# "Must" a president speak English?



## heidita

Today I have been reading a very funny article by one of my favorites, Alfonso Ussia. He talked about the effort Sarkozy, minister of foreign affairs, I gather, who has made a special effort to learn English before visiting the USA. 

I have always been of the opinion that it is essential to know English for anybody in this world, but especially for a politician . Prime minister of Spain, Zapatero, doesn't believe this is necessary. Ussia mentions in his article " Zapatero es con el inglés como Beckham con el español, que le pregunta si está bien y contesta que, en efecto, que en otoño los días se alargan". Of course, he is always joking.

What is your opinion? Is English a primary "obligation" for a leader?

En vuestos paises, ¿los lideres políticos saben inglés? ¿Creéis que es esencial para un lider saberlo?






http://www.larazon.es/noticias/noti_int3096.htm


----------



## ireney

Hi there,

to my mind no, it is not a "primary obligation" unless he is the president/prime minister of an English speaking country  . Why would it be anyway? His/Her obligation is to manage the internal and "external" affairs of the country well (if not even better). There are a lot translators but precious few good presidents/prime ministers. I wouldn't consider knowing any foreign language intrinsic to their doing their job well.


----------



## Everness

I don't think so. Here's an example: "We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make--it would hope--put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied information you shouldn't see." --G.W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 14, 2005


----------



## LV4-26

heidita said:


> [...]Sarkozy, minister of foreign affairs, I gather, [...]


...of domestic affairs, actually. The minister of foreign affairs is Mr Douste-Blazy.

Many French politicians speak English...with a terrible accent. I think they find it cool, when they visit a foreign country, to be able to say a few words in the local language.
I also think it's easier (and quicker) to have an informal talk with an official from another country with no interpreter around.


----------



## LV4-26

Everness said:


> I don't think so. Here's an example: "We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make--it would hope--put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied information you shouldn't see." --G.W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 14, 2005


 Actually, when I saw the title of the thread, I thought *that* was what Heidita was referring to.


----------



## ireney

LV4-26 said:


> Many French politicians speak English...with a terrible accent. I think they find it cool, when they visit a foreign country, to be able to say a few words in the local language.
> I also think it's easier (and quicker) to have an informal talk with an official from another country with no interpreter around.




Well the same goes with the Greek prseidents, prime-ministers and ministers who know at least one foreign language but that doesn't make it a "must".


----------



## maxiogee

Is it not a bit cheeky asking, at a site where a number of professional translators hang out, if they think that they should be done away with? 

Of course it is not necessary for anyone to speak any particular foreign language. In fact having a certain proficiency might be a drawback, as situations often arise where someone thinks they understand what is meat by XYZ, but really what is meant is something totally different. Translations are best left to professionals. I have seen meetings of Irish and British politicians, who all speak English as a native language, produce different and conflicting comments at press conferences.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Foreign minister... maybe
President.... it would do him/her well, but by no means necessary.

I'm with Chirac on that one


----------



## LV4-26

maxiogee said:


> Is it not a bit cheeky asking, at a site where a number of professional translators hang out, if they think that they should be done away with?


I think few translators are also interpreters.


> In fact having a certain proficiency might be a drawback


I don't think Mr Sarkozy falls into that category :


> “*I run. This morning. In Central Park. With T-shirt firefighters*,” he told Nicholas Scopetta, the New York City fire commissioner, at a ceremony honoring New York firefighters.


Source


----------



## Alxmrphi

LV4-26 said:


> I think few translators are also interpretershttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/w...e/Times Topics/People/S/Sciolino, Elaine&_r=1



What's the difference?


----------



## LV4-26

Well, to my knowledge (I mean unless the difference only exists in French), a translator writes and an interpreter speaks.


----------



## Etcetera

I agree with Ireney - there's a lot of interpreters, but very few good presidents and prime ministers. I wouldn't mind if the president of my country spoke fluent English, but I'd rather see him working effectively for the country. 
All in all, I think that knowledge of English is really important for anyone.


----------



## sarcie

LV4-26 said:


> Well, to my knowledge (I mean unless the difference only exists in French), a translator writes and an interpreter speaks.


 
The difference exists in English as well! In my experience though, a lot of people use the word "translators" to cover both.
Off-topic, but just to clarify


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ah, that makes sense, I always thought they were both different words for exactly the same meaning, and that was to recreate speech or text in a new language from different one.


----------



## AGATHA2

Everness said:


> I don't think so. Here's an example: "We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make--it would hope--put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied information you shouldn't see." --G.W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 14, 2005


 
Delicious example !!!!


----------



## Hakro

Etcetera said:


> I agree with Ireney - there's a lot of interpreters, but very few good presidents and prime ministers. I wouldn't mind if the president of my country spoke fluent English, but I'd rather see him working effectively for the country.
> All in all, I think that knowledge of English is really important for anyone.


I agree 100% with Ireney and Etcetera. A good knowledge of English also shows that a person has a good education which should be important for a president, prime minister etc.


----------



## Daddyo

I don't know if they all should speak English, but it seems to me it'd be almost in self-defense to speak the foreign language in question. As has been rumored and confirmed in some instances, the dignataries of foreign countries (the USSR comes to mind) that would avail themselves to the services of interpreters and kept their fluency in the rival/ally/enemy's language a secret, to see how much more "extra" information they could garner from their surroundings. It seems that, if somebody thinks you don't speak their language, he/she might drop a comment or two that they would otherwise might have kept quiet.


----------



## macta123

I would be good if President and Prime-ministers speak English. But then, it is like many countries are very much attached to their National language. So, it won't be a possibility perhaps in the near future! Untill and unless, English is truly accepted as the best solution as a Universal Language. So, even if Presidents/ Prime-Ministers of many non-English speaking countries know English, may not speak the same in Public Meetings and Interviews.


----------



## tantan

Yes, all polititions should have a good knowledge of English, not only the foreign ministers. It's a global economy, so all areas benefit from international experience, all should study English, but at official ceremonies and statements presidnets and officials should definitely use their own language! For decades to come maybe.


----------



## heidita

Everness said:


> I don't think so. Here's an example: "We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make--it would hope--put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied information you shouldn't see." --G.W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 14, 2005


 

Why not  sweep out own back yard:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4GipPyNwTs&mode=related&search=


----------



## Fernando

heidita said:


> Why not  sweep out own back yard:
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4GipPyNwTs&mode=related&search=



 Very funny.


----------



## pejeman

Hi:

In Mexico you need not to speak English or any other language whatsoever, to become President. Our constitution does not state anything about language. Rather we recognize ourselves as a multicultural country.

Vicente Fox (unfortunately the president of México), who used to work for that brand of dark softdrinks, has chosen to speak in English when he has visited the USA. Very poorly, indeed. And the results have been catastrophic.

A clever non-English native president should always use a translator, whether he speaks English or not.

Saludos


----------



## EireGoBragh

Firstly, people keep talking about a 'universal language' as if it's a good thing to strive toward. But the world is becoming mixed and stripped of its many cultural identities at an alarming rate already. It's really quite terrifying to think what it will be like, say, 100 years from now. Cultural/language barriers are what makes this world interesting. 
As an American citizen, I'll be the first to admit that the US has a massive elitist complex, which I despise. But as the leading World power, it is wise to learn a least a bit of English.
But quite frankly, English is an idiotic, nonsensical language. Most native speakers can't even speak it halfway decently because it is so confusing and self-contradictory grammatically. If the world _is_ going to have a universal language, Spanish is 'by far the best choice. More people already speak it than do English, and it is logical, easy as hell to learn, and vastly more pleasing to the ear than the gutteral reverberation that is the English language. 
So, no. With the huge exception of presidents of English-speaking countries, notably W. Bush  , a president need not speak English. That's what translators are for.


----------



## Hakro

I agree with you, EireGoBragh, thta the US is the leading military power. They are not using English when they take what they want, they're using weapons.

I agree with you also about Spanish for the universal language although I know only the basics of it.


----------



## Pivra

Sure it is a must, if you're the president of the US or a PM of the UK.

No its not, if you're the president of France or Argentina or anywhere else.


----------



## panjabigator

No I dont.  It would make sense to though, considering that English is a lingua franca.

I think presidents should be bilingual, especially if their country has two large populations with distinct languages.


----------



## Pivra

panjabigator said:


> No I dont. It would make sense to though, considering that English is a lingua franca.
> 
> I think presidents should be bilingual, especially if their country has two large populations with distinct languages.


 

 Then Bush should go take Spanish or let Rice be the president. lol


----------



## Alxmrphi

Rice speaks Spanish???



> I think presidents should be bilingual, especially if their country has two large populations with distinct languages.



I agree, if two languages are spoken, at least some effort should be put in to communicating with both sides, not to say they would be opposite.
I'd hate to be... I was just about to say President/PM of Switzerland (because they have 4 national languages) ... but clever me looked it up and saw there is a Federal Council of 7 people, so I guess they can cover four languages easily, in there, plus English.


----------



## luis masci

Pivra said:


> Then Bush should go take Spanish or let Rice be the president. lol


I would be glad enough just if Bush could spell one language correctly. Lol


----------



## Etcetera

EireGoBragh said:


> But quite frankly, English is an idiotic, nonsensical language. Most native speakers can't even speak it halfway decently because it is so confusing and self-contradictory grammatically. If the world _is_ going to have a universal language, Spanish is 'by far the best choice. More people already speak it than do English, and it is logical, easy as hell to learn, and vastly more pleasing to the ear than the gutteral reverberation that is the English language.


I disagree. 
The English grammar isn't that difficult, actually. And anyway, look how many people are learning English and how many have good, even near-native command of English! 
But that's another story. I just couldn't but say a few words in defence of my beloved English.


----------



## Thomas1

I think it would behove a president or a prime minister to speak English at least at a conversational level, when it came down to speaking on important matters during, for instance, a political summit I'd leave the work for interpreters. Our president (or prime minister--I can't really tell which one ) said that he doesn't need to speak English since Polish is now one of the official languages of the EU--which I find a pathetic excuse.



Etcetera said:


> EireGoBragh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But quite frankly, English is an idiotic, nonsensical language. Most native speakers can't even speak it halfway decently because it is so confusing and self-contradictory grammatically. If the world _is_ going to have a universal language, Spanish is 'by far the best choice. More people already speak it than do English, and it is logical, easy as hell to learn, and vastly more pleasing to the ear than the gutteral reverberation that is the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> The English grammar isn't that difficult, actually. And anyway, look how many people are learning English and how many have good, even near-native command of English!
> But that's another story. I just couldn't but say a few words in defence of my beloved English.
Click to expand...

Etcetera, may I join up your club of English language aficionados?
PS: I'm not really sure if there are more people who speak Spanish than English.

Tom


----------



## ireney

OK, I think I need that explained: _Why_ must he or she speak english?


----------



## beclija

I would say that in many European-style democraties, where the president has more of a representative than an executive role, it would make a good impression if he or she knew _at least_ one foreign language well (though I don't think it need to be necessarily English). A person who has a high executive function in internal politics should be able to speak any of several national languages fluently (in a situation like, say, Belgium), which I would consider more important than English.

And in the special case of Poland, it would be convenient if at least one of them spoke English, that'd give us a way to tell them apart...


----------



## ireney

a) that's why in my first post I spoke about prime-minister/president

b) I am not saying that it is not a decided advantage for a PM/President to know English and, in fact, as many languages as he/she can (provided she/is first and foremost fluent in his/her own); I cannot understand why some consider it a "must".

It's like saying

Requirements for true head of State:
1) capable of compiling plans for betterment of internal affairs.
2) capable of overseeing the implementation of said plans.
3) capable of guiding the country's foreign affairs.
4) capable of choosing capable and worthy people as his ministers/secretaries etc
.
.
.
n) Must speak English.

Candidate must fullfil all the above requirements. 

So if one doesn't speak English he/she's not PM/president material.

It's similar for a titular head of state really.


----------



## Insider

I don't think it's obligatory. In my opinion, it depends on a president or on the politicians. For instance, I suppose, that for them it would be much more easily to communicate at informal meeting or party knowing at least one foreign language. But, on the other hand, if person doesn't need it and (s)he is not interested in communication, knows just native language - it's his (her) desire. I don't think, as well, that someone is going to treat them badly of to behave in impolite way.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



EireGoBragh said:


> But quite frankly, English is an idiotic, nonsensical language. Most native speakers can't even speak it halfway decently because it is so confusing and self-contradictory grammatically. If the world is going to have a universal language, Spanish is 'by far the best choice. More people already speak it than do English, and it is logical, easy as hell to learn, and vastly more pleasing to the ear than the gutteral reverberation that is the English language.




I wonder why Spanish (or any other language) would be more/less "logical" than English. I'm sorry, but I don't think that argument makes sense.
For more info on the "Language X is more logical than language Y-argument" see the tremendously funny, intresting and introductory booklet _Language Myths_ by Bauer and Trudgill.




> That's what translators are for.


Here I fully agree. One cannot expect a foreigner, any foreigner, including a president or minister, to speak about highly specialised matters in a foreign language with the necessary precision to avoid misunderstandings. I don't think that would be realistic...
On the other hand, some politicans should be protected against themselves. There are enough stories about EU representatives who render a speech in "English" and mess up things badly. This kind of 'Eurospeak' is dealt with in this article.

Over here, it takes at least 4 years of intensive study to become a translator (written) and a few extra years to become an interpretor (spoken). Add to these study years a few extra ones of building up a certain kind of expertise in a specialised field.
That's more than six years all in all... 
Well, isn't that longer than the average term of a president or minister?

I think it's their responsability to select specialists in the field to assist them. And as far as I know, most do on missions to countries where another language is spoken.
Hopefully, they slect a better one than the person responsible for Kennedy's Ich bin ein Berliner-speech. Maybe Lee Harvey Oswald (or whoever) simply wanted to check _that_ out. 

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## don maico

Yes I do and I would go further: people of all countries should learn to speak English at the earliest possible age, say 8 or 9. It shopuld be THE  internationl language


----------



## Alxmrphi

don maico said:


> Yes I do and I would go further: people of all countries should learn to speak English at the earliest possible age, say 8 or 9. It shopuld be THE internationl language



Not good at reading sarcasm on the net? Is this sarcastic?


----------



## don maico

Alex_Murphy said:


> Not good at reading sarcasm on the net? Is this sarcastic?


No of course not Sensible countries like the Benelux and Scandinavian ones more or less expect all their kids to learn English as it s THE commercial language of the world and the earlier they learn it the easier it is for them


----------



## Alxmrphi

So you are for a world language then? I think that'd be a shame, why does everyone have to speak English?


----------



## AGATHA2

don maico said:


> No of course not Sensible countries like the Benelux and Scandinavian ones more or less expect all their kids to learn English as it s THE commercial language of the world and the earlier they learn it the easier it is for them


 
What do yo mean by sensible ???


----------



## BlueWolf

don maico said:


> Yes I do and I would go further: people of all countries should learn to speak English at the earliest possible age, say 8 or 9. It shopuld be THE  internationl language



Can I re-interpretate it? _Be like me, or die! _Interesting vision for the future of the world. This is a conquest plan.


----------



## Hakro

don maico said:


> No of course not Sensible countries like the Benelux and Scandinavian ones more or less expect all their kids to learn English as it s THE commercial language of the world and the earlier they learn it the easier it is for them


In Finland kids are rather encouraged to learn German and French. They learn English "automatically" from TV and Internet.


----------



## maxiogee

don maico said:


> Yes I do and I would go further: people of all countries should learn to speak English at the earliest possible age, say 8 or 9. It shopuld be THE  international language



Some could even learn to write it


----------



## Sallyb36

BlueWolf said:


> Can I re-interpretate it? _Be like me, or die! _Interesting vision for the future of the world. This is a conquest plan.



How times haven't changed eh


----------



## BlueWolf

Sallyb36 said:


> How times haven't changed eh



Could you be clearer, please?


----------



## Etcetera

Thomas1 said:


> Etcetera, may I join up your club of English language aficionados?


Of course, and you're mostly welcome! 
As for the point of everyone's knowing English (or Spanish, or some other major language), well, nowadays, as people are travelling so much around the world, we just have to have some 'universal' language. Suppose you're going to Russia. Would you learn Russian specially for this visit? I doubt.  But then, you don't _need _to know Russian. You will find guides who speak your mothertongue. In the street of a big city, you'll always find someone who speaks enough English to tell you how to get to the nearest metro station, for example.


----------



## don maico

Alex_Murphy said:


> So you are for a world language then? I think that'd be a shame, why does everyone have to speak English?


Correct! I am for a world language spoken by the majority as a second language. Yes absolutely! It could've beeen Spanish or it could've been French, as it is its English ,the language we have given to the world which is something we can be justly  proud of.

_What do yo mean by sensible ???_ 
Well obviously given that it is the commercial language ( and the Dutch historically have been a trading nation) it makes perfect sense to learn it. Question of pragmatism.Most people throughout Europe now realise the desirabilty of learning it as it enables communication between them. The Italians apparently are the ones least likely to learn it which leads me to think it should be made compulsory at an early age by EC edict.Borders between nations are gradually disolving and people are having to communiucate more and more with other nationals so English becomes the obvious language.
Having said all that I do feel the Brits should learn ONE other language. May I suggest Spanish, French ,German or Mandarin just to make things fair


----------



## Etcetera

don maico said:


> Correct! I am for a world language spoken by the majority as a second language. Yes absolutely! It could've beeen Spanish or it could've been French, as it is its English ,the language we have given to the world which is something we can be justly  proud of.


You can. 
Oh, and that is going to be the fourth time in the last two days that I express my love for English!


----------



## Alxmrphi

I think if everyone spoke English, the world would have less, I dunno, culture, countries wouldn't have that nice stigma of a "foreign" place, it'd totally ruin the way I saw the world.


----------



## beclija

a) I am not even sure that in terms of native speakers + very fluent second language speakers, English beats Mandarin.
b) You didn't give the language to the world, nor was the language chosen for its own merits. It just so happens that "you" gave us industrialization, colonialism and a few other things (most of which you shouldn't really be proud of), and the language was dragged along.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Yes, it was us British alive today.


----------



## don maico

maxiogee said:


> Some could even learn to write it



no worries mate!


----------



## Etcetera

Alex_Murphy said:


> I think if everyone spoke English, the world would have less, I dunno, culture, countries wouldn't have that nice stigma of a "foreign" place, it'd totally ruin the way I saw the world.


No one is going to say that English should be the world's 'official' language, so to say. But in my opinion, it would be really fine if everyone could speak at least a bit of English. Or Spanish, it doesn't matter. So that we could understand each other, and there could be no 'language barrier'.


----------



## don maico

beclija said:


> a) I am not even sure that in terms of native speakers + very fluent second language speakers, English beats Mandarin.
> b) You didn't give the language to the world, nor was the language chosen for its own merits. It just so happens that "you" gave us industrialization, colonialism and a few other things (most of which you shouldn't really be proud of), and the language was dragged along.


splitting hairs somewhat arent we?
we also gave the world most of the popular sports like:
tennis 
rugby 
football etc
off topic but then the "we shouldnt be proud of" barb provoked this response


----------



## don maico

Etcetera said:


> ?? one is going to say that English should be the world's 'official' language, so to say. But in my opinion, it would be really fine if everyone could speak at least a bit of English. Or Spanish, it doesn't matter. So that we could understand each other, and there could be no 'language barrier'.



here here ! I wouldnt mind if it was Spanish actually. Nice langiuage but the grammar drives me round the twist, especially formal Spanish. Have you seen the way they begin and end their correspondence. About 15 words when 5 would do. Talk about lack of economy . Mind you English can be mind numbingly complex too . How about starting a Plain Language Society - English ,Spanish or French?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Esperanto!


----------



## ireney

Kids in Greece learn at least English and French (German or Spanish being popular "thirds"). I believe it's a very good thing for all sorts of reasons.
 I  wish I hadn't left my French to gather so much dust and I had really study Spanish and Italian (at least) instead of having a nodding aquaintance with both.

That _still_ doesn't answer my question:

_Why_ must a PM/President speak English if he/she is not the PM/President of an English speaking country ?


----------



## beclija

Just to make that clear, I like the English language and everything. I just wanted to point out that it was the historical circumstances (rather unpleasent for many of the people involved) that lead to the present role of English and nothing to be proud that has to do with the language itself. Not blaming anyone alive (I thought that went without saying).

We can argue about football, but in my view rugby isn't really anything to be proud. Indeed, I believe in most places of the world except a few former colonies where it has achieved popularity, most people find rugby rather ridiculous if they know anything about it. That seems to be the situation in continental Europe, at least. Ever noticed that the Commonwealth League and World Cup consist practically of the same countries?


----------



## heidita

ireney said:


> _Why_ must a PM/President speak English if he/she is not the PM/President of an English speaking country ?


 

I personally think it is a "must" for anybody, but especially for a president to speak English. Of course, it is better to take a translator anyway, as somebody suggested, but in any case, I think it is awful to see _your_ president making a fool of himself.


----------



## ireney

Heidita  so you're saying that if someone has every "other" qualification fom becoming a good president but doesn't speak English we shouldn't vote for him?

I didn't catch that about "making a fool of himself"


----------



## AGATHA2

don maico said:


> ,the language we have given to the world which is something we can be justly proud of.


 
I don´t want to discuss if there is any reason for being proud, but could you be more especific about your personal contribution


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



Alex_Murphy said:


> Esperanto!



Some remarks and some maths. Not really maths, I am very bad at it and there are some factors which I cannot quantify.

- Esperanto was developped in let's say 1880 with the explicit purpose of becoming _the_ international aux language.
- in 126 years, there are 2 million speakers (according to Wikipedia)
- how long would it take to have the complete world population speak Esperanto, keeping in mind that:
   * Esperanto has to be taught in schools, since there are hardly any opportunities to pick it up in the streets;
   * quite a bunch of countries don't have (enough) schools;
   * those countries could invest in far more useful things than Esperanto schools (no?);
   * even if we would phantasise about a global effort to build those schools, the language used to co-ordinate that massive global-school-project would probably be English (or another natural language X -- ah ja, nobody speaks Esperanto yet);
   * in order to understand language X, people will have to learn that language X, 

so...

My second guess is that Esperanto will be globally used round 5000 AD. 
My first guess is that Esperanto as a global, international language is unrealistic and useless, a Utopy.
As a (con)language, it's as interesting as any other one.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## beclija

don maico said:


> May I suggest Spanish, French ,German or Mandarin just to make things fair


So English speakers should have the privilege to choose which foreign language best suits there taste and interests, while everyone else will be decreed to pick one?
To be fair, as it is, English is the most sensible and useful option for pragmatic reasons, and I only advise everyone to learn English if only for practical reasons, should someone come and ask me which language to choose. But it still doesn't look like you were willing to speak on equal terms with everyone else.


----------



## beclija

@Frank Had there been the slightest effort in the 50 years after it's development, we might well be communicating in Esperanto right here.


----------



## heidita

I once went to a Esperanto class. It even has declinations like German. That's ridiculous if you want to teach an easy to learn, easy to teach language. 
I can't possibly agree on the insinuation that Spanish is easier to learn than English. English has no grammar, Spanish has like one million tenses and modes (subjuntivo).


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


beclija said:


> @Frank Had there been the slightest effort in the 50 years after it's development, we might well be communicating in Esperanto right here.



"If" and history have a very troubled relationship, well, actually no relationship at all. 
Over here we would say "As Sinterkloas gienen board 'ad... ("if Santa didn't have a beard, ...")

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Alxmrphi

I was only joking about Esperanto, as it was designed to be an aux language and aparently is really simple.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


heidita said:


> I once went to a Esperanto class. It even has declinations like German. That's ridiculous if you want to teach an easy to learn, easy to teach language.



Every language has its drawbacks, if it is not the declinaton, then it's the strict word order. If it's not a set of phonems which is impossible to pronounce, then it's tones. If the problems are not caused by the fact that it's an analytic language, then maybe by the fact it's a syntethic one, or an agglutinating...



> I can't possibly agree on the insinuation that Spanish is easier to learn than English. English has no grammar, Spanish has like one million tenses and modes (subjuntivo).



No grammar English have ? A very idea weird that be.

(Grammar is more much much than declinations. A language without a grammar is a contradiction in termininis).

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## beclija

a alphabetically be in ordered sentence should the words (admit I have one stolen that this).


----------



## LV4-26

It seems there's enough stuff here to make four or five separate threads 

Let _my_ president "make a fool of himself" if he likes. I don't mind.
Anyway, the only ones that are not likely to make fool of themselves are
- those who speak really good English (I don't know of any, at least in France)
- those who don't even *try* to speak it. 

Therefore, my advise to my future president will be : for God's sake, do not try to speak English. 

Plus, to echo Tony's words, I side with my interpreter friends, I wouldn't want them to lose their jobs.

For the rest, I'm with Alex on that one : I don't think I would like a monochrome world where everybody would speak the same language. 
Also, I don't do "pragmatism". I'm only glad I was taught English because I've got affective links with that language and it enables me to talk with you folks.

And beclija, don't you criticize my favorite sport!


----------



## don maico

Alex_Murphy said:


> Esperanto!



now that is being silly! I tried to compromise on the fairness stakes, but esperanto?? Nahh, its a dead language. You must be having a laugh, you must!


----------



## don maico

beclija said:


> So English speakers should have the privilege to choose which foreign language best suits there taste and interests, while everyone else will be decreed to pick one?
> To be fair, as it is, English is the most sensible and useful option for pragmatic reasons, and I only advise everyone to learn English if only for practical reasons, should someone come and ask me which language to choose. But it still doesn't look like you were willing to speak on equal terms with everyone else.


I was trying to be fair thats all I would prfer if the british did take the trouble to learn a foreign language as i find it embarrasing when they seldom bother especially when they live abroad


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

heidita said:


> [...] He talked about the effort Sarkozy, minister of foreign affairs, I gather, who has made a special effort to learn English before visiting the USA.


My guess is this man should not be proud of himself speaking English... I've heard him, and his English is one hundred times more awful than mine (and I've a very "sexy French accent" if you see what I mean, believe me!  ). A record was available on the net (I had a link one day) but he made it disappear!  
Conclusion (and to answer your question): it seems that if you are a wishful president of France, start by hiding all the evidences of your incapability of speaking English instead of trying to improve it.


----------

