|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:28 am
The Telegraph Sarkozy sparks row with plan to teach nursery children English Nicolas Sarkozy has announced a plan to teach English to French three-year olds, sparking howls of protest among linguistic purists. Nicolas Sarkozy has announced a plan to teach English to French three-year olds, sparking howls of protest among linguistic purists. The move has even drawn comparisons to Germany's wartime occupation of France. Self-styled linguistic guardians insist Mr Sarkozy should instead concentrate on helping the young in their uphill struggle to master their own language. Eric Zemmour, an outspoken right-wing commentator, praised France's poor track record in learning English as "a sort of unconscious linguistic patriotism against the colonisation of minds". Citing an unnamed 1970s intellectual, he likened "the usage of English to learning German during the occupation" and noted that General Charles de Gaulle, who had led France's wartime resistance, never spoke a word of the language in public as a matter of principle. Jacques Chirac famously walked out of a meeting in Brussels when the French head of a boss' union started his address in English. Mr Sarkozy has no such qualms, despite – or perhaps due to – his schoolboy English, and inability to follow foreign leaders' banter in English without a translator. Last year he declared that all French secondary schoolchildren should be at least bilingual – leading to English and other foreign languages being introduced from the age of seven. Last week, Luc Chatel, his education minister, said immersion should start even earlier, as it made no sense to resist the rise of English. "Not mastering English in France these days is a handicap," he said, adding that teaching methods should be modernised to include computer use and more student exchanges. Experts are divided over whether much is to be gained from learning English at an age when toddlers are still grappling with the basics of their mother tongue. "Three years old seems much too young to me," said Claude Hagège, a renowned linguist and teacher. A better age would be five or six, he said. Others said the announcement was a fig leaf hiding the fact that Mr Sarkozy's reforms will see an estimated 1,000 language teachers lose their jobs this year. Before taking on foreign languages, the education system should improve standards in French, they added. One major proponent of the "dumbing-down" of French, say critics, is the president himself. Last month, one opposition Socialist publicly launched a public diatribe against Mr Sarkozy's "mistreatment" of French. His lax grammar and "vulgar expressions", said François Loncle, amounted to "attacks on the culture of our country and its reputation in the world". France has traditionally taken the defence of its language deadly seriously. The Académie Française, a body mostly of old men known as "the immortals" is tasked with warding off the invasion of "anglicisms" into the French language and coming up with Gallic equivalents. Some of the Académie's inventions, like "courriel" for "email", have stuck. Others like "prix hypotécaire à risqué" for "subprime" have unsurprisingly failed to catch on. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8291435/Sarkozy-sparks-row-with-plan-to-teach-nursery-children-English.html What do you think? Has there ever been protest against learning language in your area, any one in particular? For what reason? Do you think a language class should be compulsary in school or even kindergarten? Personally, I think it's a great plan actually. Too bad I wasn't taught English at 3.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:21 am
I think 5 or 6 year olds is more appropriate, let the kids learn their basic French first.
Of course I would support they learn Esperanto instead of English, since it will take less time and let them preserve their French identity. However the article is right about the French and their lower grasp of English compared to all their neighbors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Call Me Apple Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:40 am
It's Sarkozy...why am I not surprised?
Needless to say, I would have loved to have been taught anything other than in turn with English at 3.
My nephew was taught Spanish & English as young as that age, and up until he moved to Costa Rica at age 15, his English & Spanish were both impeccable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:45 am
I pretty much grew up bilingual in Vietnamese and English. While I spoke Vietnamese at home, I learned basic components of the English language such as the alphabet and easy words like "apple" and "tree" in school, particularly pre-school. So I really don't have a problem with a language class being taught to three-year-olds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:23 pm
Flower Gatherer I think 5 or 6 year olds is more appropriate, let the kids learn their basic French first. Of course I would support they learn Esperanto instead of English, since it will take less time and let them preserve their French identity. However the article is right about the French and their lower grasp of English compared to all their neighbors. Let's not get into why Esperanto is bad. English is important, and I think it would be great to offer the option for parents to place their children early on in schools teaching it through immersion. Living in Ottawa (the capital of Canada, a bilingual English/French city on the boarder between an anglophone and a francophone province), we began learning French at the age of 4. It was required that we take it until 9th grade (14 years old, for those not familiar with the Canadian education system). We are given the option between English or French immersion, which most parents are seeing the value in bilingualism. However, if English is not wanted, I definitely don't suggest Esperanto. Why don't they also learn Occitan or Gascon? They're languages in France that share features with French. It would make a lot more sense if they taught and used the languages in their own backyard!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:38 pm
Mikagi-sama Living in Ottawa (the capital of Canada, a bilingual English/French city on the boarder between an anglophone and a francophone province), we began learning French at the age of 4. It was required that we take it until 9th grade (14 years old, for those not familiar with the Canadian education system). We are given the option between English or French immersion, which most parents are seeing the value in bilingualism. You're so lucky. My husband has family in Canada (no clue where) and all of his cousins speak English & French. I live in the..."They took our jobs!" area of America. Any foreign language immersion for kids is met with hostility neutral Although it is now offered, usually programmes which cost money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Call Me Apple Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:11 pm
Mikagi-sama Flower Gatherer I think 5 or 6 year olds is more appropriate, let the kids learn their basic French first. Of course I would support they learn Esperanto instead of English, since it will take less time and let them preserve their French identity. However the article is right about the French and their lower grasp of English compared to all their neighbors. Let's not get into why Esperanto is bad. English is important, and I think it would be great to offer the option for parents to place their children early on in schools teaching it through immersion. Living in Ottawa (the capital of Canada, a bilingual English/French city on the boarder between an anglophone and a francophone province), we began learning French at the age of 4. It was required that we take it until 9th grade (14 years old, for those not familiar with the Canadian education system). We are given the option between English or French immersion, which most parents are seeing the value in bilingualism. However, if English is not wanted, I definitely don't suggest Esperanto. Why don't they also learn Occitan or Gascon? They're languages in France that share features with French. It would make a lot more sense if they taught and used the languages in their own backyard! I suggest Esperanto simply because the issue is that they don't want their children learning an imperial language. Esperanto would be a neutral choice, and who knows maybe the Occitian speaking children won't be forced to learn French and can hold on to their culture and use Esperanto to speak to outsiders. That's the whole point of Esperanto, to preserve lingual diversity and have a universal language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:29 pm
Flower Gatherer Mikagi-sama Flower Gatherer I think 5 or 6 year olds is more appropriate, let the kids learn their basic French first. Of course I would support they learn Esperanto instead of English, since it will take less time and let them preserve their French identity. However the article is right about the French and their lower grasp of English compared to all their neighbors. Let's not get into why Esperanto is bad. English is important, and I think it would be great to offer the option for parents to place their children early on in schools teaching it through immersion. Living in Ottawa (the capital of Canada, a bilingual English/French city on the boarder between an anglophone and a francophone province), we began learning French at the age of 4. It was required that we take it until 9th grade (14 years old, for those not familiar with the Canadian education system). We are given the option between English or French immersion, which most parents are seeing the value in bilingualism. However, if English is not wanted, I definitely don't suggest Esperanto. Why don't they also learn Occitan or Gascon? They're languages in France that share features with French. It would make a lot more sense if they taught and used the languages in their own backyard! I suggest Esperanto simply because the issue is that they don't want their children learning an imperial language. Esperanto would be a neutral choice, and who knows maybe the Occitian speaking children won't be forced to learn French and can hold on to their culture and use Esperanto to speak to outsiders. That's the whole point of Esperanto, to preserve lingual diversity and have a universal language. They never said they didn't want their children learning an imperial language. Despite recognizing how useful it would be to speak English, they are worried that allowing English to be taught and used in schools to their children were eventually lead to French being used less and less until English is the dominant language in France. They're worried that they will lose their linguistic and cultural identity to English; it has nothing to do with English's popularity and usefulness. Their fear is the same as the separatist Québecois in Canada. They are worried that their culture and French will be lost to English, so they are trying to limit/ stamp out the usage of English in the province. Statistics show that English-speaking Canadians aren't as bilingual as the French-speaking Canadians, with French being used the least when compared to English and other languages as a native tongue. It's a realistic fear because French lost to English before. When the French (Normands) occupied what is now the U.K., English regained its place not by driving the French out, but by having the French assimilate (by choice and preference) to speak English and living in English culture. Eventually, French ceased to be spoken on the island. I can understand their concerns. However, Esperanto is not the best option. My personal beliefs aside, Esperanto is not neutral to the French - it has nothing to do with imperialist languages. Any language other than French being taught and spoken in the country poses a serious risk to their identity. Esperanto poses the same risks as English, except more people would want to use English because it is useful for education and literature, socializing and fun, and business. Esperanto has less usage because the only people who speak are Esperantists, a minority of people. Don't forget, the majority of the world place Esperanto on the same level as Klingon. Esperanto is not universal or international because it is made up of more commonly spoken European languages. It is strictly euro-centric. Everything about culture, knowledge and thought is European and is taken from those languages. Also, English has borrowed a lot of vocabulary from French, just like Esperanto. So, you can't say Esperanto is easier for French-speakers. Considering the French don't want to lose their identity, Occitan and Gascon are better alternatives because they have been spoken within the borders of the country since the borders were determined. Those languages are a lot closer to French than English and Esperanto. It is better for speakers of Occitan and Gascon because their culture and language can be promoted and preserved by the government, as well as keeping French patriotism alive. And a universal language is the adversary to linguistic diversity. Why use another language if you can use one to speak to everyone? Flower Gatherer ... maybe the Occitian speaking children won't be forced to learn French and can hold on to their culture and use Esperanto to speak to outsiders. I hope you realize how contradictory that is. They use French to speak to other people who don't speak Occitan. By replacing Esperanto with French, their culture would not be preserved because they have to use another language that is not theirs to speak to other people. If you wanted to preserve their language and culture, they should be given the option to speak their language to other people. I shocked that a proponent of Esperanto would say Esperanto encourages linguistic diversity. Everyone knows it was created because Zamenhof wanted people to be able to speak to each other. He wanted one language to surpass all others and bridge the linguistic divide. It has nothing to do with preserving linguistic diversity. And notice that English is accomplishing exactly what Zamenhof intend with Esperanto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:29 pm
Call Me Apple Mikagi-sama Living in Ottawa (the capital of Canada, a bilingual English/French city on the boarder between an anglophone and a francophone province), we began learning French at the age of 4. It was required that we take it until 9th grade (14 years old, for those not familiar with the Canadian education system). We are given the option between English or French immersion, which most parents are seeing the value in bilingualism. You're so lucky. My husband has family in Canada (no clue where) and all of his cousins speak English & French. I live in the..."They took our jobs!" area of America. Any foreign language immersion for kids is met with hostility neutral Although it is now offered, usually programmes which cost money. Ouch... that doesn't sound fun. Too bad you guys can't come to Canada and live here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:41 pm
Mikagi-sama Flower Gatherer Mikagi-sama Flower Gatherer I think 5 or 6 year olds is more appropriate, let the kids learn their basic French first. Of course I would support they learn Esperanto instead of English, since it will take less time and let them preserve their French identity. However the article is right about the French and their lower grasp of English compared to all their neighbors. Let's not get into why Esperanto is bad. English is important, and I think it would be great to offer the option for parents to place their children early on in schools teaching it through immersion. Living in Ottawa (the capital of Canada, a bilingual English/French city on the boarder between an anglophone and a francophone province), we began learning French at the age of 4. It was required that we take it until 9th grade (14 years old, for those not familiar with the Canadian education system). We are given the option between English or French immersion, which most parents are seeing the value in bilingualism. However, if English is not wanted, I definitely don't suggest Esperanto. Why don't they also learn Occitan or Gascon? They're languages in France that share features with French. It would make a lot more sense if they taught and used the languages in their own backyard! I suggest Esperanto simply because the issue is that they don't want their children learning an imperial language. Esperanto would be a neutral choice, and who knows maybe the Occitian speaking children won't be forced to learn French and can hold on to their culture and use Esperanto to speak to outsiders. That's the whole point of Esperanto, to preserve lingual diversity and have a universal language. They never said they didn't want their children learning an imperial language. Despite recognizing how useful it would be to speak English, they are worried that allowing English to be taught and used in schools to their children were eventually lead to French being used less and less until English is the dominant language in France. They're worried that they will lose their linguistic and cultural identity to English; it has nothing to do with English's popularity and usefulness. Their fear is the same as the separatist Québecois in Canada. They are worried that their culture and French will be lost to English, so they are trying to limit/ stamp out the usage of English in the province. Statistics show that English-speaking Canadians aren't as bilingual as the French-speaking Canadians, with French being used the least when compared to English and other languages as a native tongue. It's a realistic fear because French lost to English before. When the French (Normands) occupied what is now the U.K., English regained its place not by driving the French out, but by having the French assimilate (by choice and preference) to speak English and living in English culture. Eventually, French ceased to be spoken on the island. I can understand their concerns. However, Esperanto is not the best option. My personal beliefs aside, Esperanto is not neutral to the French - it has nothing to do with imperialist languages. Any language other than French being taught and spoken in the country poses a serious risk to their identity. Esperanto poses the same risks as English, except more people would want to use English because it is useful for education and literature, socializing and fun, and business. Esperanto has less usage because the only people who speak are Esperantists, a minority of people. Don't forget, the majority of the world place Esperanto on the same level as Klingon. Esperanto is not universal or international because it is made up of more commonly spoken European languages. It is strictly euro-centric. Everything about culture, knowledge and thought is European and is taken from those languages. Also, English has borrowed a lot of vocabulary from French, just like Esperanto. So, you can't say Esperanto is easier for French-speakers. Considering the French don't want to lose their identity, Occitan and Gascon are better alternatives because they have been spoken within the borders of the country since the borders were determined. Those languages are a lot closer to French than English and Esperanto. It is better for speakers of Occitan and Gascon because their culture and language can be promoted and preserved by the government, as well as keeping French patriotism alive. And a universal language is the adversary to linguistic diversity. Why use another language if you can use one to speak to everyone? Flower Gatherer ... maybe the Occitian speaking children won't be forced to learn French and can hold on to their culture and use Esperanto to speak to outsiders. I hope you realize how contradictory that is. They use French to speak to other people who don't speak Occitan. By replacing Esperanto with French, their culture would not be preserved because they have to use another language that is not theirs to speak to other people. If you wanted to preserve their language and culture, they should be given the option to speak their language to other people. I shocked that a proponent of Esperanto would say Esperanto encourages linguistic diversity. Everyone knows it was created because Zamenhof wanted people to be able to speak to each other. He wanted one language to surpass all others and bridge the linguistic divide. It has nothing to do with preserving linguistic diversity. And notice that English is accomplishing exactly what Zamenhof intend with Esperanto. I know many French people and they fear English having a dominant role in their society. I've never heard anyone worried about French being replaced by English. Imperial influence and invasion/annexation are two different things. The majorty of the world doesn't know about Esperanto, I am not sure why you're speaking as a world ambassador. Esperanto is neutral, it has no political ties unlike all the other national languages.Also the standard French language already destroyed many other smaller dialects and even languages. The "french identity" is a political invention. I support linguistically preservation, not nationalistic. French is not the ocitian language. French is a nationalistic language being imposed in Occitian towns. You forget that languages are natural and borders are not. I don't know why you're acting like you're an expert in Esperanto when you are 100% wrong a fundemntal fact. Esperanto is there to promote linguistic diversity. The whole point is to spread Esperanto so everyone has a second-language to communicate with each other instead of a complicated language that would take years to learn. Languages and dialects die every year because more powerful interest groups were interested in promoting their national or imperial language instead of preserving the local languages and dialects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:25 pm
Flower Gatherer I know many French people and they fear English having a dominant role in their society. I've never heard anyone worried about French being replaced by English. Imperial influence and invasion/annexation are two different things. Explain to me why they fear English having a dominant role in their society. Why would they be concerned about English being used more than French? And you're partially right, except that English influencing French can eventually lead to a language evolving to be another dialect of English. And regardless of who you know, read that article and tell me that it has nothing to do with people worrying about French losing it's prestige and usage in their society. If that wasn't the reason, no one would care if English is used in France. Flower Gatherer The majorty of the world doesn't know about Esperanto, I am not sure why you're speaking as a world ambassador. Esperanto is neutral, it has no political ties unlike all the other national languages.Also the standard French language already destroyed many other smaller dialects and even languages. The "french identity" is a political invention. I support linguistically preservation, not nationalistic. You're right, clearly, I'm the only person in the entire world who thinks this. Oh, silly me. You're right that the majority of the world doesn't know about Esperanto. But then again, the majority of the world doesn't know about the majority of languages, including Pashto, Secwepemc, Kannada, Malagasy. Out of 7,000 languages currently spoken, less than 200 are used by governments or states - they also are neutral. But "national languages" as you dubbed them, do exactly what Esperanto does - unite a group or region by speaking the same language and, while easing communication, simplify governance and understanding. While you say that Esperanto is apolitical, Esperantists do still hold political beliefs that Esperanto is a better alternative, as they are fiercely promote it as "superior" and should be used by everyone to speak to each other. The whole notion that Esperanto is better and that people are saying it should be used is political. Esperanto does not have one country or government, but it does have a continent. It can only work in Europe. For any other country or language speaker, it would pose the same challenge for them as learning any other European language because it uses grammar and vocabulary (describing ideas specific to European culture) that is Indo-European in origin. Why does it use cases? Flower Gatherer French is not the ocitian language. French is a nationalistic language being imposed in Occitian towns. You forget that languages are natural and borders are not. Did I ever say the Occitan is French? No, I said it's spoken inside of France and is closely related to French, but not that it is French. You can look at Occitan and Gascon and see similiarities to it. Esperanto, however, is not as closely related to French like those languages, it instead borrows some words, but words that are common to Romance languages. And the French, I'm sure would be a lot prouder of the languages within the country, instead of ones not. And I suggest you look up the world "nationalistic" because it doesn't have the meaning "of the federal government" as you seem to think. Quote: I don't know why you're acting like you're an expert in Esperanto when you are 100% wrong a fundemntal fact. Esperanto is there to promote linguistic diversity. The whole point is to spread Esperanto so everyone has a second-language to communicate with each other instead of a complicated language that would take years to learn. Languages and dialects die every year because more powerful interest groups were interested in promoting their national or imperial language instead of preserving the local languages and dialects. I may not be an Esperantist, but I have a university education in linguistics, and I have spent time reading about the history and usage of languages, including Esperanto. I know Zamenhof made it not to preserve linguistic diversity, but just as a means of connecting people who don't speak the same language. He looked at linguistic diversity as a barrier, hence the birth of Esperanto. But I would like you to enlighten me how using one language instead of others promotes linguistic diversity. As I've said before, using one language in place of others to communicate, while it may facilitate intercultural communication, does not preserve linguistic diversity. It accomplishes the same task as using the language of the federal government to communicate with all people in the country who may not speak the same language. What you say Esperanto intends to do, however, would cause the same damage to dialects and languages. Instead of saying, "I want to speak my language, and you want to speak yours, let's use another one instead of choosing. It would be fair." If the entire world used Esperanto, other languages would die out as well. Edit: I will no longer respond because, aside from my annoyance with Esperantists, we have gotten off topic, and I have already voiced what I think about France and French.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:43 pm
I am not French and I cannot answer like a french person. I never denied the populace is not a fan of English. Of course the majority would prefer to keep French only, but these nativist are usually the same ones who don't care about native rights in their own territory.
I don't see how Pashto is neutral. It reflects the Pashto culture. All natural languages reflect the people who use it.
You can call Esperanto a political idea but it's more of a linguistically thing. Esperanto is not promoted as superior in general, as you're making it sound. Esperanto is supposed as a superior alternative to English and any other natural language as a neutral second language.
Again you're completely wrong about Esperanto belonging to Europe. It might have been created by a Jewish man living in Poland but most Esperanto speakers live in China, Japan, and South Korea.
Why does it matter if French is similar to Occitian or not. French is not occitian, regardless of its French or Urdu, Occitian is being replaced and no matter how similar the invading language is, it won't make members of that culture feel any better.
You're right about one thing, you're not an Esperantist. Zamenhof was a great man but he died many years ago and he no longer runs the movement.
If you don't understand how Esperanto promotes lingual diversity, they did a bad job teaching you at the university. Esperanto promotes lingual diversity by protecting smaller languages and different dialects from being forced upon other peoples. Instead of people in France being forced to learn French or people in Iran being forced to learn Farsi, Esperanto could be used to teach people a second language that would take only a few months to master instead of teaching them a brand new complicated language that would take years.
Occitian might have similarities to French but French is still a tough language and an Occitian will have an easier time learning Esperanto. True for a cantonese speaker, he would learn Esperanto easier than Mandarin.
So by promoting people to speak their languages and not spend years on a foreign langauge, Esperanto promotes both diversity and unification!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:28 pm
Flower Gatherer I am not French and I cannot answer like a french person. I never denied the populace is not a fan of English. Of course the majority would prefer to keep French only, but these nativist are usually the same ones who don't care about native rights in their own territory. I don't see how Pashto is neutral. It reflects the Pashto culture. All natural languages reflect the people who use it. You can call Esperanto a political idea but it's more of a linguistically thing. Esperanto is not promoted as superior in general, as you're making it sound. Esperanto is supposed as a superior alternative to English and any other natural language as a neutral second language. Again you're completely wrong about Esperanto belonging to Europe. It might have been created by a Jewish man living in Poland but most Esperanto speakers live in China, Japan, and South Korea. Why does it matter if French is similar to Occitian or not. French is not occitian, regardless of its French or Urdu, Occitian is being replaced and no matter how similar the invading language is, it won't make members of that culture feel any better. You're right about one thing, you're not an Esperantist. Zamenhof was a great man but he died many years ago and he no longer runs the movement. If you don't understand how Esperanto promotes lingual diversity, they did a bad job teaching you at the university. Esperanto promotes lingual diversity by protecting smaller languages and different dialects from being forced upon other peoples. Instead of people in France being forced to learn French or people in Iran being forced to learn Farsi, Esperanto could be used to teach people a second language that would take only a few months to master instead of teaching them a brand new complicated language that would take years. Occitian might have similarities to French but French is still a tough language and an Occitian will have an easier time learning Esperanto. True for a cantonese speaker, he would learn Esperanto easier than Mandarin. So by promoting people to speak their languages and not spend years on a foreign langauge, Esperanto promotes both diversity and unification! I sent a response via PM to you. If anyone is curious to read it, I will send you a copy if you ask.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:43 pm
I don't agree with saying 3 years old is too young considering that there's children who grow up bilingual. I took French Immersion from kindergarten to grade six and part of grade eight (I moved). Right now I'm learning German and in comparison I find learning a language when you're younger much easier in many ways. I find also learning a language like I am now almost seems more like just memorization of words instead of more naturally learning it. Also, knowing English in this time just seems so beneficial in so many ways.
I think it seems good to have language compulsary at least some time in school but I'm not sure about kindergarten. I'll use French Immersion as my example again I guess. I like how you can choose to take it or not but because you start it in kindergarten it's more of your parents choice than your own because you're only about 5, but where you have someone who has a learning disability who's already struggling enough with their first language it's good to not have them have you have a second language that would just slow them down even more.
On the side of preserving culture and their native language I'm not exactly sure what to say about that since my first language is English. I think if other languages other than English did disappear it would be sad in terms of just literature to have people who wouldn't be able to read it any more and even if it is translated it just never has the same exact feel or sound that it originally did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:44 pm
Mikagi-sama I sent a response via PM to you. If anyone is curious to read it, I will send you a copy if you ask. I'd kind of like to read it, this was getting interesting. If it's not too much trouble, of course. heart On topic: I dunno...I guess it could be good. Get them exposure, y'know? Maybe just plant the seed that will someday blossom into a tree of want to learn and devour the languages of the world. I mean, France can do what it wants. It's a big boy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
