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.