Random thoughts about Europe and the World at large.

[Akka]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Not in this case. A single language would mean everyone could communicate with everyone else. A vital component in a single market.

People being multilingual would also work.
It would, of course, be less efficient, but I consider the benefit in term of diversity to be worth it.

That is difference for the sake of difference.

Exactly. Difference to avoid homogeneity. Lack of alternative is the same as restrincting freedom.

It is preciesly because America also speaks English that we should choose it.

I tend to have the exact opposite conclusion.

And BTW, I wasn't the one who wrote the message of Yago

 

[test_specimen]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Also German is a horrible language, no offence.

I just find it interesting that Europeans attack the British for keeping the pound for sentimental reasons but then use the same argument to protect their language.

It depends on who speaks German. English can also be a horrible language, but so can Spanish, Italian (just think of Eros Ramazotti) and even French.

I don't think the British keep the pound only for sentimental reasons. After all, you introduced the metric system (though beer is still measured differently).

I'm sorry but that is just plain silly. If there is an audience for something then there will be a television channel, trust me.

It does not only depend on having an audience or not. A tv-channel wants the largest audience it can possibly have, probably one which consumes a lot. And whatever they show should be as cheap as possible to obtain.

We're talking long-term, not tomorrow. European countries should introduce a gradual step-by-step plan to introduce English to their populations. Over time it would be widely used by almost everyone in Europe, then you change the official language of the European Union to English.

You're not talking long-term, you're talking "terraforming of Mars"-long-term. Name me a country or alliance of countries, where they introduced successfully a single language from everyday life to official within a reasonable time horizon. I guess you would sooner have some automatic translation device (like in "Plan 9") than every European speak a single language.

In Austria there is a problem that a lot of immigrants barely speak the official language, even if they lived in Austria for more than ten years. Simply because in their kind of jobs they do not need to know German, apart from some basic terms. I doubt that a lot of people would learn English and use it to raise their children.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Akka
People being multilingual would also work.

And if we discovered the magical fairy dust we could rid the world of disease but it ain't going to happen. People find it very difficult to learn a different language. A single language is by far and away the easiest, simpliest and best option.

Originally posted by Akka
Difference to avoid homogeneity. Lack of alternative is the same as restrincting freedom.

A lack of alternative? People can still learn Latin, ancient Greece, Hebrew, ancient Egyptian or whatever the hell else and you are worried about a lack of an alternative?

Originally posted by test_specimen
Name me a country or alliance of countries, where they introduced successfully a single language from everyday life to official within a reasonable time horizon.

Normans, Britain, 1066.

Originally posted by Akka
It does not only depend on having an audience or not. A tv-channel wants the largest audience it can possibly have, probably one which consumes a lot. And whatever they show should be as cheap as possible to obtain.

Have you ever heard of niche markets? If money can be made then it will be.

Originally posted by Akka
I doubt that a lot of people would learn English and use it to raise their children.

Do not doubt, find out.

 

[test_specimen]

Ok, let me reformulate the question:

Name me a country or alliance of countries, where they introduced successfully a single language from everyday life to official within a reasonable time horizon without force.

 

[allhailIndia]

How about raising a dead language, like Latin, as the Israelis did in Israel??

 

[test_specimen]

niche markets: the up front costs for a German-wide tv station are high, and even via sat or cable I can only get about 45 channels. At the same time they translate every US tv-show to German. Why? Because the audience is bigger if they do, costs are lower than producing it themselves (at the risk of not reaching the audience). It is not only a question of market potential, but also of cost reduction and quasi monopolistic status.

 

[Kentonio]

MrPresident, it is pointless arguing, many of the posters have shown that they clearly dislike Britain, the US or both, I have rarely seen a more fatuous post than..

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is preciesly because America also speaks English that we should choose it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I tend to have the exact opposite conclusion.

I think that puts into a nutshell the thoughts of too many Europeans.

So ironic considering about 70-80% of Britons want sod all to do with a European state anyway.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Kentonio
MrPresident, it is pointless arguing, many of the posters have shown that they clearly dislike Britain, the US or both, I have rarely seen a more fatuous post than..

Probably you did not understand the link between it and the "diversity is better than homogeneity" part.

 

[Kentonio]

Perhaps I did see the link and decided that it was not sufficient to explain your post. It had little to do with a desire for diversity, that is a ridiculous argument. We are debating a common European language, arguing that English should not be that language because America uses it and we need to be diverse is nonsense, kind of takes away the whole point of a common language no?

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Kentonio
Perhaps I did see the link and decided that it was not sufficient to explain your post. It had little to do with a desire for diversity, that is a ridiculous argument. We are debating a common European language, arguing that English should not be that language because America uses it and we need to be diverse is nonsense, kind of takes away the whole point of a common language no?

You can notice that I wasn't particularly fond of a common language, and preferred people to have to be multilingual.

(and before you say it's impracticable, I'd point Sweden, Norway and Québec, where nearly everyone speaks at least two languages)

 

[Yago]

And Switzerland, where they speak four.

 

[smalltalk]

Originally posted by MrPresident
People find it very difficult to learn a different language. A single language is by far and away the easiest, simpliest and best option.

This is only true for grown-ups. People are often bi-lingual in border regions. Maybe anyone from Switzerland here?

Also, some people claim that children raised in a mutlilingual envirnoment tend to be more intelligent.

http://www.cal.org/ericcll/faqs/rgos/bilingual_children.html
Research suggests that children who learn a second language are more creative and better at solving complex problems than those who do not. Studies have shown that bilinguals outperform similar monolingual peers on both verbal and nonverbal tests of intelligence and tend to achieve higher scores on standardized tests.

If this should turn out true, I'd say let's go for it, we badly need it.

 

[Kentonio]

How about Holland where they seem to speak about 9?

The point is not that every country in Europe should be forced to speak the same language, the point is that Europe should be represented by a common language, at present the trouble caused by having to fill Brussels with translators with the inevitable messups and linguistic slips is quite preposterous.

Bearing in mind that we are not talking about messing with your countries native tongue and so on (I know MrPresident did for a while but lets get on track here), what grounds do you have exactly for opposing English as the common language of the European institutions to be used for all official business by the union?

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by test_specimen

I don't think the British keep the pound only for sentimental reasons. After all, you introduced the metric system (though beer is still measured differently).

[/B]

...and milk, and meat, and heights, and weights, and distances, and road signs, and clothes, and shoes....

 

[test_specimen]

Originally posted by Kentonio
Bearing in mind that we are not talking about messing with your countries native tongue and so on (I know MrPresident did for a while but lets get on track here), what grounds do you have exactly for opposing English as the common language of the European institutions to be used for all official business by the union?

Maybe I'm repeating myself, but the reason English would not be first choice, is that more people speak German. Scientific and economic use of English is no argument here since the EU bureaucracy has to be understood by far more people than certain transnational economic and scientific projects.

The US having English as language is no argument, since Spanish speaking population is on the rise, and statistics no longer argue whether it will be spoken by a majority or not, but when Spanish speakers will be in the majority.

 

[Thadlerian]

Esperanto would certainly be the best alternative as a common language in Europe. It is very easy to learn, and it is sort of diplomatic, combining English and Spanish/Italian.

 

[Mikoyan]

English is the best choice, since many people in Europe know it already.

 

[Kinniken]

Originally posted by Kentonio
Bearing in mind that we are not talking about messing with your countries native tongue and so on (I know MrPresident did for a while but lets get on track here), what grounds do you have exactly for opposing English as the common language of the European institutions to be used for all official business by the union?

About none. I'm all for introducing English as the working language of the EU administrations, and requiring EU employees to speak it (but not necessarily politicians, for the reason MrPresident mentioned). And please stop believing that pro-europeans are necessarily anti-uk I love the UK, it's a great country, and it only makes it all the sadder to see your lack of enthusiasm for Europe.
However, I believe that a language is a cornerstone of the culture of a country, and I refuse to contemplate abandoning languages as rich as Spanish, French or Italian, even for efficiency.
I have no problems with France losing its currency, and possibily tomorrow its army or its UNSC seat. But not its language.
The main reason being that I see things like a currency, and army or a foreign politic to be the attribute of a state, and I want the EU to become one. The language however is an attribute of a nation. And the EU should not attempt to become one ; it should become a federation of nations, NOT a nation-state. The beauty of the european experiment is the construction of political entity which is not based on a language, a culture, a nation, but on values and a common interest.
While I expect the use of english to become more and more frequent (it's hard to study at university in France without speaking english, for instence) and while I would be in favor of making it the obligatory first foreign language at school, it should not replace national languages.
All in all, I have to say you surprise me, MrPresident. If you realy mean what you are saying, you are proposing a degree of unity far beyond what I was proposing, and I'm certainly a federalist.
In any case, I am curious: you said earlier that what you object about the EU is its "undemocratic and unaccountanable" nature. Would you support making the EU parliament the central EU institution, with the powers to initiate and pass laws, to elect the President of the Commission, and so on? Basicaly reproducing a parliamentary democracy at the European level?

 

[MrPresident]

Double-post.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Kinniken
All in all, I have to say you surprise me, MrPresident. If you realy mean what you are saying, you are proposing a degree of unity far beyond what I was proposing, and I'm certainly a federalist.

I see no point in being a federation of nation-states. You either are a nation or you're not. If we are going to be a nation then we must have a single common language that we all know is the language of Europe.

Originally posted by test_specimen
the reason English would not be first choice, is that more people speak German.

I have to question that. Far more people understand English than German, though it may not be their native tongue.

Originally posted by Kinniken
I refuse to contemplate abandoning languages as rich as Spanish, French or Italian, even for efficiency.

No one would abandon those languages. It's just if a language is abandoned by its people then we should let it happen.

Originally posted by Kinniken
Would you support making the EU parliament the central EU institution, with the powers to initiate and pass laws, to elect the President of the Commission, and so on? Basicaly reproducing a parliamentary democracy at the European level?

No. I support a strong European President heading a European cabinet appointed by him(her) and approved by the European Parliament. I say we should get rid of the Commission altogether.