🚀 go-pugleaf

sdelsol@netcom.com (Shannon Adamson) wrote:
>
>Raphael,
>Please, sir, lighten up and follow your own advice.   Nous nous
>comprenons.   Your example of not understanding a culture simply by
>learning the language is entirely true.  This is demonstrated by your
>reaction to my comment about "beauty in your day".  You only assume
>you understand what I meant based on the words I chose.  There are no
>facial expressions, defined cultural understandings or any other aides
>attached to those black and white words.  You know not of where I am
>from, or my cultural background, yet you feel the freedom to chastise
>me publicly about the very thing you yourself are guilty of.     How
>could you think I implied that the nuances of an entire culture could
>be understood through words?  There is no one language that can
>encompass every culture of the world.  Yes, English is very practical
>and may well be the most effecient choice for an International
>language - a common denominator for BUSINESS, not full cultural
>understanding.     As far as my learning social nuances for gaining
>insights about  another country, you have no idea to what extent I
>have gone to do so.  More than you obviously have based on your well
>chosen, oh so "English" words.  For the record, I am neither naive or
>"schmatzy", and you obviously could use a little more beauty in YOUR
>day.  Thank you for bringing such clarity and cultural understanding
>to the Internet with your wise opinions.   Je ne peux vous en dire.  
>Shannon 

Thank you Shannon, for your pearls of wisdom. How gratifying it is to 
see Europeans of different backgrounds agreeing on a crucial point of 
learning. I have always found it hard to understand why foreign language 
courses fail to teach the learner the humour of the language in 
question. I admit that in learning German this may be hard, and 
obviously in France personal criticism (whether public or not), is 
obviously difficult to tolerate, as your mail has made clear. If you 
wish to naively limit the scope of English to that of a purely business 
function then be my guest. But in your heart you know that it is not. 
The language of International music, International journalism, and 
indeed Film is English (or perhaps in the case of the latter-Hindi). If 
you view these spheres as commercial interest then that would validate 
your argument. However is music, writing, & film not art? Is it not 
culturally validated by its content, that transcends boundaries and 
borders? The reason that English has been so readily adopted by the 
world is that so many different countries and cultures have had a part 
in developing it, whether in Africa, or India, the Far East or America. 
Its strength is its versatility in clearly expressing ideas and beliefs 
without the need for viewing `facial expressions', as you so obviously 
need to do, an example perhaps of limited vocabulary? English is spoken 
from the gutters of Calcutta and Madras, to the commercial towers of 
Singapore and factories of Great Britain. All have contributed to 
developing the language, all are culturally diverse. Yet by sharing the 
development of this language, they have shared in a in a sense of 
identity, of shared culture; something other languages have never 
managed to achieve to the same degree as has been achieved in English.

I am now certain that you are neither naive, nor schmaltzy, but you are 
perhaps misguided. As to whether I could use a "little more beauty" in 
my day, I thank you but no. I am far too happy enjoying the temper 
tantrum of a rather confused European. However, I do most humbly thank 
you for agreeing with my opinion.

Rafael.

`Je ne regrette rien'   
>