Ken wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> My tupence-worth follows, so don't read it if you don't like it. And
if you
> need to read it in order to decide whether you like it, then read it,
but
> quit yer bitchin' cause it won't help you.
>
> That said, lemme speak my mind...
>
> I think the horrific concept of a 'world language' is gruesome,
malodorous
> and vile by its very definition. But so in tune with these Titanic
times.
>
> Tribalism is not only a cultural universal, it works!
>
> Back, you filthy hoards, with your world-religions, world-languages,
> world-people!
>
> Most of your ilk bemoan the loss of the Rain Forest, it's tribes,
cultures.
> Yet on the other hand you enforce this rank, one-world filth. Keep
your
> one-world-languages to yerselves!
>
> I'd fight and die for Catalonia, Basque, or Galician in the light of
that
> horrific death-sentence which is wrought with the label 'Standardized
> Spanish'.
>
> And another thing: simplicity heralds restriction, rather than
freedom.
> It's a 'freedom from' rather than a 'freedom to'. Read your
'Handmaids
> Tale'. Simple tongues for simple minds. Indo-European languages
have been
> de-volving for some time. Gone is the articulation of a synthetic (as
> opposed to analytic) tongue.
>
> Simple tongues for simple minds. Habit and regularity herald
stagnation
> for the mind. Worse, you people wish such stupidity upon the entire
world!
> You keep your 'freedom from' languages and their barbarian-simple
> consistency.
>
> Obviously on the wrong list,
>
> Ken.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
I write:
Hi Ken:
I don't know if your posting was directed at mine, I make that
assumption it was because it followed mine, you did not indicate to
whom you were responding and the subject matter seems somewhat related.
Very interesting posting. You obviously feel very passionate about
preserving cultural diversity. Funny thing, so do I. I am not in
favor at all of humanity being channeled into one cultural pattern, or
the imposition of one language, driving out other cultures and
languages. I feel, as you do, that if that were to happen it would be
a very sad loss of the richness of humanity. So we share this value
about languages.
My discussion about English possibly becoming the modern day lingua
franca were meant as observations of processes I see already happening,
not advocations for them to occur. These processes are happening of
their own accord, filling a need/opportunity to open communications
that the web, and international telephones, television, radio, etc are
creating. But I also made the point I think that these processes are
not even good for English itself. I see signs, such as your own use of
"yer" for your, "cause" for because, word droppings (Simplistic tongues
(are for) simplistic minds) etc. that illustrator the damage that I
believe is happening to English. Its the price English is paying, for
being used as an increasingly international/web language.
Your posting seems to be dropping a lot of emotional baggage onto what
was actually written. As Piotr pointed out, the learning of a new
language does not necessarily mean the loss of an established one.
(But I share your anguish, that in the long run it may in fact have the
same effect at the large scale if local cultures do not undertake to
preserve their rich languages and cultural traditions). Also, use of
an international language is not the same thing as Standardization of
dialects/languages. in fact I don't believe they are even related
except in the sense that you perceive both of them to being threats.
Nor does advocation of the use of an international language mean
advocation of a single language through out. (a one-language world).
And I havn't seen anything here advocating a One-world order. You
accuse chat group participants of being simple minded (not a very
effective way to pursuade others to your perspective) but it appears
that you may have greatly simplified a number of important concerns
into a single bag.
Also, correct me if I am wrong but your advocation for strict
tribalism, seems to be implying that you do not think people should
communicate outside of their native language, hence not outside of
those who speak it. (for the most part natives). In this I disagree.
I DO believe, however, that communications can be a good thing. I did
also believe that direct communications people-people is a better way
for people to communicate than via the older means of people
communicating through an established filtering / translating system.
If the web is starting to open up communications between billions of
peoples of the world, the question is how do all these people
speaking some 6,700 different languages communicate with each other?
Certainly not by learning 6,700 languages. The current choices seems
to be three:
1. pick (or design) one or a few languages to use as (an) international
language(s) with most people becoming, and hopefully staying
bi-lingual (or multi-lingual) the current trend.
2. take advantage of the potential of computers to develop Machine
Translations for each language, making it unnecessary for people to
learn the international language(s). My preferred route, but one
that may not develop fast enough to keep up with the web.
3. Establish a network of language translators to act as go between.
not likely to happen, except in a few very limited circumstances,
because of time and expense.
Do you see an alternative I have missed? Or are you just against
people opening communications via the web or other communications
technology? I assume, that since you are using English and have these
strong tribal loyalities, you speak it as a native, and therefore are
advocating that only native born users of English should participate.
Piotr, Sabine, etc should stick to their own culture, fiercely
protecting it against anyone who cannot communicate in their language!!
Either that, or perhaps you just maybe mis-understood what is being
discussed here.
Your final comment, was "Obviously on the wrong list". Actually I hope
you stay. You made some interesting points, and at the very least,
you can provide diversity to the comments posted here and protect
languages should the group stray too far in the wrong direction. (You
might try to find more effective ways to try to pursuade people to your
point of view however, than by refering to them as "filthy hoards" and
"simple minded".... Cause its my xperience ya tend to put folks off a
wee bit this way...)
Brent