Are there any linguists among Antimooners?

K. T.   Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:28 am GMT
Good choice, Skippy. Croatian (and Serbo-Croatian) is a great-sounding language.
guest2   Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:10 pm GMT
K. T. Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:47 pm GMT:

<<I agree with your disagreement over the term "linguist" and that's why I don't use it. I don't want people to think that I have professional qualifications as a linguist. I can pass a test and be an interpreter, but I won't call myself a linguist. On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to use the word "linguist" to mean a multilingual person or a polyglot in English and that's how Steve Kaufmann "The Linguist" uses it.>>

You contradict yourself!

I don't know about further meanings of the term ''linguist'' in English. But clearly, it isn't a native English word, so I think it would be better not to overload it with several differging meanings. Doing that is annoying and leads to majer misunderstandings, on of them was described in the first part of the cited paragraph of yours.

I've never heard of that person calling himself ''The Linguist''. If it's his personal use of that term, he must be very showy.

<<What's the most neutral word to use in German to describe a multilingual person? Thanks>>

Never thought about that. Of course, we can use the term ''Polyglott'', but that is far from neutral, it's somewhat uncommon. (I came across that word, but didn't know its meaning.) A neutral and obvious term refering to the ability to speak several languages, but not to the person having that ability, would be ''Mehrsprachigkeit''. The derivation ''der/die
Mehrsprachige'' sounds a bit affected and impersonaly to me. I never had the necessity to describe somebody as polyglot. The term itself or related terms seem annoying and braggy as nobody of the people it refers to really speak so many languages fluently. They might know some basic phrases, but are they really able to converse about everything in that many languages?
Non-Slav   Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:17 pm GMT
"Linguists" can be people who studied linguistics but are monolingual. They can also be people who speak two or more languages. It's pretty much open to your own interpretation.

Personally, I find it rather ridiculous when people study linguistics / applied linguistics without bothering to learn at least one foreign language. It's lazy and one-sided.
Kismet   Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:45 pm GMT
Not me/I.

:-)
guest2   Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:24 pm GMT
@Non-Slav Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:17 pm GMT:

<<"Linguists" can be people who studied linguistics but are monolingual. They can also be people who speak two or more languages. It's pretty much open to your own interpretation.>>

According to that, yes can mean no, it's pretty much open to your own interpretation. Right?

Leave the scientist vocabulary in science!

<<Personally, I find it rather ridiculous when people study linguistics / applied linguistics without bothering to learn at least one foreign language. It's lazy and one-sided.>>

Yes, it's ridiculous! But it's not their fault! It's the fault of the educational system allowing such course of studies. In Germany, if you want to go to the university, you need at least two foreign languages in the general qualification for university entrance (Abitur). At university, without English, you wouldn't even be able read most of the books, texts, etc. you need for passing the examinations. There are also lectures in English for international courses of studies.
K. T.   Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:59 pm GMT
"The derivation ''der/die Mehrsprachige'' sounds a bit affected."-guest 2

This is the problem with the word "linguist" for me. I can't call myself that because it sounds (frankly) "wrong" and "polyglot" sounds obscure and weird, but even saying I am multilingual sounds a little funny. It sounds like I am contradicting myself, but I am simply trying to choose the least affected of the three words. That's why I was looking for a neutral word in German. It's not easy to always know the impression a word will have. Maybe I should just say that I am a "language lover" or "I enjoy languages."

"They might know some basic phrases, but are they really able to converse about everything in that many languages?"-guest2

This is the "eternal" question. Of course I can talk about the same things I usually discuss in English in other languages, but I can't discuss subjects where I am weak in English (golf, for example)...


"In Germany, if you want to go to the university, you need at least two foreign languages in the general qualification for university entrance (Abitur)."guest2

I think this is a good idea. For the US, I think it should be fluency in at least one foreign language.
guest2   Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:27 pm GMT
<<... but I am simply trying to choose the least affected of the three words.>>

Sometimes, it's wise not to coin/use a word at all. Because the ''subject'' isn't a real concept worth of being named. Because it's empty, meaningless, etc.

<<Of course I can talk about the same things I usually discuss in English in other languages, but I can't discuss subjects where I am weak in English (golf, for example)... >>

Then, you would be fluent in that languages, but my point was that someone not yet reached/is far away form fluency but claims to ''speak'' the language because of his/her knowledge of a few words/phrases.

<<I think this is a good idea. For the US, I think it should be fluency in at least one foreign language.>>

How comes it that in the USA, you don't need to learn at least one foreign language? Canada is a neighbouring country in which also French is spoken. In south, there are many countries where Spanish and Portuguese are spoken, so, why isn't there an obligation to at least learning one of them?

It's wise to be able to at least passively understand the language of your neighbours.
K. T.   Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:21 pm GMT
"How comes it that in the USA, you don't need to learn at least one foreign language? Canada is a neighbouring country in which also French is spoken. In south, there are many countries where Spanish and Portuguese are spoken, so, why isn't there an obligation to at least learning one of them?"-guest2

I don't know the answer. In my area, Spanish is offered in most schools. I don't know many people who have sent their children to public schools, because homeschooling and private schools are very popular, but two of my relatives went to public schools recently and had a tiny taste of languages. In that crazy system, one of them got a Spanish class for a short period of time (maybe six or nine weeks), then he was another language arts class-perhaps "creative writing" in English. It was like a weird sampler of "language-related" classes. Of course, he speaks no Spanish. My other relative, seemed to have fared better and he surprised me recently by speaking to me in simple, but good French with a decent accent.

I was surprised that you mentioned Portuguese. I have never seen Portuguese offered in any public high school in the US. It may exist somewhere, but it would be rare.

Most public schools offer Spanish. Many schools offer French and Spanish. Better schools offer S/F and German and some offer Latin. A few schools are offering Japanese, and possibly Chinese.

Private schools may offer any number of languages.

I'm not sure why schools don't require at least one language, but it wouldn't be right to mandate the language. In areas bordering Canada, French would be more appropriate. In other areas Spanish would be a better offering.

What languages are required in Germany after English?
guest2   Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:00 pm GMT
K. T. Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:21 pm GMT:

"How comes it that in the USA, you don't need to learn at least one foreign language? Canada is a neighbouring country in which also French is spoken. In south, there are many countries where Spanish and Portuguese are spoken, so, why isn't there an obligation to at least learning one of them?"-guest2

<<I don't know the answer. In my area, Spanish is offered in most schools. I don't know many people who have sent their children to public schools, because homeschooling and private schools are very popular, ...>>

In Germany, attending a public school is quite normal, private schools are very seldom and homeschooling, I don't know if that's legal at all.
I have read that Christopher Paolini, the author of Eragon, never attended
a public school, but was taught at home by his mother, see here http://www.eragon.de/der_autor.html
The Paolinis seem to be very rich. So, if you're rich in the US, you don't need attend public school? Private schools must be very expensive, too.
What's about the homeschooling thingy?

<<... but two of my relatives went to public schools recently and had a tiny taste of languages. In that crazy system, one of them got a Spanish class for a short period of time (maybe six or nine weeks), then he was another language arts class-perhaps "creative writing" in English.>>

A language class for just six or nine weeks most likely will not have much sense, at least at school. Maybe he just stopped attending it? The term ''creative writing'' annoys me very much. It seems to be just empty words to me. You are ''creative'' or you aren't. I don't think you can learn to be ''creative''.

<<It was like a weird sampler of "language-related" classes.>>

What do you mean by this? Remember, I'm no native speaker, nor does I came from the US, so I don't know about your schooling system.

<<I was surprised that you mentioned Portuguese. I have never seen Portuguese offered in any public high school in the US. It may exist somewhere, but it would be rare.>>

I mentioned Portuguese, because it's spoken in Brazil. (Actually, I know that in Brazil, there are some MSX computer users, and I'm a fan of that classical 8 bit system, too. For more on MSX see: www.msx.org) It's also spoken in Europe, so, in a certain sense, the situation of the USA is similar to the situation of England or perhaps even Germany, but in a larger scale.

<<Most public schools offer Spanish. Many schools offer French and Spanish. Better schools offer S/F and German and some offer Latin. A few schools are offering Japanese, and possibly Chinese.

Private schools may offer any number of languages.

...

What languages are required in Germany after English?>>

That depends of the kind of school you attend. After four years of basic primary school, in Germany, the ''normal'' schooling system consists of three types of schools, three branches of the system: Hauptschule (5 years), Realschule (6 years) and Gymnasium (9 years). In the Hauptschule, you only need English. In the Realschule, you need at least English, but have the choice to select another language or something not language-related. I attended this type of school, and it was hell. Lots off bullying there. I took French. In Gymnasium, you must have two languages, as far as I know. Today, it's most likely English and French, but Latin is also possible. Some decades ago, in that kind of school, your first foreign language was Latin. You can quit Gymnasium in 10th class, but if you continue, you can select a third language. I was in the Realschule, but as I was good enough, I could jump over to the Gymnasium after my tenth class. Besides the obligatory language courses, you can attend supplementary courses, if they are offered. I took Greek for one term. Didn't learnt much Greek, of course, because it was only 1 or 2 hours per week, and it was only offered in one term, as far as I remember. I couldn't take Latin as 3. foreign language because I came from the Realschule. Of course, it's been a while since I left school, today there may be different requirements. They may offer further languages, depending on the school and if the respective teachers are available.

<<I'm not sure why schools don't require at least one language, but it wouldn't be right to mandate the language. In areas bordering Canada, French would be more appropriate. In other areas Spanish would be a better offering.>>

To be able to live together peacefully, you need to have at least basic knowledge of the language of your neighbours to avoid that they become ''hereditary enemies''. (This is a conclusion of the experiences of world war I and II.) You need to know Englisch, that's clear. To my mind, you need to know at least one romance language to be able to get a notion of european history, culture, etc. So you need to ''mandate'' learning at least one foreign language.

Heretical thought: Can it be that in the US, you don't need foreign languages to learn for keeping English as the one and only language of the land of the free, for keeping it's power?
JTT   Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:49 pm GMT
<<How comes it that in the USA, you don't need to learn at least one foreign language? Canada is a neighbouring country in which also French is spoken. In south, there are many countries where Spanish and Portuguese are spoken, so, why isn't there an obligation to at least learning one of them?>>

When I was in high school, a minimum of 2 years of foreign language instruction was required for graduation. Of course, 2 years of instruction doesn't really make one fluent at all, but at least you learn the basics.

I just checked my alma mater's website to see what foreign languages they currently offer and all I see are Spanish and French courses. Back when I attended they offered not only Spanish and French but also German, Italian, Japanese, and Hebrew. Budget cuts are hurting our students!

<<The Paolinis seem to be very rich. So, if you're rich in the US, you don't need attend public school? Private schools must be very expensive, too. What's about the homeschooling thingy?>>

Private schools are very expensive in the US. Public schools are "free" (paid for by taxpayers) so you'd think more parents would enroll their kids in public schools, however, where I live, the public schools are rife with drugs, gangs, criminal elements, other bad influences, and a large number of non-English speaking students, so rich people wouldn't dare send their kids there.

I don't know if anyone has ever done a survey, but based on materials I've read, it seems that a large number of people who opt for homeschooling are middle class Christian conservatives who are dissatisfied with the secular public school curriculum and choose instead to educate their children in a "Christian environment".
guest2   Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:33 pm GMT
We started learning Englisch in the 5. class. If you leave school, you have five, six, or nine years of English learning, depending on the kind of school you attended. Today, they might start learning English earlier. We started learning French in the 7. class. Each of the courses was 4 hours per week during Realschule, and 3 hours per week during ''Oberstufe'', which is the last three years of the Gymnasium (class 10 to 13).

After that many years of learning, I was hardly fluent neither in English nor in French.

<<Budget cuts are hurting our students!>>

Your're talking about universities, I talk about schools. Does that mean that in the US, there aren't language classes in schools and just a few of it at universities? Im my alma mater, there are many language classes, even Turkisch, Georgian, Korean, Japanese and some African languages such as Kisuaheli, Tigrinya, Hausa, Fula. I attended a 4 term Turkisch class.

http://web.uni-frankfurt.de/fb09/turkologie/

http://www.japanologie.uni-frankfurt.de/index.html

http://www.sinologie.uni-frankfurt.de/index.php

http://univis.uni-frankfurt.de/prg?search=lectures&chapter=Afrikanische&sem=2008w&show=compact

So, why are in the US the budgets cut on such important issues as language learning?

<<... however, where I live, the public schools are rife with drugs, gangs, criminal elements, other bad influences, and a large number of non-English speaking students, so rich people wouldn't dare send their kids there.>>

This is maybe a problem on schools all over the world. There was much bullying in the school I attended.

<<I don't know if anyone has ever done a survey, but based on materials I've read, it seems that a large number of people who opt for homeschooling are middle class Christian conservatives who are dissatisfied with the secular public school curriculum and choose instead to educate their children in a "Christian environment". >>

They are Christians, they preach love and peace and not to be violent. But obviously they don't face the problem of drugs, gangs and violence at school, but keep their children away form it. Others can't do so, because of their poverty. In a violent social environment it is likely that you get violent too, this is quit natural. So those middle class Christian conservatives are hypocrites.

Josef Weizenbaum pointed out some school related problems almost two decades ago, in his famour ''Johnny can't read'' article. Obviously, time has passed and nothing has happened to remedy that problem. And they call the US a superpower!
Jasper   Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:59 pm GMT
["Linguists" can be people who studied linguistics but are monolingual. They can also be people who speak two or more languages. It's pretty much open to your own interpretation.

Personally, I find it rather ridiculous when people study linguistics / applied linguistics without bothering to learn at least one foreign language. It's lazy and one-sided.]

NonSlav, I can think of at least two things wrong with your statement.

I'm assuming that you're a Continental European, and are aiming your comments at Americans. It's been my experience that Europeans often "project"-- they think that European solutions will necessarily work in America. I dispute this notion.

European dynamics are vastly different from American ones. We have vast areas of unpopulated areas, and other vast areas of English-only speakers. Learning a foreign language really would be a waste of time for a lot of us because we wouldn't have the opportunity to practice it---unless the target language were to be Spanish. (Even then, citizens of Bismarck, ND, or Rutland, VT would have a hard time practicing it.)

More importantly, there's the matter of personal interest. At this juncture, an analogy would be in order here. Let's take the topic of computers, for example. Some students might be obsessed with learning a lot of computer languages---and be damned good at it-- while other students, utterly bored with computer programming languages, might be far more interested in learning the mechanics of the hardware. Does this make them lazy people? Of course not. Their interests on the topic of language lie in a different direction, that's all.

For my own part, I'm more interested in the mechanics of language than learning any other foreign languages, while at the same time admitting that a knowledge of Spanish would be a tremendous asset to me.
JTT   Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:59 pm GMT
<<Budget cuts are hurting our students!>>

<<Your're talking about universities, I talk about schools. Does that mean that in the US, there aren't language classes in schools and just a few of it at universities? >>

No, I was talking about high school.
guest2   Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:06 pm GMT
Language is not just the ''mechanics'' of language, but mostly practice. Learning a foreign language can help you to also understand those ''mechanics''. But real language is not just mechanics. It's a means for communication. If you see just the mechanics or what you think is the mechanics of a certain language, you will sooner or later come up with silly ideas and theories. Many people compare language with an organic organism, which simultanously grows in different directions (dialects).

<< Learning a foreign language really would be a waste of time for a lot of us because we wouldn't have the opportunity to practice it---unless the target language were to be Spanish.>>

Learning a foreign language is never a waste of time, even if you don't practice it. In trying to learn a foreign language, you also learn about the way of thinking and parts of the culture of the speakers of this language.
In the US, there're many indigenious people with interesting tounges. Granted, their languages in most cases have very few speakers, and most of them will know English very well, but these languages are subject for linguistical investigation. How to get information about them without learning them? There must be lots of native speakers of other languages coming to the US, too. Moreover, we live in the internet age, where you can practice your skills in forums or via IRC. Also, learning a foreign language will alter your view of foreign people. In my opinion, that's the most important benefit of learning foreign languages.
guest2   Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:09 pm GMT
JTT Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:59 pm GMT:

>><<Budget cuts are hurting our students!>>

<<Your're talking about universities, I talk about schools. Does that mean that in the US, there aren't language classes in schools and just a few of it at universities? >>

No, I was talking about high school.<<

The term alma mater -- at least in Germany -- clearly refers to a university. That's why supposed that you talk about universities.