05 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanLanguage is a key part of culture and national identity.
I can't believe you're bringing patriotism into a discussion about language.
And, well, your cultural pride (which is o.k. and I pray that it brings you happiness and fulfillment) takes you to assert that the world "should" master English.
I just happen to disagree.
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by MissOleumFair enough.
"Should" is a word which is more than "do or be something that would be pleasing to others" - it carries overtones of one person desiring to control and compel the behaviour of others.
These overtones have been added. The word in its original sense indicated an option rather than a compulsion. The words "may" and "must" are more precise where compulsi ...[text shortened]... tatement with "tongue in cheek". Do you feel "conquered", and if so, by whom?
I think I took the word "should" from Starboy in a mandatory,
opressive sense.
And yeah, learning anything in this life to its upmost depth is
a fulfilling, beautiful thing: languages, a profession, a art, etc.
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by SeitseBut we're not discussing national identity, we're discussing language. Language is also an important part of the health service, or law, or your local greengrocer. Should we also be tailoring our use of language based on what they say?
Language is a key part of culture and national identity.
And, well, your cultural pride (which is o.k. and I pray that it brings you happiness and fulfillment) takes you to assert that the world "should" master English.
I just happen to disagree.
And you're just plainly mistaken about both my cultural pride (I have none), and your claim that I am asserting the world should learn English. I have said no such thing. It is your cultural pride which brings you to so strongly hold that non-native English speakers should not.
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by StarrmanI happen to disagree with the word "should", which is what sparked
But we're not discussing national identity, we're discussing language. Language is also an important part of the health service, or law, or your local greengrocer. Should we also be tailoring our use of language based on what they say?
And you're just plainly mistaken about both my cultural pride (I have none), and your claim that I am asserting the wo ...[text shortened]... tural pride which brings you to so strongly hold that non-native English speakers should not.
my disagreement with your views.
The world needs to learn English, period. It is the best way to fit in the
era we're living in.
To what level the world "should" is where we disagree.
For example, a very well functioning international manager, for
example, can be competitive throughout the world with his/her
level of English, at the same time he/she is unable to grasp
Shakespeare very well.
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageCockney may be older, but in terms of its breadth and application, it's incredibly limited. It would take very little time to become a master of Cockney, but quite frankly this is all by the by. English includes the regional dialects, as far as my own opinion extends, and to single Cockney, or home counties English out is to enter into a dialectic comparison. If we were truly to master English, we would come to know all the dialects it contains and the cross-overs between them.
Notice the snobbery of 'patois'. Cockney is older than the Queen's English. And what better than a cockney audience to judge a cockney speaker, or ridicule idiotic mockney. QE2 can't speak cockney, I'm pretty sure. And her English is only orthodox by way of rulership and class. The point is that neither master every variety of English. Of course the a ...[text shortened]... na Lisa, but as it seems completely irrelevant to this discussion, I won't take them up.