French set to replace English as EU’s ‘working language’(independent.co.uk)
independent.co.uk
French set to replace English as EU’s ‘working language’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-france-eu-french-english-b1861087.html
390 comments
> even if EU states decided that they needed to start teaching another language besides english to their kids
It's already the case that we learn another language beside English in most (all?) of the EU. Typically French, German or Spanish.
It's also an explicit goal of the EU that every citizen speak two additional languages besides their own native language.
It's already the case that we learn another language beside English in most (all?) of the EU. Typically French, German or Spanish.
It's also an explicit goal of the EU that every citizen speak two additional languages besides their own native language.
> After all even if EU matters were done purely in french
That is not going to happen. Nothing is done purely in one language in the EU. The language rules are deeply embedded in the treaties; changing this would require quite a lot of countries to agree formally. The three work languages of the Commission are English, French, and German, and that’s not going to change. What can change is which one of these is used the most.
That is not going to happen. Nothing is done purely in one language in the EU. The language rules are deeply embedded in the treaties; changing this would require quite a lot of countries to agree formally. The three work languages of the Commission are English, French, and German, and that’s not going to change. What can change is which one of these is used the most.
Ireland, however, is still a part of the EU.
The UK left, sure. But Ireland still exists
But Ireland did not choose English as their EU language, they chose Irish.
I think English as the universal language is probably a done deal at this point. Then again people probably thought that about French back in the day.
But French is even worse. To hell with these non-phonetical languages. I am serious. I'd take Latin over these unpredictable monstrosities any day of the week
Spanish is an almost ideal modern language - it is straightforward in all important respects, while 90% of its vocabulary should be familiar to pretty much everyone.
French writing is quite phonetic and regular, but there's an extra layer of etymological orthography which confuses people who need to learned digraphs and trigraphs. But English has them too, and there's much more irregular.
There is something contradictory and insincere about being so concerned about the eminence of French in multilingual European institutions.
Multilingualism is the reality today in Europe, English being only a neutral enough language of convenience for international communication.
A tiny comparison of French and English orthography seems a bad argument for promoting French in Europe.
That's the trick : English is _not_ neutral. It is perceived, with quite a bit of truth, as a vehicle for English-speaking culture (duh) and in particular American strategies and worldviews. The way specifically American social topics have exported over social networks to Europe in a linear relationship to the degree of English-speaking is quite telling in that respect. There's also a worry that it would hasten the road to the exact opposite of multi-lingualism, that is mono-culture. There's no universe in which adopting English wholeheartedly would somehow result in German, French, Spanish and others receiving the same amount of attention or respect.
It's a fruitless discussion if you pretend that all languages are equal and have the same inertia and networks effects anyway. The network effects of English are too strong, and there would be absolutely no coming back from openly using it as a Paneuropean vehicular language. It's a massive civilisational choice, not some technical detail.
As for orthography, I was merely making an observation. The formal history of both French and English are interesting. I don't think it's a valid point in favour of one language or the other.
It's a fruitless discussion if you pretend that all languages are equal and have the same inertia and networks effects anyway. The network effects of English are too strong, and there would be absolutely no coming back from openly using it as a Paneuropean vehicular language. It's a massive civilisational choice, not some technical detail.
As for orthography, I was merely making an observation. The formal history of both French and English are interesting. I don't think it's a valid point in favour of one language or the other.
I don't think all languages are created equal. Given the arrogance with which the French expect others to use their language, I prefer English. Or German, as it is the only other working language of the European institutions. Anything but French would be fine.
Literary French is quite phonetic, at least outside proper names. What are some examples where you feel that French writing is not in a one to one relation with pronunciation?
Apart from all the silent letters, which are fairly regular (and I assume is what you're getting at) there's a fair number of pronunciation exceptions.
See the different ways of pronouncing "tous" or the different words that have irregularly silent "l"s (e.g. fusil) and other irregularly silent consonants in the middle of words (e.g. automne).
French has quite a lot of exceptions to its pronunciation rules in addition to its already fairly complex regular relationship between letters and sounds.
EDIT: Oh I forgot my pet peeve: there are so many exceptions to the pronunciation of "er" that it's kind of misleading to give its pronunciation as the equivalent of an English "a" as in "slate" (hiver, cher, cancer, mer, the list goes on and on and on).
See the different ways of pronouncing "tous" or the different words that have irregularly silent "l"s (e.g. fusil) and other irregularly silent consonants in the middle of words (e.g. automne).
French has quite a lot of exceptions to its pronunciation rules in addition to its already fairly complex regular relationship between letters and sounds.
EDIT: Oh I forgot my pet peeve: there are so many exceptions to the pronunciation of "er" that it's kind of misleading to give its pronunciation as the equivalent of an English "a" as in "slate" (hiver, cher, cancer, mer, the list goes on and on and on).
Those are some good examples, you're right. It is quite a bit less regular than I remembered from my high-school days.
For 'er' though, isn't the rule essentially that it is pronounced 'a' at the end of verbs, and 'ar' otherwise? I realize that is not a phonetic rule, though.
For 'er' though, isn't the rule essentially that it is pronounced 'a' at the end of verbs, and 'ar' otherwise? I realize that is not a phonetic rule, though.
Unfortunately no. See e.g. boulanger, cahier, etc. (Although I do believe you're correct about verbs, I wasn't able to think of any verbs that pronounce "er" irregularly).
I don't know of any regular, even semantic, rule off the top of my head that covers when it should be pronounced which way for non-verbs. I wonder if someone more versed in French etymology could find one.
I don't know of any regular, even semantic, rule off the top of my head that covers when it should be pronounced which way for non-verbs. I wonder if someone more versed in French etymology could find one.
How many ways are there to spell the sound ō (as in l’eau) in French? I once read that it was over 30, but it might have been a tongue-in-cheek joke, like "ghoti" as an alternate spelling of "fish"[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti
As far as I know, there are two: 'o' (as in 'bon') and 'eau' (as in 'beau').While that's one more than it should have been necessary, it's not that bad I think.
maux?
culot?
I feel like we can find more ;-)
But I have learned I had a misconception about what a phonetic spelling is. I had thought that a phonetic spelling had the property of every sound in the language having one way to spell it, but that is not the case; instead for every grapheme there is one sound.
As a native English speaker, learning a little French (after German and Latin) opened my eyes to the horrors of English. Really French is very tame in comparison.
I feel like we can find more ;-)
But I have learned I had a misconception about what a phonetic spelling is. I had thought that a phonetic spelling had the property of every sound in the language having one way to spell it, but that is not the case; instead for every grapheme there is one sound.
As a native English speaker, learning a little French (after German and Latin) opened my eyes to the horrors of English. Really French is very tame in comparison.
Forgot about 'au'; I think the x and t in these examples are misleading, they are just part of the general rule that final consonants are not pronounced (though there are exceptions to that rule).
compare with "ough" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ough_(orthography)
Granted, my experience with French is rather limited and the language could be pretty consistent internally. But there's lots of utter madness such as "beacoup" which is literally "buku".
Sorry for being blunt but pronouncing 50% of the letters is extremely non phonetical. There's just no other way of putting it
Sorry for being blunt but pronouncing 50% of the letters is extremely non phonetical. There's just no other way of putting it
French is fairly predictable, there are pronunciation rules. On the other hand you have English where you have things like "weird", "weight", "heir" and "receipt", "recipe" and say "sniper", this uncertainty around "data", "direct", "neither" etc, and as a pragmatic rule there are no pronunciation rules really, you have to learn the language twice.
If your native language has sane spelling correspondences this feature of English never ceases to amaze and to be honest baffle, even bother you.
Will this vowel in this particular word be the diphthong you'd expect according to the patterns you've inferred up to this point or some wild monophtong just because? Let's find out!
As for the French, good for them, they speak a world language that is also one of the three working languages of the EU. My native language is another world language. English is a lingua franca nowadays, but there's no methaphysical necessity about speaking English, it's just popular enough and therefore convenient.
If your native language has sane spelling correspondences this feature of English never ceases to amaze and to be honest baffle, even bother you.
Will this vowel in this particular word be the diphthong you'd expect according to the patterns you've inferred up to this point or some wild monophtong just because? Let's find out!
As for the French, good for them, they speak a world language that is also one of the three working languages of the EU. My native language is another world language. English is a lingua franca nowadays, but there's no methaphysical necessity about speaking English, it's just popular enough and therefore convenient.
I think you're confusing things. A difference between the number of written characters and the number of phonemes doesn't make a language "non-phonetic" if you mean consistency between spelling and pronunciation.
What matters is that a sequence of symbols _consistently_ matches a phoneme. For example, you'll find that the "u" phoneme is often written as "ou" in French. Same thing for the "o" sound and "eau" (you misspelt "beaucoup").
What I would consider "non-phonetic" is the set "though", "through", "thorough", and "thought" in English, where "ough" has four different sounds.
What matters is that a sequence of symbols _consistently_ matches a phoneme. For example, you'll find that the "u" phoneme is often written as "ou" in French. Same thing for the "o" sound and "eau" (you misspelt "beaucoup").
What I would consider "non-phonetic" is the set "though", "through", "thorough", and "thought" in English, where "ough" has four different sounds.
Beaucoup is 'boku', not 'buku'. And having groups of letters be pronounced as a single sound is not the opposite of being phonetical, as long as the groups are used consistently (e.g. -eau- is always pronounced 'o', -ou- is always pronounced 'u', final consonants are never pronounced etc.) .
Granted, the sibling comment lists quite a few exceptions to these rules, but it is still quite a regular language.
The system of silent consonants is quite useful in keeping the language have somewhat regular declensions/conjugations. If they were not preserved, it would seem that French conjugations are mad, inventing consonants out of thin air. For example, coup/coupee, meaning to cut/ cut (up), are pronounced ku/kupe. This would make it seem like the participle is adding -pe to the infinitive (and it would add -te or -ze or many others), when in fact the participle is almost always adding -e, which forces the consonant in the root to be pronounced, since French really hates hiatuses.
If anything, French phonetics are the real problem, aggressively dropping consonants of the end of words, but loathing hiatuses, sometimes even between words in literary contexts (where sometimes a 't' or 'z' sound is added between a word ending in a vowel and the next word beginning with a vowel, 'la liaison').
Granted, the sibling comment lists quite a few exceptions to these rules, but it is still quite a regular language.
The system of silent consonants is quite useful in keeping the language have somewhat regular declensions/conjugations. If they were not preserved, it would seem that French conjugations are mad, inventing consonants out of thin air. For example, coup/coupee, meaning to cut/ cut (up), are pronounced ku/kupe. This would make it seem like the participle is adding -pe to the infinitive (and it would add -te or -ze or many others), when in fact the participle is almost always adding -e, which forces the consonant in the root to be pronounced, since French really hates hiatuses.
If anything, French phonetics are the real problem, aggressively dropping consonants of the end of words, but loathing hiatuses, sometimes even between words in literary contexts (where sometimes a 't' or 'z' sound is added between a word ending in a vowel and the next word beginning with a vowel, 'la liaison').
[deleted]
Great, well then I suggest that we just repeat this process whenever a new presidency takes over. Wonder when it's Denmark's turn again - we really missed the opportunity in 2012 by being so darn agreeable all the time.
Are there other countries than Denmark speaking danish in the EU , or elsewhere ?
I take it that GPs point is that it makes just as little sense, to change the working language to danish, purely based on presidency.
There's no other country in the EU that speaks French, either. And by numbers, German should prevail.
Your first point is incorrect: Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Monaco [1]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/european_languages/languages/...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/european_languages/languages/...
Switzerland and Monaco aren’t in the EU
How could I forget Belgium. Damn!
Parts of Belgium. Just ~35% of Belgiums are French speakers. Most speak Dutch. Same for Switzerland, most Swiss speak German.
Flemish I think. Although it's pretty similar to Dutch.
Flemish is not a language, it's a dialect. The language is Dutch.
That's an opinion, not a fact, and one that depends on who you ask and where. If you go to the Flanders region people will certainly tell you they speak Flemish.
Language researchers can argue all they want about how languages should be grouped, but they sound different, they use different words, and people call them different things. It is simply incorrect to state that people in Belgium speak Dutch. Might as well just expand the group to include German and English (etc) and say they speak Germanic.
Fun fact, the Dutch call their language Nederlands and refer to German as Duits ("Dutch").
Language researchers can argue all they want about how languages should be grouped, but they sound different, they use different words, and people call them different things. It is simply incorrect to state that people in Belgium speak Dutch. Might as well just expand the group to include German and English (etc) and say they speak Germanic.
Fun fact, the Dutch call their language Nederlands and refer to German as Duits ("Dutch").
The language is Dutch, the collection of dialects spoken in the Flanders region is Flemish. If you're feeling charitable, you can refer to it as a language variant.
Here is the constitution of Belgium: https://www.senate.be/doc/const_nl.html Articles 2 and 3 define the Flemish (Vlaamse) community and region. Article 4 defines the language areas and specifically mentions Dutch (Nederlands), not Flemish.
See also: the Dutch Language Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Language_Union) being founded on a treaty between the Netherlands and Belgium.
For a language that's derived from Dutch but now its own proper language, try Afrikaans.
Here is the constitution of Belgium: https://www.senate.be/doc/const_nl.html Articles 2 and 3 define the Flemish (Vlaamse) community and region. Article 4 defines the language areas and specifically mentions Dutch (Nederlands), not Flemish.
See also: the Dutch Language Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Language_Union) being founded on a treaty between the Netherlands and Belgium.
For a language that's derived from Dutch but now its own proper language, try Afrikaans.
> If you go to the Flanders region people will certainly tell you they speak Flemish.
And they would be right. They do indeed speak the Flemish dialect.
> That's an opinion, not a fact, and one that depends on who you ask and where
I don't see how it is "an opinion" if Flemish literally adheres to "Standaardnederlands" (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standaardnederlands). Your analogy to German doesn't make any sense here. The Dutch language doesn't adhere to some "Germanic" standard language or anything, and barely has any grammar rules in common with German (even though the languages are very similar).
And they would be right. They do indeed speak the Flemish dialect.
> That's an opinion, not a fact, and one that depends on who you ask and where
I don't see how it is "an opinion" if Flemish literally adheres to "Standaardnederlands" (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standaardnederlands). Your analogy to German doesn't make any sense here. The Dutch language doesn't adhere to some "Germanic" standard language or anything, and barely has any grammar rules in common with German (even though the languages are very similar).
There’s Belgium and Luxembourg, but sure…
It's a recognised minority language in Germany, specifically in Schleswig-Holstein.
Ah, a return to the diplomatic norms of the 178th century. Literally a lingua franca, after all.
Time traveler detected.
Not literally, no. The literal Lingua Franca spoken across the eastern meditarranean was named for the "Franks", which simply meant "Western Europeans" to the people speaking in lingua franca; but was mostly based on Italian, with slavic and Greek influences. So the French, the Prussians, the Venetians, probably even the Polish were "Franks" in the sense used in Lingua Francia.
In turn, the use of the term Frank to refer to western europeans was in relation to the Frankish Empire, a confederation of germanic tribes. France is one descendant of the Frankish Empire, Germany being another. The Franks themselves spoke a germanic language.
In turn, the use of the term Frank to refer to western europeans was in relation to the Frankish Empire, a confederation of germanic tribes. France is one descendant of the Frankish Empire, Germany being another. The Franks themselves spoke a germanic language.
Only Ireland has English as their primary language of the EU so it makes sense.
Malta has English as an official language, too.
Yet by far the biggest shared language in the EU is english, no contest.
It makes no sense at all.
English is the dominant language of Ireland, Malta (and Scotland and Wales) but as each has a "national" language and English had already been selected by the UK, Ireland nominated Irish and Malta Maltese as an official EU language.
So at the moment there is no country that has claimed English as its official language for EU purposes, thus it's legally OK to ignore anything official from or within the EU that is in English.
Malta has the population of Oakland, but most of the people there apparently speak Maltese. Ireland has about half the population of the Bay Area but only about 40% of them claim to have some facility in Irish. In both countries it appears English is universally understood and spoken. (all this info from Wikipedia FWIW).
I think it would be smart for the EU to nominate an English (of some sort) as the supranational language as it would elevate no member state over another. This same approach has worked pretty well for India, where the use of that language has a far more fraught history. But Malta or Ireland could simply take one for the team and switch their nominated language.
So at the moment there is no country that has claimed English as its official language for EU purposes, thus it's legally OK to ignore anything official from or within the EU that is in English.
Malta has the population of Oakland, but most of the people there apparently speak Maltese. Ireland has about half the population of the Bay Area but only about 40% of them claim to have some facility in Irish. In both countries it appears English is universally understood and spoken. (all this info from Wikipedia FWIW).
I think it would be smart for the EU to nominate an English (of some sort) as the supranational language as it would elevate no member state over another. This same approach has worked pretty well for India, where the use of that language has a far more fraught history. But Malta or Ireland could simply take one for the team and switch their nominated language.
> But Malta or Ireland could simply take one for the team and switch their nominated language.
I'm pretty sure that you can have more than one nominated language, given that Belgium and Spain have a bunch of them.
I'm pretty sure that you can have more than one nominated language, given that Belgium and Spain have a bunch of them.
Not really. Every EU Member State could only nominate one language. Some of them nominated an "alternative" one because their main one was already an official language (e.g. Irish).
This is the reason the only Spanish language which is an official EU language is Castillian. The other three (Galician, Catalan and Basque) are not EU official languages. Same happens to many other languages spoken in Europe.
This is the reason the only Spanish language which is an official EU language is Castillian. The other three (Galician, Catalan and Basque) are not EU official languages. Same happens to many other languages spoken in Europe.
Malta and Ireland benefit from having an official language. The EU employs Irish and Maltese translators in extremely well paid tax-free jobs.
Maybe Austria would do it? It's the only EU country I can think of that doesn't claim to have its own language. Edit: also Belgium and Luxembourg.
Maybe Austria would do it? It's the only EU country I can think of that doesn't claim to have its own language. Edit: also Belgium and Luxembourg.
Luxembourg has its own language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourgish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourgish
Yes but it's not their "official" EU language. I don't know if they nominated German or simply didn't nominate one at all as German was already official.
[deleted]
It seems Ireland's official language of the EU is Irish:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2018-00402...
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2018-00402...
[deleted]
What makes sense is for everyone to use the single language that people are able to effectively use to communicate across Europe, namely English.
After getting the middle finger from the UK they are slowly then quickly excising the English out of their lives.
France is sitting on an economy that hasn't net expanded in inflation-adjusted terms since approximately 1980. Forty years of stagnation, you'd think a nation would consider what it's doing wrong. Their position and importance in the world has collapsed over the past half century - and that's only going to get worse yet.
It's pretty clear how that middle finger exercise is going to turn out for France. The British at least, for their part, are riding the global language (which gives them all manner of advantages, not least of which is cultural export which helps to maintain relevance).
(and no, Mandarin does not have a future in that language role, China's population will rapidly decline and Mandarin is extremely difficult to learn, while simultaneously the global population that speaks English will continue to expand; in 50 years more people will be speaking English and fewer people will be speaking Mandarin)
It's pretty clear how that middle finger exercise is going to turn out for France. The British at least, for their part, are riding the global language (which gives them all manner of advantages, not least of which is cultural export which helps to maintain relevance).
(and no, Mandarin does not have a future in that language role, China's population will rapidly decline and Mandarin is extremely difficult to learn, while simultaneously the global population that speaks English will continue to expand; in 50 years more people will be speaking English and fewer people will be speaking Mandarin)
> the global population that speaks English will continue to expand; in 50 years more people will be speaking English and fewer people will be speaking Mandarin
interesting. any sources where i could find out more?
interesting. any sources where i could find out more?
Yeah, good luck with that. Easier said than done.
Brexit makes the case for English even stronger as it is more of a neutral common ground than before (since Ireland and Malta have it as official languages - though not the "first" official language of Ireland, in theory, of course)
Brexit makes the case for English even stronger as it is more of a neutral common ground than before (since Ireland and Malta have it as official languages - though not the "first" official language of Ireland, in theory, of course)
I'm currently reading a book about the Congress of Vienna and it's amazing that the Russian Tsar argued with the English ambassador in French. Here were all the rich and powerful men of Europe dividing up the continent and there wasn't a single translator needed.
That would have been Aleksandr I's first language even.
The aristocrats in Russia back then probably spoke French as well as or better than Russian if Tolstoy books are to be believed.
^ This is right. It happened because of Peter the Great's westward alignment of the royal machinery and continued till the last Tsar.
Russian tsars are likely not even native Russian speakers. I listened to a recording recently -- the accent is obvious.
Same family https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/king-george-tsar-nicholas-1...
Same family https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/king-george-tsar-nicholas-1...
Interesting -- what kind of accent is it? Would it be most similar to the accent a German native speaker would have speaking Russian today?
That sounds like an interesting read, what's the title of the book?
Sometimes countries insist of fighting wars that have been over for a long time. This is one example. American attitude towards China rise is another example.
Now more seriously, I think what the French are trying to do is just to avoid a complete switch to English in the EU institutions. Since the start of the pandemic, most meetings which used to be multilingual (with interpretation) are now English only and nobody seems to have a big problem with that. If anything, it makes interactions more natural (talking through interpreters is a pain in the ass). French are probably worried that this could be here to stay and are just trying to go back to the status quo.
Now more seriously, I think what the French are trying to do is just to avoid a complete switch to English in the EU institutions. Since the start of the pandemic, most meetings which used to be multilingual (with interpretation) are now English only and nobody seems to have a big problem with that. If anything, it makes interactions more natural (talking through interpreters is a pain in the ass). French are probably worried that this could be here to stay and are just trying to go back to the status quo.
Why are they worried? English isn't English anymore. In fact it makes sense to chose a language that isn't the native language of any EU nation. (I'm squinting regarding Ireland).
Well, it's history and education.
In every country children are told quite silly things about the world and, in particular, about the importance of their country in the world. This is even worse for current or former empires (UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Russia, US, China...).
Children there are told they are special and superior in some way to other children who were born in other places. It's not surpising that they end up asuming those lies as something obvious and natural. The most striking example nowdays is of course the United States, just because they are the biggest superpower (China's children are not less indoctrinated, though). Most American adults believe that their country is the biggest democracy the world has ever seen (cough, cough, India), their lifestyle the highest (Scandinavia smiles amusingly with a barely hidden condescending gesture) or that their wars are fought just to defend freedom (and Irak invaded because of the mass destruction weapons, apparently).
In the case of France they take as reference the Napoleonic times where their country was dominant and their language the vehicule of culture and politics in Europe. They also think the French Revolution invented real democracy or something similar (even though American Revolution started more than ten years earlier and Greeks had true democracies a couple thousand years before that).
Of course, those days are long gone, but this is what French are tought since they are small children, so most of them end up believing it.
Nationalism is a serious disease and most countries are infected.
In every country children are told quite silly things about the world and, in particular, about the importance of their country in the world. This is even worse for current or former empires (UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Russia, US, China...).
Children there are told they are special and superior in some way to other children who were born in other places. It's not surpising that they end up asuming those lies as something obvious and natural. The most striking example nowdays is of course the United States, just because they are the biggest superpower (China's children are not less indoctrinated, though). Most American adults believe that their country is the biggest democracy the world has ever seen (cough, cough, India), their lifestyle the highest (Scandinavia smiles amusingly with a barely hidden condescending gesture) or that their wars are fought just to defend freedom (and Irak invaded because of the mass destruction weapons, apparently).
In the case of France they take as reference the Napoleonic times where their country was dominant and their language the vehicule of culture and politics in Europe. They also think the French Revolution invented real democracy or something similar (even though American Revolution started more than ten years earlier and Greeks had true democracies a couple thousand years before that).
Of course, those days are long gone, but this is what French are tought since they are small children, so most of them end up believing it.
Nationalism is a serious disease and most countries are infected.
First of all, I don't understand why the French government wants to do that - it's quite ridiculous. However, I also suspect that it has to do this kind of public stunt to satisfy the conservative right wing, especially with the presidential election next year.
Furthermore, I think you are missing something quite fundamental here - French is pretty much one of the core building blocks of France, and no, this is not obvious. 150 years ago, not many people spoke French in France : they spoke Basque, Breton, Occitan, Corsican, Alsacian, and various forms of patois. What brought French everywhere was compulsory education led by missionary style teachers, world war I, and forbidding people from speaking their regional language. In essence, the language was a political tool to unify the country, and the French never stopped considering language as a political tool.
You may assume that this is 'arrogant nationalist French' behavior, but I will disagree.
Furthermore, I think you are missing something quite fundamental here - French is pretty much one of the core building blocks of France, and no, this is not obvious. 150 years ago, not many people spoke French in France : they spoke Basque, Breton, Occitan, Corsican, Alsacian, and various forms of patois. What brought French everywhere was compulsory education led by missionary style teachers, world war I, and forbidding people from speaking their regional language. In essence, the language was a political tool to unify the country, and the French never stopped considering language as a political tool.
You may assume that this is 'arrogant nationalist French' behavior, but I will disagree.
I agree with you, in fact.
The issue is that the fact they decided to impose a single language to all the country is another example of the nationalism I was talking about. Deciding to erradicate existing languages and cultures for nationalistic reasons. That is cultural genocide. It's not unlikely of what Chinese are doing.
You can contrast this with the case of Switzerland or India where you see you can have a strong cohesion and feeling of belonging to the cpuntry without needing to erradicate significant parts of your own culture.
The issue is that the fact they decided to impose a single language to all the country is another example of the nationalism I was talking about. Deciding to erradicate existing languages and cultures for nationalistic reasons. That is cultural genocide. It's not unlikely of what Chinese are doing.
You can contrast this with the case of Switzerland or India where you see you can have a strong cohesion and feeling of belonging to the cpuntry without needing to erradicate significant parts of your own culture.
Understood.
I agree with the cultural genocide part, however I'm not sure if they did it for nationalistic reasons ('my country' s great and better') , or for practical reasons ('it would be much better if we spoke the same language and our soldiers could actually communicate' ,etc) unfortunately driven by the hypercentralism which has permeated throughout French history, and still plagues the country to this day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_%28politics%29?wprov=s...
Interesting discussion, I'll read a bit more about French history and language politics!
I agree with the cultural genocide part, however I'm not sure if they did it for nationalistic reasons ('my country' s great and better') , or for practical reasons ('it would be much better if we spoke the same language and our soldiers could actually communicate' ,etc) unfortunately driven by the hypercentralism which has permeated throughout French history, and still plagues the country to this day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_%28politics%29?wprov=s...
Interesting discussion, I'll read a bit more about French history and language politics!
Unfortunately (or fortunately), English is practically the native tongue of Ireland now (and has been since the 18th century, to be honest).
I think from the French Gov it's just a way to express how fed up they are with UK Gov Brexit policy.
They very well know that English is now the predominant language, Macron is in fact the first French president speaking English so well in public.
Long gone is the "francophonie" policy of the 80's, the number of French peoples speaking English have increased considerably in the last 15/20 years.
I see no "worries" about French being less used from the French officials, more a give up, which is kind of sad.
So this move is very political.
I don't really think that they care about British on this one. They are gone, after all.
What really happens is that in the 15 last years English has gained space foot in the EU institutions, to the point that they are quickly becoming just English speaking. You have a service which used to homd all meetings in English, a new Croatian, Hungarian or Polish staff member who doesn't speak French arrives and suddenly all the meetings and mass emails are written in English. The opposite doesn't really happen.
After the start of the pandemic French suddenly lost almost all space in meetings with Member States representatives or just multiple services present. They have become English onlycause there is no interpretation anymore and many people can't speak or even understand French. Many people that chose to speak French in meetings (mostly as a matter of principle) now speak English. The change in the last year was huge. French just want to go back to the previous status quo.
What really happens is that in the 15 last years English has gained space foot in the EU institutions, to the point that they are quickly becoming just English speaking. You have a service which used to homd all meetings in English, a new Croatian, Hungarian or Polish staff member who doesn't speak French arrives and suddenly all the meetings and mass emails are written in English. The opposite doesn't really happen.
After the start of the pandemic French suddenly lost almost all space in meetings with Member States representatives or just multiple services present. They have become English onlycause there is no interpretation anymore and many people can't speak or even understand French. Many people that chose to speak French in meetings (mostly as a matter of principle) now speak English. The change in the last year was huge. French just want to go back to the previous status quo.
> the taste and pride of multilingualism
For everybody but the French, that is.
> that ersatz of the English language, which narrows the scope of one’s thoughts, and restricts one’s ability to express him or herself
And the ability to formulate a new policy with a subtle twist in your favor that no-one gets until it's too late.
Embarrassing.
For everybody but the French, that is.
> that ersatz of the English language, which narrows the scope of one’s thoughts, and restricts one’s ability to express him or herself
And the ability to formulate a new policy with a subtle twist in your favor that no-one gets until it's too late.
Embarrassing.
> that ersatz of the English language, which narrows the scope of one’s thoughts, and restricts one’s ability to express him or herself
This sounds awfully close to Sapir–Whorf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
This sounds awfully close to Sapir–Whorf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
The quote is missing a bit of context, it's specifically referring to "Globish", or International English, not English per-se, but rather the variant of "simplified" English that only use intermediate-level vocabulary and grammar because that's the common ground between most non-native speakers.
> that ersatz of the English language, which narrows the scope of one’s thoughts, and restricts one’s ability to express him or herself
They should use Ithkuil instead then :D
They should use Ithkuil instead then :D
I’d have thought they would have kept English as it’s effectively a neutral language at that point - it would be convenient to avoid accusations of German or French dominance should either push for their’s in English’s place
Shame there's no real-world interest in the powers that be to officialize Esperanto.
That would be even less practical, as almost no-one speaks esperanto.
What would be the point? Might as well make Klingon an official language.
Esperanto is considerably easier to learn than Klingon.
One is designed to be easy to learn, to be regular and logical and use roots familiar to European ears, the other is designed to sound alien.
(Does Klingon have a word for bridge-of-a-ship and not bridge-over-water, or is that just an urban legend?)
(Does Klingon have a word for bridge-of-a-ship and not bridge-over-water, or is that just an urban legend?)
https://www.kli.org/about-klingon/new-klingon-words/date/# says that QI is klingon for bridge over water.
QI? Curiously, that’s the name of the TV show where I think I heard the claim. I wonder if it was added and given that form as a direct result of that appearance on that show? (The timing is plausible, but I don’t have a detailed enough memory to find which episode).
If Klingon were invented in Europe and designed to be a pan-european easy-to-learn language, sure. Otherwise, Esperanto has some desirable attributes as a universal second language.
"Easy-to-learn" is very subjective. There's a lot of different languages spoken in the EU and the accessibility of a language environment matters.
> "Easy to learn" is very subjective
Not really. For example, a language that has no grammatical gender is inarguably easier to learn than a one that has.
Not really. For example, a language that has no grammatical gender is inarguably easier to learn than a one that has.
All other things being the same. English doesn’t have much grammatical gender, but is a mess.
Yes really. About your example, what have you heard about the difficulty of learning Finnish and Estonian?
That aside, there's no way there's an universal easy-to-learn language. Language families are very different.
That aside, there's no way there's an universal easy-to-learn language. Language families are very different.
Finnish has no grammatical gender. Is it easier to learn than Spanish?
That was just one example but you win I guess. What I had in my mind was for a Spanish speaker it's probably easier to learn a hypothetical Romance language that doesn't have grammatical gender than say French.
So first, I would say that the notion of ease of learning a language is a purely relative one, which is what GGP probably meant. It is easy for an Estonian speaker to learn Finnish, a Dane to learn Swedish, etc., but quite difficult for an English speaker to learn Finnish. As another example, Mandarin on its face should be an easy language to learn because the grammar is very simple - there are no tenses, no cases, no gender, no inflection whatsoever. There's tone, sure, but this isn't the difficult part of understanding Mandarin for a native English speaker. Regarding grammar specifically, despite Mandarin seeming to possess a nominally simpler grammar, speakers use patterns that would appear alien to most speakers of European languages. For example, from section on cleft sentences[0]:
他昨天买的是菜
Literally, this means 'He yesterday buy of is vegetable', but the meaning is 'What he bought yesterday is vegetables'. The way the grammar in this sentence corresponds to its meaning may seem unusual to you, but it is effortless and natural to a Mandarin speaker. And these sorts of invisible grammatical features exist in every language. Most European languages descend from a common ancestor, so it is not so noticeable, and instead we notice the grammatical features that are different between languages: cases, gender, tenses, etc. And Esperanto, being based in these languages, also inherits these unnoticed grammatical biases. A Mandarin speaker learning Esperanto would have the same difficulty as an English speaker learning some Mandarin-derived conlang that 'simplified' certain visible grammatical features. Esperantists tout success in speakers of Asian languages learning Esperanto, but there are many more cases of speakers of Asian languages learning English.
Anyway, I don't think things like gender matter so much when it comes to the practical aspect of learning a language, or even mistakes in semantic grammatical features like case or tense. A native speaker isn't going to be unable to understand you because you flub some of the grammar such as the gender of some noun. Consider when you hear non-native English speakers make mistakes - are you unable to understand sentences like 'I go to bank' or 'Yesterday I eat restaurant'?
So these are the two flaws of Esperanto:
1. Esperanto's grammar is still very much Romance + Germanic-like, so ease of learning it is relative to familiarity with languages in those families.
2. To the extent that Esperanto's grammar is simpler, it doesn't particularly matter from a language acquisition perspective.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_grammar
他昨天买的是菜
Literally, this means 'He yesterday buy of is vegetable', but the meaning is 'What he bought yesterday is vegetables'. The way the grammar in this sentence corresponds to its meaning may seem unusual to you, but it is effortless and natural to a Mandarin speaker. And these sorts of invisible grammatical features exist in every language. Most European languages descend from a common ancestor, so it is not so noticeable, and instead we notice the grammatical features that are different between languages: cases, gender, tenses, etc. And Esperanto, being based in these languages, also inherits these unnoticed grammatical biases. A Mandarin speaker learning Esperanto would have the same difficulty as an English speaker learning some Mandarin-derived conlang that 'simplified' certain visible grammatical features. Esperantists tout success in speakers of Asian languages learning Esperanto, but there are many more cases of speakers of Asian languages learning English.
Anyway, I don't think things like gender matter so much when it comes to the practical aspect of learning a language, or even mistakes in semantic grammatical features like case or tense. A native speaker isn't going to be unable to understand you because you flub some of the grammar such as the gender of some noun. Consider when you hear non-native English speakers make mistakes - are you unable to understand sentences like 'I go to bank' or 'Yesterday I eat restaurant'?
So these are the two flaws of Esperanto:
1. Esperanto's grammar is still very much Romance + Germanic-like, so ease of learning it is relative to familiarity with languages in those families.
2. To the extent that Esperanto's grammar is simpler, it doesn't particularly matter from a language acquisition perspective.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_grammar
Esperanto is still one of the easiest languages for Chinese to learn and the grammar is not very European; it also has elements mostly found in Asian languages:
https://www.translationdirectory.com/article715.htm
The Chinese are actually one of the biggest supporters of Esperanto too, offering degrees in it from major universities, regular broadcasts on official radio and some years ago teaching it in primary school.
https://www.translationdirectory.com/article715.htm
The Chinese are actually one of the biggest supporters of Esperanto too, offering degrees in it from major universities, regular broadcasts on official radio and some years ago teaching it in primary school.
There are other, better-designed conlangs than Esperanto. Nobody speaks them, sure, but nobody speaks Esperanto either. And if we're going by popularity, might as well pick English anyway.
Esperanto has a pretty big, organised and active community.
But you're right. I also think popularity should be the decider. If Esperanto thinks it should be the chosen auxiliary language, it will have to earn it.
Personally though, I prefer Ido over Esperanto.
Personally though, I prefer Ido over Esperanto.
Define "pretty big".
Around year 2000 there were about 2 million speakers. It's way above any other conlang.
That's akin to being the biggest fish in a fishbowl. There are minor dialects of minor languages with more speakers.
The question was about conlangs, which have the advantage of being designed to be easier to learn.
Esperanto is so easy it can be learned in negative time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic_value_of_Espera....
Esperanto is so easy it can be learned in negative time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic_value_of_Espera....
Quenya would be a much better sounding option.
Too many people actually speak Klingon, and it was invented in the US. Non-starter.
It would be a cool sci-fi reference, yep.
[deleted]
Or Ido.
Doing so strikes me as being impractical in the extreme. English would still be the the lingua franca in every other domain, so it would just mean that Europeans would have one additional lingua franca to have to learn. It doesn't matter how easy that language is to learn, it's still an extra, and almost certainly redundant, effort.
I'm not going to bother finding the hyperlink for the relevant xkcd comic, because we've all seen it before.
I'm not going to bother finding the hyperlink for the relevant xkcd comic, because we've all seen it before.
A language with no literature or culture has no business in the halls of state. Such a language is arguably not even a language in the real sense, but a code. A vernacular is needed - language must live and evolve.
Esperantists have tried, creating a pale imitation of the real thing, as if culture were something you could bootstrap by mixing the right ingredients as you would some sort of cake.
No... We don't deserve this (not yet).
Are the Irish a joke to you?
It's worth remembering that in addition to not being one of the two historic mainland European powers whose languages happen to be the other working languages of the EU (and therefore unlikely to be jostling for supremacy in a post-Brexit EU), Ireland has been famously neutral during its existence as an independent nation. So I don't see what the problem is with characterising English as a "neutral" language in this context.
Every country in the EU can choose one language as the national language. Ireland chose Irish.
I _am_ Irish. Due to its small size, its small population, and comparative recency on the world stage, Ireland does not hold the same level of prestige or historical political clout in the EU as France, or Germany (or even the UK when it was a member).
You also forget about the Maltese. The combined population of the two would still make it a middling region of France like Grand Est or a somewhere between Rheinland-Pfalz and Hesse in the case of the German Länder.
You also forget about the Maltese. The combined population of the two would still make it a middling region of France like Grand Est or a somewhere between Rheinland-Pfalz and Hesse in the case of the German Länder.
Bear in mind, this kind of French bloodymindedness is why we have "UTC" - because if they couldn't have "temps universel coordonné" (TUC) then we damn-sure weren't going to have "coordinated universal time" (CUT).
UTC works out better anyway. TUC and CUT are both terrible choices. With UTC the focus is on Universal Time and nobody cares what the C is for.
Universal Time as Coordinated
The UTC abbreviation was made as a compromise between french and english[1] rather than bloody-mindedness from any one nation. This was back in the day when such compromises could be reached without rancour.
For an example of the daft amounts of human life expended on examples of such trivialities, look at the amount of effort spent on arguing if the Concorde airplane should terminate with or without an 'e'.[2]
[1] https://www.space.com/what-is-utc.html
[2] https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinet-office-100/the-s...
For an example of the daft amounts of human life expended on examples of such trivialities, look at the amount of effort spent on arguing if the Concorde airplane should terminate with or without an 'e'.[2]
[1] https://www.space.com/what-is-utc.html
[2] https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinet-office-100/the-s...
I did not know this was a thing! Fascinating!
As others said, this is just a French stunt during their 6-month presidency, which is being amplified in the Anglo press because of post-Brexit tensions. The actual working languages will stay the same. Half the Union would probably leave tomorrow, if French really became the dominant language.
One of the marvels of the EU institutional cathedral is the way they can manage effectively more than a dozen different languages. Yes, there are a handful of preferred ones, but in the end everything has to be translated to even the most obscure lingo. Sadly, instead of celebrating this epic taming of Babel, the French insist in narrow-minded cultural imperialism (as a reaction to Anglo-american imperialism, many of them would probably retort...), so they periodically pull these stunts. Nobody really cares, but if it keeps them invested in the Union, I'm happy to let them play king for 6 months.
One of the marvels of the EU institutional cathedral is the way they can manage effectively more than a dozen different languages. Yes, there are a handful of preferred ones, but in the end everything has to be translated to even the most obscure lingo. Sadly, instead of celebrating this epic taming of Babel, the French insist in narrow-minded cultural imperialism (as a reaction to Anglo-american imperialism, many of them would probably retort...), so they periodically pull these stunts. Nobody really cares, but if it keeps them invested in the Union, I'm happy to let them play king for 6 months.
Why not arabic? French is kind of obsolete.
Mandarin would open the EU to the largest number of speakers. Spanish would be a good second, if English is politically untenable, but of course it's already an official EU language so choosing it might annoy the other states.
Romansh is an European language not used in the EU; choosing it would level the playing field (and would not be so politically complex as another such like Basque).
Romansh is an European language not used in the EU; choosing it would level the playing field (and would not be so politically complex as another such like Basque).
> Mandarin would open the EU to the largest number of speakers
More people speak English than Mandarin and that language base represents a dramatically larger economy than Mandarin does.
The long-term trends favor English over Mandarin, not least of which is due to the difficulty of learning Mandarin vs English. The demographics underpinning Mandarin use are exceptionally bad in terms of direction, whereas the demographics underpinning English use globally are exceptionally good. The past 20 years has more than demonstrated the very low interest globally in Mandarin, despite the huge increase in China's importance and economy there has been no corresponding boom in the pick-up of Mandarin outside of China. In the next 20 years Mandarin will become a contracting language, while English will continue to expand globally. Over the time that China has been rapidly rising (since ~1990), English has only become more important globally, not less. Eventually, across this century, nearly as many people in China will speak English as Mandarin (they're very hard at work on achieving that; it'll be to their benefit and they full well know it).
More people speak English than Mandarin and that language base represents a dramatically larger economy than Mandarin does.
The long-term trends favor English over Mandarin, not least of which is due to the difficulty of learning Mandarin vs English. The demographics underpinning Mandarin use are exceptionally bad in terms of direction, whereas the demographics underpinning English use globally are exceptionally good. The past 20 years has more than demonstrated the very low interest globally in Mandarin, despite the huge increase in China's importance and economy there has been no corresponding boom in the pick-up of Mandarin outside of China. In the next 20 years Mandarin will become a contracting language, while English will continue to expand globally. Over the time that China has been rapidly rising (since ~1990), English has only become more important globally, not less. Eventually, across this century, nearly as many people in China will speak English as Mandarin (they're very hard at work on achieving that; it'll be to their benefit and they full well know it).
> More people speak English than Mandarin and that language base represents a dramatically larger economy than Mandarin does.
Oh I agree but I was jocularly speculating on multiple constraints, to whit English is unacceptable as it would imply something favourable about those damned splittists; Spanish would not be acceptable because it would elevate one European country's language above others (though wasn't that the de facto story about English before Brexit?) etc etc.
In a different comment I argued for English because is not the selected language of any EU country.
Hmm, German might be a good choice as it is the EU language of three nations, so has a "majority vote" :-)
Oh I agree but I was jocularly speculating on multiple constraints, to whit English is unacceptable as it would imply something favourable about those damned splittists; Spanish would not be acceptable because it would elevate one European country's language above others (though wasn't that the de facto story about English before Brexit?) etc etc.
In a different comment I argued for English because is not the selected language of any EU country.
Hmm, German might be a good choice as it is the EU language of three nations, so has a "majority vote" :-)
> Mandarin would open the EU to the largest number of speakers.
No, making Mandarin the working language of the EU bureaucracy wouldn't open the EU up to any additional people, and the vast majority of Mandarin speakers are subject to one government or another that has no interest in the EU (and particularly, for instance, being accountable to the European Convention on Human Rights.)
> Romansh is an European language not used in the EU; choosing it would level the playing field
No, it wouldn’t. In terms of making communication within the levels of the bureaucracy to which it applies all but impossible, sure.
Not sure why that would be the goal, though.
No, making Mandarin the working language of the EU bureaucracy wouldn't open the EU up to any additional people, and the vast majority of Mandarin speakers are subject to one government or another that has no interest in the EU (and particularly, for instance, being accountable to the European Convention on Human Rights.)
> Romansh is an European language not used in the EU; choosing it would level the playing field
No, it wouldn’t. In terms of making communication within the levels of the bureaucracy to which it applies all but impossible, sure.
Not sure why that would be the goal, though.
I’ve been trying to learn Arabic since 24 September last year. Notwithstanding that my effort so far has been merely one Duolingo lesson per day, I still can’t even manage the Arabic alphabet.
(Also: Obsolete? What?)
(Also: Obsolete? What?)
Is Arabic the official language of any EU country? Acording to Wikipedia[1], its not. Seems like a bizarre choice for official government business.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_European_Unio...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_European_Unio...
Maltese, which is the official language of Malta, is an Arabic dialect.
Obsolète? French is one of the most spoken languages in the world, accounting for nearly 300M daily speakers, and a few hundred million more secondary speakers (120M learning, and 70-100m partial speakers).¹
French is also the official language in 29 countries, which puts it in second place behind English, and is the official procedural language for EU courts and one of the core main languages for the UN.
Not only this, but several reports are saying that by 2050 nearly 700M will be speaking French²
¹. https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/how-many-people-speak-fre...
² https://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2014/03/21/...
French is also the official language in 29 countries, which puts it in second place behind English, and is the official procedural language for EU courts and one of the core main languages for the UN.
Not only this, but several reports are saying that by 2050 nearly 700M will be speaking French²
¹. https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/how-many-people-speak-fre...
² https://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2014/03/21/...
Sorry, but French is not even in the same league as Spanish or English, that boat departed long time ago.
The sane thing to do after the Brexit, was to embrace English as main language, since it has not become neutral ground!
According to Wikipedia we have:
* Germany: 56% English speakers, 14.5% French speakers
* Italy: 34% English vs. 19.43% French
* Spain: 22% English vs. 11.73% French
* Sweden: 89% English vs. 8% French
I can't get over how bad this decision is. How can you ignore these kinds of discrepancies?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-s...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_distribution_of_F...
According to Wikipedia we have:
* Germany: 56% English speakers, 14.5% French speakers
* Italy: 34% English vs. 19.43% French
* Spain: 22% English vs. 11.73% French
* Sweden: 89% English vs. 8% French
I can't get over how bad this decision is. How can you ignore these kinds of discrepancies?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-s...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_distribution_of_F...
Having it as a work language just means that they’ll pout if whatever document they’re sent isn’t in French for the 6 months they are in charge - nothing more.
No big deal.
No big deal.
Not really, the article says:
> “We will always ask the Commission to send us in French the letters it wishes to address to the French authorities, and if they fail to do so, we will wait for the French version before sending it,” the diplomat said.
"Send us French or consider your request to be second-class and ignored until you send us French".
> “We will always ask the Commission to send us in French the letters it wishes to address to the French authorities, and if they fail to do so, we will wait for the French version before sending it,” the diplomat said.
"Send us French or consider your request to be second-class and ignored until you send us French".
It’s seriously the most French thing ever
Before that it says:
> The unnamed diplomat said all high-level meetings of the Council – the body which helps sets the political agenda in Brussels – will be conducted in French instead of English during the six-month presidency.
It’s only during the Council, outside of the Council every country expects documents in their language.
> The unnamed diplomat said all high-level meetings of the Council – the body which helps sets the political agenda in Brussels – will be conducted in French instead of English during the six-month presidency.
It’s only during the Council, outside of the Council every country expects documents in their language.
Those meetings anyway have interpreters.
dharmach(1)
Anecdotally I can confirm those stats for Sweden. Some of the things I was blown away by in Sweden are:
1) Everyone's beautiful 2) Everyone's super tall. I'm 184cm and saw multiple women every day that were taller than me, let alone men. In the US it's quite rare for me to see women taller than me. 3) Everyone's rather slim. It's nice to see a population at healthier weights than what I'm used to in the US 4) Not once did I find somebody who couldn't speak English, from workers at train stations to museums to airports. It was crazy. In contrast, Germans being about 50/50 matches up with my experience. Italy felt lower than 1/3 even in Venice, but I spent much less time there.
Sweden sure is amazing; can't wait to visit again.
1) Everyone's beautiful 2) Everyone's super tall. I'm 184cm and saw multiple women every day that were taller than me, let alone men. In the US it's quite rare for me to see women taller than me. 3) Everyone's rather slim. It's nice to see a population at healthier weights than what I'm used to in the US 4) Not once did I find somebody who couldn't speak English, from workers at train stations to museums to airports. It was crazy. In contrast, Germans being about 50/50 matches up with my experience. Italy felt lower than 1/3 even in Venice, but I spent much less time there.
Sweden sure is amazing; can't wait to visit again.
184cm = 6ft
Okay, so this makes me wonder something.
So 6 foot tall (72in) is like a magic number for American men. That's like the threshold for manliness in popular culture. If you were to plot the self-reported heights men in America, you'd absolutely see a dip at 70 and 71 inches, then a big spike at 72in.
What's this magic number in various metric countries? 185cm seems like a sound choice, but I could see it being 190 in some places.
So 6 foot tall (72in) is like a magic number for American men. That's like the threshold for manliness in popular culture. If you were to plot the self-reported heights men in America, you'd absolutely see a dip at 70 and 71 inches, then a big spike at 72in.
What's this magic number in various metric countries? 185cm seems like a sound choice, but I could see it being 190 in some places.
[deleted]
180cm in Korea.
190cm (6'3) being a threshold for "manliness", as you say, has no bearing on actual human average sizes and might just be your personal bias showing.
I think there's definitely a threshold around 6' in English cultures, possibly 180 cm in Europe, but in my personal experience it's not seen an important metric as the magic 6' number in Anglo cultures.
I think there's definitely a threshold around 6' in English cultures, possibly 180 cm in Europe, but in my personal experience it's not seen an important metric as the magic 6' number in Anglo cultures.
> 190cm (6'3) being a threshold for "manliness", as you say, has no bearing on actual human average sizes and might just be your personal bias showing.
Of course it has no bearing on a actual sizes! That’s why the commenter says “manliness in popular culture” and “self-reported heights”. He’s making the point that lots of men who are slightly shorter than 6 feet will lie and say they are 6 feet tall, and wondering if there is a comparable number in cm.
Of course it has no bearing on a actual sizes! That’s why the commenter says “manliness in popular culture” and “self-reported heights”. He’s making the point that lots of men who are slightly shorter than 6 feet will lie and say they are 6 feet tall, and wondering if there is a comparable number in cm.
> What's this magic number in various metric countries?
There is no magic number here. The weird emphasis on height is very much an American peculiarity.
Some (maybe most) women don't want to be in a relationship with a guy smaller than them when they wear heels and some like tall guys but that's pretty much it.
There is no magic number here. The weird emphasis on height is very much an American peculiarity.
Some (maybe most) women don't want to be in a relationship with a guy smaller than them when they wear heels and some like tall guys but that's pretty much it.
The irony of this comment on this article is underrated.
I appreciate the translation, but you should annotate your post, otherwise you risk someone thinking you did it spitefully, as though cm were lesser units.
I ~think~ that's why someone downvoted you.
I ~think~ that's why someone downvoted you.
> as though cm were lesser units.
To be fair, a cm _is_ less than a foot
To be fair, a cm _is_ less than a foot
At some point people need to stop reading malicious intent into things without evidence.
Forgive my trespass. I meant no spite or ill will.
As an American, I had to converted the number to mm and the divided it by 25.4 and again by 12. I figured I save somebody else the trouble.
(I upvoted you.)
As an American, I had to converted the number to mm and the divided it by 25.4 and again by 12. I figured I save somebody else the trouble.
(I upvoted you.)
The other side of this is that there are some truly strange looking people as well. Like, almost matches the ideals in American media (which has been filled with Swedish models for nearly a century, setting our ideals from a young age) but an otherwise discarded iteration that would never be invited through our borders by the people already here. (The modeling agency, the au pair household, the guys.)
You can experience it in advance with Tinder Passport.
You can experience it in advance with Tinder Passport.
> Not once did I find somebody who couldn't speak English, from workers at train stations to museums to airports. It was crazy
It's crazier than that. I've moved to a small village in northern Sweden in the middle of nowhere, and everybody speaks English here, too.
> Everyone's rather slim.
Agreed, but Austria beats it - there, everyone is ripped :)
It's crazier than that. I've moved to a small village in northern Sweden in the middle of nowhere, and everybody speaks English here, too.
> Everyone's rather slim.
Agreed, but Austria beats it - there, everyone is ripped :)
What do point 1, 2 and 3 have to do with this thread?
In the real time strategy world (eg Starcraft, Warcraft), this strategy is called “turtling”. Perceived as low risk… it’s a defensive move aimed at creating moats in hopes that you buy enough time to out tech your competition; it rarely results in a win against any real player (which the US, Germans, Russians and Chinese are) and wastes everybody’s time by creating unnecessary friction. Reason often prevails over the long term thankfully.
It's not actually a decision yet, is it? It's just something the French want to do. Presumably everyone else will oppose it, for the reasons you gave.
Hamuko(1)
Ireland: 99% English
[deleted]
I doubt it's as low as that!
Malta and the Netherlands are other countries where a large majority also speak English.
In some places in the EU the UK's union jack flag is being replaced with the Irish tricolour on bank ATM's display of language choices, which amuses the Irish.
Malta and the Netherlands are other countries where a large majority also speak English.
In some places in the EU the UK's union jack flag is being replaced with the Irish tricolour on bank ATM's display of language choices, which amuses the Irish.
If you consider the alternative to be monolingual Irish speakers, for sure they're way less than 1%, but I imagine if you group them with monolingual Polish/Portugese/Chinese speakers, you might get up to a whole percent
According to the wikipedia page linked above
republic of ireland:
total english speakers 98.37%
as first languge 93.22%
For the UK the figures are: total speakers 98.3% as first language 92.3%
For the UK the figures are: total speakers 98.3% as first language 92.3%
That is funny.
For Sweden and Germany all (guess >99%) of the french speakers speak english way better then french. The amount of english we're exposed to is so massive and the french is basically non-existent.
This is such a useless egoistic move from the french, just accept that english is the lingua franca.
This is such a useless egoistic move from the french, just accept that english is the lingua franca.
I’m french and most of the content i watch is also in english, made mostly by americans with an american point of views and ways of resolving problems. Sometime in british english with british point of view.
I think it’s sad that that you don’t seem to realize that it’s a problem that most of the content we are exposed comes from a single culture.
As for the move, it’s totally useless, and if they wanted to be strongest against english they should have said “we’ll only accept communication in french or german” but that would have meant most of the communications would have been in german.
I think it’s sad that that you don’t seem to realize that it’s a problem that most of the content we are exposed comes from a single culture.
As for the move, it’s totally useless, and if they wanted to be strongest against english they should have said “we’ll only accept communication in french or german” but that would have meant most of the communications would have been in german.
I don’t understand, you think that switching to French will expose us to each single European country culture?
Haha, OP has no awareness of his/her bias!
> you don’t seem to realize that it’s a problem that most of the content we are exposed comes from a single culture.
I don't think GP's desire to minimise language barriers among 27 co-operating governments implies that they are oblivious to cultural bias.
I do think the latter is an issue worth addressing, but this is probably not an effective or appropriate way to do it.
I don't think GP's desire to minimise language barriers among 27 co-operating governments implies that they are oblivious to cultural bias.
I do think the latter is an issue worth addressing, but this is probably not an effective or appropriate way to do it.
OP's solution to cultural bias is to ignore it and just go with convenience.
Well, you have to start somewhere. But I agree that the only thing it's likely to do is annoy the heck out of everybody.
I think they said French because if they had said French or German the other bodies might have used only German just to annoy the French back.
Well, you have to start somewhere. But I agree that the only thing it's likely to do is annoy the heck out of everybody.
I think they said French because if they had said French or German the other bodies might have used only German just to annoy the French back.
I'm quite disillusioned about the future of the Union because of ridiculous stunts like this.
Using English exposes people to a certain way of thinking that is more linked to a set of cultures or traditions. It's an undeniable fact, both semantics and linguistics teach us that.
But if the aim is to help politicians think from a different perspective, French is a bad choice. If that was the purpose, a reasonable choice would be to opt for languages related to cultures of more practical rationality.. German or Scandinavian languages
Of course it's the French politicians who have the nerve to try impose their language. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that French culture is one of the most pedantic and nationalistic in Europe, to the detriment of the other members.
Using English exposes people to a certain way of thinking that is more linked to a set of cultures or traditions. It's an undeniable fact, both semantics and linguistics teach us that.
But if the aim is to help politicians think from a different perspective, French is a bad choice. If that was the purpose, a reasonable choice would be to opt for languages related to cultures of more practical rationality.. German or Scandinavian languages
Of course it's the French politicians who have the nerve to try impose their language. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that French culture is one of the most pedantic and nationalistic in Europe, to the detriment of the other members.
>a reasonable choice would be to opt for languages related to cultures of more practical rationality
That's essentialist nonsense. How are German or Scandinavian cultures more « practically rational » in an empirical sense ? Is there anything to it beyond short-sighted stereotypes ? That's not even getting to the fact that rationalism and positivism have French input stamped all over it, with German philosophy generally pulling in the exact opposite direction.
That's essentialist nonsense. How are German or Scandinavian cultures more « practically rational » in an empirical sense ? Is there anything to it beyond short-sighted stereotypes ? That's not even getting to the fact that rationalism and positivism have French input stamped all over it, with German philosophy generally pulling in the exact opposite direction.
Please do not attribute to me things I did not write.
I did not mention positivism, which is not necessarily embedded in the political environment we have today.
The main contributions in rationalism and empiricism are not French.
German philosophy is not generally positivist, but that’s not what I wrote.
I did not mention positivism, which is not necessarily embedded in the political environment we have today.
The main contributions in rationalism and empiricism are not French.
German philosophy is not generally positivist, but that’s not what I wrote.
> The main contributions in rationalism and empiricism are not French.
Are you certain of this? I can think of many contributions to rationalism and empiricism made by French speakers that I feel are important. The metric system, for instance, was in large part a French project [01].
Here are a few French rationalists and empiricists that came to my mind when I read your comment:
Alain Aspect
Contemporary exerimentalist known for work in quantum optics [02]
Louis de Broglie
Quantum physicist known for pioneering wave-particle duality [03]
Nicolas de Condorcet
Mathematician and leading figure of the enlightenment [04]
Rene Descartes
Philosopher and mathematician known for the Cartesian co-ordinate system [05]
Pierre de Fermat
Mathematician known for his eponymous last theorem [06]
Joseph-Louis Lagrange
Mathematician and astronomer known for Lagrangian mechanics and Lagrange points in astronomy [07]
Pierre-Simon Laplace
Polymath known for Laplace's Demon, among much else [08]
Antoine Lavoisier
Experimental chemist who named hydrogen and oxygen [09]
Blaise Pascal
Mathematician and inventor of an early mechanical calculator [10]
Louis Pasteur
Chemist and microbiologist who developed the germ theory of disease and invented Pasteurisation [11]
Henri Poincare
Mathematician, theoretical physicist and engineer [12]
Urbain le Verrier
Astronomer, discoverer of Neptune [13]
Full disclosure: I'm English.
[01] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_metric_system#T...
[02] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect
[03] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
[04]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Condorcet
[05] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
[06] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Fermat
[07] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph-Louis_Lagrange
[08] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace
[09] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal
[11]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbain_Le_Verrier
Are you certain of this? I can think of many contributions to rationalism and empiricism made by French speakers that I feel are important. The metric system, for instance, was in large part a French project [01].
Here are a few French rationalists and empiricists that came to my mind when I read your comment:
Alain Aspect
Contemporary exerimentalist known for work in quantum optics [02]
Louis de Broglie
Quantum physicist known for pioneering wave-particle duality [03]
Nicolas de Condorcet
Mathematician and leading figure of the enlightenment [04]
Rene Descartes
Philosopher and mathematician known for the Cartesian co-ordinate system [05]
Pierre de Fermat
Mathematician known for his eponymous last theorem [06]
Joseph-Louis Lagrange
Mathematician and astronomer known for Lagrangian mechanics and Lagrange points in astronomy [07]
Pierre-Simon Laplace
Polymath known for Laplace's Demon, among much else [08]
Antoine Lavoisier
Experimental chemist who named hydrogen and oxygen [09]
Blaise Pascal
Mathematician and inventor of an early mechanical calculator [10]
Louis Pasteur
Chemist and microbiologist who developed the germ theory of disease and invented Pasteurisation [11]
Henri Poincare
Mathematician, theoretical physicist and engineer [12]
Urbain le Verrier
Astronomer, discoverer of Neptune [13]
Full disclosure: I'm English.
[01] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_metric_system#T...
[02] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect
[03] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
[04]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Condorcet
[05] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
[06] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Fermat
[07] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph-Louis_Lagrange
[08] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace
[09] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal
[11]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbain_Le_Verrier
"The main contribution in rationalism and empiricism are not French" does not equal "French speakers did not contribute relevant knowledge in rationalism or empiricism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
Hindu and Greek philosophers, Islamic golden age, Italian renaissance, British empiricism, Scottish Enlightenment, Austrian/German empiricism, US Pragmatism, ...
I'm not trying to neglect French rationalists and empiricists. Of course they exist, ... together with the many other scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, ... from many other cultures. Each single culture contributed less than the sum of the others simply because rationalism and empiricism are the fruits of global knowledge.
When detailing reasons for pushing the adoption of French in Europe, Macron acknowledged the work of Victor Hugo, who "believed that French would be the language of Europe, would today perhaps be a little disappointed" and promoted the re-examination of past colonialism in Africa, seeking to use the language as a tool to "reset a complex history in the continent".
The reasons for pretending the use of French in Europe are nationalistic. In an incident, European diplomats defined "overly dramatic, a statement of anger that clearly need no translation" when a French diplomat left his chair empty after the Council decided to use only-English in a working group.
This development was foreseen in 2017 (pre-Brexit) when Mario Monti said "The EU, when the UK leaves, should take the decision of upgrading the use of the English language in EU affairs. I think we should upgrade the ways we use English and it should become the language of the EU. I exaggerate a bit - there should be a bit of French. It will be a very appropriate gesture to the UK. It would help us Europeans to become more competitive by using fewer languages."
The statements of Mario Monti was pragmatic, it defines an issue and propose a solution. The behaviour of French diplomats is stubborn and nationalistic.
Disclosing too that I'm Italian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
Hindu and Greek philosophers, Islamic golden age, Italian renaissance, British empiricism, Scottish Enlightenment, Austrian/German empiricism, US Pragmatism, ...
I'm not trying to neglect French rationalists and empiricists. Of course they exist, ... together with the many other scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, ... from many other cultures. Each single culture contributed less than the sum of the others simply because rationalism and empiricism are the fruits of global knowledge.
When detailing reasons for pushing the adoption of French in Europe, Macron acknowledged the work of Victor Hugo, who "believed that French would be the language of Europe, would today perhaps be a little disappointed" and promoted the re-examination of past colonialism in Africa, seeking to use the language as a tool to "reset a complex history in the continent".
The reasons for pretending the use of French in Europe are nationalistic. In an incident, European diplomats defined "overly dramatic, a statement of anger that clearly need no translation" when a French diplomat left his chair empty after the Council decided to use only-English in a working group.
This development was foreseen in 2017 (pre-Brexit) when Mario Monti said "The EU, when the UK leaves, should take the decision of upgrading the use of the English language in EU affairs. I think we should upgrade the ways we use English and it should become the language of the EU. I exaggerate a bit - there should be a bit of French. It will be a very appropriate gesture to the UK. It would help us Europeans to become more competitive by using fewer languages."
The statements of Mario Monti was pragmatic, it defines an issue and propose a solution. The behaviour of French diplomats is stubborn and nationalistic.
Disclosing too that I'm Italian.
I wouldn't dispute much of what you wrote above, but I do think the French contribution to empiricism and rationalism qualifies as major (difficult as these things are to measure), and that that contribution is at least similar to the other large European nations.
I understand there is a common perception that French academic culture has literary preoccupations, but I don't think the idea that those preoccupations have disadvantaged French science holds up to much scrutiny, much as one might want it to after listening to a fruitless monologue about Derrida.
It's heartening to me that there are people in the EU arguing in favour of pragmatic gestures of friendship to the UK as you point out; I'm all for it and hope it is continued and mutual, regardless of whether the UK is legally part of the organisation.
I understand there is a common perception that French academic culture has literary preoccupations, but I don't think the idea that those preoccupations have disadvantaged French science holds up to much scrutiny, much as one might want it to after listening to a fruitless monologue about Derrida.
It's heartening to me that there are people in the EU arguing in favour of pragmatic gestures of friendship to the UK as you point out; I'm all for it and hope it is continued and mutual, regardless of whether the UK is legally part of the organisation.
Why does it seem to be impossible for other cultures to compete with the Americans in the realm of movies, tv shows, music, etc.? Is it just a matter of money? Couldn’t the EU fund their own version of Hollywood?
Nah, the EU is too busy forcing upon its member states a new language and other political posturing.
It's actually not that hard to completely ban Hollywood from your watching for a while. Especially now with netflix and co. Honestly, from a German speaking pov, I don't see this being true anymore today.
Lots of countries compete well - India, Nigeria, the UK, France, Germany, Italy ...
But you're not going to find them in the US [much] if they're not in English
Here's some data from several years ago (couldn't find anything more recent in a quick scan) - https://screenville.blogspot.com/2009/06/production-world-ci...
Here's a related Quora post: https://www.quora.com/What-makes-British-television-at-least...
But you're not going to find them in the US [much] if they're not in English
Here's some data from several years ago (couldn't find anything more recent in a quick scan) - https://screenville.blogspot.com/2009/06/production-world-ci...
Here's a related Quora post: https://www.quora.com/What-makes-British-television-at-least...
Wouldn't you listen to more content (news, movies...) from European countries, if it was in a language you understand, that being English?
I'm in EU and would love for English to be the de facto language.
I think that is your personal interpretation and I am surprised at how angry your comment is.
I lived in the Netherlands, worked for an international organization and I still have a lot of friends who works (or worked) in Brussels. Few comments:
1. The level of profentiency in foreign language of people working for the European institutions is orders of magnitude higher than readers of HN. Not too mention translators. It's not rare to meet people speak 6 languages totally fluently. Switching languages for some working documents is almost a non-event beyond signaling. There will be zero impact for the rest of us.
2. I totally support a Europe where people speak foreign languages beyond English.
I lived in the Netherlands, worked for an international organization and I still have a lot of friends who works (or worked) in Brussels. Few comments:
1. The level of profentiency in foreign language of people working for the European institutions is orders of magnitude higher than readers of HN. Not too mention translators. It's not rare to meet people speak 6 languages totally fluently. Switching languages for some working documents is almost a non-event beyond signaling. There will be zero impact for the rest of us.
2. I totally support a Europe where people speak foreign languages beyond English.
Which circles do you wonder in that you do not rarely meet people who speak 6 languages fluently? Maybe I misunderstood, and you meant this for professional translators? I think I've yet to come across one such case in my life, and I live in Norway, where you can "cheat" by counting Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish as three separate, and English you get for free.
I'm German with significantly better command of the English language than French, but I don't at all mind that France is trying to popularize French. I don't want to live in a language mono-culture and it's sad that so much focus has been on English solely.
The appeal to the popularity of English is entirely circular. Obviously you're exposed to more English if nobody makes an effort to use another language. Not an argument against changing that state of affairs.
The appeal to the popularity of English is entirely circular. Obviously you're exposed to more English if nobody makes an effort to use another language. Not an argument against changing that state of affairs.
They could all just revert to a dead language everyone used to use and be done with petty grievances. Go back to Latin.
If you give Dutch politicians the choice of speaking French or Dutch with translators in an international meeting they will use English.
But I don't think the French really care about how other cultures work. It's all nationalist nonsense and living in the glorious past for them. See Strasbourg.
But I don't think the French really care about how other cultures work. It's all nationalist nonsense and living in the glorious past for them. See Strasbourg.
This behavior isn't limited to France. French Canada sure would like it if more people spoke French.
Perhaps this can be generalized? Language entitlement seems to be a thing among French speaking regions. Whether it's French Canada, French Belgium or France?
Funny to see so much drab posturing about our supposed « language entitlement » while almost calling for languages to be rolled over and wiped out by English.
I'm quite certain the position of French-Canadians has little to do with « entitlement », and more with how trapped they feel. Not that Anglo-Canadians would give a rats ass about the actual motives of Québec's cultural policy, as long as it can get weaponized for political currency.
Frankly this entire thread reeks.
I'm quite certain the position of French-Canadians has little to do with « entitlement », and more with how trapped they feel. Not that Anglo-Canadians would give a rats ass about the actual motives of Québec's cultural policy, as long as it can get weaponized for political currency.
Frankly this entire thread reeks.
This isn't about changing the native language to English, France gets to keep its French language. This is about using the language that most people understand in the entire EU. French is not that language, English is. The vote went probably like this... We can choose between French and German, cause Britain left the EU. German is disliked by more countries than French hence French won. The end result is we need more interpreters and it costs the tax payers more money.
> German is disliked by more countries than French hence French won.
French has also been a traditional common language or diplomacy and international relations. It's probably got more inertia going for it in those circles than German would.
French has also been a traditional common language or diplomacy and international relations. It's probably got more inertia going for it in those circles than German would.
That's good point, I suspect it's more a question of time before English replaces French in the UN and similar institutions though.
>This isn't about changing the native language to English, France gets to keep its French language
Ireland kept its Gaelic language. And nobody speaks it.
Ireland kept its Gaelic language. And nobody speaks it.
That development took 2 centuries, that's a pretty normal evolution to be honest. Languages grow and die organically.
Also I fail to see how this would impact the usage of French in France if the official language within the EU institution is English? The EU as an institution is comprised of a couple of thousand people from all over the EU, it would have no impact whatsoever on French as a spoken language. French is no longer the lingua franca, English is and therefore it makes more sense to use English as the common language within the EU institutions. Anything else is political currency as you so aptly mentioned.
Also I fail to see how this would impact the usage of French in France if the official language within the EU institution is English? The EU as an institution is comprised of a couple of thousand people from all over the EU, it would have no impact whatsoever on French as a spoken language. French is no longer the lingua franca, English is and therefore it makes more sense to use English as the common language within the EU institutions. Anything else is political currency as you so aptly mentioned.
Speaking as an anglophone I think you are entirely correct. Quebec is majority Francophone and has a right to stay that way. In addition it is also fun and interesting. This thread is clearly pitched at people that get off on Freedom Fries.
Who is saying they want languages to be wiped out by English? Using the most common language seems like a no brainer that doesn’t have to anything to do with wanting to hurt other languages.
[deleted]
Indulge us, what are those actual motives?
Not that I believe that the rest of Canada somehow has the moral high ground or something but what is going on in Quebec language wise is frankly completely non-understandable from an outsider's point of view. From that both sides have good and bad arguments in the debate but at this point things are just silly. It feels like a never ending blood feud. The vicious cycle has to be broken.
Yes the Anglos weren't nice to French speakers. I sympathize.
Now the French speakers want to legislate doing the same to Anglos? Are they crazy? Sorry but sympathy withdrawn immediately!
Not that I believe that the rest of Canada somehow has the moral high ground or something but what is going on in Quebec language wise is frankly completely non-understandable from an outsider's point of view. From that both sides have good and bad arguments in the debate but at this point things are just silly. It feels like a never ending blood feud. The vicious cycle has to be broken.
Yes the Anglos weren't nice to French speakers. I sympathize.
Now the French speakers want to legislate doing the same to Anglos? Are they crazy? Sorry but sympathy withdrawn immediately!
Even more so in the case of Quebec which sees itself as an enclave surrounded by English-speaking nations.
Well, that is because it _is_ an enclave in which speaking French is the majority "normal" and surrounded by provinces in which speaking English is normal.
If Quebec did not enforce language laws then English would end up driving out French except for decorative, heritage functions.
The result of the language laws is that we have a part of North America strongly bound in to not just a significant part of the EU but also to Vietnam, large parts of Africa and the rest of la Francophonie. Not a bad thing at all.
If Quebec did not enforce language laws then English would end up driving out French except for decorative, heritage functions.
The result of the language laws is that we have a part of North America strongly bound in to not just a significant part of the EU but also to Vietnam, large parts of Africa and the rest of la Francophonie. Not a bad thing at all.
With the advent of the internet and the new generations of Quebecers being mostly online, as well as being generally more educated in english than their parents through standard school curriculum, I expect this to change in the next hundred years. I’m 28 years old now and I welcome this future, being isolated has a great price.
The current government is certainly intent on reversing that tide though. Especially now with who has or hasn't the right to education in English.
It's mostly Africa. The presence in Vietnam and the rest of Asia has declined.
https://qz.com/africa/1428637/french-is-worlds-fifth-spoken-...
https://languagesinconflict.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/115/
https://qz.com/africa/1428637/french-is-worlds-fifth-spoken-...
https://languagesinconflict.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/115/
Strasbourg is probably more about economics than politics. Yes it would be a political loss but they could probably find an alternative (e.g. France said they'd be happy to give up Strasbourg if the ECB moves to France instead), the real deal is the billions it brings to the city.
Honest question, what about Strasbourg?
One of the two capitals of the EU. Why does the EU need two capitals? Because France wanted a win.
The European Parliament would love to pick up and leave Strasbourg, but it is legally bound to meet there several times a year for a full session despite the majority of its work being in Brussels.
The European Parliament would love to pick up and leave Strasbourg, but it is legally bound to meet there several times a year for a full session despite the majority of its work being in Brussels.
> One of the two capitals of the EU. Why does the EU need two capitals? Because France wanted a win.
Yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Strasbourg is the capital of a region which was highly contested between France and Germany and changed hands multiple times in the last two centuries and is seen as a symbole of the reconciliation between the two countries. It's also not linked at all with the fact it was already the seat of the Council of Europe when the parliament was put there.
Also, the EU doesn't have two capitals. It has none.
Yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Strasbourg is the capital of a region which was highly contested between France and Germany and changed hands multiple times in the last two centuries and is seen as a symbole of the reconciliation between the two countries. It's also not linked at all with the fact it was already the seat of the Council of Europe when the parliament was put there.
Also, the EU doesn't have two capitals. It has none.
As a general principle, the capital is wherever the seat of the Executive and Legislature is based from. The European Parliament is split between two cities, spending a minority of its time in Strasbourg. You don’t have to put it on paper to call it a capital.
The symbolic rhetorical cover is interesting, irrelevant, and fulfilled by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and other CoE institutions. More importantly, the European Union already symbolically represents a reconciliation between its member nations encompassing more than merely Germany and France.
Basing the European Parliament out of Strasbourg for a time may have made sense as it could share a building with an existing pan-European institution, but to keep it legally bound to continue spending a minority of the year there when the bulk of the EU’s institutions that the European Parliament is concerned with are in another city in another country is just silly and entirely rectifiable.
The symbolic rhetorical cover is interesting, irrelevant, and fulfilled by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and other CoE institutions. More importantly, the European Union already symbolically represents a reconciliation between its member nations encompassing more than merely Germany and France.
Basing the European Parliament out of Strasbourg for a time may have made sense as it could share a building with an existing pan-European institution, but to keep it legally bound to continue spending a minority of the year there when the bulk of the EU’s institutions that the European Parliament is concerned with are in another city in another country is just silly and entirely rectifiable.
> As a general principle, the capital is wherever the seat of the Executive and Legislature is based from.
That's what people call a de facto capital. Still the EU intentionaly has no capital in its laws.
> The symbolic rhetorical cover is interesting, irrelevant
It's in no way irrelevant nor a cover. It's the reason Strasbourg was selected as the seat of the parliement in the 50s.
You can't discard facts because they don't suit your worldview. I will personally stop this pointless discussion.
That's what people call a de facto capital. Still the EU intentionaly has no capital in its laws.
> The symbolic rhetorical cover is interesting, irrelevant
It's in no way irrelevant nor a cover. It's the reason Strasbourg was selected as the seat of the parliement in the 50s.
You can't discard facts because they don't suit your worldview. I will personally stop this pointless discussion.
> That's what people call a de facto capital.
It’s also what people just call a capital.
> It's in no way irrelevant nor a cover. It's the reason Strasbourg was selected as the seat of the parliement in the 50s.
In the 1950s.
First: the given justification for any policy decision particularly in democratic societies is always rhetorical. Rhetoric is intended to persuade. Factual accuracy is not mutually exclusive with rhetoric.
Second: It was in 1992 that the decision was made to keep the European Parliament in Strasbourg per the decision of Edinburgh European Council of 11 and 12 December 1992.[1]
Prior to this it was already located in Strasbourg, which for a time did make sense. However when the European Union chose to revisit this issue, it chose not to consolidate its institutions into one location, but to keep them spread apart and thus the European Parliament now splits its time between what are effectively two capital cities with all the additional overhead costs this incurs in the time and money of the taxpayers and the productivity of the MEPs and staff.
[1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/20492/1992_december_-_... [page 47] [pdf]
It’s also what people just call a capital.
> It's in no way irrelevant nor a cover. It's the reason Strasbourg was selected as the seat of the parliement in the 50s.
In the 1950s.
First: the given justification for any policy decision particularly in democratic societies is always rhetorical. Rhetoric is intended to persuade. Factual accuracy is not mutually exclusive with rhetoric.
Second: It was in 1992 that the decision was made to keep the European Parliament in Strasbourg per the decision of Edinburgh European Council of 11 and 12 December 1992.[1]
Prior to this it was already located in Strasbourg, which for a time did make sense. However when the European Union chose to revisit this issue, it chose not to consolidate its institutions into one location, but to keep them spread apart and thus the European Parliament now splits its time between what are effectively two capital cities with all the additional overhead costs this incurs in the time and money of the taxpayers and the productivity of the MEPs and staff.
[1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/20492/1992_december_-_... [page 47] [pdf]
Did you mean Straßburg?
Isn't it ironic that English is the Lingua Franca?
Thank you! I'm always saying "English is the Lingua Franca of the tech world"...and no one ever gets the joke.
Haha. What's sad, my galvanized friend, is the younger generation doesn't get my cataclysmic Wizard of Oz allusions. I'm just consulting with the rain.
[deleted]
No, because "lingua franca" derives from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Lingua_Franca which has nothing to do with French, apart from people who didn't understand it mistook it for "French".
Part of the empire the Franks founded was named "France" and France still traces its origins to Frankish kings. So connecting a trade language spoken by the empire-before-the-empire with the empire of France doesn't seem that far off-base to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks
From the wikipedia article on Mediterranean Lingua Franca
> Based mostly on Northern Italian languages (mainly Venetian and Genoese dialects) and secondarily from Occitano-Romance languages...
So it's not the "language of Franks".
Also,
> Lingua franca means literally "language of the Franks" in Late Latin, and originally referred specifically to the language that was used around the Eastern Mediterranean Sea as the main language of commerce. However, the terms "Franks" and "Frankish" were actually applied to all Western Europeans during the late Byzantine Period.
> Based mostly on Northern Italian languages (mainly Venetian and Genoese dialects) and secondarily from Occitano-Romance languages...
So it's not the "language of Franks".
Also,
> Lingua franca means literally "language of the Franks" in Late Latin, and originally referred specifically to the language that was used around the Eastern Mediterranean Sea as the main language of commerce. However, the terms "Franks" and "Frankish" were actually applied to all Western Europeans during the late Byzantine Period.
French was a minority language in modern day France for most of the region's history.
Great comment! I always presumed the term was an 18th-19th century coinage referring to French; had no idea it referred to a pidgin originating in the late middle ages. Thanks for the enlightenment!
Not really. Lingua Franca is not really related to French.
Its the most French thing I've seen in a long time, and it make me inordinately happy.
The french political class: "It eez time to stick eet to ze germans and ze eengleesh"
The french political class: "It eez time to stick eet to ze germans and ze eengleesh"
This has just reminded me about this:
http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/european-commission.html
http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/european-commission.html
It looks even worse outside of Western Europe. Bulgaria, Hungary, and Lithuania are more like 1 or 2% francophone, but at least 1/5 anglophone.
I'm no expert on international politics, but it seems like that would severely disadvantage these countries, wouldn't it? With a smaller pool of politicians and technocrats who are proficient in the working language of the EU, they'll have to rely more on translation, and will consequently be less able to communicate efficiently when representing their respective countries.
I'm no expert on international politics, but it seems like that would severely disadvantage these countries, wouldn't it? With a smaller pool of politicians and technocrats who are proficient in the working language of the EU, they'll have to rely more on translation, and will consequently be less able to communicate efficiently when representing their respective countries.
This is just a nationalist policy. Even the French don't think it's actually practical. It's just "see, France can push other countries around too".
* France: 0% proper English, 99.9% French
their English is terrîble
their English is terrîble
The ability of a native english speaker to speak any other language than their own is abysmal…
Not exactly surprising given the ubiquity of the English language. I always find it funny how it's used as a criticism of English speakers. We are no less able to learn other languages, it's just far less of a necessity. I can speak a bit of German, a bit of French, a bit of Japanese, a bit of Lingala, etc. Inevitably whenever I attempt to speak these languages in their native environments, I am spoken to in English. So I can learn them as a hobby but need to far less out of necessity.
Language arrangements at the Court of Justice of the European Union
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_10739/en/
"The Court needs a common language in which to conduct deliberations. That language is, by custom, French."
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_10739/en/
"The Court needs a common language in which to conduct deliberations. That language is, by custom, French."
I'm French and honestly I don't really care that much about that but for some reason if I had to choose, I'd rather have EU things done in German for example than English, that would make much more sense to me (even though I speak some English and really no German).
Can you elaborate on your reasons?
It's hard to say but somehow it feels to me that English is the language of "the competition" (the US). It might feel anecdotal to many people, but language is a powerful tool. It's how so many French people consume so many US series and music (and btw we are probably one of the country which are the most protective on this). And https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/02/opinion/france-cnews-amer...
It's not by chance that many invaders tend to force their language to country they invade (the French being no exception, they did both in former colonies and in our own current territory during the French revolution - that's actually a very hot topic currently in France, as some "immersive teaching" of regional languages were found unconstitutional a few days ago)
And well, I'd rather be more German than more American. But I'm one of those who feel more EUropean than french, so maybe that's why :)
It's not by chance that many invaders tend to force their language to country they invade (the French being no exception, they did both in former colonies and in our own current territory during the French revolution - that's actually a very hot topic currently in France, as some "immersive teaching" of regional languages were found unconstitutional a few days ago)
And well, I'd rather be more German than more American. But I'm one of those who feel more EUropean than french, so maybe that's why :)
i would guess “anything but english”, and German is more spoken in the EU than french.
My dad told me some time ago that for certain "low risk" documents, the EU distributed them in Norwegian to the Danish and Swedish camps, despite Norway not being in EU. The point being that both can read Norwegian sufficiently, and it saved one translation.
Not sure if it's still done this way.
Not sure if it's still done this way.
Definitely not. All documents have to be in the official languages.
I think embracing english as the main language of the EU is the worst idea since Brexit. It’s anything but neutral. It’s a concession made to the brits and a trojan for the Americans. They left, they can f right off and take their piss poor excuse of a language with them. It works for programming, insults and not much else. If they hadn’t joined the EU to sabotage it, maybe english wouldn’t be as popular in the EU.
Let’s force the 3 letter agencies to improve their deep learning NLP models for other languages.
Nobody speaks it in the EU, but if we’re going with popular languages i also don’t think mandarin would be an appropriate language.
I’m french and I think there should be a common EU language, and for political purpose it should a truly neutral language, like Esperanto or another novlang.
(Or maybe french should become the lingua franca of the EU if French official communications to the EU could only be in German)
Latin is rooted in catholicism, which is anything but neutral in terms of history and human rights.
Let’s level the playing field a bit, there is enough english in the world.
[this post made in english, and I write most often in english because nobody reads french compared to english]
Let’s force the 3 letter agencies to improve their deep learning NLP models for other languages.
Nobody speaks it in the EU, but if we’re going with popular languages i also don’t think mandarin would be an appropriate language.
I’m french and I think there should be a common EU language, and for political purpose it should a truly neutral language, like Esperanto or another novlang.
(Or maybe french should become the lingua franca of the EU if French official communications to the EU could only be in German)
Latin is rooted in catholicism, which is anything but neutral in terms of history and human rights.
Let’s level the playing field a bit, there is enough english in the world.
[this post made in english, and I write most often in english because nobody reads french compared to english]
What a depressingly resentful and scornful take against op’s well reasoned comment. Taking a position is fine, shouting through your keyboard is discouraged.
I have nothing against op’s well written and documented comment but it is describing the status quo.
it’s like saying cobol is the most used programming language, why use java or python?
it’s like saying cobol is the most used programming language, why use java or python?
OP is describing the logical reason for english, i’m presenting the emotional reasons against it.
> I write most often in english because nobody reads french compared to english
The irony.
The irony.
English is a great choice because it is a second language for every country, which puts them on equal footing and helps them communicate (with the world as well). Native speakers are the hardest to understand because they suffer from the curse of knowledge.
(Latin is oppressive? I’ve heard it all. Better tell the scientists.)
(Latin is oppressive? I’ve heard it all. Better tell the scientists.)
> Nobody speaks it in the EU
English is one of the two official languages of Ireland.
Either way, I think everything you've said is basically beside the point because English is the primary international language of the business and science worlds. That's why virtually all airports everywhere in the world have English signage and announcements, that's why many international university lectures are in English. It's very practical.
For better or for worse, that's how it is, and choosing another language based on some principle of neutrality (which certainly won't really be neutral, because anyone's definition of neutrality will be biased) is going against the flow. Something like Esperanto would actually be an especially terrible choice given that there's almost no one who speaks it and virtually no entertainment media that uses it, which makes it far more difficult to learn.
Learning languages is hard enough as it is. As someone who lived in Tokyo and studied Japanese full time, it's something you really need to be motivated for to make it work.
English is one of the two official languages of Ireland.
Either way, I think everything you've said is basically beside the point because English is the primary international language of the business and science worlds. That's why virtually all airports everywhere in the world have English signage and announcements, that's why many international university lectures are in English. It's very practical.
For better or for worse, that's how it is, and choosing another language based on some principle of neutrality (which certainly won't really be neutral, because anyone's definition of neutrality will be biased) is going against the flow. Something like Esperanto would actually be an especially terrible choice given that there's almost no one who speaks it and virtually no entertainment media that uses it, which makes it far more difficult to learn.
Learning languages is hard enough as it is. As someone who lived in Tokyo and studied Japanese full time, it's something you really need to be motivated for to make it work.
The EU has a 6-month rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
So this is the President of France postulating that when his country takes the Presidency next year, he will use that to push French to be the next working language. I don’t know what the President of the Council of Europe does besides Chair meetings, but apparently it includes setting the language for which the meetings will be held in.
So this isn’t something the EU as a whole has determined will be policy going forward, more like the first guy to drop his pants in a newly opened frontier for dick-waving. If this was something the President of the Council of the European Union could do unilaterally anyway, then my read is that Emmanuel Macron would have pulled this stunt, Brexit or no Brexit, and Brexit is just convenient political cover.
More likely this won’t last more than the 6 months that France has the Presidency, and it will be amusing to see if say, Hungary the next time they have the Presidency insists on high level communications in Hungarian.
So this is the President of France postulating that when his country takes the Presidency next year, he will use that to push French to be the next working language. I don’t know what the President of the Council of Europe does besides Chair meetings, but apparently it includes setting the language for which the meetings will be held in.
So this isn’t something the EU as a whole has determined will be policy going forward, more like the first guy to drop his pants in a newly opened frontier for dick-waving. If this was something the President of the Council of the European Union could do unilaterally anyway, then my read is that Emmanuel Macron would have pulled this stunt, Brexit or no Brexit, and Brexit is just convenient political cover.
More likely this won’t last more than the 6 months that France has the Presidency, and it will be amusing to see if say, Hungary the next time they have the Presidency insists on high level communications in Hungarian.
> I don’t know what the President of the Council of Europe does besides Chair meetings, but apparently it includes setting the language for which the meetings will be held in.
Please excuse my pedantry, but you've misspoken here: the European Council, the Council of the European Union, and the Council of Europe are three different things; and here you've accidentally said the third when you meant to speak of the second. The first two are EU institutions–the European Council is senior to the Council of the European Union, in the former EU member states are represented by heads of state or government, in the later they are represented by the ministers responsible for various policy areas (finance, agriculture, trade, transport, education, etc). The Council of Europe, by contrast, is a separate international organisation from the EU, with a much broader membership – it includes the vast majority of European countries; it is most famous for hosting the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), although it is active in other policy areas as well.
And all three have a presidency. The President of the European Council is an individual, currently former Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel. He doesn't take orders from the Belgian government, he is truly independent. By contrast, the presidencies of the Council of the European Union, and the Council of Europe, are held by governments not by individuals. The presidency of the Council of the European Union rotates every six months, it is currently held by Portugal, Slovenia is up next. Likewise, the presidency of the Council of Europe rotates every six months; currently it is held by Hungary.
Please excuse my pedantry, but you've misspoken here: the European Council, the Council of the European Union, and the Council of Europe are three different things; and here you've accidentally said the third when you meant to speak of the second. The first two are EU institutions–the European Council is senior to the Council of the European Union, in the former EU member states are represented by heads of state or government, in the later they are represented by the ministers responsible for various policy areas (finance, agriculture, trade, transport, education, etc). The Council of Europe, by contrast, is a separate international organisation from the EU, with a much broader membership – it includes the vast majority of European countries; it is most famous for hosting the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), although it is active in other policy areas as well.
And all three have a presidency. The President of the European Council is an individual, currently former Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel. He doesn't take orders from the Belgian government, he is truly independent. By contrast, the presidencies of the Council of the European Union, and the Council of Europe, are held by governments not by individuals. The presidency of the Council of the European Union rotates every six months, it is currently held by Portugal, Slovenia is up next. Likewise, the presidency of the Council of Europe rotates every six months; currently it is held by Hungary.
> Please excuse my pedantry, but you've misspoken here: the European Council, the Council of the European Union, and the Council of Europe are three different things; and here you've accidentally said the third
Yes, yes I did and I did not catch it, and I’m outside the Edit window as well.
It seems not even I can keep up with Europe’s love of councils.
Yes, yes I did and I did not catch it, and I’m outside the Edit window as well.
It seems not even I can keep up with Europe’s love of councils.
This comment brightened my morning.
I'd like to add something substantive, but the two parent posts already noted everything I would have.
I'd like to add something substantive, but the two parent posts already noted everything I would have.
Just the number of councils with similar sounding names makes the whole EU project sound like satire.
The EU has one of those "ideas" websites where people can post and vote on proposals. (Of course, most proposals are going to go nowhere, but maybe it will put the idea in the head of some bureaucrat somewhere.)
And their idea website already has a proposal posted to rename the European Council and Council of the European, in order to reduce confusion with the Council of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/processes/OtherIdeas/f/8/proposals...
And their idea website already has a proposal posted to rename the European Council and Council of the European, in order to reduce confusion with the Council of Europe: https://futureu.europa.eu/processes/OtherIdeas/f/8/proposals...
Thanks for providing some insight into the inner workings. It’s worrying seeing one of the nominal leaders of a union of over half a billion people succumb to these pressures. Clearly he is intelligent and perceptive enough to understand the consequences.
And besides the long term costs that can be reasoned out, all sorts of emotions, insecurities, etc., will undoubtedly come flying out from many quarters.
I doubt if these sorts of topics can be discussed calmly by anyone invested in the change.
And besides the long term costs that can be reasoned out, all sorts of emotions, insecurities, etc., will undoubtedly come flying out from many quarters.
I doubt if these sorts of topics can be discussed calmly by anyone invested in the change.
> Clearly he is intelligent and perceptive enough to understand the consequences.
Yes. The consequences are hopefully getting re-elected as a moderate at a time when right-wing populism and nationalistic rhetoric is popular. The next French election is next year.
If this is what it takes to keep Le Pen out then consider ourselves fortunate.
Yes. The consequences are hopefully getting re-elected as a moderate at a time when right-wing populism and nationalistic rhetoric is popular. The next French election is next year.
If this is what it takes to keep Le Pen out then consider ourselves fortunate.
I mean, this language stunt is quite harmless, but you can only appease the rightwing nationalist a certain way, before you become one of them.
I'm from Spain (but also a native French speaker) and I totally agree.
I haven't done the math, but I'd bet in the EU there are probably more English speakers than any other native language.
I haven't done the math, but I'd bet in the EU there are probably more English speakers than any other native language.
Let's not forget about Ireland.
You're sampling the wrong population - what you're doing is akin to finding the most popular "development environment" in a company by asking the entire staff complement (including those in marketing, facilities management and finance) their proficiencies. You're likely to settle on Excel as the preferred tech platform. Instead of asking everyone, ask your developers who'll be doing the actual work.
I don't think those numbers would change a lot if you asked people from the working demography.
I know very little people my age that speak enough French to be able to work, however, everyone I know my age speaks English.
I know very little people my age that speak enough French to be able to work, however, everyone I know my age speaks English.
I'm curious what do you mean by "bad" in that context? In my book, asking people to practice or learn a new language is not inerently bad.
Decision-making should not be reduced to the law of the majority. If Europe wants to push people to learn and practice more foreign languages, I'm all for it. (Disclosure: that starts with me, I speak 3 languages and I'm learning a fourth one).
Decision-making should not be reduced to the law of the majority. If Europe wants to push people to learn and practice more foreign languages, I'm all for it. (Disclosure: that starts with me, I speak 3 languages and I'm learning a fourth one).
The head of the English department of my local community college (in the US) told me that it takes about 7 years of study for an average immigrant's English to get good enough that native speakers start wanting to have conversations with the immigrant. Some people require much less time, but for most people, learning a new language (particularly learning to speak it and not just read it) is a very large investment in time.
Some claim that learning a second language will make a person better at thinking -- or confer other broad advantages, but I am unconvinced by the evidence I have seen for those claims.
To improve him or herself and his or her society, the person would do better to spend the time he or she would have spent learning a second language learning science, history, technology and practical arts.
Switzerland wants its young people to study both French and German because it wants to remain one country and to avoid splitting into a German-speaking country and a French-speaking one. That is an example where it makes sense to advocate and to encourage bilingualism IMO. I have a lot of sympathy for the Swiss policy of encouraging bilingualism. I have much less sympathy for the general belief that bilingualism and trilingualism are good in themselves. Human lives are short; people should focus their learning on the things that most advance themselves and their societies.
I guess you could argue that all of Europe is in a milder version of the Switzerland situation: that it is necessary for European individuals to invest a lot into learning second and third language to keep Europe integrated and to prevent wars from breaking out. Maybe that is the root of the belief among Europeans that it is good to learn multiple languages.
But I can't help notice that if there were a button that when pushed, makes it so that all of Europe (or all of the world) magically becomes fluent in the same language, I would vote for pushing the button: the advantages are great (namely, freeing up time currently devoted to the learning of second and third European languages for learning more potent things) and the risks are low IMO (the main risk being the small probability that different languages really do confer on their learners significantly different cognitive strengths and weaknesses).
Some claim that learning a second language will make a person better at thinking -- or confer other broad advantages, but I am unconvinced by the evidence I have seen for those claims.
To improve him or herself and his or her society, the person would do better to spend the time he or she would have spent learning a second language learning science, history, technology and practical arts.
Switzerland wants its young people to study both French and German because it wants to remain one country and to avoid splitting into a German-speaking country and a French-speaking one. That is an example where it makes sense to advocate and to encourage bilingualism IMO. I have a lot of sympathy for the Swiss policy of encouraging bilingualism. I have much less sympathy for the general belief that bilingualism and trilingualism are good in themselves. Human lives are short; people should focus their learning on the things that most advance themselves and their societies.
I guess you could argue that all of Europe is in a milder version of the Switzerland situation: that it is necessary for European individuals to invest a lot into learning second and third language to keep Europe integrated and to prevent wars from breaking out. Maybe that is the root of the belief among Europeans that it is good to learn multiple languages.
But I can't help notice that if there were a button that when pushed, makes it so that all of Europe (or all of the world) magically becomes fluent in the same language, I would vote for pushing the button: the advantages are great (namely, freeing up time currently devoted to the learning of second and third European languages for learning more potent things) and the risks are low IMO (the main risk being the small probability that different languages really do confer on their learners significantly different cognitive strengths and weaknesses).
I’ve worked with lots of non-native English speakers. We “dumb down” our language the the level of the least fluent.
It isn’t really English. It’s “work English.”
I bet a lot more people speak “work English” than are fluent in the full language.
It isn’t really English. It’s “work English.”
I bet a lot more people speak “work English” than are fluent in the full language.
Swiss here. Many if not most not actually speak two languages (we have 4 btw) or at least not enough to have actual conversations. I even know people who live in split cities (also that's a thing, one river side German and one french) who basically avoid the French side and barely speak it either.
There are many exceptions to this for sure, after all German part has french for like 4 years at school. And older people more likely actually learned the language to the point of speaking it, younger people are usually much more skilled in English as their second language whatever they are French, German.
There are many exceptions to this for sure, after all German part has french for like 4 years at school. And older people more likely actually learned the language to the point of speaking it, younger people are usually much more skilled in English as their second language whatever they are French, German.
Just as stupid as the plan to travel between Brussels and Strassbourg
Everybody uses Javascript, why use another programming language? English is newspeak.
They should just replace English as one of the three working language of the EU with esperanto / ido / interlingua or another conlang.
They should just replace English as one of the three working language of the EU with esperanto / ido / interlingua or another conlang.
[deleted]
> when it takes over the Council of the European Union presidency in 2022
So it’s only for 6 months, then back to English.
So it’s only for 6 months, then back to English.
What does Ireland think of this?
This is a non-story. There are three working languages of the EU: English, French and German. Everyone in Brussels will roll their eyes, use French for six months and then revert to English because it’s the one most people speak.
Would they have done this if Brexit hadn’t happened? Yes, they would. France has a chip on its shoulder about French being replaced as the world’s lingua franca, but stunts like this aren’t going to bring it back. Not even in Brussels.
Would they have done this if Brexit hadn’t happened? Yes, they would. France has a chip on its shoulder about French being replaced as the world’s lingua franca, but stunts like this aren’t going to bring it back. Not even in Brussels.
> Not even in Brussels.
Most people in Brussels already speak French... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francization_of_Brussels
Most people in Brussels already speak French... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francization_of_Brussels
Brussels being an phrase often used to mean EU governmental officials and diplomats.
Most of them live in Brussels and speak at least casual French.
[deleted]
I am quite sure they do. But the point was that those EU institutions will revert to using English as their main working language as they have been before the French turn at presidency of the EU begins.
You can live in Brussels just fine without speaking French
Yep, but this is more of an exception, still.
Indeed, it's mostly a non issue. There are so many translators working for EU institutions, that I don't see how it would change much.
English is the new Lingua Franca. ;-)
La grandeur.
Ultimately it will be JavaScript anyway :)
We will invent something to transpile english to french.
This is too funny to take seriously.
> "...Globish – that ersatz of the English language, which narrows the scope of one’s thoughts..."
So the EU's argument in Le Figaro is basically the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?
So the EU's argument in Le Figaro is basically the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?
Fun fact, english in England and in the US is spoken badly. The real majority decides, that is… India!
I say if you want a universal language everyone should learn Latin. Now you won't offend anyone. Except the French.
Pretty offensive to me.
Joking aside, it's a shame Esperanto didn't catch on. One of its features is that it's fairly easy to learn, unlike something like Latin.
Latin is pretty easy to learn. That’s one reason it was a second language for so long.
Latin even has a large amount of texts written at a basic level. Works like Summa Theologica and the Vulgate Bible were written in extremely simple language.
It has a very small vocabulary. There are some weird edge cases (imperative plural, for example), but even they follow common rules.
Latin even has a large amount of texts written at a basic level. Works like Summa Theologica and the Vulgate Bible were written in extremely simple language.
It has a very small vocabulary. There are some weird edge cases (imperative plural, for example), but even they follow common rules.
Well it's a growing movement, so it's still catching on. Who knows, it could become popular enough one day.
Growing for a century and a half, still spoken by fewer people than minor dialects of minor languages.
Time is not really a good measurement in this case. It was doing quite well until it was unfortunately nearly killed off by WW2. It's recent rise in popularity has been due to the tools people have been given to create and host various forms of media and learning platforms on the internet.
If you poll, you will find today that most people will not be aware of the concept of an international auxiliary language. This gives the adoption of one (not necessarily Esperanto) some kind of hope.
If you poll, you will find today that most people will not be aware of the concept of an international auxiliary language. This gives the adoption of one (not necessarily Esperanto) some kind of hope.
In case there are any other French-reading Latin-philes out there: https://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/culture/et-si-la-langue-officiel...
I guess that is one of the few good things to be colonized by the Brits as a colony - they gave us fish & chips , tea , soccer , cricket and their language.
Wait until you learn where they got the tea...
[deleted]
I used to be against the French protectionism of its language, or the fact that research papers in China was written in Chinese. 'Why not just all speak English?', I thought back then. But then I learned French. More importantly I learned that when you speak another language, at a certain level (close to fluent), you realise that language is not only about communication.
Language is also about thinking. You realise that thinking in another language actually is totally different. It gives you different perspectives, different ways to understand things and, I would argue, different thoughts altogether.
From that point on, I am now of the opinion that we need to protect, and use, more languages, not fewer. Not because of their cultural and historical value but because of their possibility to open up for completely seperate ways of thinking.
From that point on, I am now of the opinion that we need to protect, and use, more languages, not fewer. Not because of their cultural and historical value but because of their possibility to open up for completely seperate ways of thinking.
English is already a second language to most of the people in the European Union.
Almost no-one has english as first language in EU. Also most younger people speak at least 2 languages. Only older folks and people that lives in rural areas speak only one language.
I know. I am European. I've been bilingual my entire life. Today I speak four languages. The point was not that speaking two languages is enough, what I meant is that I believe having more languages around in general increases the diversity also of our ideas and thoughts. That is why I, today, feel like protecting languages have a very valid point.
Somehow this made wonder if Esperanto or at least the idea behind it that we can come up with one common language to use worldwide. If that was actually successful we might have less of this nonsense but then again good luck having everyone agreeing on something ... Hmm oh well
A single, permanent auxiliary language will never be implemented as long as people can make a repeated choice. Like with this storey, official languages will flip-flop based on power struggles. If there ever was an official auxiliary language though, I would wish it to be Ido.
> if that was actually successful
It was successful. That language is English, the obvious choice agreed upon by everyone who isn't interested in playing idiotic political games.
It was successful. That language is English, the obvious choice agreed upon by everyone who isn't interested in playing idiotic political games.
Yeah for you yes, for others it's synonym with colonialism, and armed invasion.
And for me the word "chair" is synonymous with "Mountain Dew", but fortunately it doesn't matter for the rest of the world. A language has nothing to do with some of its speakers.
Not an issue in Europe.
Not sure who's "you", considering I'm not a native speaker. But that's besides the point, conflating the English language with the foreign policy of the United States is exactly the kind of idiotic political game I was talking about.
Esperanto is the Linux of languages.
That's way too generous. Linux at least dominates in servers and smartphones.
And Linux is much more sensible than Esperanto. It is also very eurocentric, which would be ok in this context. But it really is mostly just romance/germanic language based, slavic and other languages are basically ignored.
France going for the tower of Babel.
Nobody should take any reporting about EU in the UK press at face value.
Ok so Politico then? https://www.politico.eu/article/in-2022-make-french-language...
This site is hilarious. It says .eu but supposed European news are just UK news. Need I sa more?
The front page is covered in non-UK news though? So yes you really need to say more I think. I think we're beyond speculation that this is a story concocted by the UK media - it's picked up in France too https://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/monde/la-presidence-francaise-de...
Frankly, I have no idea what you mean. I just opened the site again and first page is 50% US news, 40% UK and 10% dedicated to whatever...
Well right now Joe Biden has just started a visit to European countries (note the main section on that front page is "Biden in Europe"). This has kicked off in the UK where one of the main points has been the post-Brexit situation with Northern Ireland. As he visits other countries I imagine they will be the focus of the "Biden In Europe" section on that frontpage. Other than those stories I can see:
- Belarusian exiles fear Lukashenko’s reach
- Macron to Johnson: Not serious to want to review Brexit’s NI protocol
- Jail term for man who slapped Emmanuel Macron in the face
- European Parliament calls for end of caged farming by 2027
- Belarusian exiles fear Lukashenko’s reach
- POLITICO Brussels Playbook: Keeping up with the Johnsons — If Biden says so — Good news for Fidesz
- 7 ways Euro 2020 could turn political
Could it be that it's just showing different based on location? I'm based in Central Europe, if you're in the UK or USA that might explain a shift in focus? I dunno, I'm guessing but either way we're way off piste here - if you guys still believe the story about France switching the main language of the EU to French during their presidency is a UK media hoax, then I guess we'll see soon enough.
- Belarusian exiles fear Lukashenko’s reach
- Macron to Johnson: Not serious to want to review Brexit’s NI protocol
- Jail term for man who slapped Emmanuel Macron in the face
- European Parliament calls for end of caged farming by 2027
- Belarusian exiles fear Lukashenko’s reach
- POLITICO Brussels Playbook: Keeping up with the Johnsons — If Biden says so — Good news for Fidesz
- 7 ways Euro 2020 could turn political
Could it be that it's just showing different based on location? I'm based in Central Europe, if you're in the UK or USA that might explain a shift in focus? I dunno, I'm guessing but either way we're way off piste here - if you guys still believe the story about France switching the main language of the EU to French during their presidency is a UK media hoax, then I guess we'll see soon enough.
I didn't learn English to understand British. I learned it to understand Americans. So nothing changed for me.
As a non European I find this hillarious and childish.
It is a typical French thing. Since they don't have a global influence anymore since WW2, all they can do is throw hissy fits.
A lot of Africans would strongly disagree that France has no "global influence". There are an awful lot of French troops deployed somewhere in Africa right now, and an awful number of African countries still use a French-controlled currency.
They just keep playing the imperialism game in a very old-fashioned way, with little care for modern sensibilities.
They just keep playing the imperialism game in a very old-fashioned way, with little care for modern sensibilities.
I'm not sure it's quite that simple - they've held the Presidency multiple times in this period but as far as I know they've not performed an action like this. There's certainly something going on, but it's not just a hissy fit. As others have mentioned it's only for the duration of the French presidency, it'll probably get switched to English when the Czech presidency begins.
The next Presidential elections are early next year, that's why. Macron wants to look more important/relevant, and a keeper of french values and cultural importance.
Put that way it doesn't sound much like a typical French thing or a hissy fit, but the sort of thing politicians everywhere do. It's dumb and petty and will probably backfire somehow, but there we go.
They should just flip the ECs English Style Guide to use Americanisms whenever possible (short of flipping the date and numerical formats or using freedum units).
Teach everyone to spell it "color" in Europe if you want to be petty back at the Brits.
Teach everyone to spell it "color" in Europe if you want to be petty back at the Brits.
[deleted]
Tl;dr
>Drawing up plans for French to replace English as the official “working language” of the EU in 2022.
We could pretty much move on until this actually go somewhere or anywhere. And there are enough ( obvious ) reasons listed in other comments.
>Drawing up plans for French to replace English as the official “working language” of the EU in 2022.
We could pretty much move on until this actually go somewhere or anywhere. And there are enough ( obvious ) reasons listed in other comments.
Anyone living in France and knowing how Emmanuel Macron has behaved those past few years can say without a doubt that this article cannot be further from the truth.
He has been scorned several times for using English too much, eg for diplomacy between non English speaking countries
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/politique/emmanuel-macron/video-... (sorry, in French :) )
holyknight(1)
I have had French coworkers at a couple of jobs and all of them speak decent English. Can't be arsed to learn French.
The weird thing is that the EU doesn’t have a rule on languages already set in a way which puts this out of the reach of an arbitrary dictat of the current holder of the rotating Presidency.
Though I suspect this might be thr impetus for changing that once France’s term expires.
Though I suspect this might be thr impetus for changing that once France’s term expires.
The irony here is that English is widely spoken mainly because it is the dominant language in America, a superpower where people resolutely refuse to learn any other languages.
Even if France's motivations are purely nationalistic, it's really no different or worse than how we arrived at the status quo.
Even if France's motivations are purely nationalistic, it's really no different or worse than how we arrived at the status quo.
So we have massive economic problems, some states on the verge of bankruptcy, a lost generation in Southern Europe, a currency under constant attack, autocratic tendencies and overall differences on social issues in the East, an immigration crisis from Africa and the Near East, threats to the sovereignity of neighbouring countries, literal slums in Rumania and Bulgaria. We are losing the economic battle against the US and China, the militiary one against Russia. We cannot convince either of those to do anything meaningful against climate change.
Apparently we can now add an infantility problem to the list.
Apparently we can now add an infantility problem to the list.
One thing English has going for it is fault tolerance.
You can speak it pretty “badly” and still be understood fine with a bit of patience.
Speak like Yoda you could and still be understood.
French is a beautiful language but seems to have a harder time dealing beginners mangling its grammar or pronunciation.
(I still really want to learn French though regardless).
You can speak it pretty “badly” and still be understood fine with a bit of patience.
Speak like Yoda you could and still be understood.
French is a beautiful language but seems to have a harder time dealing beginners mangling its grammar or pronunciation.
(I still really want to learn French though regardless).
I'm reminded of this clip from ST:TNG:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KlhzX7UKKNU
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KlhzX7UKKNU
If the request is for longer than 6 months, then I don't get the argument.
How is this multiculturalism? I and many other people that rely on English as a language to communicate across nations feel left out. Looking at the comments, there seems to be a distorted impression that EU=France (or any major Western country) and on top of that, the rest of the countries should be grateful for being given a chance to be put in uncomfortable situations that require a costly readaptation, aka, be glad your language skill is now obsolete because we decided so.
It's ignorance towards the rest of EU member states. I don't even have a problem with French per say, I speak French and understand the urge to speak your own language. Just the approach of assuming that one of the member states knows best is mind-boggling to me and disrespectful. Looking forward to see the upcoming countries, each getting cocky about forcing their language. That's going to take us nowhere... So much for democracy.
How is this multiculturalism? I and many other people that rely on English as a language to communicate across nations feel left out. Looking at the comments, there seems to be a distorted impression that EU=France (or any major Western country) and on top of that, the rest of the countries should be grateful for being given a chance to be put in uncomfortable situations that require a costly readaptation, aka, be glad your language skill is now obsolete because we decided so.
It's ignorance towards the rest of EU member states. I don't even have a problem with French per say, I speak French and understand the urge to speak your own language. Just the approach of assuming that one of the member states knows best is mind-boggling to me and disrespectful. Looking forward to see the upcoming countries, each getting cocky about forcing their language. That's going to take us nowhere... So much for democracy.
Calm down. This is obviously going nowhere. Nothing is going to change, the French are just sending up some lead balloons for their own media, right before an election year (April 2022 presidentials). Do you really think 26 countries (most of whom don't speak French nor trade primarily with France) will just let Paris lord over them? Of course not. The working languages will stay the same; some overzealous French bureaucrat might try to act a bit snootier for 6 months, but I bet that they'll eventually go back to normal if they want to get shit done.
It will not happen overnight but it does fuel nationalistic ideologies which is counterproductive for EU as a whole. Just because a politician got butt hurt and wants to save his face, doesn't mean it's acceptable.
I was really looking forward to see the EU flourish for years now and all I see is them concerning with offense, accusations and procrastinating issues or matters that don't serve the union but rather a part of it. EU, just get over it, Brexit happened, whatever.
I was really looking forward to see the EU flourish for years now and all I see is them concerning with offense, accusations and procrastinating issues or matters that don't serve the union but rather a part of it. EU, just get over it, Brexit happened, whatever.
> It will not happen overnight but it does fuel nationalistic ideologies
Sadly those ideologies fuel themselves. This is in fact an attempt at a propaganda victory, in an electoral year, to try and stop the ultraright from conquering the French presidence next April.
> all I see is them concerning with offense, accusations and procrastinating issues
All you see is what the anglo press wants you to focus on. The Union is doing ok; they agreed some historical aid packages to help their most troubled economies, moving one step forward towards a real shared treasury; they changed rules to try and sort out the "Eastern problem" of Poland and Hungary, the impact of which we'll see in the next 5-10 years, particularly on refugee policies; they are slowly grinding down their internal tax havens, and fielding multiple attacks to the monopolistic FAANGs; and are slowly clarifying a constitutional setup that is not even 30 years old, and hence still very much in-progress. (There was a bit of a fumble on vaccines but, as we've seen this week, nobody really came out well of COVID response, and they are reaching a decent velocity now.) On Northern Ireland, their internal public opinion wants them to hold firm against UK trickery; this will generate some hate on the English press, but it's a problem entirely of England's own making (and yes, I use "England" on purpose here).
For something coordinating 400m people over a territory that's never been so united, the EU is doing incredibly well. 30 years after the American Revolution ended, the US was still very fragile internally and went to war with Britain and France; a lot of internal tensions were not solved until the US Civil War, 60 years after the US Constitution was ratified. The EU is not at war, hopefully we'll continue to settle our disputes around a table, and that's the real victory.
Sadly those ideologies fuel themselves. This is in fact an attempt at a propaganda victory, in an electoral year, to try and stop the ultraright from conquering the French presidence next April.
> all I see is them concerning with offense, accusations and procrastinating issues
All you see is what the anglo press wants you to focus on. The Union is doing ok; they agreed some historical aid packages to help their most troubled economies, moving one step forward towards a real shared treasury; they changed rules to try and sort out the "Eastern problem" of Poland and Hungary, the impact of which we'll see in the next 5-10 years, particularly on refugee policies; they are slowly grinding down their internal tax havens, and fielding multiple attacks to the monopolistic FAANGs; and are slowly clarifying a constitutional setup that is not even 30 years old, and hence still very much in-progress. (There was a bit of a fumble on vaccines but, as we've seen this week, nobody really came out well of COVID response, and they are reaching a decent velocity now.) On Northern Ireland, their internal public opinion wants them to hold firm against UK trickery; this will generate some hate on the English press, but it's a problem entirely of England's own making (and yes, I use "England" on purpose here).
For something coordinating 400m people over a territory that's never been so united, the EU is doing incredibly well. 30 years after the American Revolution ended, the US was still very fragile internally and went to war with Britain and France; a lot of internal tensions were not solved until the US Civil War, 60 years after the US Constitution was ratified. The EU is not at war, hopefully we'll continue to settle our disputes around a table, and that's the real victory.
Marine le Pen doesn't give a shit what language the EU uses, that claim is a distraction. Her and others like her think France needs to care about the EU a whole lot less, and the EU should be much less important in France, so she's really the last kind of person who would expend political capital on such a thing.
BTW the EU sucks at peace and settling disputes. If it was good at the whole "peace in Europe" thing it wouldn't be constantly rolling boulders down the hill at the UK and Switzerland but rather, find ways to work amicably with them as productively as possible. It doesn't of course, it just threatens them and tries to force them into the EU's power structures regardless of popularity or the creation of resentment, which is exactly why the "ultra-right" as you put it (lol) is constantly gaining ground. Someone has to care what voters think, after all.
BTW the EU sucks at peace and settling disputes. If it was good at the whole "peace in Europe" thing it wouldn't be constantly rolling boulders down the hill at the UK and Switzerland but rather, find ways to work amicably with them as productively as possible. It doesn't of course, it just threatens them and tries to force them into the EU's power structures regardless of popularity or the creation of resentment, which is exactly why the "ultra-right" as you put it (lol) is constantly gaining ground. Someone has to care what voters think, after all.
The point is precisely that LePen's platform claims the EU is a net negative because it ignores French interests. By pursuing the old Mitterrandist project of having an EU under French leadership, Macron is trying to negate that platform.
As for the "constantly rolling boulders", I think you're not being objective. Both Switzerland and Britain agreed on a set of rules decades ago, and are now reneging on them. Surely it's their responsibility to find solutions for the new problems they've created? And once solutions are agreed, surely they should implement them? The only answer from the Anglo press is "no, because everyone must accommodate us", which is frankly embarrassingly juvenile. Even inside the UK a lot of people don't agree with this English manoeuvreing, and absolutely everyone in Northern Ireland knew that the Brexiteers' promises were as unrealistic and unrealizable as they turned out to be. The attempt to unload responsibility for their own actions on a third party is like a child shouting "It wasn't me!" when caught with a hand in the jar and jam all over his face.
As for the "constantly rolling boulders", I think you're not being objective. Both Switzerland and Britain agreed on a set of rules decades ago, and are now reneging on them. Surely it's their responsibility to find solutions for the new problems they've created? And once solutions are agreed, surely they should implement them? The only answer from the Anglo press is "no, because everyone must accommodate us", which is frankly embarrassingly juvenile. Even inside the UK a lot of people don't agree with this English manoeuvreing, and absolutely everyone in Northern Ireland knew that the Brexiteers' promises were as unrealistic and unrealizable as they turned out to be. The attempt to unload responsibility for their own actions on a third party is like a child shouting "It wasn't me!" when caught with a hand in the jar and jam all over his face.
LePen is not going to change her opinion of the EU if it changes which language it uses because that's a surface level issue that doesn't affect any of the actual governance issues she or her voters care about.
Neither Switzerland nor Britain have ever reneged on anything. The problem is the exact opposite: Brussels has been changing, in big and important ways. The nature of the EU is that less and less is subject to veto over time, and the EU institutions never cared much what the treaties said anyway. Thus the "rules", such as they are, are constantly changing and often in ways that nobody agreed to.
Indeed the whole blowup with Switzerland is due exactly to that: the EU wants to keep changing the rules without getting the Swiss to agree and has been trying to force them to drop the previous separate bilateral agreements in favour of "dynamic alignment" i.e. accepting whatever the EU changes the rules to be at any time, without any pesky referendums.
And in the UK, a constant source of frustration in London is due to the impression that the UK argues against bad rules when they're being proposed but when passed it follows them, whereas other EU countries agree with the rules (easy) and then ignore them when they are inconvenient. See: Germany deciding that EU law isn't actually superior over their constitutional law, despite that being a supposedly inviolable aspect of EU membership. It's easy to find people who voted to stay in the EU (or EC as it was then), in the original Brexit referendum in the 70s, but who voted to leave in the 2016 referendum with a justification of "this isn't what I voted for back then, I was misled". The EU changed the rules of the game but people weren't consulted until much, much later.
Neither Switzerland nor Britain have ever reneged on anything. The problem is the exact opposite: Brussels has been changing, in big and important ways. The nature of the EU is that less and less is subject to veto over time, and the EU institutions never cared much what the treaties said anyway. Thus the "rules", such as they are, are constantly changing and often in ways that nobody agreed to.
Indeed the whole blowup with Switzerland is due exactly to that: the EU wants to keep changing the rules without getting the Swiss to agree and has been trying to force them to drop the previous separate bilateral agreements in favour of "dynamic alignment" i.e. accepting whatever the EU changes the rules to be at any time, without any pesky referendums.
And in the UK, a constant source of frustration in London is due to the impression that the UK argues against bad rules when they're being proposed but when passed it follows them, whereas other EU countries agree with the rules (easy) and then ignore them when they are inconvenient. See: Germany deciding that EU law isn't actually superior over their constitutional law, despite that being a supposedly inviolable aspect of EU membership. It's easy to find people who voted to stay in the EU (or EC as it was then), in the original Brexit referendum in the 70s, but who voted to leave in the 2016 referendum with a justification of "this isn't what I voted for back then, I was misled". The EU changed the rules of the game but people weren't consulted until much, much later.
The only thing to see here is the humor of the highest French diplomats reforcing extreme ethnocentric stereotypes about the French people -- the man on the street will snobbishly ignore your request of directions if not attempted in French first -- on the global stage: The EU president will ignore your country's pleas if not communicated in French first.
I think that in the long-term it might be better if English didn't become the main language of the EU. It ties us too closely with the US culturally, because the US is a massive native speaker of it.
I have no idea what we would replace it with though. Everything seems to have massive problems.
I have no idea what we would replace it with though. Everything seems to have massive problems.
English is already the de facto auxiliary language of the world. The point of a language, above all others, and especially so for governing a union of countries, should be maximising the ease of communication.
And in the process it kills off the smaller languages in said union along with their culture? Look at France and what happened to their local languages in just a few hundred years.
The thing is I fear if they'll try to push AZERTY as EU's "working keyboard layout".
Will be the time I'll look into moving to Antarctica.
Will be the time I'll look into moving to Antarctica.
[deleted]
Yet another example of the EU and its institutions being a reflection of the career academics and politicians that dominate it.
Arrogant, privileged, disconnected from reality, risk averse and comfortably protected by the bureaucracy which they use to masquerade the gross in efficiency of the whole apparatus.
The UK leaving the EU should have been the loud wake up call it needed to shape up.
As it so often happens in arrogant filled relationships, the departing party is appointed the entirety of the blame.
Arrogant, privileged, disconnected from reality, risk averse and comfortably protected by the bureaucracy which they use to masquerade the gross in efficiency of the whole apparatus.
The UK leaving the EU should have been the loud wake up call it needed to shape up.
As it so often happens in arrogant filled relationships, the departing party is appointed the entirety of the blame.
Makes sense, just as the US abandoned English once it declared independence from Great Britain.
Nonsense article. France is pushing for this but the other EU countries have no reason to go along with it.
Especially in the East no one speaks French, so their citizens and companies would be at a severe disadvantage - from getting people into EU jobs to the various funding calls for reaearch, digitalization, etc everything is currently in English and most Europeans would suffer from a switch to French. Even Germany has no reason to go along with it as it would downgrade German (currently there are three working languages: EN, FR, DE). The EU still retains two countries with English as official language (Ireland and Malta) and clearly it is the most widely spoken second language.
In short: no chance.
In short: no chance.
Omg, this looks so childish, so ignorant, so infantile…
I personally love this in a post-Brexit context.
Spanish is the way to go: the most spoken language in the world among the ones spoke in EU, very simple to learn for many countries in EU, quite regular, very spoken in the US. French is a terrible language from the POV of pronunciation rules: it is insane to abandon English to pick the language that gave English many of its problems.
After all even if EU matters were done purely in french it wouldn't be "the killer feature" to make french be taught much more in schools since english is the universal business language. And even if EU states decided that they needed to start teaching another language besides english to their kids to prepare them for future employment I would actually go for chinese instead of french. Because that will be the next actual global language by the end of this century unless humanity nukes it self out of existence.