4 ms·

The fact that they originated in Europe doesn't change the fact that they are also "non-European" languages. Uh. Yes it does, and no they aren't.

jarek 15y ago
Linguistically, they are indeed European languages. Culturally, if you tell people in Argentina, the U.S., Macau and Nigeria that they are European because of a language they can speak, the label will lose all meaning.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  if you tell people in Argentina, the U.S., Macau and Nigeria that they are European What? Nobody was saying anything of the sort. Brazil has a large population of ethnic Japanese. A number of them are able to speak Japanese. That doesn't make Japanese a Brazilian language. Nor does it make those born and raised in Brazil Japanese, aside from discussions of ethnicity.
  - jarek 15y ago
    Okay, let's back up a bit. My point in stating that some European languages are also "non-European" was that learning them gives a larger, partially-non-European audience and thus more motivation (economic, cultural, what have you). Even to an European, there is a difference between learning a language spoken by 45 million people on their continent and a language spoken by 350 million people worldwide. By the simple proximity/diversity theory, a whole lot more Swedes would be learning Polish right now - this is not happening to say the least.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      How about Finnish/Norwegian? If the proximity theory holds no water, then I would expect that even though every Norwegian is within something like 200 miles of Sweden, you'd see almost no Norwegians speaking Swedish.
      - jarek 15y ago
        I'm not sure if these are the best of examples. Norwegian and Swedish are by and large mutually intelligible, probably on a level comparable to Australian and U.S. English. Norwegians essentially are speaking Swedish, without trying. Finland has had a large (currently ~5%) Swedish-speaking minority for a long time. While a large amount (~50%) of Finnish-mother-tongue Finns can speak Swedish, this is expected given the Swedish minority, the previously large and prestigious role of Swedish in Finland, the relative populations (~5M vs ~9M for Sweden), and the relative linguistic isolation of Finnish. I wouldn't claim the proximity theory holds no water - it's just not the entire story.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Just try telling a Mexican they speak Mexican. They know they speak español, not mexicano, they know it came from Spain, and even a Mexican will brand you as a fool if you try to tell them otherwise. Classification of language has nothing to do with ethnicity, background, where you were born or where it is being spoken.
  - jarek 15y ago
    Exactly. And if you talk to an American, or an Australian, or a Nigerian, they'll tell you they speak English and know it came from England. But no one, even in Europe, is learning English just to speak to the English.

jarek 15y ago

Linguistically, they are indeed European languages. Culturally, if you tell people in Argentina, the U.S., Macau and Nigeria that they are European because of a language they can speak, the label will lose all meaning.

georgieporgie 15y ago
if you tell people in Argentina, the U.S., Macau and Nigeria that they are European What? Nobody was saying anything of the sort. Brazil has a large population of ethnic Japanese. A number of them are able to speak Japanese. That doesn't make Japanese a Brazilian language. Nor does it make those born and raised in Brazil Japanese, aside from discussions of ethnicity.
- jarek 15y ago
  Okay, let's back up a bit. My point in stating that some European languages are also "non-European" was that learning them gives a larger, partially-non-European audience and thus more motivation (economic, cultural, what have you). Even to an European, there is a difference between learning a language spoken by 45 million people on their continent and a language spoken by 350 million people worldwide. By the simple proximity/diversity theory, a whole lot more Swedes would be learning Polish right now - this is not happening to say the least.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    How about Finnish/Norwegian? If the proximity theory holds no water, then I would expect that even though every Norwegian is within something like 200 miles of Sweden, you'd see almost no Norwegians speaking Swedish.
    - jarek 15y ago
      I'm not sure if these are the best of examples. Norwegian and Swedish are by and large mutually intelligible, probably on a level comparable to Australian and U.S. English. Norwegians essentially are speaking Swedish, without trying. Finland has had a large (currently ~5%) Swedish-speaking minority for a long time. While a large amount (~50%) of Finnish-mother-tongue Finns can speak Swedish, this is expected given the Swedish minority, the previously large and prestigious role of Swedish in Finland, the relative populations (~5M vs ~9M for Sweden), and the relative linguistic isolation of Finnish. I wouldn't claim the proximity theory holds no water - it's just not the entire story.
sliverstorm 15y ago
Just try telling a Mexican they speak Mexican. They know they speak español, not mexicano, they know it came from Spain, and even a Mexican will brand you as a fool if you try to tell them otherwise. Classification of language has nothing to do with ethnicity, background, where you were born or where it is being spoken.
- jarek 15y ago
  Exactly. And if you talk to an American, or an Australian, or a Nigerian, they'll tell you they speak English and know it came from England. But no one, even in Europe, is learning English just to speak to the English.