Ed, I have spent a lot of time in St. Elizabeth Parish in Jamaica and have become accustomed to speaking with rural Jamaicans but when two rural Jamaicans shift completely into Patawa [Patois], although it is English I am hard pressed to follow. This is similar to a time when I was ordering tickets at a counter in London. The guy who spoke perfect English [not American], picked up the phone and switched into Cockney and I didn't get anything.
Bill On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 09:38:51 -0400 "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Keith: > > > I'm sure you must be right. However, Quebecian French will die in > the end > > if Quebec wants to stay in the mainstream of the developed world. > When is > > another matter. It's interesting that the French Academy have > given up > > their long-time attempts to exclude American and English word > imports. > > Almost all middle class Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Dutch and > > what-have-you can speak fairly fluent English because that's the > language > > of modern commerce and science. Almost no middle class Englishmen > could > put > > more than a sentence or two together in another language. Once > upon a time > > I used to be able to read Simenon and Pushkin in their own > languages > fairly > > comfortably -- and enjoyably, too -- but I could never speak the > languages. > > One has to appreciate that there is a difference between street > French and > the French spoken by the educated. My understanding is that the > latter > speak French, as in France, with perhaps some minor differences. My > neice's > daughter, who attends the French language University of Montreal, is > off to > the Sorbonne next year. She's already done some of her studies in > France > and has encountered no problems. > > It's interesting how languages evolve. When I was in Jamaica a few > years > ago, I had to go way back into the hill country to talk to some > elderly > people who had lived there all their lives. Though they spoke > English, I > could barely understand them. Another generation or so of > isolation, and I > might not be able to. > > Ed Weick > > > > > > At 10:39 22/08/2003 -0400, Ed Weick wrote: > > >(KH) > > >But surely, Prof Daniel Abrams' thesis is *not* valid. He is > trying to > > >maintain that minority languages can be protected. I originally > wrote > > >that this is not possible. PW, EW and I have each been saying > that once a > > >new way of life becomes communicable, tradable and geographically > > >possible, then minority languages disappear. Prof Abrams would do > better > > >to spend his time and research money in recording as many > minority > > >languages as possible for future study and analysis, than trying > to save > > >them in the here and now while our present type of economic > system is > > >still sweeping the world. > > > > (EW) > > >Much would seem to depend on the size, status and power of the > linguistic > > >group. There is no doubt in my mind that Quebec will maintain > French and > > >do its governing and business in French in the foreseeable > future. The > people > > >it will deal with in Ottawa will have to be able to use French. > > > > I'm sure you must be right. However, Quebecian French will die in > the end > > if Quebec wants to stay in the mainstream of the developed world. > When is > > another matter. It's interesting that the French Academy have > given up > > their long-time attempts to exclude American and English word > imports. > > Almost all middle class Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Dutch and > > what-have-you can speak fairly fluent English because that's the > language > > of modern commerce and science. Almost no middle class Englishmen > could > put > > more than a sentence or two together in another language. Once > upon a time > > I used to be able to read Simenon and Pushkin in their own > languages > fairly > > comfortably -- and enjoyably, too -- but I could never speak the > languages. > > > > Although I think that English is a strong candidate as a world > language, I > > wouldn't bet on it. Chinese is a much stronger candidate in the > longer > > term. It is basically easier to learn than most others. It has > lost all > the > > appendages that other languages still have -- conjugations, > declensions, > > irregular verbs, subjunctives, ablatives, and so on -- nightmares > that > > plagues learners of most other languages. Chinese has also lost > > inflections, cases, persons, genders, degrees, tenses, voices, > moods, > > affixes, infinitives, participles, gerunds and articles. It lost > all these > > in the course of several thousand years of a largely unified > culture and > > literature. There are no words of more than one syllable and > every word > > has only one form. It proceeds by means of subject and predicate > -- that's > > all -- and explicates by means of metaphors. Thousands of them. > Tens of > > thousands of them. More poetry has been written in Chinese than in > any > > other language. > > > > Chinese is just about the most finely chiselled language in the > world -- > > the most fully developed. And when China gets to the forefront > in > science, > > technology and commerce I think it will probably whop the confused > and > > convoluted language that we call English (much as I love it). > > > > Keith Hudson > > > > > > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England, > > <www.evolutionary-economics.org> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
