Text 25452, 88 rader
Skriven 2012-02-19 18:21:17 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 25433 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: question after reading conf for several days
====================================================
Hello Michiel,

 DD>> Is that harder to speak than Flemmish?

 BF>> Absolutely not. And the same goes for e.g. all the Scandinavian
 BF>> languages.

 MvdV> You are not an unbiased observer. German is your native language.

My native language is French.  Does that make me an unbiased observer?

 BF>> We'd be much better off if the entire northern Europe spoke
 BF>> German.

 MvdV> Here I fully agree. One of the reasons the union of the 50 states in
 MvdV> Northern America is so successful, is that they have a common language.

The United States does not have an official language.  And not everybody
in this country speaks English.  Some folks speak French.  And only
French.  Some folks speak Spanish.  And only Spanish.  Some folks speak
Vietnamese.  And only Vietnamese.  Etc.

The only "common language" that exists in the USA is American Sign
Language, the deaf community speaking the same language from coast to
coast.

Yes, English is widely used as a spoken language.  Yes, it is a
language spoken by almost everyone.  But it is not the only language
spoken, and nobody is forced to speak or use the language.

 MvdV> One of the barriers to form a political union in Europe is the fact that
 MvdV> each country has its own language. It is much harder to consider someone
 MvdV> "one of us" if he does not speak our language.

Language defines a culture, not a political system.  For example,
Hispanics define themselves by their use of the Spanish language,
not the color of their skin or their geographical location.  Cajuns
define themselves by their use of the French language, including
those who live outside of Louisiana or the USA.

 MvdV> Yes, we would be much better of if we all spoke the same language.

I beg to disagree.  If forced to use a different language, Cajuns
would no longer be a people.  IOW, it would be a case of genocide
to force a group to give up its language, as it would be forcing
them to give up their own culture and meaning as a people.

 MvdV> I think the political union that we badly need to overcome the present
 MvdV> crises, would have been accomplished decades ago, if there had been no
 MvdV> language barriers.

Had Hitler gotten his way, all Europeans would be speaking German.
He had even developed a new language, called Basic German, for that
purpose.  And it would not have been used only in Europe.  In the
USA, Cajuns learned first hand what it was like to be forced to
speak a language other than their own.  We are still paying that
price today.  Only instead of German, it was the English language
that did us in.

 MvdV> If that language would be German that'd be fine with me.

And if it would be English?  My point is, why should any people
be forced to give up its native language?  Doing so would be the
death knell of their culture and way of life.

 MvdV> [whisper mode on]

 MvdV> Sometimes I wish one of the many conquerors that have tried to forcibly
 MvdV> unite Europe over the centuries had succeeded...

Julius Caesar succeeded.  But his own people, most notably Brutus and
the Senators, did him in.

Attila the Hun succeeded.  But a ladyfriend poisoned him, thus bringing
that era to a close.

Napoleon Bonaparte succeeded.  But cold weather set him back,
and he was forced to retreat.  After being freed from exile by
Jean Lafitte's half-brother Dominique Youx, Bonaparte's wife
accidentally killed him mistaking him for a burglar.  And that
was the end of that.

 MvdV> [whisper mode off]

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)