Which, if any, countries on the continent of Europe will be among the first to adopt English as an added "official" language?
Apr 13th, 2005, 08:27 AM
#41
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're referring to the Maltese language being included in one of the official languages of the EU, a country has to be formally "admitted" into the EU, in order to obtain all the rights and privileges that come with such membership-it takes years. Right now there are 20 countries, with 20 separate languages. Turkey, for example, has tried for years to be accepted into the EU, but there has been much resistance to this, as Turkey is considered by a substantial majority not to be European, among other reasons. Malta is not a member of the EU.
Apr 13th, 2005, 08:32 AM
#43
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahhnold, and the brave British soldiers, and free Polish soldiers and free French soldiers and Canadians etc etc etc?
Spygirl, you are right, of course, the money on translations could probably be much better spent. But the EU isn't about destroying cultural differences or creating one super state, whatever the French might like. And for all it's faults, it has had a miraculous effect on the fortunes of some of the (originally) poorer EU nations, Ireland being the classic example.
Anyway, it at least creates jobs for translators. We need something to replace our manfucaturing industries!
Spygirl, you are right, of course, the money on translations could probably be much better spent. But the EU isn't about destroying cultural differences or creating one super state, whatever the French might like. And for all it's faults, it has had a miraculous effect on the fortunes of some of the (originally) poorer EU nations, Ireland being the classic example.
Anyway, it at least creates jobs for translators. We need something to replace our manfucaturing industries!
Apr 13th, 2005, 08:47 AM
#45
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One cannot deny the good that has been wrought in formerly stagnant European economies, Kate, of that there can be no doubt-the "Celtic Tiger" is a shining testament to that. (I could go into the fact that Ireland has the EU's most educated populace, which was clearly a factor in the economic recovery-but that's too off the mark for this forum).
However, my point, oversimplified of course, is that the EU cannot continue as an entity the way it is going now, and the multi-language nightmare is but one of the many examples of the problems facing the EU nowadays, and with the acceptance of ever more countries from the Eastern bloc and elsewhere, I don't know how anything will get accomplished in the future, given the state of things now.
However, my point, oversimplified of course, is that the EU cannot continue as an entity the way it is going now, and the multi-language nightmare is but one of the many examples of the problems facing the EU nowadays, and with the acceptance of ever more countries from the Eastern bloc and elsewhere, I don't know how anything will get accomplished in the future, given the state of things now.
Apr 13th, 2005, 08:55 AM
#47
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of these discussions are really arguments over terminology. The definition of an "official" language would be a start. And when you say a second "official" language will be adopted, it would take on all the proper definitions of the first. That would mean that ALL people would be REQUIRED to write and speak both languages throughout the country. All documents produced by the government or with government funding would be in both languages. All road signs would be in both languages. And everything else you can think of.
None of that would stop the use of other languages within a country by larger ethnic groups. So I'm not sure what benefit would be derived from making any language an "official" language other than the principal one in the country. Is there an "official" language in Switzerland, where clearly there are major segments of French, German, and Italian speakers? (For the record, I think it's German.) If Switzerland doesn't have two "official" languages, why would any other country ever consider it?
Many countries, the U.S. included, now recognize some language other than their native tongue as a "second language." That's as close to official as it will ever get, in my opinion.
I'm personally feeling that the direction for all countries should be the opposite, and that includes the U.S. I believe each country needs only one official language and that is what is taught in schools and used in the government, newspapers, and so on. Other languages will still exist and will be used by specific ethnic groups.
None of that would stop the use of other languages within a country by larger ethnic groups. So I'm not sure what benefit would be derived from making any language an "official" language other than the principal one in the country. Is there an "official" language in Switzerland, where clearly there are major segments of French, German, and Italian speakers? (For the record, I think it's German.) If Switzerland doesn't have two "official" languages, why would any other country ever consider it?
Many countries, the U.S. included, now recognize some language other than their native tongue as a "second language." That's as close to official as it will ever get, in my opinion.
I'm personally feeling that the direction for all countries should be the opposite, and that includes the U.S. I believe each country needs only one official language and that is what is taught in schools and used in the government, newspapers, and so on. Other languages will still exist and will be used by specific ethnic groups.
Apr 13th, 2005, 09:03 AM
#48
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<If not for our brave American soldiers, the "official" language would be German and/or Russian.>>
See my anecdote on http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=34587995 (One final fun...)
If you think that the successful invasion of Normandy in 1944 was more American than British, then you haven't been to Arromanches.
The contributions of the US, the UK, Canada and many other nations were all important. But it is rather off the mark to think that "we" went "over there" and "saved Europe". We joined Europe in the saving of Europe.
See my anecdote on http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=34587995 (One final fun...)
If you think that the successful invasion of Normandy in 1944 was more American than British, then you haven't been to Arromanches.
The contributions of the US, the UK, Canada and many other nations were all important. But it is rather off the mark to think that "we" went "over there" and "saved Europe". We joined Europe in the saving of Europe.
Apr 13th, 2005, 09:25 AM
#50
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with adopting English as an official language, is that, although many people in Europe (particularly in The Netherlands) think they speak it very well, they really don't. Some Universities in The Netherlands and Belgium are giving some classes in English, and some are debating wether to become completely English-speaking. In reality, this brings down the level of teaching, since you cannot express yourself as well in another language as you can in your mother tongue.
I sometimes cringe when I hear Dutch 'captains of industry' and government officials speaking English. There was a famous example a few years ago, when a Dutch EU official wanted to tell the press how hard they worked in their committee meeting, and he said 'we worked hardly today'.
I sometimes cringe when I hear Dutch 'captains of industry' and government officials speaking English. There was a famous example a few years ago, when a Dutch EU official wanted to tell the press how hard they worked in their committee meeting, and he said 'we worked hardly today'.
Apr 13th, 2005, 09:35 AM
#51
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to respond to Wayne's US-centric view of languages.
"Is there an "official" language in Switzerland, where clearly there are major segments of French, German, and Italian speakers? (For the record, I think it's German.) If Switzerland doesn't have two "official" languages, why would any other country ever consider it?"
First, Switzerland, as I pointed out earlier has not one, not two, not four, but THREE official languages: French, German and Italian. A fourth language Rumantsch, is spoken by about 35,000 people and is considered a national, but not official language. Each canton has sovereignty regarding language and designates its official langugage or languages. Graubünden, for example, where the Rumantsch speakers are concentrated has three official languages: Rumantsch, German, and Italian. Most other cantons are unilingual. Thus, the federal government (confederation) must work in all three official languages, while the cantons work in theirs.
"That would mean that ALL people would be REQUIRED to write and speak both languages throughout the country"
This is nonsense. I know of no country with more than one official language where this is the case.
I live in a country with two official languages, English and French. That means that both languages have equal standing in all institutions of the federal government. It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable approach when both language groups represent the founding peoples of the confederation.
Canadian provinces are, except for New Brunswick, officially unilingual. The territories are officially multilingual (NWT-8; Nunavut-3; Yukon-2) However, most with a significant minority population also provide services in French (Ontario, Manitoba) or English (Québec). Of course the level of these services is always a matter of contention, but the principle is accepted.
The establishment of two official languages in Canada is an essential part of the unity of the federation. Of course the die-hard separatists in Québec will never see it that way.
Official unilingualism may well be the best course for the United States, but that's no reason to try to impose a U.S. built solution on the rest of the world.
"Is there an "official" language in Switzerland, where clearly there are major segments of French, German, and Italian speakers? (For the record, I think it's German.) If Switzerland doesn't have two "official" languages, why would any other country ever consider it?"
First, Switzerland, as I pointed out earlier has not one, not two, not four, but THREE official languages: French, German and Italian. A fourth language Rumantsch, is spoken by about 35,000 people and is considered a national, but not official language. Each canton has sovereignty regarding language and designates its official langugage or languages. Graubünden, for example, where the Rumantsch speakers are concentrated has three official languages: Rumantsch, German, and Italian. Most other cantons are unilingual. Thus, the federal government (confederation) must work in all three official languages, while the cantons work in theirs.
"That would mean that ALL people would be REQUIRED to write and speak both languages throughout the country"
This is nonsense. I know of no country with more than one official language where this is the case.
I live in a country with two official languages, English and French. That means that both languages have equal standing in all institutions of the federal government. It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable approach when both language groups represent the founding peoples of the confederation.
Canadian provinces are, except for New Brunswick, officially unilingual. The territories are officially multilingual (NWT-8; Nunavut-3; Yukon-2) However, most with a significant minority population also provide services in French (Ontario, Manitoba) or English (Québec). Of course the level of these services is always a matter of contention, but the principle is accepted.
The establishment of two official languages in Canada is an essential part of the unity of the federation. Of course the die-hard separatists in Québec will never see it that way.
Official unilingualism may well be the best course for the United States, but that's no reason to try to impose a U.S. built solution on the rest of the world.
Apr 13th, 2005, 10:46 AM
#52
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
putting aside some of the rather technical arguments about "official" language, i am very surprised at some of the views here which say that there should only be one language taught in european schools, how only the local language is needed, and how business leaders should not bother to speak english if they don't speak it very well.
As someone who works all over europe on teams that often are made up of 10 or more different european nationalities, each with their own native tongues i can tell you that these ideas show a real lack of understanding.
yes, there are misunderstandings and sometimes it is not easy but without the common language of english we could not work together. last project we had french, british, irish, bulgarians, poles, danes, fins, swedes, swiss and many more. these were not transplants to one country but actually living in their native country and coming together for a project.
saying that europe does not need a common language is like saying it would work if each state in the US had a different language. i don't mean that the common language replaces the primary language, just that it is available when you have to deal with people from other countries.
As someone who works all over europe on teams that often are made up of 10 or more different european nationalities, each with their own native tongues i can tell you that these ideas show a real lack of understanding.
yes, there are misunderstandings and sometimes it is not easy but without the common language of english we could not work together. last project we had french, british, irish, bulgarians, poles, danes, fins, swedes, swiss and many more. these were not transplants to one country but actually living in their native country and coming together for a project.
saying that europe does not need a common language is like saying it would work if each state in the US had a different language. i don't mean that the common language replaces the primary language, just that it is available when you have to deal with people from other countries.
Apr 13th, 2005, 11:15 AM
#53
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
France will be the first to adopt American English as not only an official language but THE official language. The French have long felt that American language and culture were superior to their own and are just waiting for the Minister of Culture to give the word and set the date for the changeover. Should happen soon. They just waited because they didn't want to be committed to English if Francophile Kerry had been elected. Now that the Texan is back in office, it's a go.
Apr 13th, 2005, 11:36 PM
#54
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tip for vedette,
it's much better to pepper your posts with a few bits of well placed humour than to post a message whose entire raison d'etre is "humour". that way you have less chance of embarrassing yourself when it falls flat.
it's much better to pepper your posts with a few bits of well placed humour than to post a message whose entire raison d'etre is "humour". that way you have less chance of embarrassing yourself when it falls flat.
Apr 14th, 2005, 12:47 AM
#55
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think all this is a non-issue. The different languages are more like a treasure which should be protected and not a problem. If your are in your native country, you speak your native language. If your are temp. working abroad, you can always use English or French or German. Where is the problem?
Apr 14th, 2005, 01:06 AM
#56
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
""That would mean that ALL people would be REQUIRED to write and speak both languages throughout the country"
This is nonsense. I know of no country with more than one official language where this is the case."
Eh, well, there is at least one: Finland. Finnish-speakers have to learn also Swedish, and Swedish-speakers Finnish. Which is a little trickier than it sounds because the two languages are not even related. That is a relic but somehow it seems to be accepted, although there is some arguing about it. And everything is in two languages, starting from street signs, and ending in every single piece of paper. Except newspapers and magazines, they are either in Swedish or Finnish.
Anyway, the original question was about making English an OFFICIAL language. People are right, Europeans need a common language, but that doesn´t mean it should be official.
Some also seem to forget that language is a big factor in shaping people´s identity.
This is nonsense. I know of no country with more than one official language where this is the case."
Eh, well, there is at least one: Finland. Finnish-speakers have to learn also Swedish, and Swedish-speakers Finnish. Which is a little trickier than it sounds because the two languages are not even related. That is a relic but somehow it seems to be accepted, although there is some arguing about it. And everything is in two languages, starting from street signs, and ending in every single piece of paper. Except newspapers and magazines, they are either in Swedish or Finnish.
Anyway, the original question was about making English an OFFICIAL language. People are right, Europeans need a common language, but that doesn´t mean it should be official.
Some also seem to forget that language is a big factor in shaping people´s identity.
Apr 14th, 2005, 02:16 AM
#57
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
logos, i agree. the european languages must be protected. i don't see a threat if europeans use their own language when speaking amongst their own, but learn english so that they can communicate with others.
Apr 14th, 2005, 03:27 AM
#59
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE: If not for our brave American soldiers, the "official" language would be German and/or Russian.
What took you so long by the way?!
Of course I am just kidding with you.
"British sense of humor etc...)
On a serious note, you will probably find thatmost Europeans will be keen to keep their culture. This includes the language. The point being that most Europeans are fairly proud of our diversity, and lets face it thats what makes things interesting. You lose the language and the culture is not far behind.
What took you so long by the way?!
Of course I am just kidding with you.
"British sense of humor etc...)
On a serious note, you will probably find thatmost Europeans will be keen to keep their culture. This includes the language. The point being that most Europeans are fairly proud of our diversity, and lets face it thats what makes things interesting. You lose the language and the culture is not far behind.
Apr 14th, 2005, 05:10 AM
#60
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PatrickL-if Turkey eventually gets admitted to the EU, I don't know what they're going to do-I seriously don't know what they're doing NOW-when I took a course in the EU, I was confounded by the number of officially translated languages THEN-which was something like 7-the last time I looked, there were 15 EU members-I did not know until I read this article that there were now officially 20 (I did realize that certain Eastern bloc members were in the process of being added, just not when and how many).
It's mind-boggling to me how idiotic and wasteful it is to spend one and a half BILLION dollars on translation-to have to wait for one decision from the European Ct. of Human Rights, for example, must now take a very, very long time. Amazing, just amazing.
It would seem far more rational to pare down the number of official languages to the three or so that the majority of the EU citizens speak-and that would probably work out to English, German and French.
It's mind-boggling to me how idiotic and wasteful it is to spend one and a half BILLION dollars on translation-to have to wait for one decision from the European Ct. of Human Rights, for example, must now take a very, very long time. Amazing, just amazing.
It would seem far more rational to pare down the number of official languages to the three or so that the majority of the EU citizens speak-and that would probably work out to English, German and French.
