Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.esperanto,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.erols.net!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!commpost!usenet
From: pardoej@lonnds.ml.com (Julian Pardoe LADS LDN X1428)
Subject: Re: Concerning the number of esperantists
Message-ID: <Dw4v26.G4u@tigadmin.ml.com>
Sender: usenet@tigadmin.ml.com (News Account)
Reply-To: pardoej@lonnds.ml.com
Organization: Merrill Lynch Europe
References: <dPtpkDAuwcDyEwqu@deira.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 15:01:18 GMT
Lines: 69

In article <dPtpkDAuwcDyEwqu@deira.demon.co.uk>, Martin Hardgrave <Martin@deira.demon.co.uk> writes:
-->I remember using the tourist information centre at the Gare de Lyon in
-->Paris about 5 years ago, and the man there made no effort whatsoever to
-->understand my rusty French.

Well, no Parisian makes any effort to accommodate any tourist, of indeed
(I suspect) anyone.

But that's just Paris so don't think that all French people are like that.
Go to Toulouse and you'll find things quite different.  Because of my
laziness I ended up speaking English with people when (given how poorly
they spoke it) we should have been speaking French.

-->In article <8a7cc$10332d.22a@news.comet.net>, "George F. Hardy"
--><georgeh@www.comet.chv.va.us> writes
-->>In article <4uifob$d4n@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, sjb1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Simon Buck) 
-->>says:
-->>>
-->>>Ysgrifennodd Uzulo (tycho@cile.msk.su):
-->>>
-->>>   >>
-->>>The  purpose    of   an   international  language   is  to  enhance
-->>>communication  amongst peoples of  the  world,  and to that  end,  it
-->>>would  help for  "the"   international language   to  be considerably
-->>>easier  than  English to  learn  or   understand.  Yes, many   people
-->>>throughout the  world communicate in  English  now  (although many at
-->>>varying degrees of substandard quality),  <<snip>>
-->>
-->>That is the great advantage of English (or is it English
-->>speakers).  No matter how poorly they speak English, or
-->>how poorly they pronounce it or how bad the grammar, it
-->>seems that the English speaker will understand.  Just try
-->>to speak French that badly in France!
-->>
-->>My German is very bad.  It works well in the former DDR, where
-->>it is the only medium of communications.  But in the older
-->>Lnder, I must speak English, as those Germans expect the
-->>grammar to be accurate, the gender of nouns known, etc.

Well, my experience in Berlin was that it was impossible for me
to speak English in the West because as soon as they realized
I was English they switched to English.  East Berliners typically
couldn't do this, even young ones.

I don't think expectations of correctness have anything to do with it!
If people are trying to communicate gender, case endings etc.
pretty much go out of the window : you just have to know enough
words.

-->>I have no idea why English has this unique factor, being 
-->>useful when very poorly spoken.  But I don't think that 
-->>any artificially constructed language will have the same
-->>virtue.
-->>
-->I think it is because English is a relatively flexible language, so that
-->you get used to picking out what is what.  Another factor is that the
-->British are used to foreigners speaking English, but not perfect
-->English, so they make allowances.

I suspect that the idea that this is a unique quality of English -- or
even one that it possesses to an unusually high degree is a load of rubbish!

Both Brits and Usonians might be more used to hearing their language
misspoken than the average Icelander is but Germans and French must
be well used to it!

-- jP --


