|
| Thread: Language barriers!@ |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Hexa
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted October 20, 2002 08:33 PM |
|
|
Language barriers!@
Hmmm I have been wondering what u people think of this.
Picture this: as from today we pick one language. Lets say Spanish and we really make it the world language.
"yeah I know they have already tried this with a new language before and it didn’t work"
I mean as from tomorrow kids at school wil be though Spanish as main language and perhaps there old native language as a second.
What wil this mean asuming we now have three generations of people (Grand parents, parents and kids).
Grandparents: They wil probably never learn Spanish anymore.
SO for them Native language: 100% Spanish: 10%
Parents; the better part of it will learn Spanish because they wil have to for there work and there children.
Native language: 100% Spanish 50%
Kids: since they wil be thought at school and they wil need it in there future work they wil probably be able to speak Spanish as well as there native language by the time they get from school.
Native language 100% Spanish 75%-100%
Ok now we come to the kids of the former kids (now parents).
Since they know both laguages fluentlty and they want the best for there kids they wil probably try to speak as much Spanish as possible and only a bit of the native language to communicate with there parents and grandparents even.
So that would mean for the kids kids native language: 50% Spanish 100%
Ok the rest u can fil in yourself here.
Just 2-3 perhaps 4 generations and we wil be free from this language barriere.
Ok it wil mean some lose of culture and stuff like that.
Will it way up to the benefits.
No more interpartos, no more extra language studies.
Everybody understands everybody (language wise,, because woman and man will never undestand eachother ofcourse, no matter what language they speak  )
Ok I bet u people can name lots more advantages and disadvantages..
Lemmy hear your opinion on this subject please.
____________
If you want to realize your dreams >>> you have to wake up!@
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
posted October 20, 2002 08:44 PM |
|
|
It might work, but we could refine it to two languages.
People with money will speak english.
People without money will speak spanish.
(Hey, it works in the USofA)
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
tuapui
Famous Hero
Poetic Psycho Baby BlackDragon
|
|
posted October 20, 2002 09:08 PM |
|
|
Basically me thinks that since everyone, or majority of the people around the world, knows English, regardless of proficiency of whatnot, I surmise to say that English should be learnt by those who don't. Either to my convenience of to their benefit. Countries like Japan and China, or even Germany and Spain, they should introduce English as a compulsary subject. Since most computers run on an English Dictonary, and english is the MAJOR language, it is much easier to adapt. Some would say why learn? Let others learn for MY benefit! I would agree, but only for those who only speaks english and little else. And especially Japan. They should learn more english. Can't understand those damn Jappy games. Ruins my day. (ESpecially after spending a bomb on it)
____________
 <<<Hy
peractive Do not touch.
Highly Psychotically Poetic.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted October 20, 2002 10:03 PM |
|
|
Practically speaking, one world language would be convienent, yes.
On the other hand, I think the richness of language variety outweighs the practical issues. Different languages work differently; you can say things in one language that just don't translate well into another. Poetry styles vary between languages (i.e., elegant and funny Latin turning into awkward and stilted English  ). Language fits into culture, too. There are words in one language that need to be translated with six or seven words in another. We would lose so much by smoothing over all of this.
Is there any practical way to implement a lingua franca without bulldozing over people's native languages?
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted October 21, 2002 12:13 AM |
|
|
I for one, wouldn't like for everyone to speak in one unified language...
I like cultural diversity, and would hate for us all to fall into a 'melting pot' as it were. Different words in different languages all have a history in their evolution, and i think it's a fascinating thing - to strip that from different cultures would be (i think) the first step in eliminating their culture itself and moving towards one unified group - and how painfully boring would that be?
Not to mention, if we all spoke the same language then it would put an end to all the sexy accents i love so much 
Of course if we did haveto all speak in the same language, i think rather than adopt one used already, the best thing to do would be to make up a whole new one! That would keep the aliens guessing for sure! 
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
|
johnsone79
Hired Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2002 12:29 AM |
|
|
I like the theory of a universal language because it would save a lot of time and trouble. On the other hand, too many things would be lost by forcing a lanquage change. What happens to all the old writings in various languages around the world that have not yet been translated. Although one can say a commission could be started to translate all known works, it would be far more time consuming and require more resources than are feasible. Also, not all old writings have been discovered. Some are still hidden, buried away, or who knows what. What happens a few hundred years down the road when someone discovers a book in some lanquage that is rare even today. There will be noone able to translate it because they have long since forgotten about the language or any connections to it. Great pieces of literature and philosophy could be lost.
There is also an economic interest. Who is most likely to benefit in this one language world? Those who can speak and write it. Who is most likely to learn this one language? The rich and educated. What happens to the poor third world people? They are segregated by there inability to speak the lanquage or pay to learn it. In many third world societies schools do not exist at all, let alone teaching some foreign language that some rich people decided would be the universal language. Many of these people are too worried about feeding themselves from one day to the next to worry about learning a language. Creating a system in which only one language is recognized makes it harder for these people to improve there situation. Of course this is only my opinion and it is very likely that English is much like what I have just described to these people already, but it is something to think about.
What happens to the poor if this change is instituted?
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 21, 2002 12:30 AM |
|
|
I have started to make my own language but the hard part woul be to teach it to someone.
Shpsain=Spanish
Ehnsgil=?
____________
|
|
HeyYou
Known Hero
and beloved food provider.
|
posted October 21, 2002 04:20 PM |
|
|
The problem with this idea is local dialect. Even in America, sometimes it's difficult for me to understand people from diferent parts of the country because of local dialects. If everyone instantly learned English today, within one generation, local dialects would take over, and the language would start to evolve away from "unity."
I can still understand Brits and Irish (mostly), but the "one world language" idea, while attractive, would only be partially effective.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 01:13 AM |
|
|
HeyYou - You understand the Irish? Wow can you teach this brit one day? Now try telling me you can understand A scot from inner city glasgow or a geordie (that's someone from Newcastle) and I might be impressed
Wolfman - Medusa is Lithuanian, which is close but no cigar as far as Russia is concerned. Geuss It's kinda like calling me a frog (wooops sorry frenchman, old habits die hard)
As for second langauge, it's a nice dream Hexa but as HeyYou pointed out pretty soon the individual dialects will grow so far apart they no longer represent the same thing anymore. An example being french and english. Despite trade following the 1066 conquering of England within 400 years of speaking French and then a version of french, english gradually developed to the extent that by the middle ages it was not even close.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 02:11 AM |
|
|
English WAS a germanic langauge (derived from saxons and angles coming to the country during and post roman occupation), but also when the Normans invaded in 1066 they brought their langauge into the country and their customs and this to some extent took over the native toungues for many years. If you don't believe me in the early middle ages it was still possible to converse between English (as such) and French as they were that close. Even at the time of Robin Hood's alleged life the 2 factions were still largely in bloodless conflict. Oh and "French" of the Norman period is kinda a weird version as well as the Normans are actually descended from the Viking settlers who were given Normandy in return for not plundering Paris.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 04:04 AM |
|
|
Well put Hudson. Just like I said, "English is a Germanic Language and the French messed it up"
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 04:21 AM |
|
|
Not entirely the whole story as even in post roman britain the germanic langauge was spoken, but not often written as the priests largely wrote in latin. Although some texts survive from saxon times, most written english is derived more from either latin or later on french (which to be fair is kinda derived from latin too). Since it is largely the writings which determined what form the language developed into this has meant english leans heavily towards latin/french for religious or medical/legal terms, but many of it's more common words come from the period of saxon german times or the Danish period if you look into areas occupied by vikings.
That may explain some of why English is relatively popular globally as if you take aside the issue of America/Britain dominating global trade since 1800, english is derived from so many seperate sources that it is almost impossible to find a national language that has NOT contributed a word or two along the way
And to go back further to be fair "English" as such is largely a celtic langauge for the 1st historically known inhabitants here, closely followed by latin when the romans arrived. "German" phrases would not have entered the langauge until they arrived at the end of the roman period. So bascially English is one messed up langauge, but hell I love it
I wouldn't even say french messed it up either as IMO german (or at least modern german) sounds far too harsh to me. Personally I think you should speak poetry and conduct diplomacy in french, Sing Operas in italian, speak normally in english and use German to shout a lot in other words in the army. French I geuss softened the germanic tongue a bit to create english
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted October 22, 2002 04:34 AM |
|
|
One of my professors suggested an interesting exercise (for English speakers). You write two letters. In one, you use exclusively or almost exclusively Latin-derived words, and in the other you use exclusively or almost exclusively Germanic-derived words (synonyms of words in first letter). Apparently, the difference in tone is amazing.
I think that relates to what johnsone79 said as well as the history discussion, by the way. The upper classes' language became the "polite" language and the lower classes' words became less so. A similar effect would probably emerge from a universal language.
In any case, you'd have to find or create a language with a grammar easily grasped by all adults, regardless of native toungue. The previous created language attempt (Esperanto?) was too heavily influenced by Romance languages, from what I read, and so wasn't as accessible to those who did not speak a language in that family. That sounds like a tall task unto itself.
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 05:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
english is derived from so many seperate sources that it is almost impossible to find a national language that has NOT contributed a word or two along the way
Hey Privatehudson,
if that's the case, why isn't Japanese popular? A great part of Japanese (the spoken language; the written ones are all derived from Chinese) are actually copied from languages all over the world!
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 10:42 AM |
|
|
Hmmmmmmm I'm geussing it's because Japan largely Isolated itself from the rest of the world for centuries and was only ever conquered once to my recollection in 1945 (though my asian history's kinda rough so please feel free to correct me)
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Hexa
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 12:06 PM |
|
|
Khaelo
Quote:
Practically speaking, one world language would be convienent, yes.
On the other hand, I think the richness of language variety outweighs the practical issues. Different languages work differently; you can say things in one language that just don't translate well into another. Poetry styles vary between languages (i.e., elegant and funny Latin turning into awkward and stilted English . Language fits into culture, too. There are words in one language that need to be translated with six or seven words in another. We would lose so much by smoothing over all of this.
Is there any practical way to implement a lingua franca without bulldozing over people's native languages?
Would the loss of cultural heritage be so big as we fear it would be?
Wouldn’t we instead get a more broad scale for f.i. poetry.
Because in a few years we an as easily read the work of an African as we can from somebody from China or something.
At this moment we are confided to reading the books that are either native or translated.
Kind of a narrow perspective huh?
Ok more replies later.
And try to stay on topic guys .. I had to delete more then half the thread.
____________
If you want to realize your dreams >>> you have to wake up!@
|
|
Medusa
Famous Hero
Yeah, right
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 04:51 PM |
|
|
Well my language is lithuanian and it's very hard to understand... really. can someone tell me what have i written; labai sunku. (lich_king is not allowed to guess) i guess noone would understand that's why lithuanian language is the second of the hardests in the world. only chinese is harder
____________
Guardians Grove forum
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 04:53 PM |
|
|
easy:
"Labai Sunku" = I love Stefan.
Aww..thank you dear but i still wanna date others...
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 05:09 PM |
|
|
Well literally (I think) it means something like Much Hard, but since that doesn't make as much sense I geuss it really means Very Hard...........
Is that it?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
RobinHood
Known Hero
|
posted October 22, 2002 05:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you don't believe me in the early middle ages it was still possible to converse between English (as such) and French as they were that close. Even at the time of Robin Hood's alleged life the 2 factions were still largely in bloodless conflict.
Hmm... Are you TalKING TO MEEE ??? 
In fact, I'm learning japanese since 3 weeks & my teacher said : "It's impossible to translate some kanjis" I think she is right.
Kanjis are asiatic ideograms... a kind of alphabet with signs corresponding to syllables. She explained us that the kanji symbolizing the tree may have totally different meanings if you translate it. For example : For Japanese people (tell me Snogard if I'm wrong...) the roots of the tree symbolize : the origine / the source / the wisdom. So the same kanji has a different meaning according to the sense of the sentence.
Moreover, kanjis can be associated : for example, if you to say the verb "to rest", you may associate the kanji symbolizing the man & the kanji symbolizing the tree. In Asia, a man under a tree often means he protects itself from the sun, and then "he rests".
In the last lesson, I learned how to introduce myself. My real First Name (Mathieu) became Ma-Chi-Yu... (which sounds "ma-tchi-iu") and for my hobby (soccer/football) I had to say : "Watashi wa football player des." -> "I am a football player."
It's really paradoxical. With only about 2500 kanjis, you can speack fluently japanese. But you need to keep the words that can't be translated in their "original form" (and in their original langage).
____________
It is the province of knowledge to speak & it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.
|
|
|
|
