Is it important if one can speak/write more than one languages?

[warpus]

English speakers generally get by in most of the world so everyone should learn English just for the opportunities that presents.

Other languages don't matter so much from a practical standpoint. You do learn a lot about English grammar when you learn another language, though. Native English students usually never learn about their conjugation or infinitives or anything like that unless they study another language.

For purely practical reasons, yes, you can get by with just English. However, you learn things by learning other languages that have nothing to do with the language. You see the world through different eyes.

I feel like seeing the world through the eyes of someone who only speaks only 1 language is just not enough. There is a lot more that the world has to offer and you will only see it by learning other languages and becoming fluent in them.

I feel that this should be something every human should go through, lest they spend their entire lives with misconceptions of the world they live in and an inability to see it from a different point of view.

 

[Takhisis]

It would seem that it is quite useful, and not just for obviously practical reasons, to speak more than one languages. Surely English is mostly used in the western world as some sort of common language, so if one knows it then he has access to most of the information which gets to be presented in a notable way in the media he is aware of and can keep an eye on.

However i think that knowing a second language gives an advantage in the ability to examine what language is. If you are monolingual then it is less likely that you can observe how different the dynamics in languages are. As Plato had argued, if there is only one item of some given nature or form, then it is by definition the prototype. But if at least two items of that nature appear, despite what minor or more pronounced differences exist between them, the prototype now becomes a theoretical model, which would be linked to both existent items.

So it is easier to notice that the language itself is quite distinct from the human need for expression. It can form or limit it. It is not one and the same with it. It seems very likely that cultures were evolving very dependent on their language, and despite all being cultures of humans, they were aspiring (consciously or not) to present in clarity some different shape that the particular linguistic tools they had could be used so as to present and give meaning to.

-You can reflect on the importance of knowing more than one languages, and to anything in the OP if you wish too as well

Do we, or do we not, think in a language?

Not sure about important unless you have a job that requires knowledge of another language, but I feel it does enrich your life to be non-monolingual. Speaking another language means access to a whole other world of tradition and culture, from films to literature to music and all kinds of knowledge.

It does enrich you, so why shouldn't you do it?

Only if that language is Greek.

Knowing more than oen alphabet/writing system is a boon. Expands horizons, you can think in more than one way.

This is not to say Spanish doesn't help, but the next person that says Spanish is the only language worth learning, I'll slap in the face. (I know you didn't say that, I'm just ranting. )

How would you read El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha without knowing Spanish?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Knowing more than oen alphabet/writing system is a boon. Expands horizons, you can think in more than one way.

I agree. I know 4. Even without the language, it is in itself useful.

 

[Leoreth]

Learning Tengwar has taught me a lot about phonetics.

 

[Kyriakos]

Do we, or do we not, think in a language?

Excellent

Yes, in reality (although most don't realize it) one does not really think in a language, but connects dots in a language so as to mirror the pattern below that language.

But this is an issue for an entire treatise, not for a simple thread

 

[sophie]

How would you read El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha without knowing Spanish?

Sod that - Cien años de soledad is where it's at!

 

[Phrossack]

Learning other languages lets you mutter insults without fear of being understood.

And it's just plain fun.

 

[JohannaK]

Not sure about important unless you have a job that requires knowledge of another language, but I feel it does enrich your life to be non-monolingual. Speaking another language means access to a whole other world of tradition and culture, from films to literature to music and all kinds of knowledge.

I totally agree, hi estic completament d'acord, estoy totalmente de acuerdo, je suis completement d'accord. And I'm doing a semester of Russian and classic Greek in uni and mmaybe I end up studying Chinese this year. WOOHOO.

This is only correct if you take it for granted that only your job can make things important. Which, btw, is a very common thought these days. Media and politics does everything possible to spread that believe.

It seems to me that importance stems from priorities. And our society is focused towards careers and professional success, so it is unsurprising that many people have that concept of importance.

Sod that - Cien años de soledad is where it's at!

It's my favourite book.

 

[metatron]

Other languages don't matter so much from a practical standpoint. You do learn a lot about English grammar when you learn another language, though. Native English students usually never learn about their conjugation or infinitives or anything like that unless they study another language.

This cannot be overstated.
This is also why learning a "dead language" can be perfectly wothwhile.

 

[Glububble]

I'd feel pretty ******** if I only knew one language. Learning new lingos is one of the most useful things you can do.

 

[JohannaK]

It also feels great. At least when you're good at it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Soms is het inderdaad belangrijk.

Translated: "Sometimes it can be important."

 

[Takhisis]

Excellent

Yes, in reality (although most don't realize it) one does not really think in a language, but connects dots in a language so as to mirror the pattern below that language.

But this is an issue for an entire treatise, not for a simple thread

This is the Chamberpot, after all.

Can we see the more complex patterns if we do not draw the lines joining the dots?

Learning other languages lets you mutter insults without fear of being understood.

And it's just plain fun.

I wholeheartedly agree!

It seems to me that importance stems from priorities. And our society is focused towards careers and professional success, so it is unsurprising that many people have that concept of importance.

Reminds me of some recent Brit government-sponsored ads: people should study maths… why? Because you can get into management after that!

Sod that - Cien años de soledad is where it's at!

It's my favourite book.

You both deserve a hundred years of solitude each.

 

[Kyriakos]

This is the Chamberpot, after all.

Can we see the more complex patterns if we do not draw the lines joining the dots?

I think that on the one hand we have to use the "lines" in your analogy, so as to draw anything. Let's not forget that, at the very start, the infant trying to speak is probably trying (doesn't matter how unconsciously or not) to communicate in some way to a basic degree 'understood' by the parents, at some level recognisable to the child, so would rather tend to primarily make the parents react to the communication in some way the child can sense as being important.

I think that we use the (continuing your 'line' analogy) geometric shapes we find around us, and form relations between them which can be quite complicated, but also have connections more intelligible to us due to our (to some significant degree) common human nature.

The people in the depths of prehistory did not have a complicated and common language. How could they? How would they arrive at the same symbols at roughly the same time when they had no way to communicate such delicate notions as symbols or language without a language to begin with? So i have to suspect that they moved away from the deeper world of their personal expression (non language based one, not communication-focused) in gradual degrees, until the basis of a language was set, and then it progressed in a faster speed until a language actually existed in a meaningful manner.

*

Either that or some projection of it, OR aliens

 

[metatron]

Soms is het inderdaad belangrijk.

Meinst du? Kann es nicht auch nett sein, wenn man komplett stinkt?
Anecdotal evidence: My French.

Unfair colloquialism. My bad.

 

[Takhisis]

I'd feel pretty ******** if I only knew one language. Learning new lingos is one of the most useful things you can do.

'********'? Really? What an odd choice in words, my good sir.

I think that on the one hand we have to use the "lines" in your analogy, so as to draw anything. Let's not forget that, at the very start, the infant trying to speak is probably trying (doesn't matter how unconsciously or not) to communicate in some way to a basic degree 'understood' by the parents, at some level recognisable to the child, so would rather tend to primarily make the parents react to the communication in some way the child can sense as being important.

I think that we use the (continuing your 'line' analogy) geometric shapes we find around us, and form relations between them which can be quite complicated, but also have connections more intelligible to us due to our (to some significant degree) common human nature.

The people in the depths of prehistory did not have a complicated and common language. How could they? How would they arrive at the same symbols at roughly the same time when they had no way to communicate such delicate notions as symbols or language without a language to begin with? So i have to suspect that they moved away from the deeper world of their personal expression (non language based one, not communication-focused) in gradual degrees, until the basis of a language was set, and then it progressed in a faster speed until a language actually existed in a meaningful manner.

*

Either that or some projection of it, OR aliens

Yes, there's basic degrees of thoughts that people can understand, but it's like constellations, only the very simplest combinations of starts can be pointed out, you need a map for the rest.

How do we know that only one language was the basis of all? How do we know that it wasn't just that a small group evolved a very basic one and then started teaching this new ability to other groups and tribes?

Btw it's your analogy, Mr. K.

Meinst du? Kann es nicht auch nett sein, wenn man komplett stinkt?
Anecdotal evidence: My French.

Unfair colloquialism. My bad.

Otter langen schtunk. English ist bettar.

 

[metatron]

Otter langen schtunk. English ist bettar.

Note to self:

Have to come up with a way Ponies are relevant to debates on Reagan, abortion, mass shootings and American politics.

 

[Takhisis]

Well, easy. Ponies, Reagan, abortion, mass shootings are all wrong.

 

[Glububble]

Soms is het inderdaad belangrijk.

Translated: "Sometimes it can be important."

Can we really consider Dutch to be a language? It's more like a bastardized dialect of German.

 

[peter grimes]

Does it have a navy?

Then Yes, it's a language