LL-L "Language politics" 2008.08.28 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

=======================================================================

 L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226

 http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.php

 Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org - lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net

 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html

 Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html

 Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]

 Administration: lowlands.list at gmail.com or sassisch at yahoo.com


 You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
 To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
 text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
 sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.


 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)

=======================================================================

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 28 August 2008 - Volume 03
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
===========================================


From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2008.08.28 (02) [E]

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language politics

....By the way, I know quite a few native speakers whose English is
atrocious. Does this mean they'd have a better shot for the jobs than
non-native speakers?Reinhard/Ron

That's a serious issue for other European English-speakers. I was chatting
to a guy in Germany who runs an electronics business, often on the phone to
many parts of the world, using English as a standard language. He's fine
with Czechs, Russians, Americans, almost anybody - but he hates having to
call anywhere in the UK, as most of the time he simply can't understand
people. OK, Scouse, Geordie, Glaswegian etc aren't "atrocious", they're
valid dialects, but they are pretty well incomprehensible to most people
outside the British Isles.  In their way they are as isolated as Frisian or
Yiddish!



Paul

----------

From: Mike Wintzer <k9mw at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2008.08.28 (02) [E]

Hi LLs,

interesting discussion.

I detect an underlying confusion

(which is so common in this sort of matters)

between "common" and "dominant".

Anyone who has seen the insides of Brussels

or (did) work in an International Organisation

(as I worked for ESA where potential French(!)

contractors asked me to pass to them under the

table the English version of the Technical Specifications

because they couldn't make sense of the French

version which I was required by the rules to

send out to them with the Call for Tenders)......

I resume: Anyone who has seen this sort of,

excuse the expression, nonsense will

most likely come to the conclusion that

some 25 languages (which covers only those

languages that are backed up by a goverment

as official) is a nonsense: It generates 25 times

as much paperwork as is needed, requires an

army of translaters paid by the European

taxpayer. I would be all for Yiddish or Roma

as the common Brussels language but by

expediency the only reasonable choice

appears to be English.

This does not mean that Brussels should

ignore the other languages, ON THE CONTRARY!

But it should be ALL other European languages

numbering NOT 25 or 30 but more like 60 or 80.



English common yes, dominant no.

Greetings, Mike Wintzer

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language politics

Just for the record, Mike: I was not serious when I proposed Romany and
Yiddish.

While I don't necessary want to endorse the language policies we are talking
about, it was my impression that all those member state languages are
officially represented so as not to discriminate against representatives
that are not or are only poorly proficient in what are considered or *de
facto* are *linguae francae*. So, at least in theory, a shepherd from
Silesia or a lathe worker from Livonia for instance, can be elected and can
participate at least in Polish and Latvian respectively, even if not in
their native Silesian and Livonian respectively. At this early juncture,
mandating the use of English or another international lingua franca for all
might seem elitist and exclusive. At least this is what I understood the
intent to be.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

•

==============================END===================================

 * Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.

 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.

 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.

 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")

   are to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at

   http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080828/76b73acb/attachment.htm>