Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec,sci.lang
From: philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!storcomp.demon.co.uk!philip
Subject: Re: Languages in the EC
References: <3fdf8r$gqe@nic.lth.se> <3feev2$4df@news.INbe.net> <HINSENK.95Feb5111156@cyclone.ERE.UMontreal.CA>
Reply-To: philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 109
X-Posting-Host: storcomp.demon.co.uk
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 02:09:00 +0000
Message-ID: <792036540snz@storcomp.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <HINSENK.95Feb5111156@cyclone.ERE.UMontreal.CA>
           hinsenk@cyclone.ERE.UMontreal.CA "Hinsen Konrad" writes:
>    You seem to think of "France", "Germany" etc as single monolithic entities
>    with one mind; I disagree. If you had said "the French government",
>    "the German government" etc I would be more inclined to agree with you.
> 
> That's of course what I meant, because decisions in the EU are still taken
> by governments.

This might not be the case in the future.

>    governments of the member states: whether there is to be a common EU 
>    second language, and if so what it is should be decided by an EU-wide 
>    referendum, using STV.
> 
> In my opinion, a referendum is not a good way to decide this question,
> or for that matter any question that affects future generations.
> The majority of people does not think about anything but their current
> personal interests.

And a majority of politicians don't think further ahead than the next 
election.

>    A Frenchman might well prefer English to Esperanto, particularly if he
>    knew some English; even if he did not speak English, he already knows
>    many English words because English and French are quite similar.
> 
> That's exactly what I mean. People would vote on the basis of their
> own language abilities. They would not care (or even think about) what
> the decision means for the children and future generations.

If everyone votes for what is best for them, the language chosen will
be the one which is best for the most number of people. It might well
not be English, but it will be the one people prefer.

> The Frenchman
> who knows some English and therefore votes for English will create
> a situation that requires future generations in France to spend an
> enormous amount of time to learn English much better than he did
> himself, since after a universal acception knowledge of English would
> soon be obligatory.

Anyone of normal intelligence is capable of learning English (or any
other language for that matter). In a common 2nd language is chosen, I
expect most children will grow up bilingual in it an their 1st language.

Eg: 1/2 of childrens' TV programs could be in the common 2nd language. 
One day a week at school could be conducted in the 2nd language (not
just learning about the language, but learning other subjects thru it).

If the EU is going to have a common language, it will only work properly
if enough steps are taken to make sure most people know it.

This argument remains the same whatever language is chosen.

> At the same time, children in England can safely
> stop learning any foreign languages at all and use their time to
> study more productive things, giving them a huge advantage on the
> then-existing international job market.
> 
>    > In my opinion, neutrality is even more important than easy learning.
> 
>    So you would prefer Japanese to English as a common EU language?
> 
> Indeed. After some generations, Europe would have created its proper
> dialect of Japanese, without many of the complications imposed by
> Japanese culture. Europe would probably also get rid of the Japanese
> writing system, since Europeans don't have the traditional attachment
> to it that the Japanese have. In the long run, Japanese would work
> better than English.

There is no way Japanese (or any non-European language) would ever be
chosen. Many Japanese words reflect concepts in Japanese culture which
are different in European culture. Also Japanese is spoken differently
by men and women which would be considered sexist in most of Europe.

>    To any English-speaking person with *no knowledge of French at all* the
>    word "hopital" is immediately comprehensible. Even more so a French 
> 
> True, but how much does this help in communication? Probably not at all.

Because "hospital" is just one word. But if lots of words are familiar it
certainly does help. I can't speak French very well, and I don't 
understand spoken French, but I understand written French reasonably well.
It's easier to understand a language than to be able to produce it,
but once you have a minimum level of understanding in it, you can use
that to practise the language (ie if I read lots of French magazines I'm
sure my knowledge of it would improve).

So having a language where a lot of words are superficially recognisable
helps people to practise using it, which helps them learn it.

> It helps to recognise hospitals, but that could also be achieved by
> inventing a commonly used sign to mark hospitals.

This sign already exists. It is the word "hospital".

> Therefore I doubt that you can construct a language in which the majority
> of words is familiar to *all* Europeans (and I would not even insist
> that you include the Finns, whose language is completely different).

I agree.

> And even if you could, that would help only in the acquisitin of a
> passive knowledge.

-- 
Phil Hunt...philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
Majority rule for Britain!
