On Saturday 03 May 2008 6:29:27 pm Rishab Ghosh wrote: > On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 05:42:55PM +0530, ss wrote: > > If you were to tell me that the Chinese approach too is ad hoc, it would > > be different from what I think. To me the Chinese approach seems > > deliberate and planned, the Indian approach ad hoc. > > but shiv, isn't that true of everything, not just learning foreign > languages? and at least partly the difference between a chaotic democracy > and an autocracy? > > look at chinese roads... telecoms... the airports... the ability to > construct huge dams (or an "old city centre") with no questions asked...
and let me also quote ashok_ On Saturday 03 May 2008 6:28:03 pm ashok _ wrote: > It could probably be more because of China being a communist state rather > than general linguistic curiosity. I can't disagree with the notion that "an autocracy channeled properly" forms a large part of the explanation. But equally, I can't help thinking that coercion or not, this is one more thing the Chinese have got right. If I shift continents and look at say the US instead of China or India, I believe it is possible to deliberately study Chinese in the US, or even Hindi for that matter in designated University departments. The point I want to make is that the US feels it important enough to fund (by some means) and maintain foreign language departments in Universities that can offer courses those who want to study any language. This is an indicator of academic excellence which does come about by accident. For any organization, country or geopolitical entity, the study of foreign languages is useful and, in the long term, greatly profitable. This realization has come to the Chinese. But not to the powers that be in India. shiv PS - more later - need to go to out..
