And that's a cultural thing.

I would wager that if I spoke to the women of your country they'd want those things too. It's usually men, in my experience, who are far more impractical about life.

We all want it, that is not the problem. The difference is that some are not willing to accept those commodities when they know what goes on the other side. You have a good system devised for a persons like you are, and for those who are not alike or were not gifted from god with any of the payable skills smiles the basement and lifetime of agony and despair. Anyway we are smarter than them, so we should do everything in our power to keep it this way?

Has it been hard to keep hold of my rather more traditional values and my particular Italian sensibility? Yes, it has, but it can be done.

Probably, but that is not the point. You, yourself (or you parents, doesn't matter) have chosen willingly to change the habitat and are acting according to the circumstances. I have no problem that people who want to leave have to accommodate to the new culture, the problem is that my position is jeopardized in my home. Cultural influences that we experience here in small countries can be simply interpreted as terror - both from West or Islam. Stripped of all contemporary makeup, the only thing it is good for,is to make us more alike so that we can be easier to manipulate for further military aggressions. That's what Macedonians and Romans did, that's what Islam does, that's what West does. They all have a different strategy, but the ultimate goal is the same.

 

[RobertColumbia]

....There are very few things that can’t be expressed in English, and if it can’t be said in English then a word is lifted from another language – like "kindergarten," for example. If it doesn’t exist in English and a word isn’t lifted from another language it’s because what it represents doesn’t make sense to thinking shaped by the English language....

The concept of "kindergarten" could be expressed as "the school year immediately preceeding US first grade", "zeroth grade", or "the very first year of schooling for small children who have not yet advanced to the numbered school year system", but it is called kindergarten, iirc, because the idea of starting children in school earlier than was traditionally done in the US was popularized by German-speaking immigrants who naturally gave the "new" year a name from their own language. If sending younger children to school had instead been proposed or popularized by Mexicans, what is now kindergarten might instead have been called jovenes (youths) or floritos (little flowers).

 

[RobertColumbia]

Robert,
of course this is understandable, and I uderstand this type of construction very well.
But this is understandable, not because of mening the words, but feeling about them.
If you take only this two words, thay describe only two (or more) separate subjects....but try to compere this with others, or look deeply in
the written words, and you see, what I am talking about. Bible God you understand,
but if I'll write... God Bible... what it means?

There are three critical concepts to consider here:

1) grammar
2) semantics
3) culture

You need at least the first two, if not all three, to "make sense" in any language. You may know, as Noam Chomsky observed, that colorless green ideas sleep furiously. You can't, in any language, simply take words and mash them up together and expect them to be understandable. Human language is about people communicating about complex, nuanced, and often vague human concepts, not about computers specifying a unique and unambiguous mathematical expression.

 

[RobertColumbia]

...Bible God and examples alike. I agree that it is perfectly understandable to a proficient English speaker, but that is exactly the problem. It needs to be understandable to a non-proficient english speaker when he hears it for the first time. Every 5 year old can learn what 'blood' and 'orange' is, but deciphering what 'blood orange' is would be a hard task for it. Not to mention what he would get out of it, once he thinks he got it - a duck car (for taxi), a water mellon (for an eggplant)....

If you exclude English because it includes confusing grammar such as "Bible God", then you would have to exclude German as a candidate as well because it has the same grammatical concept. The German form of the concept is arguably even more confusing to non-native speakers because it mashes up all of the nouns, omitting all spaces between them. English at least tries to let you know where the boundaries of each component word are.

 

[Johannes]

Johannes, I gave you so many examples why fusional language is better than english.
In grammatical structure, in word formation, in precision of verbal useness, and some more.
And I am not a specialist at all... I am common user of fusional language, nothing more...

You, teacher - gave me nothing, what prooves, that analitical is better than fusional.

You only try talking over and over again, that I dont know
enough english, and that every languages are the same.
Very poor argumentation... or lacking of her at all...

So why do you think, that english is better?

Maybe this is the cause:

Rethel: I don't think English is better. There is no such thing as one language being better than another. All languages are equally the same as long as they serve a function, and that is to allow communication between peoples. The real reason why one language dominates over others is power. It's all about power. Power determines which language will dominate the world.

Let's look at history: Greek became the dominant language in the 5th century BCE because the Greeks defeated the Persians and they eventually dominated the eastern Mediterranean. The Greeks also created a great culture; and during the Hellenistic Era, they conquered all of the known world at the time (except Western Europe, but had Alexander the Great not died so young, I am sure the Macedonians and Greeks would have conquered it). Then the Romans came in and conquered everyone in Western Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Thus Latin became the dominant language in both commerce and administration. Greek was still used in cultural matters and in administrating the eastern territories. Latin lasted for over 1500 years and Greek for about 2000 years. Both languages were dominant because of the power of their civilizations. If the Greeks and Romans had not become super powers then another language would have been used. During the Middle Ages Latin was used as an international language because people spoke different languages and they needed to communicate. Greek was used in the Eastern Roman Empire until the Turks conquered Constantinople. During the Renaissance nations in Europe began to feel that their languages were just as good as Latin and Latin was eventually replaced and relegated to religious matters. Spain then became the first modern super-power. Spain built such a huge empire and its power was such that everyone in Europe began to copy Spanish customs, dress, manners, and even began to learn Castilian. For example, Emperor Charles I, Queen Mary and Queen Elisabeth of England, Francis I, and Mary Queen of Scots all spoke Spanish. The reason for this was that Spain was not only a military but also an economic and cultural power. After Spain declined the French took over the number one position, and guess what? French became the dominant language in Europe for the next 150 years. When France lost almost all her colonies to England, then English started to become the dominant language, but Britain was always on shaky ground, and it took the defeat of Napoleon to secure English as the number one power. Thus English began to rise as the dominant language of the world. But French was still considered an important language in international diplomacy and culture. However, English did begin to be used more and more in commerce throughout the world. Germany should have taken over the number one spot and German would have become the top language in international relations and trade (even culture). However, Germany was too arrogant and was defeated twice and thus lost its potential number one position. Finally it took the rise of American power to make English the secure number one language of the world.

Thus it does not matter if "fusional" languages are superior to English. It is the power of the nation that determines what language will be the dominant language in the world. If Poland or Russia had become number one major world powers then most people today would be speaking Polish and/or Russian. But alas it never happened. There is also no explanation as to why one language becomes dominant over others. There is no teleological explanation. It just happens by chance. So even though most Europeans might not like English, they will have to learn it in order to do business. There is no other choice.

 

[Johannes]

If you exclude English because it includes confusing grammar such as "Bible God", then you would have to exclude German as a candidate as well because it has the same grammatical concept. The German form of the concept is arguably even more confusing to non-native speakers because it mashes up all of the nouns, omitting all spaces between them. English at least tries to let you know where the boundaries of each component word are.

Excellent point. Thank you for this. I hope these non native speakers can finally understand English.

 

[Ike]

How can that be a point? Heonly mentioned a worse example so that the other one would seem better. Why going in that direction....

 

[RobertColumbia]

How can that be a point? Heonly mentioned a worse example so that the other one would seem better. Why going in that direction....

My point was that it is not fair to criticize English by pointing out potentially confusing aspects of its grammar without also mentioning that other languages have grammatical features that are as, if not more, confusing. Every natural language has quirks. You have to slog through them to learn the language. That's nothing new. Spanish has an interesting grammatical feature where a person doesn't generally speak about washing their hands, they actually say that they "lavarse las manos", that is, they "wash themselves the hands". Why not simply have people say that they "lavar sus manos"? It's just how Spanish does it.

 

[Ike]

My point was that it is not fair to criticize English by pointing out potentially confusing aspects of its grammar without also mentioning that other languages have grammatical features that are as, if not more, confusing. Every natural language has quirks. You have to slog through them to learn the language. That's nothing new. Spanish has an interesting grammatical feature where a person doesn't generally speak about washing their hands, they actually say that they "lavarse las manos", that is, they "wash themselves the hands". Why not simply have people say that they "lavar sus manos"? It's just how Spanish does it.

I was not talking mainly about confusing grammar, but what could be best described in #66 and last paragraph of #81. That example with Bible God is just a consequence of that.



Don't know Spanish, but that example feels to me very as same as English. Los looks like it's covering English definite article. Correct me if I'm wrong - if you're sitting in the car, and police officer steps to you wanting to move the vehicle, he would not say "Drive a car", but "Drive the car" or even "Drive that car" but this last one has more authoritative connotation.

Same as that, when you say - Wash your hands (lavar sus manos) it sounds a bit like you're giving an order. On the other hand "Wash them/that/those hands" or "Wash the hands" (which should translate best as "lavar sus manos" ?) sounds more neutral. When I think of it, I wonder is that bolder th the source of definite article?

 

[RobertColumbia]

...
Don't know Spanish, but that example feels to me very as same as English. Los looks like it's covering English definite article. Correct me if I'm wrong - if you're sitting in the car, and police officer steps to you wanting to move the vehicle, he would not say "Drive a car", but "Drive the car" or even "Drive that car" but this last one has more authoritative connotation.

Same as that, when you say - Wash your hands (lavar sus manos) it sounds a bit like you're giving an order. On the other hand "Wash them/that/those hands" or "Wash the hands" (which should translate best as "lavar sus manos" ?) sounds more neutral. When I think of it, I wonder is that bolder th the source of definite article?

Interesting idea, but no, "they" and related pronouns are loanwords from Old Norse while "the" is a native West Germanic definite article, cognate to the German "der", "das", and "die" and the Dutch article "de", based on the consonant shift "th"->"d" that most Germanic languages (but notably not English and Icelandic) underwent.

The Spanish concept of treating something done to a part of yourself as something that is fundamentally being done to you, with the exact part listed later as an omittable detail, is a standard and common feature of Spanish. You can brush yourself the teeth, comb yourself the hair, cut yourself the hair, or clean yourself the ears. If you are feeling angry at someone, you can even tell them, "Bésame el culo!", which is a command form that literally means "Kiss me the ass". In English, you tell someone to directly make contact with your ass and kiss it ("Kiss my ass!"). In Spanish, you tell them that you want to be kissed and then specify that you specifically wanted to be kissed on the ass. Lol. If you are having a romantic moment and want to be kissed, you can actually just ask your partner to "Bésame" ("kiss me") and allow the context of what is happening to tell them where to kiss you <3.

 

[Angela]

Interesting idea, but no, "they" and related pronouns are loanwords from Old Norse while "the" is a native West Germanic definite article, cognate to the German "der", "das", and "die" and the Dutch article "de", based on the consonant shift "th"->"d" that most Germanic languages (but notably not English and Icelandic) underwent.

The Spanish concept of treating something done to a part of yourself as something that is fundamentally being done to you, with the exact part listed later as an omittable detail, is a standard and common feature of Spanish. You can brush yourself the teeth, comb yourself the hair, cut yourself the hair, or clean yourself the ears. If you are feeling angry at someone, you can even tell them, "Bésame el culo!", which is a command form that literally means "Kiss me the ass". In English, you tell someone to directly make contact with your ass and kiss it ("Kiss my ass!"). In Spanish, you tell them that you want to be kissed and then specify that you specifically wanted to be kissed on the ass. Lol. If you are having a romantic moment and want to be kissed, you can actually just ask your partner to "Bésame" ("kiss me") and allow the context of what is happening to tell them where to kiss you <3.

Yes, indeed, standard in Romance languages and difficult for Americans, for example, to understand.

 

[RobertColumbia]

Yes, indeed, standard in Romance languages and difficult for Americans, for example, to understand.

Thank you.

In a way, the Spanish way can seem more complex at first to a native speaker of a Germanic language but it does allow one to remain consistent in certain contexts. For example, if your child is leaving home to go to school one morning, you might brush her the hair, check her the hands (to make sure they are clean), and hug her. English is inconsistent as to whether or not these things are being done to her or to a part of her. Spanish simply says you are doing all of these things to her and allows you to add more details if you wish.

This is just another piece of evidence that languages just are. All of them have quirks that make sense in certain ways and seem awkward in others.

 

[Johannes]

My point was that it is not fair to criticize English by pointing out potentially confusing aspects of its grammar without also mentioning that other languages have grammatical features that are as, if not more, confusing. Every natural language has quirks. You have to slog through them to learn the language. That's nothing new. Spanish has an interesting grammatical feature where a person doesn't generally speak about washing their hands, they actually say that they "lavarse las manos", that is, they "wash themselves the hands". Why not simply have people say that they "lavar sus manos"? It's just how Spanish does it.

Woa there: your Spanish is a bit off: "lavarse las manos" does not mean "wash themselves the hands" it means "wash the hands." "lavar las manos" is the more proper way of saying "wash the hands." I am from California and I noticed that many Hispanics and Anglos who never learned Spanish and where elected to the legislature made all kinds of mistakes with Spanish because they never learned proper Spanish to begin with and caused a lot of confusion.

 

[Rethel]

Hmmm.... so... which is more difficult to learn:
more primitive or more complicated language?