[Fwd: [bcn2004] Babel, a New Capital for a Wider Continent]
Asagidaki yazinin tonundan anlasilan sudur ki
Türkiye Avrupa Birligine
girdigi günden itibaren Türkçe, konusanlari ile birlikte tarihte
ikinci ve olasilikla son defa tarihten silinme devrine girecekdir.
Görünen köy kilavuz istemez. Babylonda yapilan Türkçeyi "karistirma"
olayindan sonra, simdide Türkçeden yapilmis bir Avrupa dili Türkçenin
yerine geçip istikbalin Türk nesillerine yeni dil vazifesi görecek.
Bundan kimsenin süphesi olmasin. Yeri simdiden hazirlanmaya baslamis
bile. Esit sartlar altinda girilmeyen bir ortamda ancak bogulma
yasanir. Avrupa Birligi Türkiyeyi esit sartlarla kabullenmek
istemiyor. Sayet Birlige alsa dahi, örümcek avina yaptigi gibi, AB de
Türkleri siki siki ipek iplikleri ile (yani kendi diledigi sartlarla)
sirim siklam paketledikten sonra alir ki o zaman da bir daha geri
dönüs imkani kalmaz. Roma Imparatorlugu yeniden Avrupa Birligi
seklinde canlanmis bulunuyor. Görünen sartlar altinda Türkiye olsa
olsa yeni "Romalilar" tarafindan idare edilen bir eyalet olur.
> allingus wrote:
> Babel, a New Capital for a Wider Continent
> By ALAN RIDING
> Published: May 2, 2004
> ARIS ó One lesson offered by the Book of Genesis is that when
> "the whole earth was of one language and of one speech," things
> got done. And when the Lord disapproved of the grandiosity of the
> resulting Tower of Babel, his way of scattering those engaged in the
> project was to "confound their language, that they may not
> understand one another's speech."
> Now, with 10 new members adding 9 languages to the European Union's
> existing 11, Babel is back in the headlines. Would the 25-nation
> bloc be more effective working in "one speech," or at least only in
> its three principal languages - English, French and German? Will the
> need to turn millions of documents and thousands of voices into 20
> languages become a Babelian impediment to getting things done?
> In Brussels, these questions are not welcome. The problem of
> managing a cacophony of tongues is thought far less daunting than
> having to silence any individual language. After all, if Dutch,
> Greek and Danish are used, why not Estonian, Hungarian and Maltese?
> The 191-member United Nations may tick along just fine with six
> languages, but in Europe the right of officials and legislators to
> work in their own languages is now enshrined as a democratic
> As the union's executive commission puts it: "The citizens of Europe
> should not have to be represented in Brussels by their best
> linguists - they can send their best experts."
> Anticipating the union's enlargement this weekend, officials have
> scrambled to find translators and interpreters able to work in the
> new languages. The number of language combinations for
> interpretation - Hungarian to Latvian, for example - will jump to
> 380 from 110, although in practice "relay languages" like English
> and French will serve many people as a bridge between less-spoken
> As for the extra expense, European officials respond that the
> union's linguistic services cost less than 1 percent of the total
> budget, or just $2.40 (2 euros) per citizen per year - the
> equivalent of a cup of coffee. "It is a small price for insuring
> that everyone has a right to communicate with, and hear from, those
> institutions in their own language," says Neil Kinnock, the
> commission's vice president.
> So linguistic democracy has won out. Or has it? In reality, a
> different - less legalistic, more intense - battle is also taking
> place over what languages European officials and politicians
> actually use to talk to one another and to reach a wider public. And
> here the outcome is different. "In this context, the enlarged Europe
> will not be Babel," Le Monde's Arnaud Leparmentier wrote recently.
> "It has found the gift of tongues: it is English."
> It was not always like this. As the traditional tool of diplomacy,
> French long dominated European affairs. But after Sweden, Finland
> and Austria joined the European Union in 1995, the balance began to
> tip toward English. Now, with a fresh enlargement, English is
> increasingly preferred over French.
> The adoption of English as everyone's second language is of course a
> global phenomenon. But a look at language teaching in Europe also
> explains why French and German officials often communicate in
> English. While more than 90 percent of high school students in
> Europe are learning English, French is studied by only 29 percent in
> Germany, 27 percent in Italy and 24 percent in Spain. German is
> studied by only 31 percent in France, 8 percent in Italy and 1
> percent in Spain (Central Europe is the exception).
> Thus, having a voice in Europe - tiny like Latvia or powerful like
> Germany - does not automatically mean that a country's language will
> be more widely studied or spoken. A language's use in Brussels may
> improve public perceptions of the European Union, but this
> acceptance is more likely to influence how a country sees itself
> than how it is viewed by others.
> A larger question looms over Europe's minority languages, which are
> spoken by some 40 million people, about 8 percent of the region's
> population. While, say, Fresian in the Netherlands and Sami in
> Finland reinforce cultural identities, many such languages are
> struggling to survive. Often rooted in rural areas and spoken by
> older people, they have been weakened by migration to cities and the
> exposure of younger generations to national media.
> Governments intent on defending national languages often deem
> regional tongues costly nuisances. They probably deserve better.
> Even more than the European Union's 20 official languages, they
> offer sparkling evidence of Europe's cultural diversity.