Machjo

Though I've always been aware of the business advantages of knowing a second language, I've never kid myself that there are plenty of ways to make mor money by learning other things beside language. My fondest memories in my various languages is the meeting of the minds and hearts that it permits between me and my family and friends. As for language 'saving the world', no. In the US civil war, they spoke a common language, same with the one in the UK with Cromwell. However, the language barrier has either provoked or fuelled wars too. So a common language would not eliminate all conflicts, but would certainly eliminate those caused by miscommunication. In this respect, having more Canadians knowing Spanish could be a good way to promote a closer friendship between Canada and Latin America. And no, there is no word for friendship in C++.

I think I could agree to this depending on what exactly you mean. As for the federal government promoting official bilingualsim for its own sake, I disagree with that as it's a big waste of taxpayers' money. However, it goes without saying that higher-level public servants and military and RCMP personnel who do need to be able to communicate with all Canadians should be required to speak both of Canada's official languages under current circumstances. There's my nuanced response to you.

In theory I could agree with that, but we need to consider logistics too. Let's suppose the school has 100 pupils and they want to learn 20 different languages. So, are we to hire 20 different language teachers for an average of 5 pupils each? If the school is large enough it may be able to grant some language choices. Otherwise, it shod consult with parents and go with what seems most popular and considering the school's linguistic resources, etc. Oe thing I cold agree with would be giving pupils the freedom to choose the language they're to be tested in. So if the school doesn't teach it but the parents teach it at home, the pupils should be allowed to inform the school of this and the school cold then proctor the exam even if it doesn;t teach the language itself. But as for teaching the language, for logistical reasons, that shold be a decision for the school not the pupil, to make, in consultation with parents and puils of course, but the final decision should be the schools based on logistical considerations.

OK, I can agree with much, but not all, of what you say here. Though I agree that we should not force schools to teach a articular second-language, I do belive that a second language should be compulsory as it opens the mind. Yes it has business value too, but my main concern here is with how bilingualism changes a person's world view. In fact, to learn a second language well, one has to be open to it, requiring openmindedness. That the first point I disagree with. Learning a second language shold not be a choice but an obligation, only which second languge being a choice for the school. Secondly, while I agree that choosing to learn Spanish would close a pupil off from access to the French-Canadian market, it also opens windows of opportunity for him to the Latin-American market. That skill shold be put to use. One way of doing so could be for Canada to promote more freedom of movement between Canada and Latin America, possibly through Labour-movement agreement with Latin American countries like we find between European countries. And again, I'm not looking at it just from a business standpoint (though granted that's an additional spinoff advantage) but primarily as a means to promote more understanding between cultures to promote a culture of peace in the world.

By the way, Hydraboss. I'm quite fluent in spoken Mandarin Chinese myself. Do you realise that about half of China's populaiton is not functional in Mandarin? Trust me, your English-Spanish-Mandarin hypothesis will not suffice. Unless you're ready to learn 50 odd languages, you'r not going to be able to do business with the world. I know one woman who ended up getting a good teaching job just because she knew Classical Aztec! The world is brewing with cultures far beyond Canada's borders.

And Hydraboss. The way things are going, it won't be three languages in North America, but a multitude of languages worldwide. Internet, remember?

So as far as you're concerned, Spanish is not really a language brimming with culture, but just a linguistic business communication code akin to FORTRAN or COBOL, or C++? Oh, I can only imagine the kind of values you're teaching your daughter. Materialism at its lowest.

While I fully agree with your comment on the value of Spanish, it's a shame that you have to insult another culture as part of your argument. While I fully agree that schools should be free to decide for themselves which second-language to choose, I also belive that they should teach that second language with a mandate to teach respect for all peoples too.

Actually, I'll have to defend him on this one, Canadien. Just look at Stats Can 2006, and you'll see that few Canadians learn their second official language well. The reality of the matter is quite simply that languages are difficult to learn. As such, motivation becomes an indispensable, crucial, decisive factor in determining success. As such, I can fully agree with giving the school the choice of second-languages to teach. This way, the school can, to some degree at least, cater to the pupils' linguistic interests, and so increae their motivation and thus chances of success. Let's say there are a few Spaniards in the neighbourhood that have piqued the child's curiosity, and so he decides to learn Spanish as his goal to communicate with his friends in the language. Why would we take that incentive away from that child by forcing him to learn French if maybe there are no French-speakers in his neighbourhood? Also, though French may be useful for many Canadians, if all Canadians should learn French, that just leads to excessive competition in the job market and cuts Canada off from valuable relations with other countries. We need skilled multilingual personel in the modern world, not just two languages. So I'm all for leaving it up to each school to decide to itself which second language to teach according the what is best considering that school's circumstances. Besides, it would be just as wrong to impose one ethnic language on another people as it would for that other people to impose its language on the former. Yes, I agree that bilingualism should be compulsory as a part of a well-rounded education and general culture, but I don't believe in the hegemonic premise that one language is somehow morally superior to another.

We need to pull the moat our of our eyes first. I agree that Quebec's Bill 101 goes a little far, and that Trudeau pulled a few dirty stunts too. However, that does not negate English-Canada's involvement in forced assimilation through the generations. Let's be honest and admit that both English and French Canada bear some guilt here. Let's try to be just a little unbiassed.

I fully agree with her decision. Learning any second-language opens doors, and I'm happy to see that the school is progressive enough to give her some options. Besides, you'll learn your second-language better if you can choose one that interests you, as is done in many countries by the way. My issue though is with those who pride in speaking Loud-and-slow as their preferred second language, with an attitude that the rest of the world is to learn English, but Her Majesty's Royal subjects have no obligation to reciprocate. To learn a second language, any second language, simply show respct for those around the world who are struggling to learn English.

Leafless: Do you know a second language? Any second language?

Correction: And ignorance. He's essentially promoting assimilation of various people to the majority English-speaking culture. Let's not confuse assimilation with integration. Assimilation implies not just learning a second culture, but rather replacing one culture with another. That essentially is culturla hegemony and cultural imperialism.

You've just defined imperialism.

Then this shows your ignorance of language. It is in fact possible for a person to forget his mother tongue after many years of disuse. Some people are more fluent in their second language than they are in their mother-tongue. In extreme cases, they may even barely speak their mother tongue, yet that might not necessarily stop them from speaking multiple languages fluently.

Also, there are different ways of showing goodwill. For instance, in exchange for higher immigration standards, we could eliminate immigration quotas, thus having no numerical limit as to how many could enter Canada, that being replaced by competence-standards. I would think that scrapping quotas and having objectively measurable competance and other standards clearly defined for all to see would be a very nice goodwill gesture.

What I said is not harsh in the least. Of course once they enter Canadian territory, we should accept them as part of us; that goes without saying and part of being a good host. What I'm saying is that we should not let them into Canada unless they know English or French well. This also benefits their countries too as it reduces the brain drain from cuntries whose intellectual resources we are exploiting. If we accept only those who know English or French, then we are not taking away all of their intellectuals. If, however, we engage in the development of English and French skills among foreing populations so as to make them more integrateable into Canadian society, then we're in fact promoting the brain drain abroad in developing countries that are alrady struggling to develop.

http://www.lingomedia.com/s/China.asp And I think I just found my answer. Investment in English-learning resources is profitable. But, wait a minute, I thought CIDA was there to help the other country develop, not Canada make more money off of them.

Leafless: 1. As for CIDA's involvement in promoting the English language, no, I did not find any information on the CIDA website (and believe me I looked). But when I was in China, I'd come across children's textbooks for English-learning, the development of which was funded by CIDA via Lingomedia. I know this because in the frotn cover, a whole paragraph is devoted to thanking CIDA for its work. 2. I know French is funded abroad too, and I don't agree with it. It just seems though that we only har English-speakers complaingin about funding for French, never for English. Cut them both I say. As for international development, when we consider that, according to research done by econimists and linguists such as Robert Phillipson and Francois Grin show that English-language hegemony, though it may benefit those who learn English successfully, is actually an overall drain on the economic resources of developing countries, then how could CIDA defend such an action? Does it not do its homework before embarking in such projects, or is there some ulterior motive?

What do you mean by artists? I was referrring to government funding for Englsih-language instruction abroad through CIDA, essentially a form of linguistic imperialism. And I was referring too to federal government funding through the LINC programme. If immigration candidates can't speak either English or French, then let's not let them in, simple as that. If we say though that the government shuld not be funding the promotion of the French language but should fund the promotion of the English language, then that's just a double standard. It's either all or nothing. We coud even enclude aboriginal languages in this.

http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php This site is full of examples of why many can't spell. Quite simply, English spelling has not kept up with changes in pronunciation over the years. Either that, or we could look at it in reverse and say that pronunciation has changed too quickly over the years. The spellings of English words today still reflect pronunciations of centuries ago.

Letters are representations of sounds in English? You're kidding, right? In that case, could you teach me the rules to pronounce the words of the following poem accurately: I take it you already know Of tough and bough and cough and dough? Others may stumble, but not you, On hiccough, thorough, lough and through? Well done! And now you wish, perhaps, To learn of less familiar traps? Beware of heard, a dreadful word That looks like beard and sounds like bird, And dead: it's said like bed, not bead - For goodness sake don't call it deed! Watch out for meat and great and threat (They rhyme with suite and straight and debt). A moth is not a moth in mother, Nor both in bother, broth in brother, And here is not a match for there Nor dear and fear for bear and pear, And then there's dose and rose and lose - Just look them up - and goose and choose, And cork and work and card and ward, And font and front and word and sword, And do and go and thwart and cart - Come, come, I've hardly made a start! A dreadful language? Man alive! I'd mastered it when I was five!

So what about government intervention in the promotion of English-speaking culture worldwide through CIDA? While I agree with cutting government spending in the active promotion of French-language culture, I feel the same about English. It would seem however that many native English-speakers believe in a double standard whereby it's OK to for the government to fund the promotion of English through such organizations as CIDA or through such programmes as LINK, but it's not OK to do it for French. If it's not OK for French, then it's not OK for English either.

I know how many do feel. I remember selling chocolates at a mall in Victoria B.C. for an elementary-school ski trip One kind man came up, was about to pull his wallet out, and asked what school it was. So I told him, Admiral Victor G. Brodeur, pronounced in French. He asked me to repeat, so I explained that it was a French-medium school near CFB Esquimalt. Immediately he started walking away and said, and I quote: 'I don't like French people'. From what I read on forums at times, I get the impression his sentiment is not unique.

Also, what is all this about 'white culture' we read in these threads? I'm caucasian myself. My mother is French Canadian tracing her roots back to New France. I have Canadian First Nations and Irish blood from my father's side (and my aboriginal side is barely noticeable other than in the fact that I tan slightly darker than most whites, and even then few would gues, so I look quite caucasian to say the least). My father himself was born in the UK, his family having emigrated from Canada, and he'd returned. Now I would assume this all qualifies me as a part of this imaginary 'white culture'. But I see a problem with this in that I view culture as stemming from nurture, not nature. As such, I can't believe that culture can even be defined by race. Some Chinese look just as caucasian as a blond Russian and go to church, just as some blacks speak a perfect English, Canadian accent, go to Anglican Communion, eat McDonald's, etc. In spite of my family background, I eat vegan, read the Qur'an, can read some Arabic and Persian (though I've lost much of both over the years owing to other responsibilities, but still hope to get back to studying them when I have more time), can speak Mandarin Chinese and Esperanto, both fluently, and do not profess the Christian Faith (though I did go to Catholic school as a kid and my father is Anglican). I also believe in the Qur'an. My ex-wife was Ethiopian. So would all this make me some kind of traitor to this imaginary 'white race' for not conforming to 'white' expectations? The point is, migration has been going on since before Biblical times. Heck, the concept itself is antediluvian. Even Adam and Eve migrated from the Garden, remember? Look at the Apostles and their travels through parts of the Roman empire. Marco Polo? And what about the first European colonists of the America's? Culture has ever been in a constant state of flux. The idea that we must slavishly try to preserve some perfect past society of our imagination is ridiculous. Culture has ever changed, and it ever will. The pioneers of change, however, are those who can fashion culture to serve their ends, and not the other way around. Look at the Dukhobours and their diets. Hitorically, their diet was traditional Russian. Later, with the help of Tolsoty and as a result of percecution, moved to Canada, allowing them to develop further. And at about that time, they came across the Quakers, many of whom were vegetarian, liked the idea, and so, instead of slavishly and blindly following tradition, remolded the tradition to serve them, not the other way around, and so became vegetarian. Their meals have adopted some Canadian and international flavours too, while always modifying them to their ethical dietary needs. For crying out loud, we'd think such religious communities wuld be the most traditionalist in Canada. But the Quakers and Dukhobours understood that doing what is right is more important that maintaining blind traditions. And so, for them, their culture serves them, not the other way around. They modify their culture to fit their beliefs. This whole idea of trying to preserve some imaginary white traditional culture frozen in time is beyond ridiculous. Canada has ever changed and ever will. It's up to us to develop our culture, not freeze it in time; and new ideas from abroad can help us to do that. Even the English language borrowed many scientific words from Arabic in its time. We need to go back to that age of enlightenment when we wre willing to learn from others and adapt to new ideas rather than just bigottedly trying to preserve some imaginary racial purity of culture.