Teh French are teh silly

[Arrian]

This is nuts. Spec now looks reasonable in this thread.

-Arrian

p.s. No offense, Spec

[Spec]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You have to understand that the French are going to want everything to be done their way....

ROFLMAO


Are you sure you are not mistaken with americans doing business?

Spec.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Arrian
I was merely trying to explain that you misunderstood the term as Spec used it.
-Arrian

I always use the wrong terms anyhow. Can you beleive I spend sometimes 10 minutes writting a post just to try and find the right words and I still come out misunderstood.

This language barrier is killing me.

Spec.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by LordShiva

Originally posted by Spec
Freedom of speech is stupid.

I disagree.

Could you link to where Spec said that please, I missed it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spec



ROFLMAO


Are you sure you are not mistaken with americans doing business?

Spec.

Of course we want things done our way. There's not a lot of context here, but she is going to MEET her colleagues. And they want her to speak French. That's ridiculous, and there's no reason for it since English is the established language of business.

Also, we don't know what the situation is. Is it a merger of equals or more of a take over? That maters.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Arrian
This is nuts. Spec now looks reasonable in this thread.

-Arrian

p.s. No offense, Spec

Damn right.

Spec being reasonable, regardless of whether he was originally right or not on the OP.
Bunch of other people being nasty French-bashing trolls

[Arrian]

I'd still like an answer from Oncle Boris (see, I refrained from fakeboris to be nice) on what he's referring to when he says this:

On one hand, America and England are known (and have been known) to enact policies that favor the spread of English-language culture.

I'm curious.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

If this is about Alcatel-Lucent nevermind. I'm probably wrong in this case.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'd still like an answer from Oncle Boris (see, I refrained from fakeboris to be nice) on what he's referring to when he says this:



I'm curious.

-Arrian

Man, you don't really want an answer, you want me to say something and then reply that I'm an idiot.

The fact is that American culture is being massively exported, and this massive exportation is in part due to the large base of the American market (producers there have more money, that they can use to literally buy shelf space, radio time, or cinema screens), and the aggressive trade policies of the government (open up your market to our films, or else we're not buying your cocoa/bananas etc).
Also, America is the country with the largest foreign investments (because you're just richer, and you love to open up foreign markets with diplomatic incentives or threats), and thus the unifying language for conducting business in a multinational is English, de facto.

I understand very well that this is not a language policy per se, and certainly not a cultural quota. But the effect is the same: more power, more exposure, assimilation. And what people ultimately see is the effect, hence the sometimes hysterical reaction.
Personally, being an admirer of spinozism, I'd say that it doesn't really matter what the cause is, as long as you can see the effect. So even though America's policy is commercial, in reality its effects are much broader.

I know in advance the possible counter arguments to my post, and I probably won't bother.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I know in advance the possible counter arguments to my post, and I probably won't bother.

That's probably smart.

[Arrian]

Man, you don't really want an answer, you want me to say something and then reply that I'm an idiot.

Actually, I asked primarily out of curiousity. I am dubious about your claim, but curious as well. I didn't ask just so I could then respond: IDIOT LOL!

I wanted to hear your argument.

I understand very well that this is not a language policy per se, and certainly not a cultural quota.

Ok.

But the effect is the same: more power, more exposure, assimilation. And what people ultimately see is the effect, hence the sometimes hysterical reaction.
Personally, being an admirer of spinozism, I'd say that it doesn't really matter what the cause is, as long as you can see the effect. So even though America's policy is commercial, in reality its effects are much broader.

Ah. So from the standpoint of policy, it comes down to this:

aggressive trade policies of the government (open up your market to our films, or else we're not buying your cocoa/bananas etc).

I don't agree with your take, but I'm not going to ridicule it. I just wanted to understand it.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

and England's policy to spread English? Oh yeah - settling America and building an empire. Oh wait ...

[Arrian]

To expand further on my curiousity, Oncle Boris, it's because of some old threads wherein I debated the concept of "cultural imperialism" with Spiffor. We managed to do that with a modicum of mutual respect.

I was curious if your thinking was the same as his, or different and if so how.

-Arrian

[Fake Boris]

From what I remember, in a thread about the UNESCO convention on cultural exceptions, we pretty much had the same views.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


1. Here is a list of under 2 million population countries with at least 3 official languages:
Palau,Vanuatu, Luxembourg, Transnistria, Comoros, Fiji, Swaziland

So using your argument, these countries are the "equivalent" of France having over 35 official languages (this is exactly the same argument you used for the france->india comparison)

2. I have no opinion on this and this is irrelevant my point, which was that your "number of languages proportional to population" argument was extremely dumb. I stand by that.

Note that I did not argue for or against France, only said that that particular argument was idiotic.
If you want to try defend that poor analogy, or ask for more facts, just tell me.

I will not get involved in unrelated sideshows, though (whether canadian language policies are undemocratic, etc..).

1. This thread was about the existence of regional languages not recognized as official languages in a developed country with a pop above 60 millions. You said that there are seven states under 2 millions population “with at least three official languages”.
- Palau has five official languages : four regional + English
- Vanuatu has three official languages : one regional + English and French
- Fiji has one official language : English
Comoros has three official languages : one regional + French and Arab
Swaziland has also two official languages : one regional + English
Palau is a surprise : how a 20000 population can benefit from 5 official languages? All others have only one regional language except Fiji which have none, and vestiges of the colonial era.
Transnitria has, as you said, three official languages, Russian, Moldavian, Ukrainian but all public affairs (Parliament, Government, Administration and Justice) are held in Russian, the two other languages have only the right to use a translator; which is not really different from the status of non-official language. But the cost of maintaining a complete official language is so high that we can understand that a country of 550000 cannot.
On the contrary, Luxembourg is rich enough to enjoy really three official languages, and they never had problems to build a nation-state.
Nothing in these seven cases can be honestly compared to the situation existing in my country.
2. The dumbness of my argument was adapted to the dumbness of the arguments that seven more official languages would have been more democratic, or that the existence of a 1200 millions country with 18 official languages can be compared with a 62 millions country. India can be rather compared to the UE which manages 23 official languages at enormous expenses.