Learning to UNDERSTAND languages vs. learning English

Apparently my opinion that responses should be given in the language of the posts is not in the majority. My bad, and carry on.

>> Benjamin I don't actually mind people posting in French, because I can read and write it…Vladimir — I'm going to ignore the rest of what you've written because you seemed to be suggesting that native English-speakers are 'less intelligent' than everyone else in the world. I hope that that was not the intention, because it wasn't a very 'intelligent' comment itself if it was.>>

I made all this effort posting in English partially because I wanted to show quickly the problem of misunderstanding generated by the (mis)use of non native language in more or less nontrivial context.
I did not suppose that native English-speakers are 'less intelligent' than everyone else in the world. I just tried to show you how it is easy to create a false or at least caricatured impression of some idea if it is expressed in a bad language - English in our case (sorry once more I did not want you incorrectly interpreting my expression “bad language – English”. I just meant that an idea was expressed in a bad English).
Now I’ll try to express myself better (always in English).
What I really meant was the (objective) fact that in average the student in USA or in Britain don’t need to spend many time learning foreign languages. They do that if they like it but there is a difference with the rest of the world for whom it became a necessity (once more I am speaking in terms of “average” or “trend”). Now, it was just my hypothesis, or a conjecture, if you prefer that in long run (perhaps very long run – the unit of measure here is the lifetime of a civilisation) the relative lack of intellectual effort due to non obligation of studying foreign languages could generate a kind of misbalance in average intellectual level of different civilisations. Even if this happens it does not mean the native English speakers become dummy and all the others intelligent. It’s just a question of relativity and proportions. I used the term “civilisation” in a very special sense close to the notion of nation. I don’t see what can be wrong with this. One can’t forbid to a group of people to posses an additional set of intellectual skills because of their manner to practice their life. By the way, a civilisation can fall into decadence, decay or even die. That has already happened several times. Another thing in the same spirit. It’s not impossible that the difference in the expressiveness power of English and French (English is more laconic ) influences the manner in what the brain of an average English man or French man functions and their way to see the world. It’s not a question of what nation is more intelligent but a question of difference in reasoning. For example French people are well known for their Cartesian reasoning. Anglo-Saxon are more pragmatics etc. Obviously, the end “Yet another barbarian invasion. Very pessimistic picture.” was not very serious. I supposed that a native English speakers understands humour. Last remark. For me “speaking fluent English” does not mean speaking good English. Someone who is fluent does not wait for the next word in the phrase, is not blocked psychologically. The problem consist in the fact that the next word can be a bad word. I think that actually my previous citation of Wittgenstein is good for this case as well. And I am sure that neither Chirac nor Seillière speaks good English. The fluentness does not matter for people making important decisions regarding other people.
To sum up I just wanted to stay close to the question raised in the title of this thread.

>>>Apparently my opinion that responses should be given in the language of the posts is not in the majority.

I think that it can be a meta problem for you. Or a paradox if you want. Remember that the author of this thread imagined a scenario where people are supposed to understand the languages of others but not be able to write (respond) in that languages. Why not to consider this scenario in the context of this forum ?

« Now, it was just my hypothesis, or a conjecture, if you prefer that in long run (perhaps very long run – the unit of measure here is the lifetime of a civilisation) the relative lack of intellectual effort due to non obligation of studying foreign languages could generate a kind of misbalance in average intellectual level of different civilisations. Even if this happens it does not mean the native English speakers become dummy and all the others intelligent. It’s just a question of relativity and proportions. I used the term “civilisation” in a very special sense close to the notion of nation. I don’t see what can be wrong with this. One can’t forbid to a group of people to posses an additional set of intellectual skills because of their manner to practice their life. By the way, a civilisation can fall into decadence, decay or even die. That has already happened several times. »

Over a very long period of time... by which time English will likely no-longer be the dominating language.

« And I am sure that neither Chirac nor Seillière speaks good English. »

He might not have an English degree, but I thought that Chirac went to university in the United States for a time?

>>> Benjamin
Over a very long period of time... by which time English will likely no-longer be the dominating language.

Exactly. In fact the question is: whether the dominance of one language is a good or bad thing? In other words what world do you prefer? – a world with one and unique language, or one with several equally “powerful” languages ? Could there be a law of evolution of languages in the world postulating that the mankind converges inevitably to unique language? I am not sure. And this rebalancing (I don’t know what does this word mean exactly; in French I would say “rééquilibrage”) among different languages could be a simple consequence of the opposite law which postulate that the situation with several languages is stable. Once we accept it, we would like then to go into details of the process or the mechanic which maintains and guarantees this stability. The “intellectual” concurrence occasioned by dominated nations and dominated languages could be a part of this mechanism.

>>> He might not have an English degree, but I thought that Chirac went to university in the United States for a time?

Some time ago Chirac had something to do in US . In relation with this, he gave an interview on French television (live) addressed to American people. His (spoken) English was truly very poor. He said even something like “this, aaaaaa, printemps” (after a few second of searching for the world “spring”). Perhaps it was before he went to university ?
In any case, Chirac’s level of English maters a little here. It’s an English of Seillière which matters. The notion of FRENCH<francophonie> is very important for French society. It can be considered even as a political problem. That’s why I don’t think that there is any connection with CPE. I think rather that the eternal English-French “competition”: Trafalgar battle, the personal relations Blair - Chirac, the famous De Villepin’s speech in UN against the American intervention in Iraq and so on, and now this “assassination of the French President Chirac by Australian secret agents for leaving the room when a fellow countryman gave a speech in English » - all this is serious enough for not trying to explain the last event by the problem of CPE.

Vladimir,

>>By the way, why do some of you demand others to translate greg’s French “nonsense” ? As I already mentioned what is important is the content and not the language (= form ?) . There is always a lot of job for the interpreters. <<

Well, would you be so good as to explain to me how I can know the content when I don't speak the language in which it is written?

Greg, (Thanks again Benjamin)

>>It amuses me: you have not contributed to the discussion at all. But that was undoubtedly not your intention.<<

This discussion is biased, I don't wish to waste my time on that.I planned to make just one post in this particular topic. But then I felt I had te make another remark to even out your public hate for countries other than you own.

>>You need spirit and talent to keep a successful sarcastic tone. I'm afraid that yours has fallen flat. Anyway, if the simple mention of facts appears to you to be equivalent to an irrational fear or hatred of the United States, you must either be hypersensitive or uninformed — perhaps both? <<

You obviously presume to much.You mention facts, yet these facts had nothing to do with my post. They were merely were a way for you to out your frustration about the United States.It's like posting a message containing "Hitler was a nazi" in a discussion about the German language.Sure it's a fact, but what's it worth?What does it add to the discussion?

In the same way, what did your remark on American millitary presence in Iraq etc. add to the discussion about the English language? Please enlighten me.

« Exactly. In fact the question is: whether the dominance of one language is a good or bad thing? In other words what world do you prefer? – a world with one and unique language, or one with several equally “powerful” languages ? »

Ultimately, I prefer the world with many languages, and I do wish that other languages would be as 'powerful' English. But at the time, I believe in letting language run its natural course — in other words, if people in a country wish to start speaking a different language for whatever reason, the government should accept that, instead trying trying to conserve the traditional language. For example, I am completely opposed to some of the Welsh-language policies in Wales, which favour the bilingual Welsh/English minority but discriminate against the monolingual English majority. Although they or anyone else should have the freedom to speak Welsh if they want to, it should not be something for the government to regulate, in my view.

« Could there be a law of evolution of languages in the world postulating that the mankind converges inevitably to unique language? I am not sure. And this rebalancing (I don’t know what does this word mean exactly; in French I would say “rééquilibrage”) among different languages could be a simple consequence of the opposite law which postulate that the situation with several languages is stable. Once we accept it, we would like then to go into details of the process or the mechanic which maintains and guarantees this stability. The “intellectual” concurrence occasioned by dominated nations and dominated languages could be a part of this mechanism. »

I'm afraid that I don't really understand what you mean here, but I congratulate you for making the effort to write this in English. Feel free to write it in French if you want.

« The notion of FRENCH<francophonie> is very important for French society. It can be considered even as a political problem. »

I know. It's a difficult concept for us to understand though because we don't really have anything like that. Most explicit expressions of patriotism in England (apart from at the World Cup etc.) are suspect, and national identity is not very important. Instead, regional and class identity, together with regional and class differences in language are perhaps more important, rather than the idea of us all being English/British and all held together by the English language. I have difficulty in understanding people from some parts of the country, for example, even though they are still officially speaking 'English' (although they probably understand me because I speak the 'standard' dialect). I think it's similar in Germany.

« all this is serious enough for not trying to explain the last event by the problem of CPE. »

Do people in France actually take the English-French 'competition' seriously? As in, they actually see England as an enemy? That does surprise me; I'd always assumed that it was a merry war.

Jav >> Well, would you be so good as to explain to me how I can know the content when I don't speak the language in which it is written?

Because I felt that “the content” was already considered as “nonsense” by the adversaries .

Benjamin >> I'm afraid that I don't really understand what you mean here, but I congratulate you for making the effort to write this in English. Feel free to write it in French if you want.

Vladimir >> I just tried to show you how it is easy to create a false or at least caricatured impression of some idea if it is expressed in a bad language - English in our case.


Ok. Je vais essayer d’être encore plus claire. A l’aide d’une langue « dominée », à l’occurrence du français, qui, je remarque tout de suite, n’est pas ma langue maternelle. Donc je ne serais pas, même maintenant, absolument claire.
Comme j’ai déjà dit, avec cette histoire des nations dominées, des nations qui devraient, au fils de temps devenir, plus intelligentes que des nations anglo-saxons, j’ai essayé juste de montrer comment il est important d’utiliser un langage approprié pour bien exprimer ses propres idées. Je savais que je risquais d’être mis sur la liste noir des anti-américains primaires. J’ai inventé cette histoire d’intelligence relative des nations dominées linguistiquement par rapport à la nation dominante. Elle m’a servi d’un exemple. Mon idée était toujours de « défendre» Chirac dans sa démarche, parce que je suis convaincu que le discours de Seillière s’était appauvri à cause de son choix de s’exprimer en anglais. Pour l’instant, je ne parle même pas des considérations d’ordre politique ni de la controverse francophonie – (anglo) saxophonie etc.
Dans le premier message de cette file [ça sonne très drôle « cette file » ; il s’agit bien sûr d’une file des messages = thread = topic], de bon questions ont été posées. Et le « sarcasme » du deuxième message était potentiellement maladroit car on peut toujours répondre que le message avec « Vietnam, Iraq... » (je rajouterais Grenade et peut-être un certain nombre d’autres pays, entre Vietnam et Iraq) était largement aussi sarcastique.
Donc l’un des problèmes posés dans le premier message, était le problème de « bad english » ou plutôt du compromis, du choix à faire entre « être compris approximativement par beaucoup de gens ou par tout le monde » et « être très bien compris par peu de gens ou par personne ».
Le malentendu créée par l’expérimentation dont l’objectif était justement d’explorer le cas de mauvaise compréhension par tout le monde, me chagrine énormément (je blague !).
Cela n’empêche que je n’ai pas envie de jeter le bébé avec l’eau du bain. Dans tout ce que j’ai avancé à propos d’une potentialité de différences dans l’évolution intellectuelle des anglo-saxons et du reste de la civilisation humaine il y a peut-être des grains de bon sens. Ainsi qu’à propos de la stabilité d’existence de plusieurs langues.
Les différents types des groupements de population (famille, village, région, pays,..) évoluent, tout au longue de l’histoire humaine, de façon très complexe. L’essentiel dans cette évolution est, à mon avis, le double processus « unification – séparation». C’est comme cela que naissent et se mélangent des nations, c’est comme cela que naissent et meurent des empires. L’évolution des langues les unes par rapport aux autres, leurs relations de type « dominante – dominée » est fortement liée à l’évolution des nations (états) et des empires.
On peut même dire que l’évolution des langues est guidée par l’évolutions des nations et des empires. Cette simplification permet de s’abstraire des complexités d’ordre purement linguistique ou culturelle. Il serait intéressant d’effectuer une analyse comparative des évolution des nations - empires telles que
France – empire française – langue française
Angleterre – empire britannique – langue anglaise
Espagne – empire espagnole – langue espagnole
Russie – empire russe – langue russe
URSS – empire soviétique – langue russe
Allemagne – (pas d’empire) – langue allemande
Italie – (pas d’empire moderne ?) – langue italienne
Empire austro-hongroise – langue ?
Empire ottomane – langue turque ?
Enfin : Empire virtuelle américaine – langue majoritaire anglaise
Enfin : future empire européenne (en projet ?) – langue unique ?

Histoire a montré que, jusqu’à maintenant, quelque chose a toujours coincé au niveau d’empire : les empires ont fini toujours par se désintégrer assez rapidement. La dernière en date – l’empire américaine est trop jeune encore pour en juger définitivement. En plus elle est virtuelle (c’est à dire qu’elle n’est pas basée sur une occupation globale directe et massive).
Par contre le niveau « nation » s’est avérée très stable. Ce n’est pas parce qu’une nation est représentée toujours par un groupement composé des même gens ayants envie de vivre ensemble et parlant la même langue, tandis qu’empire est toujours le résultat d’une occupation quelconque. Les nations naissent dans le sang au même titre que les empires. Il y a sûrement un seuil, une dimension quelconque qui les séparent et qui explique la différence dans le niveau de stabilité entre des deux. L’empire n’est pas stable. La nation est stable.
Je concède que toute cette histoire avec des empires et des nations n’est pas assez claire. C’est juste une tentative de donner quelques appuis à mon idée de stabilité éternelle de l’ensemble actuelle des langues les plus importantes.
J’entends que selon je ne sais pas quel loi de la nature (qui reste à expliciter), toutes les langues modernes les plus importants aujourd’hui vont toujours conserver leur statut d’une langue vivante utilisée majoritairement par la nation qui la représente. Par exemple, quelque soit la domination actuelle de l’anglais dans le monde et des craintes de disparition et/ou de dégénération de la langue française, cette dernière restera pour toujours une langue vivante et va être parlée par les descendants des français contemporains.
Ci cette loi de stabilité des langues (plus exactement de stabilité de l’ensemble des langues vivantes) existait, il se poserait un problème d’explication, de pourquoi. C’est en ce moment que le lien entre la nation et la langue peut s’avérer utile. Ainsi qu’un postulat qui dit que la nation est stable et pas l’empire. C’est comme cela que je voyait une résistance des langues dominées à la langue dominante. Et c’est comme cela que quand on cite la guerre en Iraq dans le contexte d’un forum linguistique, cela ne me choque pas…

Damn Vladimir, you know I don't understand the fucking French! Why do you write all the damn thing in French ?

I'm sorry Vladimir, the above message isn't mine.I was fast asleep at that time ;-)

Jav >>
Damn Vladimir, you know I don't understand the fucking French! Why do you write all the damn thing in French ? <<

Jav >>
I'm sorry Vladimir, the above message isn't mine.I was fast asleep at that time ;-) <<

As I understand your intellectual curiosity has no limits. So learn the fucking French a bit and you’ll learn a lot of interesting things with it. Of course this post is addressed to a usurper of identity.