Itanglese?!?

Kess   Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:47 pm GMT
why do they say RELAX (instead of rilasso) or COVER (instead of canzone rifatta) in Italian?

ora di relax
una band di cover
goerijgio   Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:19 pm GMT
Why do English speakers say "raison de etre" instead of "reason for being"? Why do English speakers say "cuisine" instead of "food"? Why do English speakers say "refusenik" instead of "protester"? Why do English speakers say "apparatchik" instead of "bureaucrat"? Why do English speakers say "aurevoir" instead of "goodbye"?

Using the English word may enrich these languages. The old word is not going to disappear, and the English variant may take on a completely new shade of meaning, just like "cuisine" and "food" are not equivalent.
Berlusconi   Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:39 pm GMT
You don't fucking understand. In English foreign words are used much less often than in Italian. Just look at the statistics, what was that, more than 700% more English words in Italian in the past decade? Italians just think it is "cool" to use an English word instead of an Italian one
Baldewin   Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:46 pm GMT
In every language you have this phenomenon. I don't like it at all and I like even less the anti-purism when you dare go against it.
And contrary as some here claimed. Overkill of anglicisms is also a terrible phenomenon in other Germanic languages, one of the biggest signs of decadence.
Moreover, people often falsely claim it is to improve your knowledge of foreign languages mixing your native one with them, while it only impoverishes your own culture.
O.o   Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:52 am GMT
<<In every language you have this phenomenon.>>

It has already been explained that the case of Italian is WAY worst that most other languages.
Winteries   Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:21 am GMT
<<Overkill of anglicisms is also a terrible phenomenon in other Germanic languages, one of the biggest signs of decadence.>>

This sentence does not follow logically. Why would the use of anglicisms in a Germanic language be "THE BIGGEST SIGN OF DECADENCE". I would think people striping to nothing and having orgies in the street while eating marijuana laced brownies would be a much bigger sign of decadence, and it sounds much more entertaining too.
Conner   Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:50 am GMT
Decadence of their languages, decadence of culture. Americanisation is cultural decadence, if not spiritual decadence as well.
PARISIEN   Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:23 am GMT
English: 'The mouse of the computer"
French: 'La souris de l'ordinateur'
Swedish: 'Datormuset'
German: 'Das Komputermaus'
Italian: 'Il mouse del computer'...

Yep, the case of Italian is WAY worst that most other languages.
Wintereis   Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:49 am GMT
<<Americanisation is cultural decadence, if not spiritual decadence as well.>>

Well, unlike the Europeans in their militant debauch of the world, we are not forcing the peoples of this planet to adopt our culture and language. We aren't forcing them to drink Starbucks; use the internet, electricity, airplanes and light bulbs; or listen to rock and roll and jazz. The world has done this of its own accord. So, if you find it decadent, stop doing it. If your government forces you to learn English over another language, elect a new government. After all, English is bad for the spirit. But I would suggest that you stop using the internet first so the rest of us aren't subjected to your hypocritical and xenophobic prattle.
Conner   Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:42 am GMT
<<,We aren't forcing them to drink Starbucks>>


I don't drink it. Tyranny of the majority.


<<use the internet>>

Not really "cultural" or "spiritual", but rather a tool, which can be used for good and bad. So it doesn't fall under my heading of cultural/spiritual decadence.

<<electricity>>

Same.

<<airplanes>>


Same, though I fly Tupolev anyway.


<< light bulbs>>


Same.


<<rock and roll and jazz>>


I don't. Tyranny of the majority.


<<So, if you find it decadent, stop doing it. >>


I did. Tyranny of the majority.


<<If your government forces you to learn English over another language, elect a new government>>


My vote is only one. The lowest common denominator rules.


<<After all, English is bad for the spirit. >>


Not English is bad for the spirit, what is bad is Anglicisims in other languages. And I said Americanisation, not Englishisation.


<<you stop using the internet first>>


Again, the internet is unrelated to culture, in the sense that there are website both about Starbucks and Mozart.


Tyranny of the majority. You will surely understand at least where I am coming from, being a homosexual.
PARISIEN   Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:49 am GMT
<< we are not forcing the peoples of this planet to adopt our culture and language. >>

-- America did in the postwar years. The U.S. regime used an incredible diplomatic pressure to blackmail all West European nations into accepting unrestructed access to American culture products. More so than Communist Russians or Nazi Germans ever did within their own empires.
PARISIEN   Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:55 am GMT
<< use the internet >>

-- Let me elaborate. My point is that the Italians more English words than needed, they say "il mouse del computer", but are notoriously bad at computer technology as well as at speaking English.

Swedish language nationalism says "datormus" instead, but the Swedes speak excellent English when they have to and are leading in software development!

Because: if you can't name things in your own language, you have to renounce all hope to exert any influence on these things.
Guest   Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:17 am GMT
<<airplanes>>
<<Same, though I fly Tupolev anyway. >>


Exactly! Attributing modern airplanes exclusively to the Wright brothers is a completely arbitrary and random (and very American) decision. It's like saying manned space flight is a Soviet invention since they put the first man in space. And so by Wintereis's logic the Americans should have dropped everything and been against the moon landings, since they were anti-Soviet. In reality, neither would have been without the other.
Wintereis   Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:00 pm GMT
PARISIEN:

It seems to me that we have very different perspectives on what precisely went on in Europe during and after WWII. This is not surprising since we do, after all, still maintain different cultural perspectives. So, let us go back to what we do have in common, the value of reason. I cannot say that I am an expert on European Reconstruction, but I do know some.

First, I will say that I do not believe that anyone can come out of such a tragedy as that war without having their hands sullied by it. The Soviets came out of it with the mass murder of thousands of Polish people on their conscience with the Katan Massacre. After which, they forcibly annexed much of eastern Europe under the Soviet Block. The U.S. and British almost entirely destroyed the enemy city of Dresden with fire bombings, and the use of atomic weapons against the Japanese remains a great moral question for all involved. The mass deportations of Jews by the French is particularly hard to swallow as it was an act of cowardice perpetrated directly against the most vulnerable of its citizens. Also, there are the conditions which allowed the Nazi regime to establish itself in the first place. These conditions were largely the result of articles 231-248 of the Treaty of Versailles which crippled the German economy creating mass inflation and poverty in the country. It is important to note here that the Treaty of Versailles went very much against the "Fourteenth Points" proposed by U.S. President Wilson, which America thought essential to Germany's surrender. These would have allowed continued free trade with Germany after WWI. For this reason, the United States never ratified the Treaty of Versailles. It should also be noted, due to America's preferred Isolationism at the time, the U.S. was, for all intents and purposes, dragged into both World Wars. In other words, it was a succession of European wars which brought about the present Americanization of Europe and the rest of the world.

This, as with European imperialism, has had a very mixed result for which we must all feal some regret. On the other hand, unlike European Imperialism, the death toll of the rise of American power is far less. For instance, in the Americas alone, conservative estimates put the number of dead Native Americans due to European incursions at about 80% between 1492 and 1650. That is around 8 million people. This does not include the spread of disease or acts of violence perpetrated against those in Africa, Australia or Asia nor does it include deaths that occurred after 1650 in the Americas or the wars that Europeans conducted against one another for imperial supremacy.

Now, if we select the highest estimates for major American military actions since WW II (remember I used the most conservative estimates for Europe) and placed full responsibility for deaths on the United States
(that is as if saying the South Koreans, South Vietnamese, the U.N., French, British, Australians and a host of other nations, governments, terrorists and insurgents sat on there hands during the wars--which they didn't--and that all of these actions were as unjust as European Imperialism and were started by the United States, which, since European Imperialism was entirely unjust and many of these actions began before the U.S. entered into them, is entirely untrue) the deaths of opposition forces and civilians is less than half of that that can be directly and fully
attributed to the fist part of European incursion into the Americas alone. This is why many Americans find European anti-Americanism hypocritical and obsurd. Also, remember that the U.S. was largely a non-interventionalist nation before the great wars of Europe and that a fair portion of the Cold War is attributable to both the Soviet Union and Europe (both east and west).


Now, back to post-war Europe. Yes, the United States did indeed establish a system of free trade in Europe after world War II and it also founded the United Nation and NATO. This, however, is due to the fact that the U.S. did not want to see the same mistakes made by the British and French after the first WW. That is, the U.S. thought that the best possible plan for stabilizing Europe was to avoid the same economic isolationism and reparations that brought about Nazi rule in the first place (this has proven true). Also, yes, the U.S. did have a near monopoly over European commerce that lasted into the 1950's, the result of this is the current Americanization of Europe. Yet, this is due to the fact that Europe's manufacturing industries, its infrastructures, and economies were absolutely devastated by the war, and being an ocean away, America's industries were largely unaffected (but I suppose the fact that the U.S. was never invaded is some how our fault). Now, I have heard some concern in the past over the loans the U.S. made to Europe for the purpose of Reconstruction. Surely you don't expect the U.S. to pay for the war that the Europeans started do you?

I am not sure of the conditions established for the repayment of these loans or the precise nature of the trade agreements made at the time. Perhaps the conditions were unfair. This is largely where my knowledge of the European Reconstruction fails. Now, if you would like to provide me with cited specifics (I don't want generalizations or acusations but hard facts) on these matters, I would be very open to receiving them.
Baldewin   Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:39 pm GMT
<<This sentence does not follow logically. Why would the use of anglicisms in a Germanic language be "THE BIGGEST SIGN OF DECADENCE". I would think people striping to nothing and having orgies in the street while eating marijuana laced brownies would be a much bigger sign of decadence, and it sounds much more entertaining too>>

Well, it's not necessary to use English words in every sentence. If you use too much foreign words you'll bastardize your language, not rarely making it uglier. You can at least translate some English words. Often times purism kicks in once the Anglicisms become too much.
English in itself is a special case by the way, being a Germanic language with lots of Romance influences in vocabulary. I wouldn't call it ugly. Still, mixing Dutch or German with English too much does makes them ugly from with I've heard or seen. This is also the case with Franglais and Spanglish, and I don't doubt it is with Itanglese.