You come back as a ghost?And 100 years later, I won't be there, so how can I call it my language?
What to teach and what not.
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Anuradha Chepur
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:33 am
- Location: India
But, seriously, languages do change with time,
whether you live or not to like it or not.
whether you live or not to like it or not.
Last edited by Anuradha Chepur on Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Artificial languages have been tried before as an international language, like Esperanto, (which can be learned in two weeks), but they haven't caught on, because they don't embody the activities and projects of an ambitious and successful people. Learning a language so one can speak to people of other languages in the world is only a side benefit. The main benefit for learning a language is to trade, learn, and interact with the institutions of that demonstrably successful country.
English is in the forefront because the countries that speak it are, for the most part, leaders — especially economically. They have embraced Anglo-American free-market principles, which unleash the latent power of productivity in people (no matter what country those principles are tried in or what race tries them). The result was the prominence of our markets, and thus our language. Compare Asian languages and the difference between Japanese and Filipino, or Vietnamese. Which enjoys more status? The Japanese powerhouse. Look at how the French language has been downgraded compared to it's former glory, matching its economic decline. Socialism and Communism stifles economies along with their languages. Free markets boost them. Look at how the Chinese language has been upgraded as they toy with capitalism more and more.
If a simple world language was needed, learn Indonesian Bahasa. It's the easiest language in the world to learn and rules are very simple. But a simple vehicle for speaking to people of just any country isn't the most urgent need, though it be urgent.
English is in the forefront because the countries that speak it are, for the most part, leaders — especially economically. They have embraced Anglo-American free-market principles, which unleash the latent power of productivity in people (no matter what country those principles are tried in or what race tries them). The result was the prominence of our markets, and thus our language. Compare Asian languages and the difference between Japanese and Filipino, or Vietnamese. Which enjoys more status? The Japanese powerhouse. Look at how the French language has been downgraded compared to it's former glory, matching its economic decline. Socialism and Communism stifles economies along with their languages. Free markets boost them. Look at how the Chinese language has been upgraded as they toy with capitalism more and more.
If a simple world language was needed, learn Indonesian Bahasa. It's the easiest language in the world to learn and rules are very simple. But a simple vehicle for speaking to people of just any country isn't the most urgent need, though it be urgent.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Or region. Or neighbour. Yet we are not talking about a language here, but about variants of a language. Do you feel that anyone who wants to do well in business has to learn either the AE/BE standard or similar?The main benefit for learning a language is to trade, learn, and interact with the institutions of that demonstrably successful country.
Rather those who can benefit trading with or interacting with those institutions will want to learn that language and not a variant that NES might not know. In a prosperous country, there will be thousands (millions?) of such institutions seeking mutually beneficial exchanges more so than in a poor country.
The language has variants, and Standard English is one of those variants.jotham wrote:Rather those who can benefit trading with or interacting with those institutions will want to learn that language and not a variant that NES might not know.
How about India?In a prosperous country, there will be thousands (millions?) of such institutions seeking mutually beneficial exchanges more so than in a poor country.
India has a rising middle class. Most of its independence, it has followed socialism and protectionism until about 1991, which is why there are still so many poor there (22% below poverty line) and why the language isn't as prominent in the world as it should be, (for what the population is). I'm under the impression that although more liberalized, it still isn't following free-market principles (correct me if I'm wrong). But still, it has phenomenal growth. After such spurts, we see the rise in status perhaps twenty years later, if not immediately.
Also Indians are two-thirds farmers, which is awfully inefficient. What is it in USA? One farmer feeds a hundred? Or even better? Our farmers feed not only the US but also the world: "breadbasket of the world."
Also Indians are two-thirds farmers, which is awfully inefficient. What is it in USA? One farmer feeds a hundred? Or even better? Our farmers feed not only the US but also the world: "breadbasket of the world."
jotham wrote:India has a rising middle class. Most of its independence, it has followed socialism and protectionism until about 1991, which is why there are still so many poor there (22% below poverty line) and why the language isn't as prominent in the world as it should be, (for what the population is).
So what's happening here/there?
"Poor Americans continue to multiply under Bush as Republicans continue to ignore trend"
http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/16063.php
Number of poor children hits 12.9 million
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusand ... overty.htm
The rise is now, but which variant do you think they are using/choosing for business nationally and internationally?I'm under the impression that although more liberalized, it still isn't following free-market principles (correct me if I'm wrong). But still, it has phenomenal growth. After such spurts, we see the rise in status perhaps twenty years later, if not immediately.
Correction, your farmers feed a great part of the US, but you still have a lot of hungry people.One farmer feeds a hundred? Or even better? Our farmers feed not only the US but also the world: "breadbasket of the world."
U.S Hunger Facts
One in 10 people in the U.S. lives in a household that experiences hunger or the risk of hunger. (Bread for the World)
http://www.endhunger.org/us_hunger.htm
Wow, the debate has made a sudden turn. But I've always suspected that when certain philosophies, even about language, are followed, they eventually end up in politics. Even if you respond to this (and I know you will), I am only responding to a political rebuttal just this one time to show I'm not shying away from it, though this is a language forum. But I would eagerly talk to you about it on another. This topic takes days and pages to discuss and numbers to crunch, and we probably shouldn't, unless the tie to linguistics becomes readily apparent.
First, poverty is as subjective as perhaps standard English: there's a controversy about how to define it. Defined one way, the USA has eradicated it; defined another, it's as bad as third-world countries.
Second, poverty trails recessions. If we take the official poverty standard — established forty years ago, during the Johnson administration — "poverty" has risen these past four years (12.9% 2004). This is common after a recession, the last having started in 2000 — before Bush came into office. The recession ended quickly; but since the poverty rate historically trails recessions, the official poverty rate keeps rising despite the recession's end. It should, however, begin responding to the economic boom, and thus decrease — provided there are no other crises. After all, the economy is booming and employment is rising every month — and all this despite the recently high oil prices and Katrina.
Third, it has to be looked at in context. The official poverty rate was at its highest at 15% in 1983 — having followed a real bad recession beginning in 1980 — after which it tumbled down, more or less, until 1989. It also rose to 15% again in 1993.
Fourth, you're quoting from many sources that are political. I can list sources that are neutral, or from another political view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in ... ted_States
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm
I won't address hunger right now, but on another forum, that would be okay.
First, poverty is as subjective as perhaps standard English: there's a controversy about how to define it. Defined one way, the USA has eradicated it; defined another, it's as bad as third-world countries.
Second, poverty trails recessions. If we take the official poverty standard — established forty years ago, during the Johnson administration — "poverty" has risen these past four years (12.9% 2004). This is common after a recession, the last having started in 2000 — before Bush came into office. The recession ended quickly; but since the poverty rate historically trails recessions, the official poverty rate keeps rising despite the recession's end. It should, however, begin responding to the economic boom, and thus decrease — provided there are no other crises. After all, the economy is booming and employment is rising every month — and all this despite the recently high oil prices and Katrina.
Third, it has to be looked at in context. The official poverty rate was at its highest at 15% in 1983 — having followed a real bad recession beginning in 1980 — after which it tumbled down, more or less, until 1989. It also rose to 15% again in 1993.
Fourth, you're quoting from many sources that are political. I can list sources that are neutral, or from another political view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in ... ted_States
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm
I won't address hunger right now, but on another forum, that would be okay.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:05 pm, edited 7 times in total.
No, please don't. I was only asking you to comment on those findings. Anyway, onward. Which variant of English do you think most Indians are chossing/will choose when doing intranational and international business?Fourth, you're quoting from many sources that are political. I can list sources that are neutral, or from another policital view.