naive, possibly ignorant world politics questions open thread

Who says we're not flexible?  Feel free to offer your uninformed opinions and hopelessly optimistic expectations here.

Comments

[praktike]

Do foreigners have legs?

[Slartibartfast]

No fair winning with the first post. You're supposed to provide a heightened tension, for at least a few dozen posts. Get with the program.

[Slartibartfast]

But while we're asking, why can't everyone just learn English? I mean, after all, 400 million or so people speak it as their native tongue...

[Jesurgislac]

But while we're asking, why can't everyone just learn English?

Because some of them got conquered by different empires and now speak Chinese or Spanish? ;-)

[double-plus-ungood]

On the topic of English, which is the world langauge (and shouldn't be, in my opinion, the spelling and pronounciation rules are stupid), I highly recommend this book - The Story of English - as an excellent and entertaining history of the English language. It also explains the rasons for the dumb spelling.

And as far as the languages that we all SHOULD be speaking that makes sense, I say Cantonese. No conjugation, no case, no definite articles, no genders, and every word is one syllable. The only difficuly are the damned tones.

Teacher: Okay, the word for "life" is "gau".
Me: Gau.
Teacher: No, you just said "nine" Try again. Gau. Gau.
Me: Gau.
Teacher: No no, that was "dog."

[double-plus-ungood]

rasons = reasons. Dumb spelling indeed.

[CaseyL]

Is it wrong to think Haydn C. looks hotter than a hot thing as GoingEevil!Anakin Skywalker?

[Chuchundra]

Yes, it's wrong.

[rilkefan]

Ok, so on a list I recently claimed that English is an easy language to learn, esp. at the 500-word vocab level needed for simple communication. (Of course Spanish is easier/more consistent.) A lot of people were, well, shocked. I poked around a bit for scholarly articles but didn't find a ranking of absolute difficulty. Any informed opinions out there?

[double-plus-ungood]

English is extremely difficult to learn. We have sounds that no-one else uses, multiple words that mean the same thing, words tha tsound the same that mean diffeent things, very few regular verbs, bizzare spelling (the "ghoti" example comes to mind), and some oddball phraseology. Things burning up and burning down, for example, or driving on parkways and parking on driveways. Or the fact that flammable and inflammable mean exactly the same thing. I could go on.

[hilzoy]

I vote for Swedish as the world language. No cases, no declensions, reasonably straightforward pronunciation as long as you can learn to make some of the sounds in the first place, and it has the added bonus of being amusing for English speakers, since it is, of course, related, but perfectly normal Swedish terms are funny if your native language is English.

Examples: To throw something away is 'kasta ut'. Chopped spinach is 'hackad spenat'.

Also, the word for 'cloth' is 'tyger', which means that Blake fans walking through Stockholm can actually see signs that say: 'Tyger! Tyger!'

And my last name means 'book' in Swedish (the name itself is Dutch, where it means 'goat'), so when I walk around I get to see "(Last name)! Special!" (on good days), or "Used Discarded, Unwanted (last name), Cut Rate!" (on a bad day.)

[Slartibartfast]

Quit making this the linguistics thread, or I'll use the C-word.

[double-plus-ungood]

Doesn't Swedish Chef say "Bok Bok Bok" a lot?

Oh, wait. It's "Bork".

[double-plus-ungood]

Quit making this the linguistics thread...

Okay, here's my ignorant world politics question - why isn't the US using the metric system? It's pretty much the only country left that isn't.

[Slartibartfast]

Just kidding...I'd never threadjack my own thread. My name means nothing in particular in French, except for affiliation with some region or other. My first name certainly means something in Hebrew, but it's up for question whether my mother meant it that way or not. Probably it was something suitably Catholic.

[Anarch]

There was a fun article in the NYT a couple years ago about some big international finance meeting -- I want to say ASEAN was in talks with the G8 or something like that -- and, in particular, the difficulties of communication. Turns out that all but one of the delegates agreed to speak the same language: English. The holdout? France.

Of course, the article pointed out, the English that they spoke would be near incomprehensible to people in the US or the UK, and wasn't any too easy to understand there either; Bangladeshi English v. Singaporean English v. Beijing English v. Seoul English, a whole motley array of different dialects incorporating different loanwords and the like. But it was at least mutually intelligble, and that's all you can ask of a lingua franca.

This, incidentally, seems wrong to me:

dbu: We have sounds that no-one else uses...

I don't think that's quite right. The closest example I can think of would be the English 'r', but it depends on what dialect you're talking about. I can't think of anything like the Welsh 'll', the Czech 'r^' (that should be upside-down, like in Dvorak, but I'm too lazy to find the Unicode), the Caucasian "ram every consonant in the language into one syllable", or the subtle differentiation of consonants found in Hindi.

Doesn't Swedish Chef say "Bok Bok Bok" a lot?

If you can find a copy, listen to either El Hambo or Pseudo-Yoik by Jaakko Mantyjarvi. El Hambo, in particular, is to be sung a la Swedish Chef...

[rilkefan]

Ok, so given that the dominant successful Western countries are democracies, and the Middle East (mod Israel) has tried everything else, why isn't there more energy there for giving it a try?

[Slartibartfast]

why isn't the US using the metric system?

Again, preaching to the choir. Choice of names aside (the English system is, as far as I'm aware, no longer in use by those inhabiting the British Isles), I believe the English (also known, inaccurately as "Standard") system of measurements was invented by Satan to prevent us from landing probes on Uranus. With Mars as validation phase, of course.

[hilzoy]

Kurdish has the oddest sound I've ever run across: a consonant, written 'x', that basically sounds like h-kh-w, said as one consonant. And then there's the Arabic 'ain', which sounds like you're trying to jumpstart a motorcycle in your throat.

[Jesurgislac]

Turns out that all but one of the delegates agreed to speak the same language: English. The holdout? France.

Every other country in Europe that IBM sells to has a Read Me file called readme.txt.

France insists on a Read Me file called laissez.moi.

The French and the English have centuries of hostility behind them: at this point, it's no more likely that they'll ever agree to use each other's language in conference than it is for the Scots to support the English football team.

[Anarch]

Kurdish has the oddest sound I've ever run across: a consonant, written 'x', that basically sounds like h-kh-w, said as one consonant. And then there's the Arabic 'ain', which sounds like you're trying to jumpstart a motorcycle in your throat.

Oh, I forgot: Xhosa. [Or N!osa, depending on who you ask, unless that's different.] Sang a piece called "Missa Zuliana" (I think) a while back that used all three clicks; very, very strange.

[Chuchundra]

"English doesn't borrow from other languages - English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar."
-- Anonymous.

[double-plus-ungood]

The French and the English have centuries of hostility behind them: at this point, it's no more likely that they'll ever agree to use each other's language in conference than it is for the Scots to support the English football team.

We have a similar situation here in Quebec, with defence-of-French laws in the province. However, I lived in Quebec for a while and had a Quebec nationalist girlfriend (une PQiste) who was inflexible on the issue of use of French in the Province de Quebec. But one time when ordering a hot dog one time, I made the mistake of ordering "un chien chaud."

"Don't say that," she said, "it makes you sound like a tourist. Ask for un 'ot dog."

[LizardBreath]

I've heard the "English is easier to learn" thing before, and wondered if it might mean that mangled, ungrammatical English is more comprehensible to an English speaker than equivalently mangled versions of other languages. English is hardly inflected, so you can get your meaning across fairly well without, necessarily, any idea how the grammar works. I bet someone with a 500 word vocabulary, and pretty much no other knowledge of the language, can do much more communicating in English than in most European languages. (This all comes straight from www.pulledoutofmyass.com).

[double-plus-ungood]

I don't think that's quite right. The closest example I can think of would be the English 'r', but it depends on what dialect you're talking about.

"th". Most difficult part of learning English, I'm told.

[rilkefan]

Problem with the metric system is that everything is natural and intuitive. With the English system you actually have to learn about units and understand them.

[Slartibartfast]

++!good, my family descends from France out of Quebec. Damn, small world.

[Opus]

Ooh look! Thanks!!

Ok, here's my naive, possibly ignorant, world politics question. Let me preface it by saying that I love my country, am thankful I live here, and recognize the myriad ways in which living here is preferable to living in many other places. This is not a Noam Chomsky post.

America has nuclear power. We have nuclear weapons. We have used nuclear weapons and have killed innocent people doing so (yes, while stopping a war, I get it). And we have invaded another country, removed its ruler, and occupied it.

So...why does everyone agree that Iran or South Korea shouldn't have nuclear capabilities? I agree that they shouldn't, but sitting here, I'm not sure I can articulate why they should be held to a different standard than we are. (And yes, I often wish no one had the capability, but that's a moot point.)

Is it because we are a democracy? Is that what qualifies one, in the world's eyes, for a nuclear club card?

[Opus]

NORTH Korea. NORTH Korea.

I'll go hide now.

[double-plus-ungood]

my family descends from France out of Quebec. Damn, small world.

Funny, you don't sound French.

Actually, I only lived there (Hull and Montreal) for about eight months in 1983, and have mostly lived in Vancouver since coming to Canada, with an exception of three years in the Yukon.

And yes, it's raining right now. As usual.

[double-plus-ungood]

Problem with the metric system is that everything is natural and intuitive. With the English system you actually have to learn about units and understand them.

"The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets 80 furlongs to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!" - Abe Simpson

[rilkefan]

10 miles to the 63 gallons? That's probably worse than a tank.

[hilzoy]

Opus: Just a stab at your question: I think the unstated, impolitic, yet probably real answer to your question is: the original 5 nuclear powers were all, for all their flaws (in some cases), basically reasonable enough that they were not going to go dropping nuclear weapons willy-nilly or anything; and they were all stable enough that there wasn't, well, much danger that their nuclear weapons would fall into the hands of lunatics. (Even when the USSR imploded, lunatics didn't take over.) -- I'm thinking of the claim I'm making as using a fairly weak sense of 'reasonable' -- one that lets in, say, the PRC solely on the grounds that it is stable in the sense I mentioned (if taken over, then not likely to be taken over by madmen), and unlikely to use nuclear weapons; and despite its other flaws, which are many. Whereas Pakistan is not stable (it could easily be taken over by people I would really, really rather not see having control of nuclear weapons) and might use them (if war broke out with India), and North Korea is already governed by a lunatic who might do more or less anything, and Iran is both unstable and run by a government whose motives are quite opaque.

Now: of course it can't be the official stated position of a government that we really don't want countries run by lunatics to have nuclear weapons. If, say, Canada was trying to get nuclear weapons, we might very well be less concerned about that prospect (though still opposed to it) than by the prospect of a nuclear North Korea, and yet I can't exactly see anyone saying, flat-out: look, Kim Jong Il, the reason we're much more worried by your nuclear program is because you are insane. But I think that's what a lot of people feel. I do.

And I don't think it's a Western thing. I really don't want anyone who doesn't currently have nuclear weapons to get them, and I hope that some countries who have them (Pakistan and India are at the top of my list). But there are some non-European countries that would worry me a lot less: Singapore, Costa Rica; the only reason I don't add Botswana to that list is that that generally stable country might yet be made unstable by its horrible AIDS rate.

[rilkefan]

Ok - why don't the Brits get rid of their nuclear arsenal? Ditto the French? (Well, there the answer is a tautology.)

[CaseyL]

I don't mind switching to metric, but what happens to our idioms when we do?

"Give her a centimeter and she'll take a kilometer" just doesn't...scan, somehow. Maybe "Give her a cent and she'll take a klick"?

"I wouldn't touch him with a 3-meter pole"...actually, that one works okay, once you're used to the sound of it.

But "Centimeter worm, centimeter worm, measuring the marigold" doesn't work no matter what you do to it :)

IIRC, a more reasonable protest of going metric was the expense and difficulty of having to retool everything from engineering specs to cookbooks. But that was when going metric was first proposed. As is usually the case, though, if we'd bitten the bullet way back then, we'd've gone through the change and be used to it by now.

[Phil]

But that was when going metric was first proposed.

In the interest of pedantry, "going metric" in the U.S. was first proposed back during the French Revolutionary period, when France was doing all their One Country, One Measurement, One Language, etc. stuff. For various reasons both diplomatic and undiplomatic (heh), we didn't jump on board. There's a great book called The Measure of All Things which details the French project to accurately measure a meridian for basing the meter, and it goes into a lot of America's reasons for not being a part of the whole metric thing.

[Josh]

"English doesn't borrow from other languages - English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar."
-- Anonymous.

Ha! I've seen that quote attributed to Mark Twain before, but never Anonymous.

But it's not Mark Twain *or* Anonymous; it's James Nicoll, who first uttered it here.

[Josh]

I poked around a bit for scholarly articles but didn't find a ranking of absolute difficulty. Any informed opinions out there?

Go find a copy of Language Myths, which covers this one and a bunch of others (like the notion that one language is more "beautiful" than another, or that slang is "slovenly"). Basically, there is not and can be no absolute ranking of the difficulty of learning a language, because language difficulty depends on what languages you already know. Think about it: children learn to speak every language known to mankind (excluding the artificial ones like Esperanto and Klingon), even the ones that Americans look at and find fiendishly complex. (If you think English looks bad from outside, check out some of the Native American ones.)

[rilkefan]

Josh, an easy test that comes to mind in comparing languages A and B is to measure competency in A of B-native learners and in B of A-native learners. Ditto rates of mastery in bilingual A-B children.

[sidereal]

Woo, a linguistics thread.

Language with most unique sounds: I vote for Nama.

Is English hard: Yes. Languages are easier to learn when the rules are consistently applied. English is grossly inconsistent, due to its whorish borrowing over the centuries and status as an ungodly Germano-Romance language. Quick, what's the past tense of 'buy'. Now 'fly'. Now 'try'. I'm not even counting the spelling, which is the worst I've ever seen.

Hardest english sound: R. The retroflex r kills people.

Determining a world language based on ease would likely leave you with Esperanto, and look how that went. You have to take into account beauty, too. I pick Mandarin or any Bantu language.

[Josh]

Josh, an easy test that comes to mind in comparing languages A and B is to measure competency in A of B-native learners and in B of A-native learners. Ditto rates of mastery in bilingual A-B children.

How does that get you around the where-you're-coming-from problem, though? German's a piece of cake for a native English speaker, Cantonese not so much. The bilingual children test looks more sound to me, but even then I suspect that one language may be socially preferred over the other, which then biases your test.

[JerryN]

Another very interesting book that gets into the history of measurement systems is Measuring America. It also provides an interesting perspective on how the vast middle of the US got settled.

[sidereal]

Oh, let's see. How can I make this an ignorant world politics question. .

Why isn't Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania more excited, since I just found out that there's a Mark Ryden retrospective exhibit on display in Seattle right now? I get to see the Meat Show live. I'm giggling like a schoolgirl.

[rilkefan]

Take a set of English-native speakers and teach them Cantonese, and take a set of C-n speakers and teach them E. If E is easier the Cantonese will do better.

[Josh]

Take a set of English-native speakers and teach them Cantonese, and take a set of C-n speakers and teach them E. If E is easier the Cantonese will do better.

Well, sure, you can do that for pairs of languages, but that's not what you were talking about before. Which is why I said you cannot make an *absolute* ranking of language difficulty.