Paul Doonan doesn’t say how many languages he is fluent in, but he seems pretty ‘ignorant’ himself in the way he calls English-only speakers “ignorant” and “self satisfied”.

“When was the last time you read an Urdu poet in the original? Or even in translation? Hindi readers will have read Dickens, often in English, but how many English readers have even heard of Kalidasa?”

Yeah? How many of the millions of Hindi speakers have read Dickens in English?

Many people believe that it’s good to study other languages, and in some professions it is essential. But people who speak only their own native language – most people, I would think – are not “ignorant” simply because this character says so. Or, at least, we are no more ‘ignorant’ than the multitudes of people who don’t speak English

Great stuff altogether.

Mr "right" is at his usual nit-picking narkiness.

Its true we whiteys presume that we are culturally superior to everyone else. Our "education" system trains us to be so.

The (christian) white-man always ruled and won in the various "media" that I grew up with--TV, comics, books. Somehow the (heathen) darkies and coloureds always needed the whiteys (preferrably christian) to sort out their troubles. Tarzan, the Phantom and Biggles.

And in the real world christian missionaries were bringing "christ" to the "heathen savages", whilst at the same time OUR carpet-baggers were stealing the resources of the indigenous peoples, ALL over the world.

Of course traditionalist Indians, Chinese, Japanese etc etc. belief that their culture is superior. As do Moslems wherever they live. They are all quite rightly trying to defend their Traditions against the onslaught of the culturally bankrupt barbarians from the West. This is particularly so in the case of Moslems.

Classical Brahmin Indian's considered the white man to be ignorant barbarians completely devoid of any cultural sensitivity, or even the possibility of such. They even had a word to describe us ---mlecchas.

Meanwhile white might is right is championed by the titles of such books as The West Against the Rest, America Alone. And by groups that promote the idea of the Anglophone "supremacy" and even the American Century.

Ideas which can be both quite sophisticated or even god-smackingly crude as in the various white aryan nation rantings.

The world-wide emergence and swing back to the right-wing politics of cultural "purity" and their simplistic slogans is a chilling sign of the tempo of the times.

There are lots of scapegoats to be found out "there".

I really don't know what all the hoo-ha is all about. I prefer to follow the example of that famous US congressman who said:

"If english was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me."

Mr. Right, the number of people in the world who can understand more than one language outnumbers those who understand only one.

Large groups of the populations of Africa, Europe, Central Asia, India, Southeast Asia, Central and Northern America understand more than one language.

Happy to help reduce your ignorance any time.

Ho Hum,

What absolute bollocks. America Alone is a fantastic read with a wealth of supporting material. I don’t agree with everything he says, but it is insightful and razor sharp. It is clear he (Steyn) is directing his anger at people just like you, the guilt mongers and the self haters for whom cultural relativism is a workaday pastime. The black armband view of history. You whine about our behavior hundreds of year ago, as if it were yesterday, yet you are captured by the noble savage myth and seem entirely incapable of rational analysis of these cultures we were supposedly crushing.

It’s just like those idiots who try to justify Islamic terrorism by referring to our involvement in the Crusades. They miss the point that we have been through the Enlightenment, and the Reformation. Islam has not. But we could still live together without problem. The difficulty is the revival among the “youths” of literalist, (Islamist) strains of Islam, including Pan Islamism, which is not compatible with western secular democracy.

Steyn puts the valid point that any sensible analysis of western culture, today, indicates its superiority. Just look at what else there is. Show me something better. Certainly neither the Brahmins, nor the Indians in general, nor the Chinese have anything better.

Your simplistic assertion that this is race based is infantile. It seems you cannot cope with complexity and are forced to reduce everything to such puerile nonsense. To suggest that everyone who disagrees with your twisted view of history and society are racists is sloganeering of the basest kind

Wow!

Ahhh well I'll tell you a couple of stories;

Many years ago when I was much younger I was working in England for a few
months with some workmates also from Australia.
I was staying in small hotel which was a real United Nations.
WE were planning a trip to France Switzerland and Italy.

A frenchman asked us were we going to the beaches in the South of France.
Why would we go to see a lot of stones ?
Anyway, he asked did we speak French, German or Italian.
We all said no. I said I thought of learning a language, but which one ?
You could go to all the trouble of lerning a language and it would only
be usable in one country out of the four we eventually visited.

Quite a few years later I went to Denmark on business and I mentioned
to my contact in the company how everyone there spoke English.
His reply was that once they step over the border NO ONE understands them.
So you see it is a problem for everyone, including the French and
Germans that elsewhere in the world they have trouble.

I did after my first trip to Europe learn Esperanto and I did in
fact read Murdo en la Orienta Expresso by Agatha Christy.
Don't anyone reply in Esperanto as I have forgotten it.

I think that's a brilliant article Paul, substantiated beautifully and wittily by reference to several language cases.

However, the picture's shades becomes very stark here in Australia where English language, earlier migration policy and the proximity to Asia saddled this country not only with the staunch monolingualism of English but also a rather primitive "Fortress Europe" siege mentality a la Vienna vs the Ottomans. I refer here to a general "western" bias against non-European languages.

It's very funny to observe the reaction of people we may describe as white supremacists and the "speak English or die" crowd, or even their honorary member-toady imitators from non-European backgrounds. They can seem to carp on forever about the singularity, uniqueness and primacy of a "western culture" they claim as their own pure, original inheritance, while blind to parallels or precedents elsewhere. But they suddenly become super-relativist when they encounter self-criticism within that culture: "Ah, but someone over their sounds racist too"! Such people seem aware of other cultures only when they can spot what they want to see: extremes of violence, poverty, and those lowest common denominators.

Well, here's the news. We do not criticize our culture out of some naive belief that other cultures are without their own racism, supremacism or troubles learning other languages. But comparisons are especially clear in showing how far behind English speakers lag. I think I speak for many by saying that we make such self-criticism because we want to see our own culture grow to become healthier and stronger into the future. My children depend on such positive change and the hope it offers for a yet richer and more interesting experience of our world.

Get over it Paul Doolan,you self flagellating Western hater.How many languages can ordinary folk learn in a life time?Time spent learning a lauguage,is time lost developing logic.You have obiviously spent too much time on the former.

Western Development of:

Ethics:
Plato, Nicomachean Ethics, Epictitus, Aquinas, Hobbes, Montaigne,Spinoza, Locke, Kant, Hegel, Mill, and Darwin.

Jurisprudence:
Aeschylus, Plato, Atistotle, Old Testament, New Testament, Plutarch, Aquinas, Hobbes, Shakespeare, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Kant, The US Constitution, Hegel and Doestoevesky.

Science and Maths:
Euclid, Archimedes, Nicomachus, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Pascal, Newton, Huygens and Lavoisier.

Philosophy:
Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius, Aquinas, Montaigne, Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley,Hume, Kant and James.

Literature:
Homer, Euripides, Aristophanes, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, Rabelais, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Milton, Fielding, Goethe, Melville, Tolstoy, and Doestovesy.

Medicine/Biology/Psychology:
Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Galen, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Harvey, Darwin, James and Freud.

Politics and Government:
Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Old Testament, New Testament, Tacitus,Aquinas, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Shakespeare, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Locke, Kant, Mill and Hegel.

Religion and theology:

Aeschylus, Plato, Old Testament, New Testament, St. Agustine, Aquinas, Dante, Hobbes, Montaigne, Milton, Pascal, Locke, Hume, Doestovesky and Freud.

Specific reading references refer to: (The above are from this source)

A General Introduction to the Great Books (of the Western World) and to a Liberal Education. Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. 1959. Chicago.

I've not read them all yet but have read many. They are the veins through which the blood of our language and culture flows.

Paul Doolan show me a set of readings as comprehensive and as deep from any or all of the cultures you champion. ie Arabic, the various Indian traditional cultures, Pakistani or whatever.

You cannot!

A more difficult task would be for you to find a handful of those you champion who'd be familiar with the ideas written by these Westerners.

Yet you have the gall to call us ignorant. The fact this body of work has constantly moved from being written in Hebrew, Greek, Roman and English and it's various developments as well as including translations from all of the major non-English speaking German, French, Spanish, Russian, and Italian contributors is indicative of inclusion and diversity unique to Westerners and is in no way evidence of, as you spruke, a wallowing in an Anglophone ingorance.

Paul you should read with greater depth and comprehension before you cast the first ignorance stone...

Great article Paul Doolan. The monolinguists didn't get it and removed any doubt about the ignorant being ignorant.

Mr Right, you are wrong. The vast majority of people speak more than one language. It is ONLY native English speakers who are overwhelmingly monolingual.

Keith, loved your list. Do you realize that in that great list of yours there are very few English speaking authors? So I'm very curious how you think 'They are the veins through which the blood of our language and culture flows.' You've read translations. I'd start by brushing up on your Greek for starters.

As anybody who even barely understands another language knows that translation is an art that is wholly dependent on the subjective interpretation of the translator. Reading Shakespeare translated into the same language by different translators can be quite amusing. Ditto Goethe, any of the Russian authors or French.

Knowing another language makes your world much larger. Why English speakers are so resistant is a mystery to me. You are depriving yourself of much. Even just one other language. Is it that you are all afraid you can't learn another language?

Yvonne ,it is language elitism.We speak four languages,therefore we are superior.It is just like having too much money.In ya face and obscene.

The reality is that unless you speak a language regularly,you lose it.Very few have the mental ability to keep it without constant practise.

Yep Yvonne, I'd say they're petrified. Not only by the prospect of appearing inept, but also by the strong chance that their presumed social underlings (local and overseas) would expose their pampered insularity and therefore their quite undeserved power and privileges.

They'll find any excuse to avoid language study and the scrutiny it compels. From my own experience, languages have been consistently one of the greatest levellers. All the expensive private schooling, posh accents, family status, rank, and other symbols of superiority crash and burn in a classroom of free discussion in a target LOTE.

Then, like their very selective rush into relativist territory, they scream “elitist” when pressured to change.

Consider the hilarious comparison: Downer vs Rudd. Which one couldn't cut it in language study, resorted to personal attacks against the other because the other mastered a LOTE, and yet (the real punch line for diplomatic circles) which one got to be foreign minister? oh, and which of the two featured in a butt-kissing ABC doco called “Dynasties”?

Oi, oi, oi...oy vey.

PS - I think Keith is an exception, though. I would not be surprised if he has at least one non-native language mastery under his belt. His struggle here seems more that of a political networker-cum-culture warrior, with serious payback in mind.

Some stats -

http://www.photius.com/rankings/languages2.html

There are also some who believe that, at the current rate of immigration and integration of Latinos, Spanish may eventually overtake English as the dominant language in the USA. It is certainly regarded as a second language in that country.

Then again, that may just be racial and cultural paranoia - a little like some of the posts above perhaps?

I have to agree with all, you're stating undeniable facts on both sides.

"there's a joke doing the rounds..."

Around where exactly.

Pretty narrow perspective that article. It reads like the self flagelation of an individual ridden with the imagined guilt of his first world, white breaded, english speaking self identity.

Maybe, english is the new Latin. Another 1000yrs of this new, english speaking, dark age thats apparently squashing us and maybe it'll go the way of Latin too.

As history clearly demonstrates, the useful and important stuff eventually gets translated. There's always the narrow mindedness born of fear that holds knowledge down or back. Thats not unique to the noise people make with their vocal chords. Eventually, it comes thru though. Its virtually impossible to hold back the constant expansion of human consciousness.

In any event, hard copy books are becoming redundant with the internet and with automatic language translation of its content, the article seems exaggerated.

Ignorance anyone?

Hi Yvonne,

'Do you realize that in that great list of yours there are very few English speaking authors?'

Yet all have been translated into English. That was the major point I was making.

The author of the article maintained English speakers ignore ideas from other language groups. The authors and works I cited above most definitely disprove all those grandiose assertions. He went on to say we were ignorant because of the use, of the commutative form, English. He then assumed English speakers ignored ideas from other language and cultural groups.

I've maintained western culture’s inclusiveness is it's greatest strength. It takes all the best ideas of cultures it encounters. You've shown both of us probably recognise that as a fact.

To expand a little further the medium of English is irrelevant. If the Western World had had the development of it's communications technologies, from the pen through the printing press, radio and now satellite and computer, concentrated in the hands of the Germans, French, Irish, or Japanese these ideas would have been translated into those languages and would still have been developed and carried into the future. Just as many of the ideas were passed to us in Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Old English and now modern English. I've stated in other places I believe many of these ideas passed to us from parts of the Arab Empire and originally they were probably in Arabic.
My point is that English is, as were the other languages, merely a custodian of these ideas. It is quite possible Chinese might become the custodian in future, but that would lead to a seismic change in Chinese culture.

The ideas are the foundation of our culture and the basis of all Western knowledge. It’s this sense I think the ideas 'are the veins through which the blood of our language and culture flows.'
eg. Mathematics. Contributions came from many language groups and the ideas are still applied in lecture halls today, and no longer just in Western universities. They are applied in all areas of our developing technologies

Mil, I have to agree with you. I was surprised at Keith's stance. I've known him to be a great reader previously. Generally those who enjoy reading are interested in the usage of language and therefore I would have thought also interested in other languages.

Arjay, there is ab-so-lu-te-ly NOTHING elitist whatsoever in knowing other languages. It is the one thing that has nothing to do with a person's status in society. The poorest educated person in India, or Africa speaks more than one language. The idea that only English is sufficient is arguably the elitist stance. ‘You make sure I can understand you, I can’t really be bothered with what the likes of you have to say’

Trade, you have the narrow perspective. Anybody who has conversed with MichaelK on this forum would know the severe limitations of automatic language translation. It is an aid at the very best.

All of you who so readily depend on others to translate for you forget that you hand over power to another. You leave it to others to determine what will be translated and how for you. And how what you have to say is translated to another.

Rache, yes Spanish is increasingly widely taught in American schools. Not least because it is spoken by many, but very much so because in America there is a big body of research that demonstrates that learning another language, any language, significantly increases children's educational achievements in maths and sciences and command of English..
Here's only one link for bibliography: http://www.doe.state.la.us/Lde/uploads/2599.pdf

So if for no other reason, children should be taught another language because it makes them smarter. It teaches problem solving and critical thinking skills and the bonus is that that comes without any hidden political agenda!

In this day of the world wide web, keeping up and improving foreign language skills is the easiest thing and cheap as chips. The web is chockers with information, newspapers, discussion threads and chat rooms on any subject in any language.

There is not one rational reason not to teach children another language.

Yvonne I agree that learning other languages is OK,but let's not get too carried away with their importance.My daughter speaks Spanish/ Portugese and loves the South American culture.There are thousands of languages and dialects on the planet but only a few matter in the real world of economics.Mandarin will be the next one,but English which is made up of many languages,will be around long enough to stick in the craw of Anglo haters.A storm in a tea cup,really.

Yvonne,

Agreed! Knowing another language makes worlds larger. But failing to learn and understand the ideas that formed and developed the culture behind the language, even though initially appearing panoramic, leaves a world view a poor tunnel vision. Including native English speakers of English.

I challenged 'Doolan (to) show me a set of readings as comprehensive and as deep from any or all of the cultures ...'
If he can, I'll learn the languages to read them. If he can’t then I'll settle for translations of those that show great ideas that add something of major significance in the categories I cited.

'Why English speakers are so resistant is a mystery to me. You are depriving yourself of much. Even just one other language.'

To be consistent this would apply to those who haven't yet learned English ... Wouldn't it?

I’ve advocated the learning of Latin in our schools ... for exactly the same reason you suggest I bush up on Greek. (Unfortunately Greek won’t work as most of the works I cited were passed to us written in Latin).

Yvonne, I think you might have more in common with me and my thinking than with the Western loathing, comrade mil-observer. He has a habit of making unsubstantiated irrelevant assertions. This is another example. Previously he injected race into a discussion of culture and language. Now it' the politics of hate and envy into a discussion of intellectual endeavour and achievement.

We’re all agreed learning languages does improve intellect. However I’m inclined towards thinking, since I don’t seem to have any seen any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that languages other than European languages, especially those influenced by Latin, might not achieve that result. Can you provide any? (Except some Indigenous language speakers, I know.)

Kevin is a prime example supporting my inclination. Intellectually he’s lightweight in comparison to French speaking Downer. Mil-observer bought up this political angle. He overlooked who was closest to kissing butt … in a New York lap dancing joint.

Yvonne I'm afraid of very little… ( but little minds terrify me!).

Regards Keith

OK keith – maybe I should have said “crypto-racist” to describe you, as I suggested for that great Aussie super sleuth “Proud To Be Indonesian”, whose efforts at misrepresenting regional languages and people seem a neat counterpoint to your domestic efforts along the same lines. (for those not aware, check: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5900&page=0. It's quite a useful exercise in linguistic analysis)

Or was that “operation” another glowing triumph for Downer; the pedigree one we can call “French-speaking” in the way “Allo allo” is French historiography? His speech to the Press Club was tense, obviously just rehearsed, and the pronunciation appalling.

A bit like the magnificent “42 asylum seekers” scenario, which you and PTBI swallowed hook, line and sinker? All that networking and hustling and holier-than-Iraqi-Freedom humanitarian cliche, for what? To wear a knockout sucker punch, all because you and your mates not only couldn't bother to try checking sources in the other language, but could hardly grasp them anyway.

And last: remember sophistry played a significant part in weakening Classical Hellenic culture into the time of the Peloponnesian War. Flagrant misrepresentation and other false argumentation corrupts and endangers a culture perhaps even worse than ignorance of neighbors' languages.

Good luck in your great western afterlife.

Just a thought:- perhaps those who don't speak another language and are growing hot under the collar at what they considered the slur therefore of being "ignorant" might benefit from learning more fully the English language?

A sentence above encapsulates what I think these posters are getting their bristles up about: "He went on to say we were ignorant BECAUSE OF the use, of the commutative form, English."

No. There is a world of difference between being labeled ignorant BECAUSE of something and being ignorant OF something. In the above instance the poster appears ignorant of the difference - and of correct punctuation. This is not to say the poster is an ignorant person. They might be a humanitarian rocket-scientist for all we know. However, they have mis-understood both the meaning of a particular word and of the application of a particular punctuation rule. There is absolutely no slur implied in this. We are all ignorant of many things in our lives: this says nothing whatsoever about our levels of intelligence, education or i.q.

If we don't admit it, however, it speaks volumes.

your probable write rommany.

Romany

On reflection

Doolan
‘”British readers are at least as ignorant as their American cousins.”
“What makes this all particularly upsetting is the stubborn pride we take in our own ignorance”
“…some British “literary” journalists, wallowing in their own ignorance,”
‘”. “They” know our literature too, but they also know their own literature, about which we are not only entirely ignorant - we are even ignorant of the fact that we are ignorant.”’
“English all too often simply ignores whatever is not English”

Keith
"He went on to say we were ignorant BECAUSE OF the use, of the commutative form, English."

Romany

'No. There is a world of difference between being labeled ignorant BECAUSE of something and being ignorant OF something.'

Isn’t Doolan saying English speakers are ignorant not only because of their exclusive attitude towards their native language and literature but also, and not exclusively as you suggest, they are ignorant of other languages, those languages literatures and their own ignorance?

Romany after a detailed analysis of Doolan’s comments and overall stance I think you might reconsider your analysis.

Comrade Mil-Observer

cannot you hold a discussion without descending into personal invective, grizzling and hateful propaganda?

Yvonne

I don’t think you could ever accept this type of ‘so-called’ discussion from comrade mil-observer. It would never meet your standards or with your approval.

So, now that I have been shown how ignorant I am, what language should I learn? Do I have to be conversant in said language? Which ones have the best literature? I would hate to learn Ngbandi and then find out that I can't add to my library from Angus and Robertson.

Kieth,

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

What I meant in the above post was that the reaction of many people seems to be that the writer is using the word "ignorant" as a pejorative. That he is saying, in fact, that anyone who does not speak another language is an ignoramus - that being the pejorative form.

"Ignorant" only means unaware of or unfamiliar with something. So his polemic is directed at those who TAKE PRIDE in being unfamiliar with another language:"wallowing in their ignorance".To be unaware that one is unaware (ignorant of being ignorant)" is a state which takes the majority of us through life - I am ignorant of quantum physics for example; it follows that there are theories in quantum physics of which I have never heard and therefore I am ignorant of being ignorant of them.

However, I do not boast nor seek to justify my lack of knowledge, nor do I berate quantum physicists for the possession of this knowledge, nor accuse them of being elitists, or softies or attached to any particular political persuasion.

I understand the author not to mean that those who can't speak more than one language are a bunch of dumb bastids, but to have written the article because so many of these people act defensively about it - and either rubbish those who do, belittle their achievements, or consider that this position, because it is the one they themselves hold, is admirable. These attitudes then blind them to the advantages.

Some of the posts on this thread illustrate exactly this hypothesis.

Very elegantly put Romany. That is exactly how I understood the author's article.

See how we all can read English, but we interpret it all somewhat differently? That means if say Romany translated it into another language or Arjay the translation would necessarily be different.

Bugsy, it really does not matter what other language you learn. If the language is only spoken by very few people the amount of written work would logically be very small.

You will have to accept that not only English speaking people have a love of literature or culture. English is also not the only language of 'Western' culture by the way. Not so long ago you got nowhere without French! And may I remind you that Mozart, Shubert, Verdi, et al didn't write any of their operas in English.

English does have a large body of work. As the author points out this is available to non-native English speakers ALONG with bodies of work in their own and possibly other languages. Non-native English speakers do not seem to be as defensive about their own language as are mono-linguist English speakers.

Yeah, whatever. English is now the language of business. Non-native speakers learn it because they have to if they want to be competitive in global trade. Most of us learned the basics of a non-English language in high-school. Of those that did, most would have forgotten nearly all except a few words or phrases. Why? Because it is just not useful for us. Forget all the guff about literature and arts and what the literati may think: language needs to be practised to be retained.

With all the talk about mono-linguistics and invaders of foreign lands, here's a trivia question for anyone interested:

What is the official language of the United States of America?

Yes, practice is vital Bugsy. Practice is easier when enough diversity nourishes our linguistic environment, normalizes multi-lingualism, all to make our language skills healthy.

My daughters recently took to using greetings and small talk in Cantonese with some of their primary school friends. Now Cantonese is not taught at all in their school (though Mandarin gets a guernsey), and my daughters have no ethnic Chinese background.

So there have been great changes that we can make the most of if we wish.

Your latest explanation is far different to the following

'There is a world of difference between being labeled ignorant BECAUSE of something and being ignorant OF something. In the above instance the poster appears ignorant of the difference - and of correct punctuation. This is not to say the poster is an ignorant person.'

and your final comment doesn't seem express any admission you might have been wrong. And as you nearly say that speaks with great volume ... in all languages.

As for the author not being deliberately belittling of people who only speak their native English, well that's just fanciful. Clearly the author left the interpretation up to the reader. He seems not to have fooled most of us. You are among the very few who obviously only took his words to have a very narrow meaning. I and many others looked at all intrepretations and took a much broader reading ... as we are entitled. That wider meaning was inferred in the author's nasty little introductory 'joke' (Did you miss it?). This is a blatantly discrimitory and derogrative description of native English speakers who only knew one language. It set the tone for the article. Without that 'joke' it is probable the narrower meaning would have held sway, in my mind.

He was clearly saying what he mean't ... but you missed it didn't you ... mate?

It never ceases to amaze me the way people squim and dodge and duck and weave when their comprehension shortcomings are exposed. Makes great entertainment though.

A correction to one of my earlier military history metaphors, Keith.

I referred to Thermopylae.

I should have said: "Cannae"

Kieth, steady on,

There's no need to take that tone with someone because you disagree with them.

You point out: "your final comment doesn't seem express any admission you might have been wrong." Right? Wrong? Is that what this is all about? Because my interpretation differs from yours you imagine I'm pointing fingers?

No, the reason there is no admission that I might have been wrong is because all I was doing was suggesting an alternative reading.As you yourself point out "as we are entitled" to do. I imagine my first post was not a model of clarity if you think "your latest explanation is far different to the ...[first]". It was not. I was merely expanding upon my (unchanged) interpretation.

No, I didn't miss the little joke - I guess you are just one of those people who doesn't think much of irony if you saw it as: "a blatantly discrimitory(sic) and derogrative(sic) description of native English speakers who only knew one language."

I can assure you I have never knowingly squim-ed in my whole life - my posting history also substantiates the fact that I have no problem at all admitting when I am wrong.

If you have ever seen evidence of my ducking, diving and weaving rather than admit my "comprehension shortcomings" then I am very surprised. I frequently admit on this forum that there are posts/articles I do not understand. I was always sure I did so directly.

All I was doing was suggesting that because the word "ignorant" is so often used incorrectly some people think it is a pejorative. My aim in posting was to reassure anyone who thought they were being called dumb that they weren't.

But as you assure me that you and the majority of other posters realise this and still think those who only speak English are being accused of stupidity or whatever, then go ahead. Throw the victim mantle wide and make sure everyone snuggles comfortably into it. No skin off my nose...buttercup.

Romany

Let's have a little refresher here.

You made as statement that did not take into account all of the author's ideas and statements. You applied a very narrow intrepretation to ignorant and never once indicated anything more complex may have been intended. In doing so also you used snide comments.

I challenged your intrepretation and 'gave as good as I got.'

You responded

'Kieth (sic),

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

What I meant in the above post was that the reaction of many people seems to be that the writer is using the word "ignorant" as a pejorative. That he is saying, in fact, that anyone who does not speak another language is an ignoramus - that being the pejorative form.'

Of course that was as incorrect as your first endeavour and just showed you as ignorant of the all the author's scribblings.

Your first post was utterly clear.

Either you didn't mean what you'd previously said or you are backsliding.

We all understand a put down regardless of irony. And that was what that 'joke' was.

What you need not do is enter into a robust discussion snidely casting personal criticisms and not expect a response, in kind ... mate.

Your honker is of absolutely no interest to me. But here you are showing you can give plenty of criticism but not take a bit in return. In real life that would result in a skinned nose ... pansy.

Kieth,

The fact that you continue to react in the way you have done means that you have completely misunderstood what I meant. As the only other poster to comment on what I said saw nothing personal in it nor considered I had contradicted myself, I can only assume that I have touched a personal nerve with you here. This positions the argument squarely in the personal where I have no interest in being.

I did not enter the thread to be unfair, critical, malicious, superior - any of the synonyms that can be attached to the word snide. If you do not now understand my point - and each successive post illustrates that you don't - there is nothing else to say.

Romany

What utter rubbish.

Why did you initially only single out my comment to use as an example?
Why did you initially need to specifically criticise me?
Why did you need to be snide?
Why couldn't you simply accept you initially lacked breath of intrepretation?
Why did you then feel you needed to explain?
Why did you then need to backslide?

Why are you now so blind and stubborn?

Mil -observer,

'A correction to one of my earlier military history metaphors, Keith.
I referred to Thermopylae.
I should have said: "Cannae"'

You should have said nothing.

Sorry, I missed again.

Try "Isandhlwana"

(i) While 22 states in the US have official languages designated, mostly English, in a few cases they have English plus one other, the US (federally) has no officially designated language.

(ii) Keith, on your list you really cannot leave Petrarch and Boccaccio out, without these guys we don't have humanism and a much reduced Canterbury Tales

(iii) English is by far the most widely known language in the world. It has fewer 'native' speakers than the main Chinese language, MSC, and fewer possibly than Hindi or Spanish. If you add second language speakers English more than triples its 'native speaker count'.

(iv) Keith is right to say that if you read widely you can gain immense access to other cultures and their ideas in translation and not necessarily learn other languages. I'm unlikely ever to read Orhan Pamuk in Turkish, but I want to know what he says. Learning languages is however immensely important for many reasons, including literature, but also practical reasons, and for children to enhance human understanding. Nothing else can do this like languages. We should do more of it in Australia. I include Aboriginal, Asian and European languages in this.

(v) cheers

Bertie&

Not familiar with either Petrarch nor Boccaccio.

Chaucer was included.

Thanks, I might have a little more reading to do.

Hear, hear Bertie.

The Spanish language also has extraordinary great literature. Currently I'm learning Spanish because I'd love to be able to read some of the books in Spanish rather than only the English translations. Certain word plays get lost in Translation. I know that from being able to read in other languages.

Nevertheless, a translation is better than not having any access to literature and ideas written in other languages. We still need English speakers to translate them for us though don't we? Who knows how many talented linguist we miss out on because LOTE is not a given in Australian schools.