On 07/15/2012 08:02 AM, Johnny A. Solbu wrote:
I remember attending a service in Norway, where an icelandic preacher who understood and
spoke nowegian, prefered to preach in english in Norway to avoid problems with us
understanding his meanings due to the fact that he's not fluent in our language. So he
had an interpreter beside him on the stage who translated from english to norwegian,
which is not as easy as it might sound. A few times the preacher interrupted the
translator, saying: "No, that's not what I said". :-)=
Clever preacher. I too was wondering why when diplomats (who speak good
English) talk to other diplomats from English-speaking countries, they
need to speak in their native language and use interpreters; I used to
think they wanted the extra time (while interpreters do their jobs) to
carefully 'word out' their responses or/and speak their native language
just to demonstrate their nations' sovereignty; neither of these reasons
seems justifiable.
Thanks for providing another perspective.
Regards - Goh Lip
--
Speech is conveniently located midway between thought and action, where
it often substitutes for both.
