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!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!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.95Feb6120858@cyclone.ERE.UMontreal.CA>
Reply-To: philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 94
X-Posting-Host: storcomp.demon.co.uk
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 18:13:52 +0000
Message-ID: <792180832snz@storcomp.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <HINSENK.95Feb6120858@cyclone.ERE.UMontreal.CA>
           hinsenk@cyclone.ERE.UMontreal.CA "Hinsen Konrad" writes:
>    > 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.
> 
> Hopefully.
> 
>    > 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.
> 
> That is certainly a valid concern. Still I have slightly more faith
> in politicians than in the average citizen regarding this question.
> Their interests may not be those we would like, but at least they
> tend to spend some time thinking about the problem and its consequences.

If there was a referendum, there would have to be a big debate about it
first. I think most voters would take some time to consider the issues
carefully. Many would not, but expect their votes would cancel each other
out.
 
>    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.
> 
> It will be what people think they prefer. They won't see the
> consequences until a few decades later.

The same would be true of a policy made by politicians.

> Then they will probably
> say "That's not what we wanted." It has all happened before.

I don't think voters are children who need to be told what to do. They
are adults and they can make their own decisions. And that includes the
ability to make their own mistakes. Europe belongs to the people not
the politicians.

>    Anyone of normal intelligence is capable of learning English (or any
> 
> True. But it takes an enormous amount of time.
> 
>    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.
> 
> After some time, maybe. Initially many people would probably consider
> this a violation of the "cultural diversity" policy.

I don't see why. I wouldn't regard myself as any less English if I could
speak other languages.
 
>    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.
> 
> Evidently. But the time spent for this by millions of future
> Europeans depends a lot on the language chosen.
> to English, and I said yes.
> 
>    certainly does help. I can't speak French very well, and I don't 
>    understand spoken French, but I understand written French reasonably well.
> 
> But are you satisfied with that? 

For now, yes, because I have no need to speak it better. If I went to
live in France I would obviously want to learn it better.

> Should that be a criterion for the
> choice of a language?

IMO French is an easy language for English-speaking people to learn, so
yes.

> In my opinion one should optimize for the time
> needed to learn a language reasonably well, not for the time needed
> to be able to guess the meaning of a simple written text.

IMO the two are closely related. It is easier to understand a language
than to produce it. So if a language was made easy to understand, then
(for example) people could read newspaper articles in it, or watch TV
programs in it fairly quickly. Since the people would be doing these
things anyway (but in their own language), it is fairly effortless to
learn the new language.
 
-- 
Phil Hunt...philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
Majority rule for Britain!
