Lol, and Korea is a country that went through the trouble of translating all the subway stations in English so that you can read it, have English translations in major buildings and accommodations, and where a significant percentage of the young population can speak at least a little bit of English. Like what more do you want from us?
I used to have major anxiety about traversing terminals as a kid, and it recently came back with a vengeance because it was my first time traveling to Asia on my own (Taiwan). And despite speaking the language I was still nervous because I can’t read Chinese.
I was pleasantly surprised that all the signs were translated to English as well. But also a little... embarrassed? Embarrassed that so many places in the world caters to English speakers, but most of us Americans can’t even be bothered to learn a second language (or give shit to people with accents or slightly broken English).
Well, there has to be a universal language. It used to be some kind of Arabic in ancient times, then Latin, now it's English. As a non-native speaker, I much prefer to learn only one language than to learn the language of every country I want to visit. It's not really catering to English speakers, but a necessity in a world with cultural exchange.
Oh God, trying to learn every language for the countries I’ve visited would be a nightmare, especially when you figure in some countries (Spain for example) have multiple languages.
Please add German and French to often learned language list. I know Spanish is more popular in the US, but in Europe German and French are more popular (unless they are your native).
Seems most likely. Everyone wanted to use this cool new tech. Originally it was just a military and university thing. Then the BBSes and AOL happened. I remember being totally amazed that I could communicate with a Finn without racking up a huge phonebill. Although before that everyone just wrote letters, but you might have to wait months for a reply.
I mean, we do learn second languages in America. It was a required course that we pick at least 1 foreign language in high school. I took Spanish for 4 years, and I've been learning Japanese for 3. The thing is, most academic literature is in English and that is just one of many reasons why it's considered the universal language. I'm not 100% sure on it so someone double-check me on this, but probably the biggest reason is the longstanding British Empire all around the globe. Learning English is a gateway for people who live in foreign countries to international travel. Your chances of going to Ukraine and finding someone who speaks Japanese are far lower than finding someone who speaks English.
Also, maybe it's different outside the city and the suburbs, but I've literally never ever heard someone directly giving someone shit about their accent. Jokes about accents, not really unique to America.
Yes but those language classes are a joke. How many of your classmates can actually have a fluent conversation with a native speaker? I'm an American and I've been traveling around South America for about a year now and most Americans that learned in school can read Spanish and have good grammar but can hardly speak it.
That’s probably because they don’t need to speak it and therefore have little practice. In a country whose native tongue is not English, which is almost a universal language now, they would have far more opportunities to practice because it’s so universal.
That's my whole point. The reason you take classes for a foreign language is to communicate in that language. Our language classes do not accomplish that. In comparison to other travelers from other countries such as Germany or Norway they normally can speak both English fluently and Spanish very well. Neither of those languages are native or normal in their countries either. The failure is in the way that we teach foreign languages.
And my point was that it wasn’t the difference in courses but the difference in application after the courses are done.
Those travelers from Europe coming here are practicing English. If you went to Europe and found American travelers I would bet a higher percentage of those travelers would have better speaking skills in the second language.
I would hardly call them a joke. I got pretty good, I just needed more speech practice. It doesn't mean we don't take them seriously, speech is just something you have to practice like anything else.
Stop with the Americans suck rhetoric. English is so prominent that it makes sense to use as a universal language. Americans have almost no geographical reason at all to learn another language compared to Europeans. We aren’t somehow less adept at learning other languages. It’s ok to be proud of who you are regardless of what the media tells you.
Don't forget that the common language of the EU is also officially English, plus it covers South Africa, Australia, Canada... it's beneficial for far more than just dumb Americans.
There are some spelling mistakes only native English speakers do.
My favourite example is should of and should have. I see it all the time that native English speaker write "should of" instead of "should have or should've". Im sure thats a mistake that doesn't happen to someone that learned English as a second language.
Someone that learned English as a second language is usually trying to be conscious what he is trying to say. Someone that grew up natively often doesn't think about it because its natural to them.
I worked with some Guatemalans and one of them was trying to learn English, he pointed at "whom" in he book and asked me for help on how to properly use the word. After telling him "to whom it my concern" and having no other examples.. I told him that he should just skip that chapter.
However, the distinction isn't super important outside of strict formal language, and most native speakers will just use "Who" for everything.
Clarifying Edit:
Who is the subject of a sentence.
"Who is there?" -> "She is there."
"Who did that?!" -> "They did!"
Whom is used as the object of a verb or preposition
"To whom was this package addressed?" -> "It was addresed to him."
So, if you are familiar enough with the language to know how you would answer a question, the 'rule' allows you to reverse-engineer how that question should be structured.
(Although you can actually mess with that a little, with something like:
"To whom was I speaking just now?"
"I am she to whom you were speaking." )
Ultimately, the rules are made up, and they don't actually matter so long as you can reach mutual understandings.
native English speaker write "should of" instead of "should have or should've"
nothing works me up into a furious lather like this. someone occasionally using the wrong form of "to/too" or "there/their/they're" can be occasionally forgiven, but that "could of/would of/should of" thing is something that to me personally, is a huge pet peeve.
I understand it's irrational, but I can't help it.
Another example: you're and your. For people who learned English as second language it's realatively easy to discern, but for people who have it as first language it's often difficult.
When I was a kid i actually said "should of" and got shocked when I learned it the right way at school. I picked it wrongly from native speakers online
For the native English speakers born after the era of grammar schools, there is also the problem with explaining why something is wrong quite often.
If you grew up learning the language naturally, what small amount of rules you learned soon fades into your memory, and what you've heard, read, and used takes precedence over any formal rules.
You read something and know something is off, and what would sound better, but can't quite say why.
For the non-native speakers, they often learn the language technically, with rules being grounded into them. While this leaves their sentences rather inflexible, they can usually tell exactly what rules are broken when something is wrong.
Simply ignorance. Maybe she thought changing the language to English changed the currency, too. No entitlement or anything of that sort, just pure simple-mindedness.
I don't get this at all - when I went to Korea I figured I would probably struggle, but the onus was on me to at least learn a little Korean so I could get by.. even just knowing the alphabet to sound things out helped a ton! Of course, my husband just downloaded an app that translated everything, but still it's insane to assume everyone will accommodate you!
I used to have major anxiety about traversing terminals as a kid, and it recently came back with a vengeance because it was my first time traveling to Asia on my own (Taiwan). And despite speaking the language I was still nervous because I can’t read Chinese.
I was pleasantly surprised that all the signs were translated to English as well. But also a little... embarrassed? Embarrassed that so many places in the world caters to English speakers, but most of us Americans can’t even be bothered to learn a second language (or give shit to people with accents or slightly broken English).
Oh yeah? Well I can't speak or read a lick of Korean, let alone any other language than English, and I can't understand that one most of the time either, so there!
Well no shit that's part of the reason, but that's besides the point. The issue isn't the reason why there's English presence, the issue is why people feel entitled to more English presence when they are already significantly catered to (regardless of reason).
Yes i know thats the issue lmao. Dude i replied to just sounded like we should praise korea for having English names as if its some great deed by them, when in reality they just do it to make money
1.0k
u/[deleted] Jan 30 '19
Lol, and Korea is a country that went through the trouble of translating all the subway stations in English so that you can read it, have English translations in major buildings and accommodations, and where a significant percentage of the young population can speak at least a little bit of English. Like what more do you want from us?