What ought to be Canada official language policy?


View Poll Results: Which of the options in the OP would be the best option for Canada?
Option 1. 1 6.67%
Option 2. 0 0%
Option 3. 0 0%
Option 4. 3 20.00%
Option 5. 11 73.33%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

barney
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Oh my goodness. If we end up with a truly logical language, people might actually be able to learn it!

Or at least not have to spend half their lifetimes trying to grasp its linguistic subtleties.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

So would there be business opportunities with it? My guess is that, as the language grows, such opportunities would naturrally follow. And of course if they want tocontinue doing business in English, go right ahead. But this would limit itself only to those Quebecers who know English of course. The rest would have no choice but to rely on Frech or the national language, or whatever other language they might happen to know.

Unlikely things would change because really Americans would still be faced with the same barrier only they would have a choice between learning French or the new official language. They would likely still choose to focus on English Canada and not have to learn any language.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

This should boost motivation enough to learn the language in the initial stages.

In the public sector certainly--it would basically replace French for English-speakers and English for French speakers. But forcing bilingualism hasn't spurred people not associated with the public sector to learn French, so why expect them to learn a new official language based on that incentive?

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

As an auxiliary language, it would survive quite easily. Essentially, it would thrive on the language barrier.

So you're saying that the ease of learning it would be sufficient to break the language barrier (i.e. as opposed to the present languages which are difficult to learn to the point that people don't use the second language in their communities)?

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

If anything makes it go the way of the dodo bird, it would be the fact that this language would be used in Canada only. From that standpoint, it would probably make more sense to adopt, create or revise a language that other countries would be willing to adopt as their auxiliary language too.

Kind of like killing two birds with one stone. Canada just adopts an internationally sanctioned, 'universal' language as its official language. This would require participation at the international level (i.e. a UN program dedicated to the development of a second language for everybody on earth). You're talking about a major deal now. That said, I don't see why not. Canada could keep with its UN tradition and lead again by being the first country to officially adopt the language.

There is just one thing though: military-wise, using a language that everyone else is also familiar with would make communications less secure. It's not really important but gives an edge if communications are compromised during combat.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

One possible incentive might be to give hiring preference to people who know the language for federal government jobs for a couple of decades before the language truly becomes official.

Basically what they do with the present languages only applied to the new language instead. As I mentioned above, I'm not sure that would be sufficient to get people to continue using it after high school. The fact that it would be easy to learn would likely make it less forgettable as you said but I still think it would need more applications to avoid the fate of our present bilingual system.

What about using it on all labels some 10 years after it's introduced or something like that. Since people will have already had to have approved it as official, adding it to labels would seem reasonable.
 
Machjo
#92
Unlikely things would change because really Americans would still be faced with the same barrier only they would have a choice between learning French or the new official language. They would likely still choose to focus on English Canada and not have to learn any language.
You might be right; I don't know how they'd react.


In the public sector certainly--it would basically replace French for English-speakers and English for French speakers. But forcing bilingualism hasn't spurred people not associated with the public sector to learn French, so why expect them to learn a new official language based on that incentive?

Again, i don't know how much incentive woud e the right level. Certainly there'd likely be glitches to work out as we go along after the laws would be passed. We can't deny this would be quite uncharted waters for Canada.


So you're saying that the ease of learning it would be sufficient to break the language barrier (i.e. as opposed to the present languages which are difficult to learn to the point that people don't use the second language in their communities)?

Yes.



Kind of like killing two birds with one stone. Canada just adopts an internationally sanctioned, 'universal' language as its official language. This would require participation at the international level (i.e. a UN program dedicated to the development of a second language for everybody on earth). You're talking about a major deal now. That said, I don't see why not. Canada could keep with its UN tradition and lead again by being the first country to officially adopt the language.

Now that is something I could agree to. But I don't know if we can call Canada a leader in this. Other nations have taken the lead already, so it's too late for a leadership role in Canada now:

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/001...40/124020e.pdf

Now as for Esperanto, I'd like to see schools be given the freedom to choose to teach it as an alternative second language and make it compusory if they wish, but a decision to be made by the school, not the government. This could be viewed as a partial and temporary solution to the language problem.

I would oppose Canada promoting Esperanto specificaly as the universal auxiliary language though. Instead, I'd rather Canada promote the adoption, creation or revision of a universal auxiliary language to be agreed upon by all member states of the UN, that is to be designed to be easy for all to learn, complete, and eventually taught in schools across the world. If the world wants to adopt Esperanto, Canada should support it. If it wants to create a new language, Canada should support it. If it wants to revise a language, Canada should support it. Canada should support the principle, not any particular language. The only thing Canada should concern itself with is that the language be easy to learn.

There is just one thing though: military-wise, using a language that everyone else is also familiar with would make communications less secure. It's not really important but gives an edge if communications are compromised during combat.

If we share a universal auxiliary language, then later, why couldn't we share a common world military force? That way, not only would the world be saving hundreds of billions of dollars in language education and translation and interpretation costs, but in military spending too. A fiscal conservatie's wet dream come true. And peace activists would certainly welcome reduced military spending too. Add to that that the countries that would benefit the most from this would be the poorer ones. So a social activist's dream come true too. How could any non-preudiced person oppose this?

Basically what they do with the present languages only applied to the new language instead. As I mentioned above, I'm not sure that would be sufficient to get people to continue using it after high school. The fact that it would be easy to learn would likely make it less forgettable as you said but I still think it would need more applications to avoid the fate of our present bilingual system.

Perhaps.

What about using it on all labels some 10 years after it's introduced or something like that. Since people will have already had to have approved it as official, adding it to labels would seem reasonable.

Possibly. Of course we'd need to find a balance between preserving our native languages and the new national language though if we intend to keep it as an auxiliary language and not have it replace our mother tongues, but without too much complex buraucracy either. But yes, those details would need to be worked out.
 
barney
#93
You might be right; I don't know how they'd react.

Probably negatively, considering that language familiarity tends to be not uncommon in cross-border rhetoric.

This could be viewed as a partial and temporary solution to the language problem.

Would be less prone to the usual antagonisms at least.

Of course we'd need to find a balance between preserving our native languages and the new national language though if we intend to keep it as an auxiliary language and not have it replace our mother tongues, but without too much complex buraucracy either.

Yeah you're right.

If we share a universal auxiliary language, then later, why couldn't we share a common world military force?

Now we're talk'n. A UN military force (i.e. military personnel loyal to and employed by the organization) where all troops speak the same language.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

English makes multiculturalism difficult owing ot the sheer amount of time needed to invest in learning it thus taking away mcuh time that could otherwise be invested in learning other languages.

It isn't just English that makes multiculturalism difficult. It simply makes sense that the most used language in a society should be the official one in a unilingual society. There is no law that says one HAS to learn English, but it expedites lots of things when people understand it.

Quote:

A national auxiliary language designed to be easy to learn would save minority groups much time in language learning it, thus allowing them to invest more time in developing their own languages. So in fact, English and multi- are incompatible, whereas a national auxiliary language and multi- are, as this woud allow fluent bilingualism among all Canadians while ensuring a common auxiliary language.

Again, I point to Switzerland. It has worked for them for a very long time and will continue to work. And having 4 official languages does not negate that English is ALSO spoken there a LOT.
Unfortunately, Canada cannot seem to handle even two languages very well. Adding your "auxiliary" language would only complicate things even further.
 
Machjo
#95
It isn't just English that makes multiculturalism difficult. It simply makes sense that the most used language in a society should be the official one in a unilingual society. There is no law that says one HAS to learn English, but it expedites lots of things when people understand it.

Nice in theory. But do you remember your high schol French lessons? Guess what. It's no easier for French-speakers to learn English than it is for English-speakers to learn French. So adopting, creating or revising an auxiliary language is simply a way to meet the 'other' half-way rather than speaking Loud-and-slow-in-a-condescending-tone' as your second langage

Again, I point to Switzerland. It has worked for them for a very long time and will continue to work.

I'd love to see statistics on that. Here's a video from a Swiss, a professor of psychology and one-time UN interpreter:

YouTube - The language challenge -- facing up to reality

He doesn't seem to agree with your assessment.

And having 4 official languages does not negate that English is ALSO spoken there a LOT.

Are you sure about that? I've had friends tell me that'evryone in China could speak English when I was there'. Funny that. The only places I'd seen any significant English was along the tourist routes. Get off the beaten path, and it's a different story. According to surveys from Western Europe in 2001, it's estimated that about 6% of Western Europeans know English. So unless the Swiss are genetically designed to earn languages more easily, I have reason to belive that their situation is no better.

Unfortunately, Canada cannot seem to handle even two languages very well.

Yeah, and other countries are facing similar challenges.

Adding your "auxiliary" language would only complicate things even further,

On the contrary. If you know anything of interlinguistics, you'd know that it is possible to create languages designed to be easy to learn. To take a few examples from Esperanto:

Mi estas/ I am
Vi estas/ you are
li estas/ he is
ni estas/ we are
vi estas/ you are
ili estas/ they are

You'll notice that the verb needn't conjugate for persons. Another example

eleven/ dek unu
twelve/ dek du
thirteen/ dek tri
fourteen/ dek kvar
fifteen/ dek kvin
sixteen/ dek ses
seventeen/ dek ok
nineteen/ dek nau
twent/ dudek
twenty-one/ dudek unu

You could probalby guess the rest as they are nothing more than juxtapositions of word parts. Much easier than other languages. Ten one = eleven. Twoten = twenty.Twoten one = twenty-one

Then we have -o noun, -a adjective, and -e adverb.
Suno/ sun, suna, solar
hundo/dog, hunda/ canine, hunde/ in a dog-like manner

Masculine to feminine adds -in-

viro man, virino, woman. bovo/ox, bovino/cow. knabo/boy, knabino, girl

Opposites add mal-

granda/big, malgranda/small. varma/hot. Malvarma, cold. Now you try. What's the opposite of alta/high?

As you can see, language can be structured in a logical format to make it easier for others to learn.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

I grew up on the Prairies, and French was taught to us by someone
who really couldn't speak French herself from grades 3-7. Oh sure,
we were taught something, and we could understand inside the
classroom the poor imitation of this butchered French, but drop
someone from Quebec into that classroom and he'd barely
understand a thing being said by any of the students who could
understand each others butchered "French." I'm assuming I'm by no
means alone in this educational experience...I'm sure someone who's
actually exposed to people who can actually speak in English &
French can claim that French is easier to learn than English.

This would be like Stephane Dion (& only Stephane Dion) teaching
your children English, with them only being exposed to his version of
English for 1/2hr daily, Monday through Friday, and NOBODY else
speaks any English at all, and then upset that they can't be understood
in Western Canada. That's the reality of the French Language out here...
keep that in mind for anyone who wishes to think condescendingly to
those that aren't at least bilingual.

Now take that "French" 25yrs or more years into the future where you
haven't had to use it since passing "French" in grade seven, and you
don't end up bilingual what so ever. Except for some very isolated
pockets of French speaking people out on the Prairies (who's French
has drifted more than the English Language from Louisiana compared to
Australia...compared to what someone from Quebec would call French),
the language really doesn't exist out here. As an adult, I understand more
spoken Cree than I do French. A very short time in the Caribbean, and I
understand much more spoken Spanish than French.

What ought to be Canada's official language policy? I really don't know,
but I'd just like to see my Leased Operators being able to traverse Quebec
to get to Newfoundland (with its Newfoundmoney) without being singled
out for having Saskatchewan Apportioned Plated on their trucks. Most of
our Drivers in the East are Mennonites out'a Ontario (Speaking English,
Spanish, & Lower German), but that doesn't do them (or me) any good in
much of Quebec.

Just out of curiosity, how far apart is the French in Quebec City to the
French in, let say, Paris? How far apart would the French in either of these
places be from the French in Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan or north of that
200 miles in Domremy, Saskatchewan (more of less isolated from other
French communities for 3-4 generations)?


Quote: Originally Posted by Tyr View Post

Just out of curiosity, how far apart is the French in Quebec City to the
French in, let say, Paris? How far apart would the French in either of these
places be from the French in Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan or north of that
200 miles in Domremy, Saskatchewan (more of less isolated from other
French communities for 3-4 generations)?

Over 95% commonality which is greater than the English in Newfoundland compared to the English spoken in Ontario


[quote=CanadianLove;1056601]
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

But you are NOT French. Why are you making noise for a language that is not your own? It is at best pigeon French. Can you carry on a conversation with someone from Paris? New Orleans? Ho Chi Minh City?

Please.... Feel free to leave - but do prepare for a long bitter struggle. The fight won't be with the rest of Canada. It will be within your own "nation" when you realise you have been led down a garden path to make businessmen rich.
quote]

I worked in the tourist industry for a while and am English only. We would get university kids from Quebec to work and guide the Parisian tourists. They would come and talk to me as the despised the way the French Canadians had hacked the French language.


OK....so which is it?
 
barney
#97
Putting aside Parisian snobbishness, the French dialect of Quebecois is just as valid grammatically as the variations spoken throughout France.

The idea that English is the most spoken language in the world is relative because as the Swiss prof stated, many who speak it do not speak it properly. One could argue that there are just as many fluent in Spanish as there are in English.

The argument that English is the natural international language is a misconception that is constantly being pushed by English-speaking media, business and political interests.

I would say that the problem with Canadian bilingualism is that there is an animosity mainly from certain influential parts of the English-Canadian population towards what they believe should be a subservient Quebec.

The obstacles to bilingualism can be summed up as a) influence from the USA (particularly through the media), which is all English-spoken, and b) the unfortunately still dominant mentality that Canada is English and English-run (French--let alone First Nations--participation is an afterthought).

Those in Quebec that want out want out because they feel that for all the talk, they are still alienated from their own country. All that bilingualism legislation doesn't change the fact that their language is still a second-class language.

It could be argued that a new 'unaffiliated' official language would deal with the problem of English dominance to a degree but the English pressure from the USA would likely remain unchanged so long as the new official language remained "auxiliary" (i.e. were not to be applied outside of the public sector, so as to be able to impose language regulations on incoming foreign media).
 
Machjo
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by barney View Post

It could be argued that a new 'unaffiliated' official language would deal with the problem of English dominance to a degree but the English pressure from the USA would likely remain unchanged so long as the new official language remained "auxiliary" (i.e. were not to be applied outside of the public sector, so as to be able to impose language regulations on incoming foreign media).

Even if the universal auxiliary language were auxiliary, that would suffice. To take an example, let's say we have 10 people in a room. Nine speak English as a mother-tongue, and one speaks Cree as a mother-tongue. But the only common language between them is the universal auxiliary language. Even though none of these persons might actually use this language within their own respecive nations, they will use it with each other in the room. In this way, they are all put on an equal footing in spite of the strength of English in relation to Cree.
So if we expand this on a larger scale, we can say that whenever the US would want to expand its influence in such a world, it woud have no choice but to switch to the universal auxiliary language, since not everyone would be studying English anymore. And for anyone to be influenced by the US, they'd have to be willing to tune in to the auxiliary language. This would be the beauty of it. Anyone in the world could communicate with anyone else in the world in that language, but always on an equal footing. So I don't see why it would be necessary for this language to replace people's first languages. After all, there's a reason we'd call it a universal auxiliary language; because it would be intended to be universal, and auxiliary, not to replace our first languages. It would be intended as a common second language for all.
 
barney
#99
All I'm saying is that English-speaking business people will not adapt when English is still dominant. And English will remain dominant until something replaces it.

In other words, English-speakers will ignore the official language and just keep speaking English. French-speakers in Quebec will likewise continue to have no choice but to adapt as they do now in order to do business in English Canada and attract American business.

To keep with your 10 in a room example, the reality is that 9 of them will continue to speak their own language and the 10th will be faced with the choice of speaking the language of the majority or not doing so and being alienated from the others; the auxiliary language will be ignored--unless you're dealing with a particularly communal bunch.
 
Machjo
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by barney View Post

All I'm saying is that English-speaking business people will not adapt when English is still dominant. And English will remain dominant until something replaces it.

In other words, English-speakers will ignore the official language and just keep speaking English. French-speakers in Quebec will likewise continue to have no choice but to adapt as they do now in order to do business in English Canada and attract American business.

To keep with your 10 in a room example, the reality is that 9 of them will continue to speak their own language and the 10th will be faced with the choice of speaking the language of the majority or not doing so and being alienated from the others; the auxiliary language will be ignored--unless you're dealing with a particularly communal bunch.

If this language is introduced at the Canadian level only, you might be right. But if other countries decided to join in on this language, then we'd soon find the new language growing quickly as an international auxiliary language to replace English within a generation owing to its greater ease of learning. And with government backing the world over, it would grow. With only about 10% of the world's population really knowing English, the US could not compete with another language spoken by the whole world, even if only as a second language. For the US to access the other 90% of the world, it would quickly smarten up and join it.
And sinse I believe other nations likely would join in if a good policy were adopted, it would thus be important to be pro-active in ensuring that this language remain auxiliary so that it not threaten other languages later. After all, sinse it would be designed to be easy to learn, it could grow much more quickly than English.
 
barney
#101
Yep.

This Wikipedia article I think outlines this fairly well:

International auxiliary language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even at the international level, English is a force to be reckoned with.

As I said, Canada's adoption of a UN-sanctioned IAL would do much to create an image of Canada as a progressive state. Imagine Canada being the first country in the world to officially adopt it...talk about a spotlight.
 
Machjo
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by barney View Post

Yep.

This Wikipedia article I think outlines this fairly well:

International auxiliary language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even at the international level, English is a force to be reckoned with.

As I said, Canada's adoption of a UN-sanctioned IAL would do much to create an image of Canada as a progressive state. Imagine Canada being the first country in the world to officially adopt it...talk about a spotlight.

There is a problem with this. For a language to be truly international, no one country could take the 'lead' as it were. It could even be construed as arrogant and offensive for Canada to do so. What Canada could do, though, is adopt a temporary and partial solution to the problem until the UN or a similar future body could adopt, create, or revize one that all nations could agree to. As for this temporary partial solution, it would not be very wise to put too much effort into it precicely sinse it would be temporary anyway. In this respect, simply adopting a policy like Englands might be the best bet, whereby interested schools and pupils would be free to choose Esperanto if they wish.

As for a long-term and complete solution, what Canada could do is approach the UN expressing its desire that the international community consult on the adoption, creation of revision of an IAL for the future, with schools being free to teach Esperanto if they wish as a temporary solution for the time being.

Even if the rest of the world should laugh Canada to scorn over this, it would still do much to boost Canada's reputation as a nation willing to stand up for justice, even in the face of failure. After all, it's not whether we win or lose, but how we play the game. That alone could command much respect from other countries.
 
Machjo
#103
Yes, I agree , Barney, that Canada should take the lead in proposing action in this direction, but without showing preference for any particular language to play this role. After all, in the end, all nations would need to agree on such a language.
 
barney
#104
Yeah sorry I wasn't clear: I meant once the UN agreed to an IAL, Canada could be the first to apply it; basically being the first to actually take the plunge so to speak.
 
Machjo
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by barney View Post

Yeah sorry I wasn't clear: I meant once the UN agreed to an IAL, Canada could be the first to apply it; basically being the first to actually take the plunge so to speak.

That I could agree to.
 
barney
#106
Then we're agreed. Who pays the trip to Geneva, you or me? ;-p
 
Machjo
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by barney View Post

Then we're agreed. Who pays the trip to Geneva, you or me? ;-p

You of course

But on a serious note, why not just make people aware of how few Canadians are really learning their second language well on both sides of the language divide. All we have to do is show the Stats Can.
 
LordDurham
#108
The Best and Only Language System for Canada and its Provinces and Territories is this.


National Language(s) of the Dominion of Canada
English, French

Provincial Language(s) of the Province of Newfoundland (Minus Labrador)
English

Provincial Language(s) of the Province of Nova Scotia
English

Provincial Language(s) of the Province of New Brunswick
English, French

Provincial Language(s) of the Province of Prince Edward Island
English

Provincial Language(s) of the Province of Quebec (Plus Labrador)
English, French

Provincial Language(s) of the Province of Ontario
English

Provincial Language(s) of the Province of Manitoba
English

Provincial Language(s) of the Province of Saskatchewan
English

Provincial Language(s) of the Province of Alberta
English

Provincial Language(s) of the Province of British Columbia
English

Territorial Language(s) of the Yukon Territory
English

Territorial Language(s) of the Northwest Territory (Including Nunavut Territory)
English


2 Bilingual (English, French) Speaking Provinces

01. Province of New Brunswick
02. Province of Quebec


8 Unilingual (English) Speaking Provinces

01. Province of Newfoundland
02. Province of Nova Scotia
03. Province of Prince Edward Island
04. Province of Ontario
05. Province of Manitoba
06. Province of Saskatchewan
07. Province of Alberta
08. Province of British Columbia


2 Unilingual (English) Speaking Territories

01. Yukon Territory
02. Northwest Territory
 
petros
#109
Until you go from the english world into the french or vice versa you'll never realize how much french or english you really know but never knew you did.
 
Machjo
#110
LordDurham, you do realise that Nunavut has four official languages and that about 8% of its population speaks neither English nor French, don't you?
From a democratic standpoint, how would you explain away the inability of that 8% to communicate with their territorial government. In fact, never mind that; how do you explain from a democratic standpoint the inability of those 8% of Nunavummiut to communicate with their federal government at present? Is that an acceptable loss ofdemocratic access to government?
 
barney
#111
That's a good point; political participation is definitely a key issue.
 
Tyr
Free Thinker
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by barney View Post

All I'm saying is that English-speaking business people will not adapt when English is still dominant. And English will remain dominant until something replaces it.

In other words, English-speakers will ignore the official language and just keep speaking English. French-speakers in Quebec will likewise continue to have no choice but to adapt as they do now in order to do business in English Canada and attract American business.

To keep with your 10 in a room example, the reality is that 9 of them will continue to speak their own language and the 10th will be faced with the choice of speaking the language of the majority or not doing so and being alienated from the others; the auxiliary language will be ignored--unless you're dealing with a particularly communal bunch.

All I'm saying is that English-speaking business people will not adapt when English is still dominant. And English will remain dominant until something replaces it.

Business being what it is, Many business are asking for fluency in two languages if the position requires an interface with external customers.

Being in BC, the most prevalent is Mandarin.

It just makes good "business sense" (not to mention it gives you somewhat of an edge)to be able to comunicate with your customer in their language.

Much of the "nuances" are lost in translation and it can make or break a deal.

For a contractor/consultant it generally equates to about $10/ hr more
 
Machjo
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by barney View Post

That's a good point; political participation is definitely a key issue.

And that's only on the political front. Then on the cultural front too, just as many Egnlish Canadians are cut off from French Canada, and French Canadians from English Canada, so many of Canada's indigenous peoples are likewise cut off from us and us from them. Then we wonder why all the misunderstandings between our different peoples? Language would help to just promote more unity between Canadians even at the grassroots level, and thus help promote more understanding between all these divided peoples that supposedly form one nation.
 
Machjo
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by Tyr View Post

All I'm saying is that English-speaking business people will not adapt when English is still dominant. And English will remain dominant until something replaces it.

Business being what it is, Many business are asking for fluency in two languages if the position requires an interface with external customers.

Being in BC, the most prevalent is Mandarin.

It just makes good "business sense" (not to mention it gives you somewhat of an edge)to be able to comunicate with your customer in their language.

Much of the "nuances" are lost in translation and it can make or break a deal.

For a contractor/consultant it generally equates to about $10/ hr more

That's another good point. And considering that learning a second language well can also help a learner learn his third language, a universal auxiliary language comprising words from many other languages could also serve as a propaedeutic for the further study of a third language for those who are so inclined. Failure to learn the second language though merely relegates large chunks of the population to monolingualism.
 
Tyr
Free Thinker
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

That's another good point. And considering that learning a second language well can also help a learner learn his third language, a universal auxiliary language comprising words from many other languages could also serve as a propaedeutic for the further study of a third language for those who are so inclined. Failure to learn the second language though merely relegates large chunks of the population to monolingualism.

propaedeutic

Jeeezus. I had to go look that up

note to self... Need to work on the "word power" thing again
 
Machjo
#116
Quote: Originally Posted by Tyr View Post

propaedeutic

Jeeezus. I had to go look that up

note to self... Need to work on the "word power" thing again

Sorry. It just involves less typing than 'introductory language'. Here's another interesting site concerning research on the propaedeutic value of Esperanto, though I'm sure the same would apply to any rationally planned language:

http://www.springboard2languages.org..._rationale.pdf
 
iznogoud
Bloc Québécois
#117
The biggest problem here is that English Canadians want the Province of Québec to be billingual and the rest of Canada unilingual. Anyway, we will never resolve this argument. It's been going on for years and it will still go on. It's like the Israel/Palestine conflict or the Catholic/Protestant conflict in Ireland... both without the violence though.
 
Machjo
#118
Quote: Originally Posted by iznogoud View Post

The biggest problem here is that English Canadians want the Province of Québec to be billingual and the rest of Canada unilingual.

That when about 8% of Nunavummiut can speak neither English nor French. They'll have to get them bilingual in English first before they could even dream of making them monolingual in English!

You are correct. The favourite second language of many (though not all) native Enlish speakers is 'loud-and-slow'; they just expect the rest of the world to learn their language 'cause they're just too bloody lazy to try to meet the rest of the world half-way. besides, why should native English-speakers waste their time and money learning other languages when theycan get the rest of the world to waste its time and money learning English instead? Few of them look at it from the standpoint of justice, but rather from that of profit. We're not humans anymore, just producers and consumers. Even English itself has become but a commodity devoid of any culture. As the British Council published in 1983, refers to British English as a 'brand', and says that while Britain has no commodity, that its brand is popular around the world, and that 'English is our greatest asset, greater than North Sea Oil'. Again, not a culture, just a commodity on the market, equated with crude oil!