[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.
Selamlar,
Polat Kaya
> allingus wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/weekinreview/02ridi.html
>
> 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
> imperative.
>
> 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
> languages.
>
> 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.