As a person who has worked for many years in both kinesics and kinesiology I can tell you that language is intimately tied up with more psycho-physically than science or what is convenient. As a person who carries in their gestures, rhythms and even written words the affects of one language while having a second language as my base language I can tell you that it took many years of psycho-analysis, theatrical character study and the pedagogical understandings of the layering of language before I realized that I was walking in one world while talking in another. I often find that people here in New York who are from different cultures speaking English are not speaking my English nor are they working in my rhythms. Many of the conflicts on this list can be traced to the fact that people who are polychronic and multi-linear can understand what I write while to others it is just stream of consciousness. To me, what they write seems hopelessly tightly bound and over-simple but as a person of the theater I know that is not true.
That we are simply talking or writing in literal different languages while using English. It is much more efficient to use the correct language that balances the persona of the person doing the communicating. I surmise that as the reason for the existence of over 20 different languages existing side by side in India for example. As for Chinese, I know that the writing is read nationwide but the language dialects are so widely diverse that people speaking in one dialect cannot understand another and the subtle tone of the language is something that few Europeans are able to master unless started at a very early age. In other words, although I suggested the Chinese as a Lingua Franca at the outset of this discussion I would say that the issue is more complicated than we are making it here and that I prefer personally the diversity that we have at present within the context of appreciation of Heritage and the value of a psychology that is more than a couple of generations deep. Ray Evans Harrell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 4:32 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Chinese as the world language? was: Re: [Futurework] Languages (fwd) > > A note of thanks here from an avid reader of this fascinating discussion. I > am overwhelmed with work obligations here for the time being and can't chime > in, but I wanted each of you who are carrying this forward how much I and I > would guess many others on this list appreciate the caliber and productivity > of the discussion. > > Thank you. > Lawry de Bivort > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Hudson > > Sent: Fri, August 22, 2003 3:32 PM > > To: Ed Weick > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pete > > Subject: [Futurework] Chinese as the world language? was: Re: > > [Futurework] Languages (fwd) > > > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
