that the European languages , aside from some isolated ones like Basque and Finnish, are related to each other, is a question of general culture. Just like knowing what a square root is. Don't compare it to obscure or more technical knowledge. I've noticed that in the American culture people tend to have more specialised instruction . Don't believe me but funny enough once I meet an American engineer who didn't know what the verb "to be" was. In fact usually the most knowledgeable people on many specific fields are Americans whereas in Europe education tends to be more transversal.
What English sounds to Non English Speakers
General knowledge is overrated. That's what Wikipedia is for. Specialized knowledge however is much more important and commendable. Americans trounce Europeans in this respect.
Away from the nasty generalisations and back to the original question: does English perhaps sound "dead" or flat" to a non-native speaker? That's how I would imagine it sounds, though it's impossible to know for sure.
<<Can we have some examples please, American Power? >>
No. Use your impressive European general knowledge to find out for yourself.
No. Use your impressive European general knowledge to find out for yourself.
<<How convenient. Bet we wont be seeing that cunt on here again. >>
Yep, I'm a cunt. But I'm a cunt with specialized knowledge, not a cunt with shitty general knowledge like you, so I'm fucking superior and you're a fly infested decomposing piece of shit. And I can't be fucked justifying myself before a filthy degenerated fistula ravaged blood seeping cunt like you, because I'm just too great for that shit, and you're just too lowly and pathetic and cancerous.
Yep, I'm a cunt. But I'm a cunt with specialized knowledge, not a cunt with shitty general knowledge like you, so I'm fucking superior and you're a fly infested decomposing piece of shit. And I can't be fucked justifying myself before a filthy degenerated fistula ravaged blood seeping cunt like you, because I'm just too great for that shit, and you're just too lowly and pathetic and cancerous.
>>General knowledge is overrated.<<
In the USA it seems to be highly underrated, I'd say. How is it possible to have an halfway intelligent conversation with a completey clueless twerp? I once met an American woman who didn't even know that fries are made from potatoes, really. Her reaction was like "Ugh!"
In the USA it seems to be highly underrated, I'd say. How is it possible to have an halfway intelligent conversation with a completey clueless twerp? I once met an American woman who didn't even know that fries are made from potatoes, really. Her reaction was like "Ugh!"
<<,I once met an American woman who didn't even know that fries are made from potatoes, really. Her reaction was like "Ugh!" >>
I once met a European who thought that Turkey used to be in the Soviet Union. So the score's 1:1... Next anecdote?
I once met a European who thought that Turkey used to be in the Soviet Union. So the score's 1:1... Next anecdote?
>>General knowledge is overrated.<<
In the USA it seems to be highly underrated, I'd say. How is it possible to have an halfway intelligent conversation with a completey clueless twerp? I once met an American woman who didn't even know that fries are made from potatoes, really. Her reaction was like "Ugh!"
there's stupid people on both sides. As I said just because american's are bad at external geography it has nothing to do with there intelligence. Why would Europe be anything but just Europe to Americans. If you could tell me how once in ordinary life that Europe would be important in a conversation, I'd love to here it. I don't just mean dropping the world I mean direct reference to the country. American's think of Europe the same way Euro's think about Africa.
In the USA it seems to be highly underrated, I'd say. How is it possible to have an halfway intelligent conversation with a completey clueless twerp? I once met an American woman who didn't even know that fries are made from potatoes, really. Her reaction was like "Ugh!"
there's stupid people on both sides. As I said just because american's are bad at external geography it has nothing to do with there intelligence. Why would Europe be anything but just Europe to Americans. If you could tell me how once in ordinary life that Europe would be important in a conversation, I'd love to here it. I don't just mean dropping the world I mean direct reference to the country. American's think of Europe the same way Euro's think about Africa.
To answer that question.....
I think the king of Thailand is ok, but to be honest we never really hang out that much. He is more the friend of a friend.
American Power, I used to suffer from depression too. Hust keep going,man. You will get over it.
I think the king of Thailand is ok, but to be honest we never really hang out that much. He is more the friend of a friend.
American Power, I used to suffer from depression too. Hust keep going,man. You will get over it.
" And that map thing is totally unfair and confusing when you mislable some of the countries or continents "
The basic minimum general culture should be to know where the main continents are in the world's map. And to be able to know in what continent are located the major countries (in terms of population or cultural and economical power) is a minimum. Not being able to locate Sierra Leone, Angola, Buthan, Moldava or Burundi can be accepted, but thinking that Korea, Iran or France are located in Australia (but not in Asia, middle east or Europe) can't be accepted as the norm for average people's knowings.
It is not only a strict question of geography but also of the belongings of the major countries in their cultural area. It is a very minimum of everyone's general culture for exemple to know that the USA are in North America, that Brazil is in south America, that China is in Asia, Germany, Italy, France, UK and Spain are in Europe (it seems that a candidate in the last American presidential election had even a problem with on what continent to locate Spain!)
" here in the US, and I would imagine it is true in the UK and other Anglophone countries, almost nobody who is not interested in linguistics, would know that English and German are more closely related than English and Spanish. The vast majority think that English is based on Latin "
I don't think it is a strict question of linguistics, but also of geography, both cultural aspects (historical, linguistic, religious, etc) and geographical are linked in one way or another.
All people here might not know or use the word "germanic" to describe a language like English, German or Dutch; but they feel the English culture is somehow linked to the geographical belonging to the country in the northern part of western Europe (north sea area); we obviously notice how English language looks strange and foreign (and sounds also in my point of view) from our romance point of view. We know that all these languages with those strange spellings (full of "w"; "ing"; "k" "oo"; "ee"; "sh"; etc.) should somehow part of a distinct cultural lingusitic-cultural group than our own language and culture.
Even someone who don't know nothing about linguistic "feels" those things. The same way he/she would feel that Arabic languages spoken south of us are somehow part of another linguistic/cultural group; he/she would feels that our northern Neighbours such as the English, German, Scandinavian languages; Dutch, etc. are part of their own linguistic group. No need to know nothing about linguistic to have this (simplified) scheme in everyones's mind.
At least here (it seem being different in some English-speaking countries); everyone has a simplified mental map of European linguistic/cultural areas: a western Europe divided in a south/north schema: Germanic in the North half of western Europe; and latin/romance in the south half of it:
Romance languages are associated with geographical location in the south part of Europe and with the cultural and human stereotypes that goes with it (mediterranean "way of life" and architecture; wine; more brown haired people, etc). Inversely the germanic languages are linked with more nordic aspects (and nordic aspects are linked with germanic languages).
Everyone in Europe knows that the UK lies in the north half of western Europe; and so it is naturally expected it to show similar cultural aspects that the other countries of this part of Europe; such as the germanic language; and many other points that romance speaking countries don't share.
Similarily this simplified schema associate Slavic languages with the eastern half of Europe. This is true in most cases but led to have some mistakes when speaking about "exception countries" (Romania, Moldava, Hungary, etc.) . It is true that many people think that Romania is a slavic speaking country due to its isolated location in eastern Europe.
" as they keep hearing "Latin is the basis of [sic] all languages." "
If this is what they learn at school the education system has definitly to be reformed; and maybe put more importance to history and geography, not necessary speaking of linguistics.
I personally feel that elites in some anglophone countries (the people that are educated about the belonging of the different countries in different linguistic/cultural groups) contribute in a great part in spreading this idea that every language (or at least every European language) derive from latin; that is why this idea seem to be integrated in the education system.
My guess for this reason is that British and American elites since the 18th century began to construct stongs "universalist" empires and societies based in democracy. revendicating roots in classical latin culture (which once was one "universalist" empire; when such a think did not existed in northern European ancient civilisations) would have helps them in that goal, to be able to legitimate their wishes to appear to be the heirs of ancient Greek democracy and roman republic.
It was it seems more valuable to link their cultures to the mediterranean ancient civilisations than to their own cultural roots of northern European civilisations (this is quite obvious the wish was to emphase a Greek/roman herency when we see the official neo-classical architectures that those countries had developped at those times (Washington main offical admiistrative buildings for exemple): the idea that the power was seated inplaces that should look like Greek or roman temples)
So the idea: "English (as all European languages) is based on latin (fully or partly); without precising that the latinate influence of English is secondary (the more complex vocabulary); is almost only limited to vocabulary; and it is indirect. The latin influence of English doesn't comes directly from the ancient mediterranean civilisation but from Normans (people of Scandinavian origin who settled in what will became Normandy; learning the local romance language there, and bringing then some it its vocabulary in the English land). What we could say is that the link with mediterranean latin cultures is quite tenous.
The basic minimum general culture should be to know where the main continents are in the world's map. And to be able to know in what continent are located the major countries (in terms of population or cultural and economical power) is a minimum. Not being able to locate Sierra Leone, Angola, Buthan, Moldava or Burundi can be accepted, but thinking that Korea, Iran or France are located in Australia (but not in Asia, middle east or Europe) can't be accepted as the norm for average people's knowings.
It is not only a strict question of geography but also of the belongings of the major countries in their cultural area. It is a very minimum of everyone's general culture for exemple to know that the USA are in North America, that Brazil is in south America, that China is in Asia, Germany, Italy, France, UK and Spain are in Europe (it seems that a candidate in the last American presidential election had even a problem with on what continent to locate Spain!)
" here in the US, and I would imagine it is true in the UK and other Anglophone countries, almost nobody who is not interested in linguistics, would know that English and German are more closely related than English and Spanish. The vast majority think that English is based on Latin "
I don't think it is a strict question of linguistics, but also of geography, both cultural aspects (historical, linguistic, religious, etc) and geographical are linked in one way or another.
All people here might not know or use the word "germanic" to describe a language like English, German or Dutch; but they feel the English culture is somehow linked to the geographical belonging to the country in the northern part of western Europe (north sea area); we obviously notice how English language looks strange and foreign (and sounds also in my point of view) from our romance point of view. We know that all these languages with those strange spellings (full of "w"; "ing"; "k" "oo"; "ee"; "sh"; etc.) should somehow part of a distinct cultural lingusitic-cultural group than our own language and culture.
Even someone who don't know nothing about linguistic "feels" those things. The same way he/she would feel that Arabic languages spoken south of us are somehow part of another linguistic/cultural group; he/she would feels that our northern Neighbours such as the English, German, Scandinavian languages; Dutch, etc. are part of their own linguistic group. No need to know nothing about linguistic to have this (simplified) scheme in everyones's mind.
At least here (it seem being different in some English-speaking countries); everyone has a simplified mental map of European linguistic/cultural areas: a western Europe divided in a south/north schema: Germanic in the North half of western Europe; and latin/romance in the south half of it:
Romance languages are associated with geographical location in the south part of Europe and with the cultural and human stereotypes that goes with it (mediterranean "way of life" and architecture; wine; more brown haired people, etc). Inversely the germanic languages are linked with more nordic aspects (and nordic aspects are linked with germanic languages).
Everyone in Europe knows that the UK lies in the north half of western Europe; and so it is naturally expected it to show similar cultural aspects that the other countries of this part of Europe; such as the germanic language; and many other points that romance speaking countries don't share.
Similarily this simplified schema associate Slavic languages with the eastern half of Europe. This is true in most cases but led to have some mistakes when speaking about "exception countries" (Romania, Moldava, Hungary, etc.) . It is true that many people think that Romania is a slavic speaking country due to its isolated location in eastern Europe.
" as they keep hearing "Latin is the basis of [sic] all languages." "
If this is what they learn at school the education system has definitly to be reformed; and maybe put more importance to history and geography, not necessary speaking of linguistics.
I personally feel that elites in some anglophone countries (the people that are educated about the belonging of the different countries in different linguistic/cultural groups) contribute in a great part in spreading this idea that every language (or at least every European language) derive from latin; that is why this idea seem to be integrated in the education system.
My guess for this reason is that British and American elites since the 18th century began to construct stongs "universalist" empires and societies based in democracy. revendicating roots in classical latin culture (which once was one "universalist" empire; when such a think did not existed in northern European ancient civilisations) would have helps them in that goal, to be able to legitimate their wishes to appear to be the heirs of ancient Greek democracy and roman republic.
It was it seems more valuable to link their cultures to the mediterranean ancient civilisations than to their own cultural roots of northern European civilisations (this is quite obvious the wish was to emphase a Greek/roman herency when we see the official neo-classical architectures that those countries had developped at those times (Washington main offical admiistrative buildings for exemple): the idea that the power was seated inplaces that should look like Greek or roman temples)
So the idea: "English (as all European languages) is based on latin (fully or partly); without precising that the latinate influence of English is secondary (the more complex vocabulary); is almost only limited to vocabulary; and it is indirect. The latin influence of English doesn't comes directly from the ancient mediterranean civilisation but from Normans (people of Scandinavian origin who settled in what will became Normandy; learning the local romance language there, and bringing then some it its vocabulary in the English land). What we could say is that the link with mediterranean latin cultures is quite tenous.
" I once met a European who thought that Turkey used to be in the Soviet Union. So the score's 1:1 "
Well that's not so stupid, since there were many countries in former soviet union that were speaking Turkic languages. Actually most Turkic areas were in the soviet union (central Asia). One country being called Turkmenistan the confusion could exist. Also Turkey was bordering the soviet union.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Map-TurkicLanguages.png
Well that's not so stupid, since there were many countries in former soviet union that were speaking Turkic languages. Actually most Turkic areas were in the soviet union (central Asia). One country being called Turkmenistan the confusion could exist. Also Turkey was bordering the soviet union.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Map-TurkicLanguages.png
>General knowledge is overrated. That's what Wikipedia is for"<
You forget to include our most important source - Fox "news".
Let us hope that neither ever states "weapons of mass destruction" found in Iran. We are like a tail to a dog, and the dog being Obama, we follow blindly with no thinking.
Now give them the baaaaaah, you know you want to.
...
I like that we have to type the French word for "white" in order to post, to the very nation we owe our independence and famous statue...ok...but once upon a time that was actually somewhat true.
You forget to include our most important source - Fox "news".
Let us hope that neither ever states "weapons of mass destruction" found in Iran. We are like a tail to a dog, and the dog being Obama, we follow blindly with no thinking.
Now give them the baaaaaah, you know you want to.
...
I like that we have to type the French word for "white" in order to post, to the very nation we owe our independence and famous statue...ok...but once upon a time that was actually somewhat true.