Machjo

According to that logic, if my neighbour murders someone, then it's OK for me to steal a chocolate bar because it's not as bad as murdering someone? Whether the right or the left is more xenophobic is irrelevent. A zenophobe is a zenophobe. Let's say in an election you had a choice between a cosmopolitan right-winger who wanted freer immigration, labour-movement between borders, less militarism, more free trade, etc. and a left-winger who wanted to close all borders. Which would you vote for? The left-winger just because he's left? Somewhat biassed don't you think? To take a more concrete example, let's say it was a vote between the Greens and the NDP? The Green Party in Canada is in fact a relatively right-wing party, yet far more cosmopolitan than the NDP. Same with some members of the Libertarian Party, depending on the specific type of libertarianism of that particular libertarian. You seem to be biassed in your attempt to suggest that Zenophobia is only marginal in the left and completely permeates the right. We find freedom from zenophobia, and intense zenophobia, on both sides, depending on the person concerned.

Interesting. First time I'd heard speak Canadian. The speak white comments were not meant as a joke. Man, the ignorance of some people. Can't they see that language has no necessary link to race? And as for Canada, it's but a baby in diapers among nations, the French and English languages having set foot on this soil just this morning in historical terms.

So what about the Beijing Olympics? Should just have been in Chinese? I'm not sure what you're getting at? If you mean that the Olympics should be in the local vernacular, then what I just typed above is in fact what you're suggesting. If it shold be in all major world languages, then are you suggesting that Vancouver should adopt upteen official languages just for the Olympics? It's one or the other. Unless we have a world language? Some think it's English, and to some degree it is, at least for native speakers and the elites.

And just a point about l'anglocentrisme. Ma langue maternelle est le français.

I'm not necessarily opposed to Quebec sovereignty, as long as it's a civil separation. With attitudes like yours, I don't blame Quebec for wanting to separate. I agree that immigrants should learn the national language of their future host country, and I also agree that a common language ought to be the goal. In the meantime, though Canada is officially bilingual, and has never been totally English speaking from the start. Fine revision of history there. If English were easy to learn, maybe I could agree with you. But it's a bloody mess, and so most Quebecers could not learn it well. They have rights in their province too.

If you take this principle to the extreme, then Canada would need hundreds of official languages. Expensive proposition there. What I see as the problem is a conflict between rights and efficiency. The fewer the languages, the more efficient it is. But also the fewer the official languages, the greater the risk of the marginalization of other groups. I believe the most efficeint way of balancing this conflict would be through one official language, but one designed to be easy to learn. As only one official language, it would meet the criterium of efficiency. Yet by being designed to be easy to learn, it would also meet the criteium of justice and equity, giving access to all. Such a strategy would need to be implemented incrementally over time though, and so official bilignalism in French and English, though neither the most efficient nor most just of policies, sits in the middle as not the most inefficient or unjust policies either.

forget Hindi, that's a recent addition. What about Nunavut. According to Statscan 2006, 8% of their population assessed themselves as knowing neither English nor French. Ah, but French-speakers had the political clout to start the Quiet Revolution. Imagine if a few people in nunavut tried the same. They'd get nowhere. Not european enough I guess.

Speak Canadian? I thought they said "speak white"? That's the term I'd heard once for daring to speak French, in the national capital of all places. Now I don't necessarily support that the local government have two official languages (waste of money), but it's a shame that we have so many francophobic bigots who oppose official bilingualism for the wrong reason: zenophobia.

Tu a sans doute remarqué que j'avais tapé la phrase 'le Bilinguisme Officiel' comme un nom propre, en faisant référence à la politique telle qu'elle est définie en ce moment, par opposition au bilinguisme officiel comme phrase comme phrase commune. Bien que je je soutient le bilinguisme officiel, pour la raison que tu a mentionné ci-dessus, je ne soutiens pas le Bilinguisme Officiel tel qu'il est défini actuellement à cause de son inefficacité absurde. And this is what we read from 'Language Policies in Education' (ISBN 970805836011), a scholarly book designed as a textbook for graduate and post-graduate studies in language education: From the essay 'Language Policies in Canada' (chapter 4 of the book above) by Barbara Burnaby, University of Newfoundland states (p.66): Throughout the 1960s, the "quiet Revolution" in Quebec entailed demands for the French language rights stipulated in the British North America Act (Neatby, 1992). In 1963, the federal government established the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism to look at relations among linguistic groups in the country; its main result was the declaration in 1969 of English and French as Canada's official languages. The Official Languages Act made English and French the languages of the federal parliamentand bureaucracy, creating the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and establishing rules for language rights in education.... You'll notice how all this was sparked by the Cultural Revolution, a political shift in the country. On the next page, she goes on to reference the shift from official biculturalism to multiculturalism while keeing bilingualism, this shift resulting from a backlash against official biculturalism from minority culturla groups. And referencing the 1980's, at the bottom of the same page, she states: From this point, the conflict began to change in character.Going into the 1980's, the federal government's political struggle with Quebec and other francophone populations expanded from language... to include the soverignty of Quebec. It's clear from her words that she does not view this as a natural evolution of the culture but rather as actions and strategic reactions in a political struggle. I'm not taking sides here, as both sides are at least partially at fault (it takes two to tango), but merely pointing out that it is a simple reaction to political coflict and nothing more. I remember reading similar comments in another book on socio-linguisitcs referring Quebec a few years ago, published by Oxford University Press, titled Introduction to Socio-linguistics, but I don't know where that book is right now, but essentially it also suggested that Official Bilingualism was a purely strategic move. No crime, and not unconscionable. What I am saying though is that English Canada did not just walk in with arms wide open to embrace French Canada. It granted Official Bilingualism as a short-term politically expedient strategy to soothe tensions between linguistic groups. To this extent, the English-speakers are partially at fault for this conflict for not granting decent rights to Francophones previously. But then they're doubly at fault for having overreacted when the kettle overflowed by adopting a highly inefficient policy making bilingualism required from coeast to coast to coeast when in fact we do have clear linguisic regions. Would it not save alot of money to simply have federal bilingualism or even more in parliament, but regional administrative unilingualism elsewhere? Connait-tu le français, Visionseeker?

And on a world scale, Canada's population is minuscule.

I was just wondering: where does all that anti-Francophone bigotry come from?

Yu hate Quebcers, I know. But no, I did not check where the 17% came from. Go and do the calculations for yourself. Who knows, you might be right, or not. But it's clear from your statement here that it really matters to you where they come from so that you can take another shot at another 'ethnic' group. You do realise,don't you, that even you belong to an ethnic group whether you're aware of it or not? 'Sti d'nono.

Importing? How nice to see that you equate your fellow-man with cargo.

I won't deny that there is anti-English bigotry among segments of the francophone population, but anti-French biotry among English spekers abounds just as much. It's not a French-English issue there, but an issue of hater vs love. Just as some French-speakers and English-speakers hate each other at an existential level, other French speakers and English speakers know how to make friends. You're among the bigots I see.

It's not unique to right-wingers. I'd come across the same in Rabble.ca of all places, and among left-wingers too!

Hmmm... then let me help you here: Of course we do not have the power we once had to impose our will but britain's influence endures, out of all proportion to her economic and military resources... Our language is our greatest asset, greater than North Sea Oil, and the supply is inexhaustible; furthermore, while we do not have a monopoly, our particular brand remains highly saught after. I am glad to say that those who guide the fortunes of this country shae my conviction in the need to invest in, and exploit to the ful, this invisible, God-given asset. Chairman of the British Council British Council Annual report, 1984-4 I've come across the same triumphalist attitude among native English Canadians. After all, if CIDA is funding this in China, then clearly there's someone there who shares that same attitude. And I bet you're one of them. I own the book, but you can read part of it online here: http://books.google.ca/books?id=4jVeGWtzQ1...num=4#PPA144,M1 I strongly recommend it.

As the subtitle says. Self-assessment, meaning according to your own understanidn f the meaning of the word. Sure it will vary for different people, but at least it could give us a rough idea.

Here in Ottawa, among non-natives, exceptions aside, it's essentially relegated to a quaint tourist interest. Needless to say, some aboiginals I've spoken to take some offense to that - especially successful entrepreneurs who hear all the prejudiced rehtoric about lazy indians all the time. I'm happy to hear things are a little better in Manitoba. But of course here in the heart of Ottawa's capital, the French-English debate is all the rage, so there's not time to discuss native issues it would seem. Maybe, I hope, it's a little different in the rest of Ontario.

Agreed. After all, it is an English-medium site, lacking in the essence of a Canadian identity according to ignatieff's standards, eh?

If true, this just shows Harper to be outright bully.

I'd just like to know what languages people here speak fluently.

I know there are Quebecois versions of Ironstone. I've met some online and off. As to what would be a very admirable thing would be to acknowledge that the two large language groups that founded this country also did so by pushing the original language groups to the margins. And don't think I'm anti-white or anti-angophone or anti-francophone. I myself am white, anglophone and francophone. I'm just saying that when we way that these two language groups founded this country, we ignore that we also did so by pushing those who wre there to the margins. We seem to like to ignore that part of the whole thing and brush it under the carpet.

We can't blame the school system alone. Sometimes it may be that the pupil comes from a broken home, and it might not always be obvious. For example, a iddle class family always bickering aobut money and abusing their chidren psychologically but never beating them physically. Such a pupil will naturally have a hard time concentrating in school. No matter how bright he is, his focus won't be on university, but on getting out of his house ASAP. For this reason, the school system eeds to be flexible enough to teach pupils what they need to know before leaving school. French as a compulsory second language is a luxury for the benefit of the elites only. As an alternative subject, fine. But it's too difficult as a compulsory one. And this is not because we have poor teachers. Even in Europe and Asia the rate of success in second-language learning is dismal at best and is thsu a waste of time for most.

Precisely why easier second language options in school could be of benefit. You would have benefitted more from fluency in an easier albeit less widely spoken second language than from a failure to learn a more difficult albeit more widespread one. It's of no use to you if you can't learn it. Totally false. I anything, the maintenance of relative (and I stress relative) French linguistic purity is more likely to help promote the language as as second language, in that it reduces the occurrance of exceptions to rules and so makes the language more accessible to non-native speakers and thus more attractive. The relative success of English compared to French has to do with things other than the linguistic structure of the language itself. In fact, English is among the worst candidates of the ones I know to serve the role of international language from a strictly structrual standpoint. The main reasons for the success of English are: 1. The industrial revolution started in England. 2. The expansion of the British Empire was more successful than the French in part thanks to the industrial recolution. 3. British and later US military, economic and political might, especially after WWII. Many former US pilots became civilian pilots in the new airline industry. The computer and internet began in the US too. Nothing to do woth any intrinsic quality in the language. As a literary language, English is beautiful, but as a legal language, even native English-speaking scholars acknowledge its poverty in precise grammar. It's precicely this laissez-faire approach to English that have contributed to its having become increasingly ambiguous. I remember reading a good article on that from Japan, discussing how it was extremely frustrating for students to try to figure out the following as examples: one billion = 10 to the power of nine or twelve? corn = any local grain or maize specifically? A mean besides on the foot of course elevator = besides the wingtip elevator, do we find it on farms or in tall buildings? I remember having to edit an article translated from Chinese about the Chinese agricultural and other industries. It was a nightmare since they kept switching back and forth between US and British English and they couldn't tell the difference. They'd look up the word in Chinese and translate it into English oblivious of the fact that there are in fact many forms of English, divided by region and generation. It makes an interpretor's or a translator's job a nightmare when we're not sure if they're sing an older form of the language, or which regional form, etc. When it comes to business, contracts, etc. precision, not poetry, is of the essence. I'ver head too many nightmare stories of companies in China having to go to court over disputes caused by simple linguistic misunderstandings in the contract. Not necessarily. Look at an average dictionary or grammar book.They are in fact prescribing a certain spelling and grammar, and perhaps even pronunciation. This helps the non-native speaking learner. You yourself said you're unilingual. Trust me. When you're learning a second language, you want to know the rules. For an Arab, Al-siyara is a word he takes for granted. Not for me. I marvel at the technical beauty of the word: al- = the, assimilated in pronunciation to as- siyara from the root sayara, he went. The paradigm i-a-a indicates a noun, a doer of the action, thus a doing machine, a car. Same with Ad-Dabbaba, slight vocalic pronunciation but the pattern still evident, crawling machine or crawling thing, a combat tank. It often hapens that non-native speakers of a language know it better than their native counterparts since they take little for granted. They're aware of the rules and patterns. Why? Because that's what they look for when learning the language. You can't memorize every word after all, so you look for patterns that could provide shortcuts. Irrational grammar and exceptions are simply nuisances that stand in the way of that. You'd have understood that had you ever learnt a second language, especially outside its linguistic environment. I can agree with you when it comes to mother tongues, but not second languages, and especially not in essential communication. When a pilot is speaking with ground control, I should hope that they all agree on the same words and their precise, techincal meaning. And that takes centralized planning, development, and training. We can't allow chaos in that. Did you know by the way that an estimated 15% of air crashes are caused by miscommunication between pilots and ATC?! When lives are at stake, it's not the time for niceties like the freedom to use language as you wish. This applies to laws, science, technology and any other field where precise communication is essential. We who've done translation and interpretation are much more aware of ambiguities in language than most. Most communication is very ambiguous in English, an you'b be surprised at how much you just guess from context. But between cultures, it's nt as easy and that's where major errors can occur. My English is not perfect either. But I have been to enough international conferences to see just how... non-international English really is. Few speak it beyond the elites, academics, etc. Even in Quebec.

I love etymology myself too, but even without it, you still could have figured out the meaning of velar fricative just by reading its definition in the dictionary. English words do come from verious languages, but they are anglicized inconsistently. And finally, no I am not suggesting a revision, or as you call it, a 'modernization', of English spelling. In fact, I would oppose it on the grounds that it would cut native English-speakers of the next generation off from the literature of the past. My main purpose in the posts above was not to promote a revision of English spelling, but rather: 1. A correction of the suggestion that English spelling was phonemic, and 2. A correction of the assumption that rational spelling necessarily impoverishes a language. Many languages are phonetic; possibly even most. Does that alone necessarly impoverish them?