What should be the International Olympic Committee's official language policy?


View Poll Results: What should be the IOC's official language policy?
French, English, and the local or national language, as is now the case. 16 39.02%
The local or national language only. 5 12.20%
The national and local indigenous languages. 0 0%
The six official languages of the UN plus the local or national language if different. 1 2.44%
An international auxiliary language like Esperanto plus the dominant local language. 14 34.15%
Other answer. 5 12.20%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

JLM
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by countryboyView Post

Charts of standings, etc. are pretty handy things to see on a TV screen. Numbers are pretty easy to read in any language!

There's just one thing wrong with numbers and charts Countryboy- they are dangerously close to STATISTICS.
 
Machjo
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I did say generally. lol Specifically, well, it depends upon the discipline. I find Latin to be more descriptive than other languages when it comes to the classification of forms of life, for instance. Inuits have a variety of terms for "snow" whereas we have only a modest few.

Yes, Romance languages are more grammatically precise than most languages.

Though there certainly is a place for punning too. For example, owing to English's vast array of synonyms, homonyms, etc. it's much easier to joke and play with words in English than French. I'm not saying it's not possible with French, but just that you have to search more for the puns. In these senses, I'd say Esperanto is more like French, more grammatically precise, but less rich in synonyms, homonyms etc that can be a useful source of humour in literature, for example. So while English, Chinese and other such languages might be a more effective medium for literature, French, Latin, and Esperanto are more useful for legal, technical, and other such communication where there is no room for ambiguity.
 
countryboy
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

There's just one thing wrong with numbers and charts Countryboy- they are dangerously close to STATISTICS.

Oops. I forgot about that "S" word.
 
lunarwinds
#94
In my opinion I would say that we should stick with the tradition. English and French are the two international languages. They are languages of international art and culture. More people speak english and french (as native or secondary languages) than any other languages in the world according to a study. Having the home nations language(s) is good as an accompanying language but should be last. As french preceeded english in its forth coming into the world, it should be first, english second, and the native language 3rd, as it is today. If we used EVERY language of the UN we would have an olympics that "welcome" would consume the first 15 minutes of the olympics! Just imagine if china hosted them again and wanted the various dialects separate plus the UN languages! I think the way it is now is the most efficient. Many people know english, and if you don't you probably know french (well should, it is the languages of the educated and international business lol).

...though I might be biased because I speak both fluently lol. But oh well...
 
JLM
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by lunarwindsView Post

In my opinion I would say that we should stick with the tradition. English and French are the two international languages. They are languages of international art and culture. More people speak english and french (as native or secondary languages) than any other languages in the world according to a study. Having the home nations language(s) is good as an accompanying language but should be last. As french preceeded english in its forth coming into the world, it should be first, english second, and the native language 3rd, as it is today. If we used EVERY language of the UN we would have an olympics that "welcome" would consume the first 15 minutes of the olympics! Just imagine if china hosted them again and wanted the various dialects separate plus the UN languages! I think the way it is now is the most efficient. Many people know english, and if you don't you probably know french (well should, it is the languages of the educated and international business lol).

...though I might be biased because I speak both fluently lol. But oh well...

There are many more Spanish speaking people than French speaking around the world, including Mexico, most of the Caribean, Central America and South America (except Brazil) I believe but not sure that Spanish speaking out number English speaking too.
 
ironsides
#96
How about just use the language of the host country and let other countries use their own announcers to tell them what is happening.
 
JLM
#97
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

How about just use the language of the host country and let other countries use their own announcers to tell them what is happening.


Works for me.
 
countryboy
#98
I'm surprised somebody hasn't suggested Greek as the ONLY language to use. After all, they started it, right?
 
JLM
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by countryboyView Post

I'm surprised somebody hasn't suggested Greek as the ONLY language to use. After all, they started it, right?

There's one poster on here who would probably buy it. Can't remember if his name is ARistotle or Socrates.
 
Machjo
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by lunarwindsView Post

In my opinion I would say that we should stick with the tradition.

I'm not for blind tradition, but tradition followed based on a sound philosophy I can certainly agree with.

Quote:

English and French are the two international languages.

Not quite. The UN has 6 official languages. There is not truly authoritative world organization that has ever declared English and French to be the world languages. That's a tad bit ethnocentric, don't you think?

Quote:

They are languages of international art and culture.

OK, you didn't include the definite article this time, and so I can agree to that. Based on that argument though, then many languages could qualify for the position of official language of the IOC. That's by no means unique to French and English.

Quote:

More people speak english and french (as native or secondary languages) than any other languages in the world according to a study.

What study? According to this (List of languages by number of native speakers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)), as for native languages, French ranks 14th and English 3rd most spoken language in the world. And as for non-native languages, then what level of fluency are we talking about? According to the studies I've seen, though bout 25% of the world's population studies English, only about 10%, including native speakers, really speak it well. Hardly an internationally representative language now, is it.

[/quote]Having the home nations language(s) is good as an accompanying language but should be last. As french preceeded english in its forth coming into the world, it should be first, english second, and the native language 3rd, as it is today.[/quote]

That's nice for Canada, and you could have a legitimate argument there. How would you formulate that as a general rule for all Olympic events worldwide?

Quote:

If we used EVERY language of the UN we would have an olympics that "welcome" would consume the first 15 minutes of the olympics! Just imagine if china hosted them again and wanted the various dialects separate plus the UN languages!

Again, a legitimate point here.

Quote:

I think the way it is now is the most efficient. Many people know english, and if you don't you probably know french (well should, it is the languages of the educated and international business lol).

Again, your ethnocentrism is glowing bright in this sentence. As for how efficient English and French are at international events, that's debatable. But there is no doubt that it's certainly convenient for the less than 20% of the world's population that speak either one.

Quote:

...though I might be biased because I speak both fluently lol. But oh well...

I speak both fluently too, but that's no excuse to not apply critical thinking skills to the issue just because you would like to maintain the privileged status of former imperial languages in the world. Odd that, considering you have an NDP avatar.
 
Machjo
#101
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

There are many more Spanish speaking people than French speaking around the world, including Mexico, most of the Caribean, Central America and South America (except Brazil) I believe but not sure that Spanish speaking out number English speaking too.

As for native languages, Spanish is number 2, so it beats both English and French. So much for his arguments. But hey, no bias there.
 
Machjo
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

How about just use the language of the host country and let other countries use their own announcers to tell them what is happening.

Reasonable enough, and fair, equal, and universally applicable to all without giving any one particular group any unfair advantage over others either.
 
Machjo
#103
Quote: Originally Posted by countryboyView Post

I'm surprised somebody hasn't suggested Greek as the ONLY language to use. After all, they started it, right?

Depends. If the Greeks alone finance it, why not?
 
Machjo
#104
Now this I find totally hilarious. Lunar Winds, NDP (and so we'd think a very socially conscious individual always concerned about equal rights for all)proposing the continued hegemony of two of the world's major hysterical imperial languages; and then Ironsides, from the big, bad, imperial USA coming up with a solution which, though not my first choice, is nonetheless arguably more egalitarian in its approach by not giving any group any special privilege not afforded to others. Each country would certainly have an unfair advantage when it hosts the Olympics, but at least each country would have its turn in this unfair position. In that respect, we could say it balances itself out to a degree nonetheless.
 
JLM
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Now this I find totally hilarious. Lunar Winds, NDP (and so we'd think a very socially conscious individual always concerned about equal rights for all)proposing the continued hegemony of two of the world's major hysterical imperial languages; and then Ironsides, from the big, bad, imperial USA coming up with a solution which, though not my first choice, is nonetheless arguably more egalitarian in its approach by not giving any group any special privilege not afforded to others. Each country would certainly have an unfair advantage when it hosts the Olympics, but at least each country would have its turn in this unfair position. In that respect, we could say it balances itself out to a degree nonetheless.

I think Ironside's proposal makes the most sense and is probably the cheapest.
 
Machjo
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I think Ironside's proposal makes the most sense and is probably the cheapest.

I still think for an international event, some kind of international language could be useful in the future. Seeing that such a language is not in wide enough use yet, then I do agree Ironside's proposal would probably be the best option for the time being. It's just funny though that not only would his proposal be cheaper and more efficient, but more importantly, would also be more fair to all by giving each national language a chance to go up to the plate, this when many anti-American Canadians are so quick to judge the US as barbaric and savage. And it's especially funny when contrasted with an NDP proposal essentially in favour of maintaining the privileged position of former imperial languages around the world.

Based on our national stereotypes of the NDP being so progressively minded, and the US so barbaric, should their roles have been reversed?
 
countryboy
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I still think for an international event, some kind of international language could be useful in the future. Seeing that such a language is not in wide enough use yet, then I do agree Ironside's proposal would probably be the best option for the time being. It's just funny though that not only would his proposal be cheaper and more efficient, but more importantly, would also be more fair to all by giving each national language a chance to go up to the plate, this when many anti-American Canadians are so quick to judge the US as barbaric and savage. And it's especially funny when contrasted with an NDP proposal essentially in favour of maintaining the privileged position of former imperial languages around the world.

Based on our national stereotypes of the NDP being so progressively minded, and the US so barbaric, should their roles have been reversed?

Just goes to show you that stereotypes sometimes exist only in our imaginations.
 
Machjo
#108
Quote: Originally Posted by countryboyView Post

Just goes to show you that stereotypes sometimes exist only in our imaginations.

Tell me about it. I've seen so many contradictions in the NDP's policies on various issues, it's not even funny. Sadder still is that this is not unique to the NDP. Pretty well every party does it.
 
lunarwinds
#109
I guess, really the only logical way to settle is is to adopt an international auxiallary language. BUT esperanto and many of the ones prominent today are not fair for the people who speak the languages of asia because most are based on the european languages. We would, in theory, have to make a new one that adopts traits from every major language.

Machjo, I am NDP but that doesn't mean that ALWAYS agree or take the stance of a stereotypical NDP. I was just thinking logically of how the world works today. Do you really think that countries would try and construct a language for international use, or would even adopt one and have it taught in schools? Not in this decade, and probably not in decades to come.
 
Machjo
#110
[QUOTE=lunarwinds;1223985]I guess, really the only logical way to settle is is to adopt an international auxiallary language.[quote]

Agreed.


[quote]BUT esperanto and many of the ones prominent today are not fair for the people who speak the languages of asia because most are based on the european languages.[quote]

Then it's a question of relative justice. I speak Chinese too by the way, and have Chinese Friends who speak Esperanto. I can tell you that for a Chinese person, Esperanto is at least 5 to 10 times easier to learn than either English or French. In fact, owing to its grammatical structure, one Chinese friend of mine had found it easier to learn than Japanese. So on a relative scale, though granted a European could learn Esperanto faster than a Chinese could, it still doesn't change the fact that Esperanto would be more in conformity with the principles of justice than either English or French, when we consider that most of my Chinese Esperanto-speaking friends were able to learn it to a reasonable level of fluency within 300 hours of self-instruction! And to achieve a native-like mastery of the language, no more than 900 hours. For a European, you could divide those number by 3. It took me no more than 100 hours of self-instruction to reach basic fluency, and no more than 300 to reach a high level of mastery in the language, again through self-instruction.

According to Claude Piron and certain other linguists, it takes a minimum of 200 hours of classroom instruction for most Europeans to learn another European language well! I think you could agree that a Chinese would rather spend from 300 to 900 ours studying Esperanto on his own than certainly well over 2000 hours of classroom instruction learning English or French.

So on a relative scale, seeing that a common language is obviously essential, then opposition to a language more in conformity with basic principles of justice, even if it isn't perfect, essentially amounts to support, even if not intentional, for a language like English which is even less in conformity with basic principles of justice.


Quote:

We would, in theory, have to make a new one that adopts traits from every major language.

I certainly could agree with this. In fact, I'd had many discussions with Chinese friends on this subject, and they pretty well all said the same thing: that in future, we should either revise Esperanto or create a new language, but that in the mean time, opposition to Esperanto is paramount to support for English. While many Europeans oppose Esperanto for the same reasons you just mentioned, the Chinese Esperanto-speakers I'd spoken to (and I'd spoken to many of them) oppose this idea wholeheartedly on the grounds that by opposing Esperanto, they're unintentionally supporting English, which is even more unjust. this might also explain why European Esperanto-speakers are much more in favour of Esperanto than non-speakers are (they've actually had exchanges with non-European Esperanto speakers who condemn the idea of opposing Esperanto unintentionally in favour of English).

Why would it not be possible to support Esperanto or some similar language for now, and then make necessary modifications to it or create a new language in future, rather than impose English on the world? What would be wrong with such an evolutionary approach rather than the all or nothing approach? After all, we will never have the perfect language, but certainly we should always support the most just option available at any given moment.

Quote:

Machjo, I am NDP but that doesn't mean that ALWAYS agree or take the stance of a stereotypical NDP. I was just thinking logically of how the world works today. Do you really think that countries would try and construct a language for international use, or would even adopt one and have it taught in schools? Not in this decade, and probably not in decades to come.

Perhaps not in this decade or the next, however, the foundations for the possibility of this in future shall have been laid by the pioneers in this field, and not the pragmatists who say that since it won't happen in this decade we should support the status quo. I remember an anecdote once concerning JFK. It is apocryphal to the best of my knowledge, but it still had a lesson to teach, and it went something like this:

The President asked that a seed be planted for a particular tree.

The gardener or whoever it was responded that it would take years to grow.

The President then answered: 'Then you'd better get going then; we have no time to waste'.

The same applies to any kind of progressive change. If we all say that it's a good idea but we'll only support it when everyone else does, then nothing will ever progress. It's the pioneers who lead.

It is strange to read this from an NDP supporter, considering that the NDP usually thnks of itself as pioneers, as leaders for change, and not just follower of the status quo. Yet when we read the NDP's stance on language policy for example, it is status quo all the way.In fact, it's policy on that front is pretty much identical to that of the Liberals, and even the Conservatives are starting to fall in line with the Liberals on that front.
 
Machjo
#111
And another point on Europeanesque languages. The state of Indonesia developed Bahasa Indonesia from an already-existing Pidgin, and took great measures to ensure the grammatical ease of the language by ensuring phonetic spelling, avoidance of exceptions, etc. So essentially, Bahasa Indonesia is a naturalistic planned language (i.e. a post priori planned language, essentially an Asian equivalent of Interlingua).

Though few Indonesians speak Bahasa Indonesia as a first language, it's estimated that about 99% of Indonesians do know the language fluently.

Now even though Bahasa Indonesia would be more difficult for a European to learn than for an Indonesian, since after all the language is based on the various Indonesian languages, it still doesn't change the fact that, owing to all the developments put into the language, a European would still find Bahasa Indonesia to be much easier to learn than many other languages. In fact, I'd read a few articles on the subject and it's said that Europeans in Indonesia do in fact learn Bahasa Indonesia faster than they do other Asian languages in their respective countries, with the possible exception of Turkish (likewise a highly planned and revised language since the time of Ataturk). Certainly, even if it doesn't put those Europeans on a totally equal footing with their Indonesian counterparts, we must appreciate the effort Indonesians put into making sure their common language would be easier to learn. We wouldn't deny them Indonesian just because it's not totally equal for all, so why would we deny Esperanto for the same reason?

As a temporary measure, we could even choose a few official languages for the Olympics, but easy ones. For example, Esperanto as a Europeanesque representative language (though we should not ignore its Semitic influences owing to the Jewish background of its creator), Turkish to represent Turkic languages, and perhaps Bahasa Indonesia to represent Far Eastern languages. Bahasa Indonesia includes many words from Chinese, Arabic and Dutch too by the way.
 
Machjo
#112
If let's say the Olympics had to use the local language with the option of an international auxiliary language of its choice as a second language, it would still ensure at least a relatively easy language being represented should a second language be added. With French and English at the Beijing Olympics for example, except for the elites of native speakers of those languages, most of the world would have benefited little form it.
 
lunarwinds
#113
First off, every time I read your reply it makes me laugh (not a bad thing) that you dissect my posts. lol I commend you on this work..

But now back to the subject. Yes I do understand that, I am not saying we shouldn't try, but it will take a lot of effort, and I for one have other things in my life that I place more important which is a personal problem and not necessarily representing other NDPs. Yes we are pioneers but within our own country the language barriers must be fixed first. I think what is a big misconception is that our political party is more interested in the Canadian citizen first and then setting an example for the world. Maybe I am wrong, but that is definitely how I feel the party acts.

But yes, I think that when the time comes a good pioneering move Canada could make is host a language conference to start plans for devising a language. Canada has always been the mediator in many matters, so why not for languages. I think that by doing this it would show the world how fair the initiative is. It is a good idealist dream, but we must also face the reality, just like anything else it will be met with criticism and no support. Many nations will not like it...etc.

HOWEVER! I do not think that this language should be spoken in nations as their official language, I think cultural preservation should be key and native languages should be kept, for it is a shame when languages die out. It would allow nearly every human to have some common form of communication, yes. We will just have to wait and see. I am a supporter of such a movement, but only time will tell. I hope that such a movement happens.
 
Machjo
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by lunarwindsView Post

First off, every time I read your reply it makes me laugh (not a bad thing) that you dissect my posts. lol I commend you on this work..

No problem.

Quote:

But now back to the subject. Yes I do understand that, I am not saying we shouldn't try, but it will take a lot of effort, and I for one have other things in my life that I place more important which is a personal problem and not necessarily representing other NDPs.

Fair enough, and I hope thins are improve for you in your personal life

Quote:

Yes we are pioneers but within our own country the language barriers must be fixed first. I think what is a big misconception is that our political party is more interested in the Canadian citizen first and then setting an example for the world. Maybe I am wrong, but that is definitely how I feel the party acts.

I think I agree with you here if I understand you correctly. However, in the world of today, I don't see how it' even rationally possible to separate national from international interlanguage policies. First language policies yes, but policies relating to second-language acquisition, no, since we need to do this to communicate not only with our fellow compatriots, but with the world. Add to that that by making English Canadians learn French and French Canadians learn English, it leaves less time for us to learn other languages, which in effect is an unintentional imposition of French and English beyond our borders too in communicaiton between Canadians and outsiders at home and abroad. Add to that that it also puts some of Canada's Aboriginal peoples at a distinct disadvantage. For instance, according to StatsCan 2006, about 15% of the population of Nunavut knew neither English nor French! Official Bilingualism in English and French essentially puts them at an even greater disadvantage.

Let's say for a moment that Canada went the Indonesian way (in Indonesia, there are hundreds of local languages, with Bahasa Indonesia serving as the national auxiliary language). For example, if Canada adopted or created an auxiliary language of its own designed to be easy for all Canadians to learn, then French Canadians, English Canadians, Inuit, and even foreign tourists could benefit from this easier language. Also, if we consider that most Canadians on both sides all sides of the Canadian language divide fail to learn their second language because it's simply too difficult to learn, such a national auxiliary language could go far to promote Canadian unity without imposing any one ethnic language on another ethnic group. Just as Bahasa Indonesia is not the mother tongue of any one Indonesian ethnic group, so this new Canadian national language would likewise be a common easy to learn and neutral language for all.

Quote:

But yes, I think that when the time comes a good pioneering move Canada could make is host a language conference to start plans for devising a language. Canada has always been the mediator in many matters, so why not for languages. I think that by doing this it would show the world how fair the initiative is. It is a good idealist dream, but we must also face the reality, just like anything else it will be met with criticism and no support. Many nations will not like it...etc.

Of course many nations won't like it. In Europe for example, Italy, Hungary, Poland and Croatia all allow Esperanto to fulfill second language requirements for high school graduation, as does the UK (I suppose it feels that the position of English is secure enough and Esperanto is no threat to it). France and Germany, however, have been quite vocal against Esperanto, and so has Spain to a degree. In fact, the French government has an official policy making it clear that the Ministry of Education is not to grant any kind of credit for the learning of Esperanto; and the French and German governments have spoken out explicitly saying Esperanto has no culture, in spite of the fact that the Hungarian Institute of Science and Culture (if I remember its name correctly) has made it explicitly clear that Esperanto is a living language with a culture and literature all its own, as has the Italian Ministry of Public Instruction. Many Spanish MEP's have been quite vocal against Esperanto too. In fact, in 2004, a vote was put to the European Parliament to make Esperanto the official pivot-translation language of the Union whenever direct interpretation and translation were not available, as is often the case in such a multi-lingual union (how many fluent speakers of Greek and Swedish are we likely to come across?). 43% voted in favour, so it failed to go through. It should come as no surprise though that the countries most vocal against it are the ones that have the most to lose.

Quote:

HOWEVER! I do not think that this language should be spoken in nations as their official language, I think cultural preservation should be key and native languages should be kept, for it is a shame when languages die out. It would allow nearly every human to have some common form of communication, yes. We will just have to wait and see. I am a supporter of such a movement, but only time will tell. I hope that such a movement happens.

I'm all for cultural preservation, but a universal auxiliary language is also the best means of accomplishing this. After all, an Inuit who has to learn French and English won't have much time to learn and develop his own language, will he? If he could learn a common universal auxiliary language, then he could in fact have more time to devote to his own language. Looking at it that way, an international (and I'm using the idea of nation loosely here, as some countries comprise numerous nations) auxiliary language would be exactly what endangered languages need right now.
 
lunarwinds
#115
Well yeah I do agree with you on your points. I know that many nations won't like it but when they see the benefits it might change their minds. Our neighbour to the south, would probably not adopt an international auxillary language as they still feal they are sovreign over world business, per say. Since there is no forum to vote on for countries except for the UN, we would have to start an innitiative with the nation, and then present it to the UN. Canada has much power and pursuasion. Though, if we were to create a language, it would have to be one that appeals to all. Something very grammatically simple (ex. No useless conjugations and exceptions) and fair. I would even venture as far to say maybe one with its own writing system, but more and more language are dually writing with their indigenous and with the Roman alphabet (such as Japan with the Romaji). I would like to see such a language and hopefully it will come soon, but I am not going to let my dreams go out of reach of reality. In college, I had to make a beta language in my linguistics class (I had to take it because I was a French Education/Music Education Major). It wasn't hard to come up with a language really. You just had to keep your brain from thinking in the way of english and french. Because I studied Japanese for a long time, a language far different from English, it was a little easier and I introduced some concepts of the language that were useful in the new language (Particles...etc). But, like I have stated, I hope a language fair to all comes soon.

Btw, I was not saying my personal life was bad lol, just saying that I have concerns that at the moment are/have to be more important to me at the moment. I hope to one day have the time to devout to a better society lol
 
Machjo
#116
Quote: Originally Posted by lunarwindsView Post

Well yeah I do agree with you on your points. I know that many nations won't like it but when they see the benefits it might change their minds. Our neighbour to the south, would probably not adopt an international auxillary language as they still feal they are sovreign over world business, per say. Since there is no forum to vote on for countries except for the UN, we would have to start an innitiative with the nation, and then present it to the UN. Canada has much power and pursuasion. Though, if we were to create a language, it would have to be one that appeals to all. Something very grammatically simple (ex. No useless conjugations and exceptions) and fair. I would even venture as far to say maybe one with its own writing system, but more and more language are dually writing with their indigenous and with the Roman alphabet (such as Japan with the Romaji). I would like to see such a language and hopefully it will come soon, but I am not going to let my dreams go out of reach of reality. In college, I had to make a beta language in my linguistics class (I had to take it because I was a French Education/Music Education Major). It wasn't hard to come up with a language really. You just had to keep your brain from thinking in the way of english and french. Because I studied Japanese for a long time, a language far different from English, it was a little easier and I introduced some concepts of the language that were useful in the new language (Particles...etc). ...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
It's interesting you mention you're studying to be a language teacher. The reason the Polish ministry of education eventually added Esperanto to the list of second-languages to fulfill high school graduation requirements in 2000 was that it just so happened that many Polish teachers knew Esperanto, so the ministry, I guess figuring that it was hiring these teachers and paying them salaries anyway, decided to exploit this resource and so added Esperanto to the list of optional languages.

This was a very different scenario from the one in Italy. In Italy, few teachers knew Esperanto, and so the government had to invest much more in teacher training for the purpose. So though Italy's Ministry of Public Instruction added Esperanto as far back as in 1993, Poland now has more schools teaching it than Italy simply because, once it was added to the list of options in Poland in 2000, the teachers were there already.

In 2000, Polish schools could choose between German, English and French, with German and English at a close tie, and French lagging far behind in popularity. By 2004, Esperanto had already closed the gap with French, amazingly enough, with Esperanto now sitting at a distant third place and French a close fourth, with English and German still leading far ahead at a close tie.

On the surface, it might not look so impressive when we consider that Esperanto continues to lag a distant third place far, far behind German and English. But when we consider that it still beat French, a major language by world standards, the former language of international diplomacy, and a major language of Empire, by 2004, only four years after being added to the list of options, and with French having had a head start on that front, it is impressive indeed.

This just goes to show how much influence even individual teachers can have in an education system if they're willing to pioneer new ideas.
 
lunarwinds
#117
Yeah I agree with you on that front. Really though my language is just a fall back, I will also graduate with a bachelors in Music Education. I really am more interested in getting my Ph.D in music and teaching at a University. But yes, teachers do have a big influence on many new fronts because students are more apt to accept it as the norm and trust in the teachers knowledge.
 

Similar Threads

1
Canadian International Policy Discussions
by jensonj | Apr 27th, 2005
0
CDN International Policy Review
by vista | Nov 13th, 2004
no new posts