# Too many languages in the EU? (Latin revival)



## pickypuck

The Presidency of the European Union belongs to Finland during these months. Their webpage is only available in English and French. Germany complained about it but the Finnish Presidency didn't take it too seriously and reacted adding Latin! ^_^ 

I will use this funny thing to introduce other topic. The EU spends a very high proportion of its budget in translating every document in all the official languages of the Union. 

Do you think that it's alright or instead are you against and would you prefer to see that money in roads, agriculture improvement, hospitals, libraries, school and universities, etc.? Should an official language be chosen? If so, which one?

I would like to read the answers of everybody, not just the citizens of the European Union.

¡Olé!


----------



## robbie_SWE

Haha, when I started reading the Latin webpage, I thought it was in Romanian at first  . 

Bur seriously now: 

NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Choosing a single language for the whole EU is a horrible thought! We've had this discussion many times in my school and it's always the same conclusion: choosing one language will destroy everything. But if you're talking about the website only (are you??  ), then maybe you have a point. The money spent seems like a waste, but at the same time I can't see any other choice. Ex: not everybody knows English and those who can't, would miss out on a lot. 

An alternative would be to stick to the "biggest" languages. Publish the information in English, German, French, Spanish, Italian and Russian. Why translate it in Finnish, Swedish and Romanian?? 

That's my opinion! Any objections??

Respectfully, 

 robbie


----------



## Fernando

My personal opinion is that primary objectives of languages is understanding, not conserving identities, so I would prefer one official language or a group of.

In the first case, I would choose English. It is not the most spoken as the first language but it is as the second.

In the second case, I would say the language in order of number of speakers would be:

- German (Germany, Austria, Switz)
- French (France, Belgium, Switz)
- English (England, Ireland)
- Italian (Italy, Switz)
- Spanish 
- Polish
- Romanian?

I would "cut off" in Spanish or Polish. If you consider my opinion biased is OK, rremove it.


----------



## robbie_SWE

Fernando said:
			
		

> My personal opinion is that primary objectives of languages is understanding, not conserving identities, so I would prefer one official language or a group of.
> 
> In the first case, I would choose English. It is not the most spoken as the first language but it is as the second.
> 
> In the second case, I would say the language in order of number of speakers would be:
> 
> - German (Germany, Austria, Switz)
> - French (France, Belgium, Switz)
> - English (England, Ireland)
> - Italian (Italy, Switz)
> - Spanish
> - Polish
> - Romanian?
> 
> I would "cut off" in Spanish or Polish. If you consider my opinion biased is OK, rremove it.


 
Thank you for considering Romanian!!!  But most "young" Romanians know English, most older Romanians know French and most people in Transylvania know Hungarian/German. Maybe Romanian is needed, but I think we could manage anyway!!! 

 robbie


----------



## pickypuck

Thank you for answering!  

I'm just asking about the administrative language of the European Union, not suggesting that of citizens all the European Union should speak only one language (that would be a horrible thought as robbie says).

I would choose German, although I know that being realistic, English would be the best option. The point is if we consider the countries taking part "fully" in the EU, only Ireland has English as official language. 

In my opinion, lots of money are spent (wasted?) in translation of documents that only a few people read.

¡Olé!


----------



## Ignarciso

Difficult question... I think it should be English, merely for a pragmatical purpose, since it is the most spread language. And I think it would be useful if all the UE countries agreed to choose a language as a common way of communication between europeans. It could be English, it could be German, but I'd prefer Spanish, so I don't have to learn any other language  (just kidding)


----------



## Lykurg

I was quite happy to find that latin page - and retranslated some of it here to improve my skills.  I'd love to have Latin as a standard second (or first) foreign language in European schools. Awareness of our identity is really important. 

And I think translations are of much higher importance than the EU agriculture aids. Those devour a major part of the EU budget to help a limited group, where redirecting small sums to translations would give lots of people the opportunity to inform themselves about European politics without their national perspective.

It's really stupid German is not included when French is. An Austrian Professor of mine told us it happened because the Austrians proclaimed Austrian to be a seperate language (which is merely nonsense) - so German was considered to be of lesser importance than French with two countries (though less populated).


----------



## pickypuck

Thank you for your answers!

I've been reading about the topic and with the enlargement of the EU and the new memberships, they decided to translate all the internal documents only into French, German and English.

Also, the cost of the translation services is €1.1 billion (€30 million more with the inclusion of Bulgaria, Romania and Irish language). But €1.1 billion means €2.28 per citizen. I don't think this is much. 

¡Olé!


----------



## Jana337

You can hardly want people to abide by laws issued in languages that they do not understand (I often do not understand laws issued in my own language but that's a different issue ).

Jana


----------



## jester.

There are definitely not too many languages in the EU and I am absolutely against choosing only one language for the whole union.

I think the many different languages are an important part of the EU's cultural heritage and define the identity of its members.

Additionally it is certainly necessary to translate important documents into all EU languages so that everyone, without exception, can understand them.


----------



## Fernando

Of course you can set several levels. Nowadays in the Union there are several official languages (more or less, one per state) and "work language". In meetings you should (theoretically) use 25 languages, for wich you would need 625 interpreters (with weird combinations, such as Maltese-Slovak interpreters).

You should add "internal" official languages, such as Irish and Spanish languages, apart from funny discussions about whether Scottish, Breton, Welsh, etc. should be translated into and whether Valencian and Catalan should have the same or different translations.

Of course, every country should have the right to translate the documents he is interested in to their own languages. For important documents, EU should pay. For not so important, I think the country should pay.

I mean, if France is interested in the EU documents being translated to Breton, they could but they should not be entitled to ask for a Breton-Maltese interpreter.

With the sincere hope that no Maltese or Breton read these comments. Sorry, I had to choose.


----------



## ireney

I'm sorry but I don't see the need for an official language. Unless someone proposes that citizens are supposed to learn one language or another (which I realise the orignal poster doesn't) I don't see why there's the need for an 'official' official language. As it is, German , English and French are seen as such.

None of our Prime Ministers wasn't proficient at at least one of these languages (if you don't count pronounciation). That doesn't mean that official papers that in any way involve or may affect Greece shouldn't be translated in Greek even if there are not many who speak the language.

I can't see how numbers can make one language more 'important' than the oher. Sure, more people speak German than Maltese. So, if we all had to learn, or if all involved with the EU workings had to learn one language, less people would have to study to learn German than Maltese. 
Other than that (which doesn't seem to me all that good a reason) why not have everyone learn Maltese (I chose Malta because I think less people speak Maltese than any other of the EU country but I may be wrong). Why not?

Better yet (and I need an evil smiley for this) let's have everyone learn Greek which means coping with our unique alphabet first.


----------



## Outsider

pickypuck said:
			
		

> The Presidency of the European Union belongs to Finland during these months. Their webpage is only available in English and French. Germany complained about it but the Finnish Presidency didn't take it too seriously and reacted adding Latin! ^_^


That was a funny read! 

I don't know what regulations there are regarding the languages in the _website_ of the EU presidency, so maybe it's O.K. not to have versions in all languages. I notice they don't have a version in Finnish, either.


----------



## jaq

ireney said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but I don't see the need for an official language.


Saving zillions of Euros in administration costs, maybe?


----------



## pickypuck

Thank you for your answers!

Again I didn't ask about choosing an official language for the Union as a territory (it is clear that everybody is wisely against), but for the Administration: Parliament, MPs and so on, taking into account that some steps have already been taken: Only German, French and/or English in some situations. So the citizens are not included in my question. Sorry for not having explained myself with enough clarity.

¡Olé!


----------



## Outsider

jaq said:
			
		

> Saving zillions of Euros in administration costs, maybe?


But what about the unemployment rate? Less languages --> less translations to make --> more unemployed translators.


----------



## jaq

Yeah, I'm sure that the translators' union (if such a thing exists) must be dead against a single official administrative language for the EU (or at least rounding it down to English, French and German, which would be my personal choice)... the EU is probably their biggest employer in the whole of Europe!


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> In the second case, I would say the language in order of number of speakers would be:
> 
> - German (Germany, Austria, Switz)
> - French (France, Belgium, Switz)
> - English (England, Ireland)
> - Italian (Italy, Switz)
> - Spanish
> - Polish
> - Romanian?
> 
> I would "cut off" in Spanish or Polish. If you consider my opinion biased is OK, rremove it.



And **¿%@#* the Greeks?  

What right has anyone to tell the residents of…
Cyprus	Czech Republic	Denmark  Estonia	Finland   Greece  Hungary Latvia	Lithuania  Portugal	  Slovakia Slovenia	Sweden   The Netherlands
…and the soon-to-be-admitted…
Bulgaria	 Croatia	 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Romania  Turkey
…that they can learn some other country's language or shut up?


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

I definitely think it would be unfair to choose one single language. 

It would be unfair and it would create many problems. 



			
				Jana said:
			
		

> You can hardly want people to abide by laws issued in languages that they do not understand (I often do not understand laws issued in my own language but that's a different issue ).


That's the point!

 And well, I'm studying Translation and Interpreting, obviously I have to be against this idea


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:
			
		

> And **¿%@#* the Greeks?
> 
> What right has anyone to tell the residents of…
> Cyprus	Czech Republic	Denmark  Estonia	Finland   Greece  Hungary Latvia	Lithuania  Portugal	  Slovakia Slovenia	Sweden   The Netherlands
> …and the soon-to-be-admitted…
> Bulgaria	 Croatia	 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Romania  Turkey
> …that they can learn some other country's language or shut up?



I am not saying that. I am just saying that it is very costly to hold a complete system of interpreters and translators.

You can discuss in English, French or German and then translate whatever to your language. I would like Latin, but I think that battle is lost.

If we go too far, Outsider's joke is not a joke: every Maltese has yet a job.


----------



## pickypuck

Thank you for your answers!

From your opinions, I conclude that everybody is against one single language for the Parliament and MPs. So what about the policy of three languages (or two in the case of the Finnish Presidency, let's not consider the Latin version  )? This is a reality nowadays. Isn't it discrimination for those MPs who don't have them as their mother tongues? Besides, I don't imagine the members of the Conservative or Socialist groups speaking among them in Maltese, Polish or Spanish. I think they speak in English, so should they say that they are pro a multilingual administration (for political correctness or any other reason) but in practice they have built a monolingual one?

I am all ears ^_^

¡Olé!


----------



## ireney

It's one thing to use one (or two or three) language(s) for communication's sake (I write in English don't I?) and quite another to accept one language as the official one don't you think?

Let me put it this way. I don't remember who was the German dignitary who had come for an official visit to Greece. I only think it was the German Chancellor but I am not sure. 

Anyway, our then Prime Minister has studied in Germany and has also taught in both German Universities so, he obviously speaks German very well (I am not listing all his credentials etc here by the way).
I am sure that when they had their private discussion it was done in German. It would be more than silly to either choose English or French or have interpreters.

In the joined press conference afterwards our Prime Minister talked in Greek while a translator translated for the German Chancellor (?) and vice versa (well not quite; that's why I remember the whole incident. The German to Greek translator made a mistake, got too embarrassed, started making more, and our Prime Minister had to prompt her all the time, it was funny as well as ridiculously humiliating).

So, it is obvious that he wouldn't have any problem with any of the three languages which he speaks fluently (although his accent in English and especially French makes you cringe) being the official one. In fact all our Prime Ministers and frankly, all our ministers etc know at least one foreign language.

Now, what if that Prime Minister of ours was the _BEST_ for Greece but didn't know a blessed word of either of the three more prominent languages? Did he HAVE to know? Why? He was the Prime Minister of _GREECE_.


----------



## Fernando

Unluckily, we are in that position.

- Mr. Felipe González (1983-1996) did not know a word of English, though he spoke French.

- Mr. José María Aznar (1996-2004) spoke a horrible English. He improved with time.

- Mr. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (2004-?) does not speak neither French nor English.

In today world it is highly desirable to elect a president with knowledge of other language. If not, pay a translator.


----------



## vince

The problem is that there is so much internal nationalism in Europe. It is one of the primary forces that prevent the EU from becoming a single state. Every little region thinks they are a completely different ethnic group from its neighbors.

Due to this nationalism, the EU is forced to translate into so many languages. Because what if the EU stops publishing documents in Catalan? Then Catalonians will feel that they are not being represented by the EU government, that it is a foreign body controlling their motherland (Catalunya).

They must translate into so many languages because the cost of not doing so would be much greater: breakup of the EU.


----------



## maxiogee

vince said:
			
		

> The problem is that there is so much internal nationalism in Europe. It is one of the primary forces that prevent the EU from becoming a single state. Every little region thinks they are a completely different ethnic group from its neighbors.



I think you overstate the case against nationalism - what prevents the formation of a single state is 
(a) a very large number of people doubt that it would be "a good thing" - this is nothing to do with the petty nationalism which assuredly exists, and all to do with economics.
(b) the citizens of many states feel that giving more and more powers to the centre in Europe is a huge diminution of democracy - the principle of subsidiarity cannot really exist in a single state democracy. All power tends towards the centre in any system.
(c) with only the USA and the USSR as examples of a large, centrally administered society, huge numbers are convinced it would be a bad thing.


----------



## Suane

I would love having Latin!! I wouldn't have to memorize those difficult Latin names in biology. I would simply understand them, maybe. Same for students of psychology, medicine, law...etc.

But I realise it is unreal idea. Though, I would be willing to learn it. And also a lot of words in different languages have Latin roots. :dontknow:

"Six out of every ten commonly-used English words are derived, directly or indirectly, from Latin. All of the so-called Romance languages are descended from Vulgar Latin, and many words adapted from Latin are found in other modern languages" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin


----------



## Dr. Quizá

I think this should be approached from two perspectives: the inner administrative work and the public communication side.

- The working languages should be the lesser the better to make a reasonable use of the available resources. I'm pretty sure most of you had to prove some skills in order to get a job, didn't you? Why should I pay because of the ignorance of a civil servant if there are lots of people who can do that work properly and I hadn't that privilege? Just because it's more comfortable for them? I don't think so and that's not (shouldn't be) my problem. Wasting the money from the taxes is my problem.

- All the public EU data and info must be in such an amount of European languages that every European citizen can understand them. I won't accept a government that doesn't even make the effort to be understood by me (shame on you, Finland). Minor languages used in bilingual communities are not necessary, though.


----------



## Victoria32

pickypuck said:
			
		

> Do you think that it's alright or instead are you against and would you prefer to see that money in roads, agriculture improvement, hospitals, libraries, school and universities, etc.? Should an official language be chosen? If so, which one?
> 
> I would like to read the answers of everybody, not just the citizens of the European Union.
> 
> ¡Olé!


I think Latin is a very good idea as a 'lingua franca' myself, it would take some trouble on the part of those who don't know it at first, but for centuries it was one through out Europe and functioned as such as recently as the 1960s...


----------



## difficult cuss

Being native English and lazy it would be easy to suggest that everyone speak the language of commerce...English, however to lose the great variety of tongues across the union would be a terrible decision. Diversity not homogeneity is desirous, in the most part. As for cost, the European Union throws money about with gay abandon, so such an arguement is basically moot (the modern meaning of "moot" is indicated here.."of no practical importance"). It may seem alarmist given the size of most European populations, but languages are lost with disarming regularity. I for one would wish to encourage anything which would this to cease. For further reading might I suggest  searching on "lost languages" with Google or somesuch?


----------



## timsk

Hi all.

You might be interested in a footnote in the latest newsletter issued by the Finnish Presidency -- "Conspectus rerum Latinus" is now also available in Esperanto.

Using Latin makes a great statement. It's a reminder of our common European history and heritage, but also of the fact that the future of language policy and language use in the EU is far from solved.

Using Esperanto points to one possible way forward, as a common *second* language for all, or at least for as many as want to use it. I completely agree that having everyone throughout Europe speaking only one language all the time is a nightmare vision -- diversity is part of our strength, be it cultural, racial or linguistic diversity.

However, it's also true that an ever increasing proportion of the population is having more and more frequent contact with other Europeans, so some means of communication is required. I'm not really talking about the tiny number who work in the EU, I'm talking about us, the other 450 million people of the union.

So why not support regional languages within their regions, national languages within their nations, and a common international language ("inter-national" in the most literal sense), for use when people who don't have the same national language need to communicate?

Esperanto's billed as easier to learn (some would say very much easier) than English or any other national language, and it doesn't come with the baggage that a national language does -- it doesn't impose a foreign way of thinking, and it doesn't give an automatic and perpetual advantage to one particular nation full of native speakers.

It's in use today in every country of the EU, in small but growing numbers, and last month's Universal Congress of Esperanto in Florence brought together over 2000 people from 62 countries.


----------

