*****Why has English become the main world language?****
John Philip Dahl
become the main world language" does anyone know? or can anyone help me?
jp
Mike Dowling
>I everybody, I am working on an english project, about "why English has
>become the main world language" does anyone know? or can anyone help me?
I would have thought that that was fairly obvious.
Great Britain colonised a large chunk of the world, beginning with North
America. Today almost a third of the world's population is living in a
former colony. Most of these people are continually exposed to English.
Often, as in India, English is still the one language that all ethnic
groups use to communicate with the others.
During the nineteenth century, Britain's was the most successful
economy, and Britain, being a trading nation, had contacts with most of
the world, making English the language of trade.
During the twentieth century, the USA took over as the dominant economy,
and, as a former British colony, its language is English. Being a free
trading country, it too has continued to make English the language of
trade. After these two centuries, English has become the language of
international business.
More recently, with the Internet, discussions other than local
discussions can only take place in the language that most people speak
either as their native language or else as their first foreign language,
namely English. In other words, merely because English is used for
international communication, its demand for this purpose increases,
whence more people learn it for this purpose, whence the greater the
demand to learn and use English becomes. It's a vicious or virtuous
circle depending upon your perspective.
Now, for the French who tend to look on such developments as a threat to
the French language, pause for a moment and think. If not already the
case, English will soon be spoken by more non-native speakers than
native speakers. I wonder which language is under the greater threat.
Well, I don't think that either language is "threatened", but it does
make me squeamish to think that future developments will be dictated
more by foreigners than native speakers. It's bad enough with all these
Americanisms coming through.
Cheers,
Mike
--
My email address mi...@moocow.math.tu-bs.de above is a valid email address.
It is, in fact, a sendmail alias; the digit 'N' is incremented regularly.
Spammed aliases will be deleted. Currently, mike[12,15,22+]
are valid. If email to mikeN bounces, try mikeN+1.
Nightjar
John Philip Dahl <joh...@online.no> wrote in message
news:Jxws4.4697$kz6....@news1.online.no...
> I everybody, I am working on an english project, about "why English
has
> become the main world language" does anyone know? or can anyone help
me?
Because we conquered a quarter of the world's land surface and found it
was easier to teach some of the locals to speak English than to learn
hundreds of local languages. That was reinforced in the 20th century by
America creating a world wide economic empire and being even less
willing to learn foreign languages than the British.
Colin Bignell
Burkhard Hassel
language, you need also a world wide empire where "the sun never
sets". So chinese, spoken by roughly 1E9 people, has got no chance.
But I think there is a second reason: Simplicity.
There have been also empires that can be compared with the british,
all with romanic languages (french, spanish and portuguese). The
empires existed more or less in parallel with the british, so they
should have had the same chance like english.
But english is more simpler in it's structure and therefore easier to
learn. For example it has more or less no flexion of verbs (only the
3rd person singular differs).
Secondly, new words can be created more easily, take "software" as an
example. It's created by just combining an existing adjective with an
existing noun. In French, the "Academie" had to create a entirely new
word (logiciel).
And not to forget: rock music...
On 22 Feb 2000, mik...@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de (Mike Dowling) wrote:
>Now, for the French who tend to look on such developments as a threat to
>the French language, pause for a moment and think. If not already the
>case, English will soon be spoken by more non-native speakers than
>native speakers. I wonder which language is under the greater threat.
That's a new argument for me, hope I'm threatening as little as
possible...
Burki
Molly
John Philip Dahl (John Philip Dahl <joh...@online.no>) wrote
>I everybody,
I nobody :-(
--
Molly (change nospam to orbs to email me)
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com for a totally free and simple way
to donate food to the hungry. (Go on, try it!)
Torkel Franzen
>But english is more simpler in it's structure and therefore easier to
>learn.
No it isn't. The predominance of English as an international
language is wholly explained by historical and economic factors.
Andi Carey
>I everybody, I am working on an english project, about "why English has
>become the main world language" does anyone know? or can anyone help me?
>
expansionist fast breeders who spoke English.
Er, I'll get my coat.
--
Andi Carey
BarCode
http://sites.netscape.net/bethanthomas/global
Cheers,
BarCode
--
I do not pretend to understand the universe. It is a great deal bigger than
I am.
John Philip Dahl wrote in message ...
>I everybody, I am working on an english project, about "why English has
>become the main world language" does anyone know? or can anyone help me?
>
>jp
>
>
Austin De Brou
Austin.
"Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote in message
news:vcbhff0...@beta13.sm.luth.se...
Danny Collman
Dowling <mik...@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de> writes
>On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:50:53 +0100, John Philip Dahl <joh...@online.no> wrote:
>>I everybody, I am working on an english project, about "why English has
>>become the main world language" does anyone know? or can anyone help me?
>
>
>Great Britain colonised a large chunk of the world, beginning with North
>America. Today almost a third of the world's population is living in a
>former colony. Most of these people are continually exposed to English.
>Often, as in India, English is still the one language that all ethnic
>groups use to communicate with the others.
>
>During the nineteenth century, Britain's was the most successful
>economy, and Britain, being a trading nation, had contacts with most of
>the world, making English the language of trade.
>
>During the twentieth century, the USA took over as the dominant economy,
>and, as a former British colony, its language is English. Being a free
>trading country, it too has continued to make English the language of
>trade. After these two centuries, English has become the language of
>international business.
>
>More recently, with the Internet, discussions other than local
>discussions can only take place in the language that most people speak
>either as their native language or else as their first foreign language,
>namely English. In other words, merely because English is used for
>international communication, its demand for this purpose increases,
>whence more people learn it for this purpose, whence the greater the
>demand to learn and use English becomes. It's a vicious or virtuous
>circle depending upon your perspective.
>
>the French language, pause for a moment and think. If not already the
>case, English will soon be spoken by more non-native speakers than
>native speakers. I wonder which language is under the greater threat.
>
>make me squeamish to think that future developments will be dictated
>more by foreigners than native speakers. It's bad enough with all these
>Americanisms coming through.
>
>Cheers,
>Mike
>
highly intrigued by the fact that no-one has pointed out one interesting
fact..... that the English which became World Wide during the later part
of the last century (20th) is not merely 'English', it is American
English.
I would agree very strongly with Mike's comments above, but he merely
implies (and not strongly either) the Americanisation of the world wide
English language. It is not merely 'Americanisms coming through', but
the fact that in the vast majority of instances, people learning English
as an additional language, learn the American version.
I'd be interested to hear a correction on that.
--
Danny Collman, Birmingham
John Philip Dahl
jp
Mike Dowling
>and why not French, German, Spanish or any other language??
A good point. I'll tell you what, let's declare the world language from
now on to be Norwegian. To make your point, I suggest that in future,
all your posts to usenet be in Norwegian.
Simon R. Hughes
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:26:26 +0100, John Philip Dahl <joh...@online.no> wrote:
> >and why not French, German, Spanish or any other language??
>
> A good point. I'll tell you what, let's declare the world language from
> now on to be Norwegian. To make your point, I suggest that in future,
> all your posts to usenet be in Norwegian.
The world language is already Norwegian, they won't let just *anybody*
learn it, though.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://sult.8m.com/
<!-- I'm a mere fragment of my imagination. -->
Quoting Usenet Articles in Follow-ups -- http://sult.8m.com/quote.html
Mike Barnes
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote
>Thus spake Mike Dowling, mik...@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:26:26 +0100, John Philip Dahl <joh...@online.no>
>wrote:
>> >and why not French, German, Spanish or any other language??
>>
>> A good point. I'll tell you what, let's declare the world language from
>> now on to be Norwegian. To make your point, I suggest that in future,
>> all your posts to usenet be in Norwegian.
>
>The world language is already Norwegian
Yes, but *which* Norwegian?
--
Mike Barnes
Jacques R.
> and why not French, German, Spanish or any other language??
Although English is a very complex language in the expresion it allows,
its grammar is relatively (I have to stress <relatively>, having spent
years learning it) simple - and this obviously plays in its favour.
German is probably disqualified by its declensions (if that is the
correct word), which means, for instance, that the German equivalent of
the article "the" has 4 different forms for masculine, feminine,
neutral, and plural, multiplied by 4 different cases (nominative,
accusative, dative, genitive) - and that adjectives follow suit.
In French, it's verbs: French verbs are a nightmare (even for the
French). Whereas a normal English verb has 5 simple forms (for instance
eat, eats, ate, eaten, eating) not including the compound forms,
sometimes 4 only (have, has, had, having), an average French verb has
over 30 (probably closer to 40 in most cases).
Where French had to become the link between different linguistic groups,
as it used to be in the French empire, it evolved into a sort of basic,
"pidgin" French, which we call "creole", several delightful varieties of
which are still spoken in the French-speaking West Indies, and in
various places in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. One of the most obvious
characteristics of "creole" French is the simplification of the verb
forms.
Jacques
Carmela Chateau
Mike Barnes a écrit :
> In uk.culture.language.english, Simon R. Hughes
> <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote
> >Thus spake Mike Dowling, mik...@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de:
> >
> >> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:26:26 +0100, John Philip Dahl <joh...@online.no>
> >wrote:
> >> >and why not French, German, Spanish or any other language??
> >>
> >> A good point. I'll tell you what, let's declare the world language from
> >> now on to be Norwegian. To make your point, I suggest that in future,
> >> all your posts to usenet be in Norwegian.
> >
> >The world language is already Norwegian
>
> Yes, but *which* Norwegian?
>
> --
> Mike Barnes
Didn't Columbus have a Norwegian map?
CC
Torkel Franzen
> Although English is a very complex language in the expresion it allows,
> its grammar is relatively (I have to stress <relatively>, having spent
> years learning it) simple - and this obviously plays in its favour.
No, it's completely irrelevant.
Simon R. Hughes
> In uk.culture.language.english, Simon R. Hughes
> <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote
> >Thus spake Mike Dowling, mik...@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de:
> >
> >> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:26:26 +0100, John Philip Dahl <joh...@online.no>
> >wrote:
> >> >and why not French, German, Spanish or any other language??
> >>
> >> A good point. I'll tell you what, let's declare the world language from
> >> now on to be Norwegian. To make your point, I suggest that in future,
> >> all your posts to usenet be in Norwegian.
> >
> >The world language is already Norwegian
>
> Yes, but *which* Norwegian?
Helge Ingstad or Thor Heyrdahl. Take your pick.
Mike Fleming
<mi...@senrab.com> writes:
> Yes, but *which* Norwegian?
The Norwegian Blue, of course. Beautiful plu... oh sorry, that's
uk.culture.python, isn't it?
--
Mike Fleming
corin-slocombe@bridith.freeserve.co.uk j.corin-slocombe
John Philip Dahl <joh...@online.no> wrote in message
news:XQPu4.2724$6b1....@news1.online.no...
> and why not French, German, Spanish or any other language??
>
>
>
> I strongly suspect it has got something to do with Britain acquiring a
world wide Empire and then shouting at the locals until they understood.
Tinka
"j.corin-slocombe" wrote:
> > I strongly suspect it has got something to do with Britain acquiring a
> world wide Empire and then shouting at the locals until they understood.
Also, another recurrent claim is that English easily adapts new words and
thus can easily adapt to new situations and enviroments. Look to pidgin
English -- it is a quite distinct form of English, but it is easy to
understand and quick to master (so I have been told). Also, for foreigners
such as myself, English is easy to learn. The grammar is uncomplicated
(until you reach a certain level, of course) and with a basic knowledge of
500 words you can get very far.
--
Tinka
--------
Moving with grace that men despise
And women have learnt to lose
- Jeff Buckley; "The Sky is a Landfill"
John Davies
<mul...@NOSPAMscandis-kol.dk> writes
>
>
>"j.corin-slocombe" wrote:
>
>> > I strongly suspect it has got something to do with Britain acquiring a
>> world wide Empire and then shouting at the locals until they understood.
There was a lengthy thread about this, under the title "Why has English
become the main spoken language of the World?" in alt.usage.english last
month. It can be seen on the dejanews website.
>
>Also, another recurrent claim is that English easily adapts new words and
>thus can easily adapt to new situations and enviroments. Look to pidgin
>English -- it is a quite distinct form of English, but it is easy to
>understand and quick to master (so I have been told). Also, for foreigners
>such as myself, English is easy to learn. The grammar is uncomplicated
>(until you reach a certain level, of course) and with a basic knowledge of
>500 words you can get very far.
>
>
Yes, that claim is often made, but as an explanation of English's world-
wide dominance it is complete and utter nonsense. The success of any
language internationally is all to do with the economic, military and
imperial success of those who speak it, and nothing whatever to do with
its flexibility or the ease with which it can be learned.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Matthew M. Huntbach
> "j.corin-slocombe" wrote:
> > > I strongly suspect it has got something to do with Britain acquiring a
> > world wide Empire and then shouting at the locals until they understood.
> Also, another recurrent claim is that English easily adapts new words and
> thus can easily adapt to new situations and enviroments. Look to pidgin
> English -- it is a quite distinct form of English, but it is easy to
> understand and quick to master (so I have been told). Also, for foreigners
> such as myself, English is easy to learn. The grammar is uncomplicated
> (until you reach a certain level, of course) and with a basic knowledge of
> 500 words you can get very far.
Exactly the same could be said for Creole French. Of course, English grammar
is horrendously complex, as threads in this newsgroup demonstrate.
Matthew Huntbach
corin-slocombe@bridith.freeserve.co.uk j.corin-slocombe
also had Empires. Which like the English supressed the local languages.
Rhys Watkins also makes a valid point when he wrote
"I'm more inclined to think it is the American influence on the commercial
world since WWII than the British domination of the world in times gone by."
Rhys Watkins
Slacks Creek
Australia
I would argue that commercial and technological development started before
WWII but after WWII it dramatically increased.
judith
j.corin-slocombe <j corin-s...@bridith.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8btjo6$6d8$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> John Philip Dahl <joh...@online.no> wrote in message
> news:XQPu4.2724$6b1....@news1.online.no...
> > and why not French, German, Spanish or any other language??
> >
> >
> > jp
> >
Susannah Smit
Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8bv4gq$d7q$6...@beta.qmw.ac.uk...
> Tinka (mul...@NOSPAMscandis-kol.dk) wrote:
> > "j.corin-slocombe" wrote:
>
a
> > > world wide Empire and then shouting at the locals until they
understood.
>
and
> > thus can easily adapt to new situations and enviroments. Look to pidgin
> > English -- it is a quite distinct form of English, but it is easy to
> > understand and quick to master (so I have been told). Also, for
foreigners
> > such as myself, English is easy to learn. The grammar is uncomplicated
> > (until you reach a certain level, of course) and with a basic knowledge
of
> > 500 words you can get very far.
>
> Exactly the same could be said for Creole French. Of course, English
grammar
> is horrendously complex, as threads in this newsgroup demonstrate.
>
> Matthew Huntbach
Just a thought, but English could have become so predominant because it the
official language in 44 countries spread throughout the world, whereas
Spanish, Chinese and other major languages are spoken by people living in
one or two geographical areas, albeit large.
Sue
John Fisher
<j@corin-slocombe.?.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> and why not French, German, Spanish or any other language??
>>
>I strongly suspect it has got something to do with Britain acquiring a
>world wide Empire and then shouting at the locals until they understood.
And after that, to reinforce the point, the Americans came along and
*paid* them to talk English.
--
John Fisher jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk
Mike Dowling
>I think my original suspicion holds true. The French, Germans and Spaniards
>also had Empires.
I bit off topic, I suppose, but to include the Germans and not the Dutch
is more than odd.
Cheers,
Mike
--
My email address mi...@moocow.math.tu-bs.de above is a valid email address.
It is, in fact, a sendmail alias; the digit 'N' is incremented regularly.
Spammed aliases will be deleted. Currently, mike[22,23]
Molly
-bs.de>, Mike Dowling (Mike Dowling <mik...@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de>)
wrote
>On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:06:19 +0100, j.corin-slocombe <jcorin-...@bridith.fr
>eeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>I think my original suspicion holds true. The French, Germans and Spaniards
>>also had Empires.
>
>I bit off topic, I suppose, but to include the Germans and not the Dutch
>is more than odd.
>
c o jones
Mike Dowling <mik...@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de> wrote in message
news:slrn8ejcoj...@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de...
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:06:19 +0100, j.corin-slocombe
<jcorin-...@bridith.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >I think my original suspicion holds true. The French, Germans and
Spaniards
> >also had Empires.
>
> I bit off topic, I suppose, but to include the Germans and not the Dutch
> is more than odd.
>
> Mike
"The Germans only had a Sausage factory in Tanganyika" according to Edmund
Blackadder in Blackadder goes forth
coj
Roy Archer
>On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, in article
><slrn8ejcoj...@moocow.math.nat.tu -bs.de>, Mike
>Dowling (Mike Dowling <mik...@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de>)
>wrote
>>On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:06:19 +0100, j.corin-slocombe
>><jcorin-...@bridith.fr eeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>I think my original suspicion holds true. The French,
>>>Germans and Spaniards also had Empires.
>>
>>I bit off topic, I suppose, but to include the Germans and
>>not the Dutch is more than odd.
>>
>And the Portuguese ...
Not to mention the Russians, who had a sizeable Asian empire
during both the Tsarist and Communist eras.
--
Roy Archer
http://www.fonts.org.uk free fonts
http://web.ukonline.co.uk free graphics
-
Eugeny Kornienko
> Not to mention the Russians, who had a sizeable Asian empire during
> both the Tsarist and Communist eras.
Actually empires spread their main imperial language and depress other
ones. On the vast of USSR all know Russian, but English remains quite
foreign language in this long-life Empire.
Mostly English penetrated into Russia along with American computers and
the American Internet. So first who widely used English were programmers
and networkers. Only today English enters in business and justice. Quite
few can speak English by the phone. For example I never spoke English at
all. It is a language for correspondence. :)
Latest news, children study English playing computer games, mostly
illegal ones. It works; the children succeed in English at their school
lessons, too.
Eugeny
corin-slocombe@bridith.freeserve.co.uk j.corin-slocombe
Since there has been so much acquisition of empires that I had not taken
into account it flaws my argument considerably. Back to the drawing board
Judith.
Kind regrds
Judith
Eugeny Kornienko <ko...@online.ru> wrote in message
news:8cejqt$g15$1...@news.sovam.com...
corin-slocombe@bridith.freeserve.co.uk j.corin-slocombe
a very interesting history as regards empire building and their influence on
the world both economically and culturally. I find the orignal question of
Why has English become the main world language? a facinating question and it
makes me wonder why we have not come across reams of material about the
subject. I find it difficult to believe that someone somewhere has not
taken it up. To make a study of it would be a very arduous task. It would
take years to do it justice. I am sure that there would be some very
interesting and surprising results. It reminds me that perhaps I ought to
to read Churchill's 'History of the of the English Speaking World' (at
least I think that is the title). A visit to the local library I think is
in order.
Kidn regards Judith
Mike Dowling <mik...@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de> wrote in message
news:slrn8ejcoj...@moocow.math.nat.tu-bs.de...
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:06:19 +0100, j.corin-slocombe
<jcorin-...@bridith.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >I think my original suspicion holds true. The French, Germans and
Spaniards
> >also had Empires.
>
> I bit off topic, I suppose, but to include the Germans and not the Dutch
> is more than odd.
>
Peter Duncanson
> To have left the Dutch out is an omission on my part. The Dutch
indeed have
> a very interesting history as regards empire building and their
influence on
> the world both economically and culturally. I find the orignal
question of
> Why has English become the main world language? a facinating question
and it
> makes me wonder why we have not come across reams of material about
the
> subject. I find it difficult to believe that someone somewhere has
not
> taken it up. To make a study of it would be a very arduous task. It
would
> take years to do it justice. I am sure that there would be some very
> interesting and surprising results. It reminds me that perhaps I
ought to
> to read Churchill's 'History of the of the English Speaking World'
(at
> least I think that is the title). A visit to the local library I
think is
> in order.
"History of the English-Speaking Peoples"
If reams of material have been produced they might be in any language
except English! English speakers will just take the status of their
language as a fact of life.
Peter D