Chirac warns of 'catastrophe' of world 'choked' by US values

[Ned]

Originally posted by alva

Originally posted by Ned

I find it interesting, for example, that Latin did not survive in the British Isles even after the Romans had ruled there for more than 400 years

AFAIK it did better than the original language

Huh? Didn't the Brits continue to speak their native Gaelic (Gaulic) tongue even into modern times.

[alva]

Shold have said: neither did the original.

[Ned]

Ah, but there I must respectfully disagree. My wife, who is Brazilian, exclaimed that "They are speaking Portuguese," when the Romans began speaking Latin in the movie "The Passion of the Christ."

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Barriers to communication are unfortunatly very often located in other human behaviour that language. And also, in some instances, these barriers are a protection : for instance I would prefer never understand the words eructated by Ned.

You could also consider the basic english used by people all over the world; it hardly exceed 100 words, and one can doubt that it will ever be sufficient to communicate complex and sensible ideas and feelings. Molly bloom has probably one of the best writing expression of Apolyton, and in every post I find one or two words that I dont understand, and very often that my dictionnary ignore as well! I certainly express myself more precisely and deeply in my autochthonous language. So you can forget your imperialistic dream of 6 billions people speaking english in lieu of their native language.

Imperialistic? I never said it would be best if everyone spoke English, just that it would be best if everyone spoke one language. The fact you point out, that not everyone speaks the same language, quite obviously does not disprove my point.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I have heard some saying that the English language has not survived in the US a well.

Which is a very odd statement, given that the colonies spoke much better English in general than the English did, and that even the worst Southern accent is really a preservation of seventeenth-century English.

It was England that started really changing the language, after the break with the colonies.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Patroklos

quote:
That's a reflection of reality. There are two Americas. The coastal urban centres with a "progressive" culture and interior with "traditional" culture.

I have heard you spout this idiotic myth based on nothing many a time, what exactly is its origin?

Do you not even know your own country? Look at your national voting pattern and then look at who votes republican vs those who vote democrats. The republicans do better in interior states while democrats do better in coastal states (west coast and northeast US). These voting patterns reflect different cultural values.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Which is a very odd statement, given that the colonies spoke much better English in general than the English did, and that even the worst Southern accent is really a preservation of seventeenth-century English.

It was England that started really changing the language, after the break with the colonies.

How do you definite "better English"?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Pekka
It is part of their identity. Besides, languages are richness. The more you can speak, the more you can communicate. They sound different and sound nice. They're just different protocols, but more important.

Languages can affect how we think, particularly written language.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
How do you definite "better English"?

The English spoken in the colonies was far more uniform than spoken in England and much better spoken than the average Englishman (i.e., by the standards of the English aristocracy's control of the language being better). At the time, Englishmen had what is now a Southern accent (in general; they had a lot of dialects that were almost seperate languages in terms of comprehension). This is all from The Americans by Boorstin.

[Tingkai]

It was uniform? So how does he explain the difference in accents between Boston, New York and Atlanta?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Starchild


Don't most Germans speak the other variety of German (err, Low German?) and the differences between the two dialects are such that mutual comprehension is iffy? Add on hundreds of years of Amish self-seperation and they might as well be speaking an entirely different Germanic language.

Speakers of High German most comfortably outnumber those of Low German these days. However, most of them speak varieties that differ considerably from Modern Standard High German. Some of them would be considered separate languages in different political conditions.

If you call Low and High German "dialects", you can just as well throw in Dutch too - it's in many ways closer to Low German than High German is.

(Always remember, BTW, that "High" and "Low" refer not to status but to geography - High German is the language of the hilly and mountaineous south, Low German of the flatlands and coasts of the north.)

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Of all things, the one I really can't understand people wanting to preserve are languages. Why the hell do you want barriers to communication?

Says someone prone to pick up private jargon on web fora.

Us-vs-them identification is a primary human need.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Tingkai
It was uniform? So how does he explain the difference in accents between Boston, New York and Atlanta?

That's the point - the dialectal variety in the US is small compared to that in England; practically uniform in comparison.

[Kuciwalker]

Several Englishmen and Americans of the time made quite a note of it, in fact.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
It was uniform? So how does he explain the difference in accents between Boston, New York and Atlanta?

Compared to the differences in accent between different parts of England, where nearby towns could practically speak a different language?