On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 at 06:34 -0800, Maluvia wrote: > >English is such a widespread language only because we Americans are to > >stupid or lazy(Or Both) to learn other languages so we force other > >countries to speak ours;) > > Well said - and what a pity. > (Doubtless why so many Americans are up in arms about becoming a bilingual > country.) I'm jumping in the middle of thing (and will be jumping promptly right out), but it seems to me that it's more likely that it's because PEOPLE are stupid/lazy, and Americans happen to be people. For whatever historical reasons, English ended up at the top of the heap (mostly due to arms and money, if I understand it correctly, and starting with British Imperialism, but my knowledge of this history is vague). So people learn English and people who have English as a native language get a free ride, and the process is self-sustaining for the most part as long as English is a useful common language. Americans aren't forcing people to use English globally. Don't hate us because we get a free ride. :-) If there's to be a common language, there's always going to be the native speakers that get the free ride, whatever it is. (Unless you want to try Esperanto again) If English-speaking countries became insignificant AND there was a drop-in alternative waiting in the wings (maybe French? Isn't that the runner-up?), then we might see a change. > I have enough trouble trying to follow the technical jargon here - I can't > even imagine trying to follow it in another language. Heh, me too. For me mostly it's that other universal language called math. I'm bilingual, btw. -- Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. -- Johann Sebastian Bach
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
