MarshAviator wrote:I have been traveling on a project for about one year, mostly to Europe.
It's true and strange to see two non-native English speakers conversing in broken
simplistic English, but that's what you see (hear).
Even stranger is India, which has many local (regional) dialects,
and the common national language (Hindi) has a core of English words.
Sooner or later this could form the basis a universal language.
I wonder if the basic major forces in the clash of civilizations conflict with
be English (non US standard) and something else (what)?
Also 1500 words is more than most of the U.S. business travelers speak of French,Spanish or German.
And India is a former British colony, by the way. Just thought you'd like to know, because the world does not consist solely of Britain and its former colonies.
Yes, but my point is, limiting the vocabulary to 1500 words is a ridiculous idea. Maybe making the 1500 words the "beginners list" for learning English would be a good idea.
> I thought I'd comment on your blog "Parlez-vous Globish?"
> You make a few common mistakes. First, there are in fact three
> major language groups in Europe, the third being the Slavic group
> that relates languages such as Russian, Polish and Serbian. The
> linguistic dividing lines of Europe also tend to be cultural
> dividing lines. English is a Germanic language with Romance
> influence. Similarly, England has a Germanic culture with Romance
> Second, you assume that because English grammar has fewer forms
> than other languages', it is a simpler language to learn. Not
> quite accurate. English has some particularly complicated
> features that can make it difficult for many people to learn. Not
> all are eliminated by Globish.
> First, pronunciation. Spanish has five distinctive vowel sounds,
> Italian has seven, and very few languages internationally have
> more than about 10. English - depending on dialect - has 15-20 or
> more, including some pairs that are indistinguishible to those not
> used to hearing them. Further, English allows combinations of
> consonants that speakers of most languages would consider
> unpronounceable. For example, even a simple word such as
> "baseball" is very difficult for a native Japanese-speaker because
> Japanese does not allow a syllable to end with a consonant.
> English does not have any marked distinction between accusative
> and dative cases - that is, in the sentence "he gives the dog the
> bone", native speakers of many languages could be confused about
> whether the dog is being given a bone, or whether the bone is
> being given a dog. English may not change the word "the", but it
> strongly relies on word order to carry the meaning of phrases.
> So, instead of having to learn the endings of the words, you have
> to spend a long time learning what order the words have to go in.
> The most extreme example I can think of is English adjective
> order. English adjectives have to be placed in the correct order,
> otherwise the sentence sounds stilted, and a wrong order may
> impede understanding. For example, if you said "an old big
> house", people might assume that you are talking about something
> called a "big-house", rather than a house that is big and old.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest