EU Progress: Official Language Change to "Euro-English

[Borek]

or do we go by the most logical language? english wouldn't qualify, latin languages are more structured than english will ever be. perhaps if we devise a new language entirely?

We are back to Esperanto then.

 

[leopard]

I don't have to personally invent something that will have have a long staying power and broad appeal to claim that Esperanto has not been a success.

 

[leopard]

I think it's good that Europeans learn more and more to stand together but a common European de facto government is still utopic. Europe should stay a union of proud nations until the people of Europe are willing to join into real unity which is way in the future. Anything that is forced upon the people and labeld a Union will postpone actual unification.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXuhvzbQ5EI&feature=related

 

[Jang Jin Hong]

Jang is basically talking about pidgins of English and he's correct - when a language becomes widespread and a method of common communication for people who don't speak it natively it's not going to be the "proper" form of it that moves forward. Take for example Latin dissolving into all the different Romance languages.

Yes I am talking about pidgins.
for a long history of human language, all of new language was arose by pidgins.

Esperanto can be not a real language.
That is only a hobby of eccentric persons.
Real language can not be created from that kind of grammar definition.
Real language can be created by pidgin.

If human being creat the international language.
I predict that will be made from pidgin of English.
When I read the English document, to read that of chinese, Russian, Japanese is easy.
but to read that of U.S.A person is more difficult.
So in this time, I think that the international English and domestic English are in the diversing processing.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

When I read the English document, to read that of chinese, Russian, Japanese is easy.
but to read that of U.S.A person is more difficult.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/lol.gif That's exactly how I would have expected it to work!

Do you know the http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page" ? I think it's meant for you. Since I am a native English speaker I can't really see that it is written differently from the main English Wikipedia but the difference is probably obvious to you.

What do you think, Borek? Do you agree with Jang? English is not your first language, correct?

As far as Latin goes it was mostly Celtic and Germanic populations as well as others who learned it from their Roman rulers, which is why in many ways modern Romance languages lack some of the finesse of the Imperial Roman Latin of Cicero or Marcus Aurelius. Even all of the German invaders, the Goths and Lombards and Merovignians who hacked the Western Empire to pieces and ended up in charge of everything gave up their Germanic tongues and adopted the local Latin vulgate.

⚛​

 

[Borek]

What do you think, Borek? Do you agree with Jang?

In general - no. Pidgin is usually a language that is accepted only locally, so it doesn't change anything globally - see a list of pidgin english variants in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin_English) to see what I mean. There is no use of Korean variant if you want to communicate with Cameroonians.

On the other hand I see a use for simplified English - simplified both in terms of narrow vocabulary and narrow grammar. Poor, but correct - and that's general idea behind Simple English Wikipedia.

I am sure English is not the best selection of international language, but that's completely different problem.

English is not your first language, correct?

Yes, my first is Polish.

 

[leopard]

Marsz, marsz Dąbrowski,
Z ziemi włoskiej do Polski.
Za twoim przewodem
Złączym się z narodem.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Er, is the last word of that, "narodem", people in English? That's all I got from leveraging the smattering of Russian I have.

Borek, I agree that pidgins are usually of local usage, but Jang seems to be suggesting that a sort of international pidgin might be handy, like Ogden's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English" that was sort of mocked by George Orwell in 1984.

⚛​

 

[lwolfc]

In another recomendation the EU decided to switch to mobile phone 'txt spk' for all communications. Apart for the time and cost savings this wil also free up large numbers of vowels which can be donated to the former Yugoslavia where many town names have suffered severe shortages.

excellent, lmao

 

[Jang Jin Hong]

In general - no. Pidgin is usually a language that is accepted only locally, so it doesn't change anything globally
Yes, my first is Polish.

I use English vocabulary loosely. International english will be more suitable word than pidgin.

There is no reason for native speakers to be pleased, because international english will be somewhat a foreign language for them. so non-english native people have no reason of jealousy.

 

[lwolfc]

broken english is global standard.
we must use grammer destroyed English.
when I submitted journal I boldly use broken english
without proofreading of native speaker.
That will affected rejection of my paper.
but I will not change my attitude.
Let us bravely use broken english.

Well spoken

 

[Jang Jin Hong]

Borek, I agree that pidgins are usually of local usage, but Jang seems to be suggesting that a sort of international pidgin might be handy, like Ogden's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English" that was sort of mocked by George Orwell in 1984.

⚛​

Yes, I used at that meaning
I am using that kind of (broken english or international english or international pidgin)
in this physicsforums.com.
As you see, I communicate well with other peoples of the world.
and Borek communicate internationally well.
English which is used by Polish and Korean can contains grammatical errors.
but that is a real international language.

 

[Borek]

Er, is the last word of that, "narodem", people in English?

Yes. Basic form is naród, narodem bacause of declension.

Borek, I agree that pidgins are usually of local usage, but Jang seems to be suggesting that a sort of international pidgin might be handy

There is no reason for native speakers to be pleased, because international english will be somewhat a foreign language for them. so non-english native people have no reason of jealousy.

It is not about pleasing native speakers, it is about using language that is already well known and well described. I don't think it makes sense to reinvent the wheel.

First - it is not possible to define a language that will be easy to understand for everyone, as there are too many languages that completely differ in their approach to describe the world. In some languages meaning of the word is given by inflection, in others by its position in the phrase, I think in some by intonation. There is no "one size fits all" solution. What may look logical to Jang may look crazy to me, what we both will find obvious may be completely insane for Australian Aborigine.

Second - no matter what language you will use, once the message gets more complicated you need more complicated vocabulary and more complicated grammar. Simplified languages will be not able to deal with such cases. So if you have a complicated message to pass, you have to invest into learning complicated language. If you have learned poor version - which was correct, just poor - you already have important part of the learning curve behind.

Note: I am not telling it is English that should be used, I am rather pointing out why it makes sense to use "poor but correct version first, full version next" approach, instead of creating something completely new.

Besides, such completely new language already exists, and it is called Esperanto

 

[Borek]

One more note: there is no such thing as a generally "proper language". At best there exist "proper language at this time". All languages evolve and change, so it is very likely that English - under the pression of web inhabitants - will get simplified in some aspects. This is a natural process.

 

[Jang Jin Hong]

The person who use english as a secondary language do not use english as a ordinary life usage. They mainly use english in scientific, engineering or business purpose. what they want to experess is complex and knowledge concentrated thought.
and generally express their thought in writing instead of speeching.
Esperanto can not be used in that kind of field.
The value of esperanto can not be justified by benfit of using,
but by their spirit for world peace.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Second - no matter what language you will use, once the message gets more complicated you need more complicated vocabulary and more complicated grammar. Simplified languages will be not able to deal with such cases.

Yeah, you're right. That's the clincher.

⚛​

 

[Chi Meson]

I have to totally agree with Jang Jin Hong. His syntax is all mess up. Parts of speech are bass-ackward (good luck figuring that one out, Jang ). Punctuation is wrong wrong wrong, but...

I have clearly understood everything he has said, some of it being very specific and nuanced. I can tell that he is very pragmatic and logical, and he makes his point without ambiguity. And that IS communication. If only all native English speakers could communicate so clearly.

There is a tendency for native speakers to be defensive about their language, and "abuse" of it appears as an insult. Some of that tendency has been (jokingly) exemplified in this thread. But pragmatism rules here: currently English dominates as a preferred 2nd language. So if it is used imperfectly so that two non-native speakers may understand each other, then "that's the way it is."

And if a native English speaker wants to join in conversation with those other two, then the native speaker will just have to put up with it. As Jang has attested, this is already done in many cross-cultural connections. If the trend continues, then the "messed-up" English will get more uniform essentially creating a new dialect of English. And we are back to the OP: Euro English.

 

[Chi Meson]

It is not about pleasing native speakers, it is about using language that is already well known and well described. I don't think it makes sense to reinvent the wheel.

First - it is not possible to define a language that will be easy to understand for everyone, as there are too many languages that completely differ in their approach to describe the world. In some languages meaning of the word is given by inflection, in others by its position in the phrase, I think in some by intonation. There is no "one size fits all" solution. What may look logical to Jang may look crazy to me, what we both will find obvious may be completely insane for Australian Aborigine.

Second - no matter what language you will use, once the message gets more complicated you need more complicated vocabulary and more complicated grammar. Simplified languages will be not able to deal with such cases. So if you have a complicated message to pass, you have to invest into learning complicated language. If you have learned poor version - which was correct, just poor - you already have important part of the learning curve behind.

Note: I am not telling it is English that should be used, I am rather pointing out why it makes sense to use "poor but correct version first, full version next" approach, instead of creating something completely new.

Besides, such completely new language already exists, and it is called Esperanto

Also in agreement here. When conversation turns to political and legal matters, precision of communication is of utmost importance, and the only way of confirming if two people are certain that they are agreeing is if they are both speaking in their native language (even then it's not 100%).

At the very least the go-betweens (translators) must be naturally fluent in both languages spoken.

But with science and technology [edit: perhaps even economics], the "language of precision" is in the mathematics and scientific models (schematics, formulae, diagrams, etc). I know many of you have seen this nearly flawless communication happen between scientists where there is little necessity for a translator.

 

[vanesch]

Latin used to have that function a few hundreds of years ago, and, as far as I understand, still today in the UK legal system, no ?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

When conversation turns to political and legal matters, precision of communication is of utmost importance, and the only way of confirming if two people are certain that they are agreeing is if they are both speaking in their native language (even then it's not 100%).

Hmm. I don't know about political matters, but it seems notable that in legal matters words never seem to have their conventional meaning. (That depends on what the meaning of "is" is...) I wonder if so much of the legal meaning of words is really invested in the language itself and not simply in legal precedent.

I know many of you have seen this nearly flawless communication happen between scientists where there is little necessity for a translator.

Then there's the apparently contrary case where hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of equipment blow up because of a single standard / metric conversion problem or a misplaced decimal point.

⚛​

 

[Evo]

No. I do not want to say "should use wrong grammar"
but I predict that wrong grammar will be accepted in the future regardless of
native speakers' willing.
Langauge which is used in real communication reflect the real grammatical standard.
More and more, English is used by non-native speakers, and English which is used
by non-native will reflect real standard of English for international communication.

Look at me. my English contains grammatical errors. and my expression is very easy one.
but you can understand my thought.

I'm going to disagree with Chi here. While I don't expect non-native English speakers to speak fluent English, I have to admit I do find "getting the meaning" of what you are trying to say a bit difficult at times. I think it's quite possible that two different readers might be getting two slightly different takes on what you are trying to express. I just don't understand how a lack of uniformity and writing riddled with mistakes will make it easier for people unfamiliar with a foreign language to communicate in that language. I know that when I went to Europe, there was a lot of slang used that I wasn't familiar with, so it had to be translated for me. A member here, Wolram, often uses colloquialisms that I cannot understand. I believe that the more you deviate from the norm, the more difficult it will be for people to fully understand what you are saying.

 

[Chi Meson]

Then there's the apparently contrary case where hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of equipment blow up because of a single standard / metric conversion problem or a misplaced decimal point.

⚛​

None's bodys ain't prefect!

 

[Chi Meson]

I'm going to disagree with Chi here. While I don't expect non-native English speakers to speak fluent English, I have to admit I do find "getting the meaning" of what you are trying to say a bit difficult at times. I think it's quite possible that two different readers might be getting two slightly different takes on what you are trying to express. I just don't understand how a lack of uniformity and writing riddled with mistakes will make it easier for people unfamiliar with a foreign language to communicate in that language. I know that when I went to Europe, there was a lot of slang used that I wasn't familiar with, so it had to be translated for me. A member here, Wolram, often uses colloquialisms from parts of England that I cannot understand. I believe that the more you deviate from the norm, the more difficult it will be for people to fully understand what you are saying.

True, but this mode of communication is the antithesis of colloquialisms. It is English stripped bare of the interesting bits. Very dull and boring, and not as efficient as two fluent speakers conversing in proper English. If two speakers have learned to be fluent, then they would naturally want to speak in the best form. But again, the key word is "pragmatism."

"Messed-up" English (or "bare-bones" English) is more quickly learned. Proper English, with its idioms, colloquialisms, exceptions, outright oddities and absurdities is very difficult for non-native speakers to master. But the point is not to communicate in English, the point is to communicate at all. It is vulgar (in the erstwhile sense), but it works.

In reviewing Jang's posts, I must insist that I find no ambiguity in what he is saying. I also admit to finding it irritating to my sensibilities.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

This is all reminding me of an anecdote: a friend of mine who was an exchange student in Brazil was horrified to find that much of the time she'd spent learning proper Portuguese in the classroom in preparation was gone to waste. She said that, at least in the region where she was in (which I believe was fairly remote) many people didn't bother to, for example, conjugate verbs properly. Her interpretation was that the Native American populations for whom Portuguese became the lingua franca just never really cared that much about proper Portuguese and so neither do their descendants.

⚛​

 

[mgb_phys]

The UK had a problem hiring foreign doctors who spoke perfect English - but were sent to work in Yorkshire. so it had to write a phrasebook:

It explains such Yorkshirisms as “manky” – meaning: not very well. And “lugoil” the ear. Or “fisog” the face.

Yorkshire has different words for every familiar part of the human body. Sometimes several dozen. There is no logic to it. For instance a Yorkshireman might tell the doctor – “I’ve gone off me legs”, meaning I’m not very well….or I’m manky.

I hope you’re paying attention!

Speaking Yorkshire is hard enough for Yorkshiremen, let alone educated Austrian medics who’ve been taught good English. Not that it will help them. But the phrase book might.

A Yorkshireman, for example, never dies -- he simply “pops his clogs”. If he’s tired he’s actually “jiggered”. And if by some mischance there’s nothing wrong with him, then he’s “champion”.

 

[Proton Soup]

There is a tendency for native speakers to be defensive about their language, and "abuse" of it appears as an insult. Some of that tendency has been (jokingly) exemplified in this thread.

well, i did make one joke, but that's only because his response to my post was a complete non sequitur.

 

[leopard]

I see the hills, I see a river,
I see the houses way down low
I see no borders, I see no frontiers
I feel a spirit that will grow

I see the people, hear them laughing
Speaking words I don´t understand
But when I see their smiling faces
I know that I can take their hands.

Cause I believe, that we can reach you
And that we have a common goal
To share the good things, and help through hard times
And build that European Soul

http://akadnews.twoday.net/files/European-Hymn-Peter-Jedlicka/

 

[mgb_phys]

You do realize the article is a joke right?
It's a poor rip off of Mark Twain's essay ridiculing Noah Webster and others attempts to simplify and standardise American spelling.

 

[JasonRox]

Why? English is such a dirty language. So is German.

Why not like French, Spanish or Italian? Something nice.

 

[mgb_phys]

As Charles V said, "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse"

One big advanrtage of English or German for an engineer is that it's much more effective for swearing.
When you pinch your hand with a spanner the romance languages really don't cut it.

 

[Borek]

You do realize the article is a joke right?
It's a poor rip off of Mark Twain's essay ridiculing Noah Webster and others attempts to simplify and standardise American spelling.

Please read the link I have found (somewhere earlier in the thread) - while it is attributed to Twain it is not his work.

 

[Borek]

One big advanrtage of English or German for an engineer is that it's much more effective for swearing.

I have heard Germans switching to Polish to swear

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Please read the link I have found (somewhere earlier in the thread) - while it is attributed to Twain it is not his work.

Yeah, I found a bunch of places both on the net and a couple in Google Books that attribute one of the original versions to someone named "MJ Shields" who supposedly wrote it as a letter to Economist magazine. But I couldn't find a citation of what issue of the Economist it would have come from nor any mention of it on the Economist website itself so I am suspicious of whether even that is true. There seems to be consensus that it had nothing to do with Twain.

⚛​

 

[leopard]

Why? English is such a dirty language. So is German.

Why not like French, Spanish or Italian? Something nice.

French is horrible. Italian is boring. Spanish is cool.

 

[JasonRox]

French is horrible. Italian is boring. Spanish is cool.

No way, french I like.