English by non English speaking people
-
- AcousticHippie
- 4769 posts since 12 Mar, 2003
I like to write and sing in english although I'm far from being a native speaker.... but I mostly listen to american bands and when watching a film I prefer to watch the english version... unless it's not an english film
-
- KVRAF
- 1870 posts since 21 Feb, 2004 from somewhere! anywhere!
i earn my living 'teaching' english here in japan. from this i've come to learn two very important things:
1. english is the international language, it belongs to everyone, and as such can be spoken anyway you like.
2. listening is more important than speaking.
my wife is a non-native speaker but has an excellent grasp of english nuance, by which i mean she rarely mistakes another speaker's intention and can more than adequately get her point across, despite making a multitude of grammatical errors. furthermore, at home she is the dominant talker, such that in conversation with her i tend to adopt her 'way with words' and happily throw my perfect english aside. the point i wish to make here is that it's a two way process, if a 'native speaker' talking with a 'non-native', is unable to make some concession in order to establish a common ground, then true communication is lost.
so basically i'm quite happy to listen to songs sung in english by 'non-native' speakers, though i'm often happier to listen to songs sung in a language i have no understanding of. super furry animals' all welsh 'mwng' album being one of my favourites, or anything by nusret fateh ali kahn.
regards
1. english is the international language, it belongs to everyone, and as such can be spoken anyway you like.
2. listening is more important than speaking.
my wife is a non-native speaker but has an excellent grasp of english nuance, by which i mean she rarely mistakes another speaker's intention and can more than adequately get her point across, despite making a multitude of grammatical errors. furthermore, at home she is the dominant talker, such that in conversation with her i tend to adopt her 'way with words' and happily throw my perfect english aside. the point i wish to make here is that it's a two way process, if a 'native speaker' talking with a 'non-native', is unable to make some concession in order to establish a common ground, then true communication is lost.
so basically i'm quite happy to listen to songs sung in english by 'non-native' speakers, though i'm often happier to listen to songs sung in a language i have no understanding of. super furry animals' all welsh 'mwng' album being one of my favourites, or anything by nusret fateh ali kahn.
regards
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35506 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
respirator quoth
The problem is with the people who speaks English as their national language. They have to learn a new language - international English - that is very close to their mother tongue but nevertheless is an entirely different beast.
So you're saying we have should forego a complete usage of our native language merely because there are people out there who only use a subset of it? Bollocks.
The international vocabulary is limited, slang and idioms even more so.
So? My 'international German' is even more limited; should native German speakers be brought to my level?
And they have to accept that the national versions of English is a secondary form of English to the international version.
Ummm, no. Because there's actually no such thing as 'international English' in any real, universal, standardised sense.
The problem is with the people who speaks English as their national language. They have to learn a new language - international English - that is very close to their mother tongue but nevertheless is an entirely different beast.
So you're saying we have should forego a complete usage of our native language merely because there are people out there who only use a subset of it? Bollocks.
The international vocabulary is limited, slang and idioms even more so.
So? My 'international German' is even more limited; should native German speakers be brought to my level?
And they have to accept that the national versions of English is a secondary form of English to the international version.
Ummm, no. Because there's actually no such thing as 'international English' in any real, universal, standardised sense.
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- KVRAF
- 4738 posts since 20 Feb, 2004 from Gothenburg, Sweden
-
- KVRAF
- 1955 posts since 5 Sep, 2003 from Denmark
The point is that there is two different languages. And when communicating to an international audience you should use the international version of English. It doesn't do you or you audience any good if you speak or write in a way that isn't understood. Thus you should adhere to the lesser international "standards". That's not bollocks. That's common sense.whyterabbyt wrote:respirator quoth ...Bollocks. ....
A true, universal language is probably the right way to go - in an ideal world. With clear rules and no national bindings. But I don't hear many songs done in Esperanto
-
- KVRAF
- 4738 posts since 20 Feb, 2004 from Gothenburg, Sweden
respirator: All depends ofcourse, I prefer educated UK english. When reading english that is just a wee bit "harder" than what you're used to, your language skills improve. Which anyone interested in communicating in a language should aim for. Esperanto is not an universal language, way less so than english. Even less than klingon, iirc.
Stefan H Singer
https://dropshotaudio.com/
https://dropshotaudio.com/
-
- KVRAF
- 2285 posts since 20 Dec, 2002 from The Benighted States of Trumpistan
Ah, finally something for my inner conlang geek. Check out Justin Rye's "Learn Not to Speak Esperanto for a hilarious, if arcanely abstruse diatribe on Esperanto at http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/.My spies inform me that respirator wrote:A true, universal language is probably the right way to go - in an ideal world. With clear rules and no national bindings. But I don't hear many songs done in Esperanto
Lojban, Quenya, or even Klingon are much better choices, linguistically speaking, than Esperanto. Plus, they all have growing bodies of literature -- and yes, even song.
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Wait... loot _then_ burn? D'oh!
-
- KVRAF
- 2285 posts since 20 Dec, 2002 from The Benighted States of Trumpistan
Speaking as a professional educator in English (ok, a substitute teacher -- albeit one with a Master's in English), Whyterabbit is correct. But then, I find content to be far more important than perfect form.My spies doth inform me that whyterabbyt wrote:So you're saying we have should forego a complete usage of our native language merely because there are people out there who only use a subset of it? Bollocks.
>8 -- snip -- 8<
Ummm, no. Because there's actually no such thing as 'international English' in any real, universal, standardised sense.
Wait... loot _then_ burn? D'oh!
-
- KVRAF
- 2285 posts since 20 Dec, 2002 from The Benighted States of Trumpistan
Welcome to democracy!Bonteburg wrote:Everytime I make a really good point someone starts a new page and there's an argument about something!!!
Wait... loot _then_ burn? D'oh!
-
- KVRAF
- 1955 posts since 5 Sep, 2003 from Denmark
Bonteburg: Sorry.
Jafo: The point is that in the real world "international English" exists. It's not formalized. It's not regulated. But it's a reality. And speakers of one of the several "national Englishes" should be aware of this and communicate accordingly. They have an advantage (they know the language by heart) and a disadvantage (they know the language too well). I hope I'm clear. Probably not. And now I'll give this thread back to Bonteburg.
Jafo: The point is that in the real world "international English" exists. It's not formalized. It's not regulated. But it's a reality. And speakers of one of the several "national Englishes" should be aware of this and communicate accordingly. They have an advantage (they know the language by heart) and a disadvantage (they know the language too well). I hope I'm clear. Probably not. And now I'll give this thread back to Bonteburg.
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35506 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
respirator quoth
The point is that there is two different languages.
Nope. There is a modern, standardised language, which has evolved over hundreds of years and continues to evolve, and there is a nominal idea that a fuzzy, undefined subset of that language is a different language in and of itself. Its not; its a subset.
And when communicating to an international audience you should use the international version of English.
Why? Why should I talk down to them, or patronise those who speak perfect 'native' English?
It doesn't do you or you audience any good if you speak or write in a way that isn't understood.
Ah, so we should wipe out dialects and regional variations and everything thats rich and wonderful about language, so we can cater to some bland nondescript mediocre subset. Awa an' bile yer heid.
Thus you should adhere to the lesser international "standards". That's not bollocks. That's common sense.
There is no definition of what this is, therefore there is nothing that can be adhered to. And I refuse to compromise an artistic medium for the sake of some naive attempt to wring all that is useful and interesting from it in the name of 'common sense'.
Yeah, while we're at it, lets stop using anything other than major scales. After all, we wouldnt want people to learn anything more than the most ubiquitous subset of anything, would we?
The point is that there is two different languages.
Nope. There is a modern, standardised language, which has evolved over hundreds of years and continues to evolve, and there is a nominal idea that a fuzzy, undefined subset of that language is a different language in and of itself. Its not; its a subset.
And when communicating to an international audience you should use the international version of English.
Why? Why should I talk down to them, or patronise those who speak perfect 'native' English?
It doesn't do you or you audience any good if you speak or write in a way that isn't understood.
Ah, so we should wipe out dialects and regional variations and everything thats rich and wonderful about language, so we can cater to some bland nondescript mediocre subset. Awa an' bile yer heid.
Thus you should adhere to the lesser international "standards". That's not bollocks. That's common sense.
There is no definition of what this is, therefore there is nothing that can be adhered to. And I refuse to compromise an artistic medium for the sake of some naive attempt to wring all that is useful and interesting from it in the name of 'common sense'.
Yeah, while we're at it, lets stop using anything other than major scales. After all, we wouldnt want people to learn anything more than the most ubiquitous subset of anything, would we?
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- KVRist
- 353 posts since 10 Nov, 2002 from The Dirty Wee Port of Glasgow
whyterabbyt wrote:
Ah, so we should wipe out dialects and regional variations and everything thats rich and wonderful about language, so we can cater to some bland nondescript mediocre subset. Awa an' bile yer heid.
Aye, n'lang may yer lum reek ya buncha dobbers