Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know but that's not my point. What I'm saying is that Canada as a country offers at least some linguistic diversity because there are parts of the country where the majority speaks English and there are parts where the majority speaks French. Whatever language people speak at home with their family members is entirely irrelevant to my argument because it doesn't affect the country as a whole, these people will still speak English in public. I'm talking about countries where one language dominates one part of the country and another language dominates another part. For example, I'm a native Dutch speaker but I lived in Namur (in the French-speaking part of Belgium) for a while. Although Dutch is an official language in Belgium and spoken by appr. 60% of the population, nobody in Namur or elsewhere in Wallonia would understand me if I spoke Dutch to them. I was forced to speak French all the time. The schools were in French, the media were in French, it was all around you. That is what I mean by linguistic diversity and it simply doesn't exist in the US.
'Linguistic diversity' actually means 'diversity of language'. So, by its definition, the U.S. definitely has that.
It seems your definition of the word implies nation-state lines that have engulfed other linguistic areas that previously had other autonomy, and made them their own, while allowing some recognition of their previous language to remain.
The only thing quite like that particular scenario might be Puerto Rico, and some Native American Indian Reservations.
Yes, that's one of my main criteria. As a non-native speaker, I am used to a specific kind of English (the 'mainstream' kind that you hear on TV) and when accents divert too much from the 'standardized' language I know it can become quite hard to understand what people are saying, you easily become distracted. I've never had this problem with American accents but certain British accents are much more challenging (e.g. Scottish or Geordie).
Again, they all sound the same to me, I can't really distinguish them.
I don't think that is good criteria, sorry. You never said whether you've actually been to the U.S., but it could be you are just more used to the accent especially since American media is prevalent around the world. I'm not a native Spanish speaker, but I understand most accents. If I told a Spanish speaker that the Argentinian, Spanish, Costa Rican, Colombian, Chilean and Dominican accents were all the same or had "minimal" differences, I'm pretty sure they would laugh in my face.
I don't think that is good criteria, sorry. You never said whether you've actually been to the U.S., but it could be you are just more used to the accent especially since American media is prevalent around the world. I'm not a native Spanish speaker, but I understand most accents. If I told a Spanish speaker that the Argentinian, Spanish, Costa Rican, Colombian, Chilean and Dominican accents were all the same or had "minimal" differences, I'm pretty sure they would laugh in my face.
Why is it not a good criterium? What better way is there to measure the difference of a dialect or accent than by holding it to a general standard (in this case the 'mainstream' standardized English)? In the case of the US I find that the accents barely divert from the 'mainstream' American accent that I'm familiar with through the media, with few exceptions like the strong southern ones. It's completely irrelevant whether or not I have personally been to America because it makes no difference if you hear people speaking 'live' or on audio/video, their accent won't suddenly change. In the case of Spanish it's completely different because their accents do sound very different depending on where they're coming from. I don't speak Spanish but I can easily recognise the European Spanish accent by the way they pronounce the Z (as "th") for example. With American accents, it's almost impossible for me to guess where people come from when I hear them speak in most cases. Maybe it sounds very different to Americans because you tend to actively focus on the differences (as I've noticed) but from an outside perspective it's really not that different, especially compared to other countries. In my tiny country of the Netherlands every region has its own distinctive accent and I can immediately tell whether someone comes from the north, south, east or west or if someone is upper/lower class just by their accent. The R is pronounced in three different ways (the English way, the French way or the Spanish way), the G is pronounced in two different ways (the harsh Arabic "H" sound as in Ahmed or the soft Spanish "J" sound as in Alejandro), the E is pronounced either as a closed "eh" sound (like the French é) or an open "ey" sound (like the English "hey"), etc. etc. In comparison, American accents all sound quite generic to me apart from the deep south. If you disagree, can you post an audio/video clip that clearly shows the differences in accents in, say, New England (as you said there are many different accents in NE)?
Looking at some of the earlier threads in this forum, lots of people (especially people who don't live in the U.S. or never been here) think it sucks living here, that we have low minimum wages, expensive or no health care, that the poor have it bad, lack of vacation, poor housing, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In God We Trust
First of all. The United States of America is the only superpower nation in the world. It is the world's wealthiest (yes, even with the crises), the world's famous and well-known.
Military power and economic power does not translate to quality of life for a country's citizens. The USSR at one time had the largest military and the second largest economy in the world. China currently has the second largest economy in the world, and has a fairly large military, yet their living standards are below many countries that are not even in the top 50 in terms of those values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In God We Trust
The Federal minimum wage in the U.S. right now is $7.25. However, individual states/cities could set their own minimum wage and most have it higher than the federal minimum wage. Just because the minimum wage is only $7.25 does NOT mean that's what most people working in retail or whatsoever get payed. There are many European countries, even the ones' highly developed, don't have any minimum wage at all! At least in the U.S. any worker is guaranteed something. Remember that taxes in America are lower than those in Europe or countries with higher minimum wage! Some states do not even have any state tax.
Anyways things cost two-three times more in Europe than they do in America.
Most have it equal to or slightly above the federal minimum wage, 10 cents is hardly a large increase. Plus many have their minimum wages tied to cost of living for the area, so it is not a real wage increase. Yes, horrific countries like Sweden and Norway do not have statutory minimum wages.
They have high taxes, but so does the US unless you are under a certain income. If I add up my health insurance, FICA, federal tax, property tax, sales tax, etc; it does come out to a lot of labor I work each year to pay these taxes. I mention health insurance because it is is paid whether it is a tax or a fee by me, ends are the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In God We Trust
Regards to the health care. Yes, the U.S. is virtually the only industrial nation with no national health care. Guess what - that does not mean nobody has any health care. If you are low income or elderly, you get medicare/medicaid and pay NOTHING for your medication, hospital visits, etc. In countries where you get health care, you still pay small amount for decent service they provide you. If you have insurance, the U.S. has the best medical service in the entire world <- Yes, it's true.
Americans who work in companies still get health insurance from their companies, and those who work in private could buy their own type of insurance they want. With this 'Obamacare' we will almost get health care. Yes, unfortunately there are many people who don't have any health insurance, but guess what - there are many doctors out there who help you out, and many of them treat you free or low cost.
Remember that in other countries who get health care pays for it too, that's why they have high income taxes! Nothing is free.
This is incorrect, a poor person is not covered. Try being a 25 year old jobless guy with no kids and living in TN and see what kind of health care you get for free; you get none unless the hospital declares it a charity case. The guy in this scenario does not qualify for Medicare/Medicaid. You are welcome to go look it up yourself to verify.
No, many people do not get health insurance from their employers. Many who are offered can hardly afford it, or have huge deductibles. For example, a Walmart worker making starting wage in Miami is not going to be able to afford insurance, and if they did, the deductible is so high they still have to pay out of pocket anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In God We Trust
Regards to the poor. Yes, there are many low-income Americans. Yes, it sucks being poor in America. However I could guarantee you that the low income in America lives nicer than the low income in other countries.
Anyways there are poor people everywhere, in every single country. I've been to most European countries, including western and northern Europe and saw plenty of homeless people.
Yes, the poor here do live better than many people in other countries, they also live worst, has someone disputed this? The only item is healthcare, and the fact a person basically has to have a kid in order to qualify for government funded care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In God We Trust
Regards to the 'lack of vacation'. Yes, the U.S. is the only industrial nation where the government do not mandate any paid days off for any reason. Just because there is no government mandatory does NOT mean workers do not get any days off. Yeah, most people get 2 weeks off, but PLENTY of workers get 3-5 weeks off, including public holidays. I have friends who get 6 weeks paid vacation, along with all national holidays. Nobody gets this much anywhere in Europe. No, they are not teachers. Anyways I don't think anyone would work in a company that offer bad benefits, or that any company offers that.
Getting six weeks off is rare, most jobs outside government do not offer this at all and never do. You are presenting this as something common, when in fact it is not. You say you have friends that get six weeks off, I can state I have friends that get five days of vacation a year, and that is only between Christmas and New Years. And it almost sounds like you are trolling because you act like most companies give six weeks vacation, and that people here have this grand selection of companies to choose from that do.
Go look at the ten largest employers in the US besides government and tell me how many vacation days they get, heck, look at the 100 largest employers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In God We Trust
Last but not least. Houses in America might not be built in a quality as 'great' as most of Europe; however our houses in general are MUCH MUCH nicer, larger, better gardens, central A/C (most have it) and overall look better. Quality of life is great here!
I agree, I never liked many European houses, but I did like the ones I lived in while I lived in Europe. But they have better property rights as a whole there. Here in many places, between HOA's and erratic codes, property rights here are vanishing quick.
Oh please. There are probably more Frisian speakers in the Netherlands than there are native French speakers in Louisiana but I would hardly call the NL "linguistically diverse". The US is probably the least diverse country in terms of language and culture in the world if you consider its size. It only has one de facto national language that is understood by everyone (except recent immigrants but they'll learn it soon enough), no distinctive dialects and the difference in accents is minimal (despite what some Americans seem to think). I have no problem understanding someone from Texas or New York and apart from the strong southern accent I can't really distinguish the rest (I'm a non-native English speaker). Compare that to the UK where every region seems to have its own strong accent and you can often tell by the way someone speaks if he's lower or upper class. Some British accents are extremely hard to understand for non-native speakers. My English teacher was from Glasgow and honestly, the first time I heard her speak I thought she was a foreigner who barely spoke English because the accent sounds so strange. You will never have that problem in the US. If you think the US is culturally or linguistically diverse, you should see China or India.
I don't think this is a negative thing per se. I've personally never understood why multiculturalism is inherently superior to monoculturalism or why multilinguism is inherently superior to monolinguism. It's just a matter of preference.
It sounds to me like you're changing your criteria. Before we continue here, we should arrive at a mutually-accepted definition of "diversity" and "linguistic diversity". I feel like I"m trying to hit a moving target. The US' linguistic diversity is disqualified simply due to the size of the country?
How many Frisian-speakers are there in Holland, anyway? I notice you didn't include them in your original list for Holland. Only after I brought them up did you remember them, so there can't be too many...
It sounds to me like you're changing your criteria. Before we continue here, we should arrive at a mutually-accepted definition of "diversity" and "linguistic diversity". I feel like I"m trying to hit a moving target. The US' linguistic diversity is disqualified simply due to the size of the country?
How many Frisian-speakers are there in Holland, anyway? I notice you didn't include them in your original list for Holland. Only after I brought them up did you remember them, so there can't be too many...
I'm not changing my criteria, I have always said that to me linguistic diversity within a country means one region being dominated by one language and another region being dominated by another language (as is the case in e.g. Switzerland, South Africa, India, etc.). It has nothing to do with (recent) immigrants speaking a different language because that's at the individual level and I'm talking about the regional or national level.
According to Wikipedia, there are 467,000 native Frisian speakers in the Netherlands and an estimated 120,000 people speak it as a second language. They don't live in Holland btw (Holland consists of two provinces (North-Holland and South-Holland in the west of the NL)); Frisian is the language of the northern province of Friesland. I didn't mention them because I didn't think it's relevant, as I said I don't consider the NL a linguistically diverse country despite the Frisians and other distinctive dialects like Limbourgish which is pretty much a language of its own. The reason I don't consider the NL linguistically diverse is because every single person in the NL (except recent immigrants) knows how to speak Dutch fluently.
United States Of America , Ive never been go to America ever since , bUT I say That America , Has the power to keep the world in peace ......i READ a lot of books in history .....and America always mentioned......GOD BLESS AMERICA GOD BLESS PHILIPPINES .....which I was born...........
Why is it not a good criterium? What better way is there to measure the difference of a dialect or accent than by holding it to a general standard (in this case the 'mainstream' standardized English)? In the case of the US I find that the accents barely divert from the 'mainstream' American accent that I'm familiar with through the media, with few exceptions like the strong southern ones. It's completely irrelevant whether or not I have personally been to America because it makes no difference if you hear people speaking 'live' or on audio/video, their accent won't suddenly change. In the case of Spanish it's completely different because their accents do sound very different depending on where they're coming from. I don't speak Spanish but I can easily recognise the European Spanish accent by the way they pronounce the Z (as "th") for example. With American accents, it's almost impossible for me to guess where people come from when I hear them speak in most cases. Maybe it sounds very different to Americans because you tend to actively focus on the differences (as I've noticed) but from an outside perspective it's really not that different, especially compared to other countries. In my tiny country of the Netherlands every region has its own distinctive accent and I can immediately tell whether someone comes from the north, south, east or west or if someone is upper/lower class just by their accent. The R is pronounced in three different ways (the English way, the French way or the Spanish way), the G is pronounced in two different ways (the harsh Arabic "H" sound as in Ahmed or the soft Spanish "J" sound as in Alejandro), the E is pronounced either as a closed "eh" sound (like the French é) or an open "ey" sound (like the English "hey"), etc. etc. In comparison, American accents all sound quite generic to me apart from the deep south. If you disagree, can you post an audio/video clip that clearly shows the differences in accents in, say, New England (as you said there are many different accents in NE)?
It absolutely is relevant whether you have been to the U.S. and it's obvious that you haven't. Of course you can't tell the difference between accents; you've never even heard them. The majority of the media in the US (or any country for that matter) is in the standard dialect, if not very close to it. The only way you would hear the Miami, Buffalo/Rochester, Boston, Philly, Minnesotan, Maine, "Hillbilly/Redneck" (different from Southern) accents is if you've been to those regions or spoke with someone from them. You will never hear those in the media.
Last edited by luckynumber4; 06-22-2012 at 10:49 PM..
I'm not changing my criteria, I have always said that to me linguistic diversity within a country means one region being dominated by one language and another region being dominated by another language (as is the case in e.g. Switzerland, South Africa, India, etc.). It has nothing to do with (recent) immigrants speaking a different language because that's at the individual level and I'm talking about the regional or national level.
The immigrant issue wasn't my argument, it was someone else's. My argument was mainly the diversity of Native American languages still actively spoken in parts of the US, and then Cajun country. Northern Arizona and parts of neighboring New Mexico and Utah represent a large region where Navajo and Hopi languages are spoken, and the culture is radically different from the mainstream. Governance is also somewhat independent of the US. The US Constitution does not apply on the Native Nations. The Eastern Cherokee still occupy their ancestral land in North Carolina, and speak Cherokee. Alaska has many Native peoples who speak their own language fluently. There are other tribal nations where the language is still actively spoken.
But I also don't think it's accurate to dismiss African American and Hispanic American cultures from the definition of "diversity". Just because they are part of US consumer culture does NOT mean they are part of the dominant mainly Puritan-derived culture, far from it.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 06-22-2012 at 10:11 PM..
It absolutely is relevant whether you have been to the U.S. and it's obvious that you haven't. Of course you can't tell the difference between accents; you've never even heard them. The majority of the media in the US (or any country of that matter) is in the standard dialect, if not very close to it. The only way you would hear the Miami, Buffalo/Rochester, Boston, Philly, Minnesotan, Maine, "Hillbilly/Redneck" (different from Southern) accents is if you've been to those regions or spoke with someone from them. You will never hear those in media.
What nonsense. I hear accents from all regions of the US all the time. You can find YT videos from random people all over the US easily. Documentaries and news clips will often feature people from different places as well. What difference does it make if I've been to NYC for example, I'll hear these people speak in real life (as if it's somehow different from when their voice is recorded) but I still won't talk to people in other cities and states. Are you saying I can only judge American accents if I have personally spoken to someone from every city and state in the US? I have listened to people from Boston, NYC, Miami etc. and their accent just didn't sound that different to me. It's not as obvious as with British accents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have listened to people from Boston, NYC, Miami etc. and their accent just didn't sound that different to me. It's not as obvious as with British accents.