Six languages an educated person should know (Prof. Argüelles)

[kanewai]

So far this year I've quit reading two popular books on European history by best-selling authors, one British and one American. They were just too shallow, and all I could think was, if the authors had only read a few essays in Italian by Alessandro Barbero or Umberto Eco then their books would have had significantly more depth.

I have similar experiences trying to listen to podcasts on food and cooking (I cook a lot). There will inevitably by an "expert" talking about French or Italian food who obviously does not speak either French or Italian. There are times I want to scream, or whip off a lengthy and useless tirade along the lines of how the English translation of Escoffier is not the same as the French original and I have the French on my shelf and it does not say the things you think it says ...

Or, you keep saying Italians don't do this and don't do that and here's the authentic way but I'm on an Italian food chat site and I can guarantee you that Italians most definitely do this and do that but they don't do that thing which you are telling people is 'authentic' ...

And, exhale.

My point: I think there's still a strong argument that "educated people" should at least know a couple languages in their field.

[DaveAgain]

So far this year I've quit reading two popular books on European history by best-selling authors, one British and one American. They were just too shallow, and all I could think was, if the authors had only read a few essays in Italian by Alessandro Barbero or Umberto Eco then their books would have had significantly more depth.

I think this is associated with TV series. If the author is comissioned to produce a TV series, the book accompanying it will pull all its content from the TV scripts, which are padded by visual images not present in the book and without the visual padding, there's not a lot of content.

[Iversen]

Speaking of TV / series: I do watch TV documentaries, but for several reasons mostly just with subtitles and no sound. However when I once in a while do listen then I find it very irritating that the presenters don't even try to learn to pronounce things like place names correctly (i.e. in the local way) - and the Anglophones are the worst, but not the only ones to do this. I don't expect people who visit a new country in each episode to learn the respective languages, but a bit of respect for those languages wouldn't harm them.

Another grave sin is to do dubbing with the original sound behind the voice-over, especially when I know both languages. I know that there are two-channel systems that should save us from that, but I have never seen them work except directly from a satellite where you could do a manual setup.

[Beli Tsar]

My point: I think there's still a strong argument that "educated people" should at least know a couple languages in their field.

While I theoretically aspire to Arguelles' six languages, this - know the key languages in your own field - does seem like the bare minimum. That minimum is, increasingly, not even aspired to.

To use your cooking example, I love Fuschia Dunlop's books on Chinese cooking, especially her first. It is no coincidence that this was written after not only spending time in-country, but studying, in Chinese, at a top Chinese cooking school. It gives so much more depth and understanding to her cookery.

Or to my own field, I'm studying for a Masters and haven't even finished Lingua Latina yet. Nonetheless I consistently find major errors in the work of serious historians - not 'popular' ones - because I check Latin sources they hadn't bothered with. Since most of the sources are in Latin, you'd think good Latin was a basic requirement. Instead you get apparently top academics, who are widely read, and who hand on cliches from undergraduate textbooks - all because they haven't read the Latin sources. On the other hand, those who have made a serious go at mastering the Latin sources have just swept through the field demolishing the cliches of those who went before. There just aren't enough of those people.

Arguelles' six languages is clearly going to remain aspirational, even among the most educated and academics. But basic reading abilities in your own field should be a lot more common!

[David1917]

My point: I think there's still a strong argument that "educated people" should at least know a couple languages in their field.

While I theoretically aspire to Arguelles' six languages, this - know the key languages in your own field - does seem like the bare minimum. That minimum is, increasingly, not even aspired to.

Or to my own field, I'm studying for a Masters and haven't even finished Lingua Latina yet. Nonetheless I consistently find major errors in the work of serious historians - not 'popular' ones - because I check Latin sources they hadn't bothered with. Since most of the sources are in Latin, you'd think good Latin was a basic requirement. Instead you get apparently top academics, who are widely read, and who hand on cliches from undergraduate textbooks - all because they haven't read the Latin sources. On the other hand, those who have made a serious go at mastering the Latin sources have just swept through the field demolishing the cliches of those who went before. There just aren't enough of those people.

Last night I watched an interview on Russian TV with US political commentator who was a) once the US Ambassador to Russia and b) currently a professor at Stanford [where he allegedly completed an MA in Soviet Studies on top of his BA in Slavic Languages]. I couldn't believe how utterly terrible his Russian was. Elementary grammar mistakes, abysmal pronunciation, minimal vocabulary, just a total trainwreck. That's the state of Russian "expertise" in the US apparently.

Because I'm a fair person, I will say that he at least was able to understand his interlocutors and respond accordingly. His responses were just impossible to understand (they had to subtitle him).

[einzelne]

Last night I watched an interview on Russian TV with US political commentator who was a) once the US Ambassador to Russia and b) currently a professor at Stanford [where he allegedly completed an MA in Soviet Studies on top of his BA in Slavic Languages]. I couldn't believe how utterly terrible his Russian was. Elementary grammar mistakes, abysmal pronunciation, minimal vocabulary, just a total trainwreck. That's the state of Russian "expertise" in the US apparently.

Because I'm a fair person, I will say that he at least was able to understand his interlocutors and respond accordingly. His responses were just impossible to understand (they had to subtitle him).

I'm not trying to defend him but active skills require constant practice, especially when it comes to synthetic languages like Russian. How many years have passes since he left Russia?
Ambassadorship requires a whole set of skills. You can have perfect Russian but with zero diplomatic and organizational skills it is worth nothing. I remember a discussion on a Russian forum about the current Russian ambassador in the USA Anatoly Antonov. "OMG, I cannot believe that his accent is so thick!" — such was the most common complain. But you don't hire an ambassador simply because he has a native like accent.

Again, I would love to see Argüelles speaking Korean. It looks like we don't have a single video online. I don't want to discredit him, far from it, but to state the objective fact — it's damn hard to maintain even a single language at a high level. That's why, honestly, the idea of six languages seems like utopian nonsense to me.

[jmar257]

Again, I would love to see Argüelles speaking Korean. It looks like we don't have a single video online. I don't want to discredit him, far from it, but to state the objective fact — it's damn hard to maintain even a single language at a high level. That's why, honestly, the idea of six languages seems like utopian nonsense to me.

In his defense his wife is Korean and I know I've heard him say they'll use Korean when they don't want their kids to understand them, so it's not unbelievable that he gets some decent practice. I don't disagree with your point, though. I like his 6 language thing in theory but in reality--I've got many other things to do in life, and will probably stick to learning IE languages to the point where I can read books and travel.

[Ogrim]

Last night I watched an interview on Russian TV with US political commentator who was a) once the US Ambassador to Russia and b) currently a professor at Stanford [where he allegedly completed an MA in Soviet Studies on top of his BA in Slavic Languages]. I couldn't believe how utterly terrible his Russian was. ..........

I'm not trying to defend him but active skills require constant practice, especially when it comes to synthetic languages like Russian. How many years have passes since he left Russia?

Ambassadorship requires a whole set of skills. You can have perfect Russian but with zero diplomatic and organizational skills it is worth nothing. I remember a discussion on a Russian forum about the current Russian ambassador in the USA Anatoly Antonov. "OMG, I cannot believe that his accent is so thick!" — such was the most common complain. But you don't hire an ambassador simply because he has a native like accent.

I agree with you in the sense that you don't appoint someone to be an ambassador based on their linguistic skills, but if the guy also has a BA in Slavic Languages and an MA in Soviet Studies I think it is fair to expect him to have a decent level of Russian, especially if he agrees to appear on Russian television to discuss political issues (which I assume was what he was there for). I once listened to a speech by an "expert" on the Middle East, and it came out during the discussion with the audience that he didn't know any Arabic or Hebrew. Sure, he could still have acquired a lot of knowledge about the region through other languages, English and French notably, but I still think it makes him less credible as an "expert" when he is not able to go to native sources for documentation. It is a bit like calling yourself an expert on the Iliad and the Odyssey having read Homer only in English translation. (And I am sorry to say such people exist as well.)

[Ezra]

Again, I would love to see Argüelles speaking Korean. It looks like we don't have a single video online. I don't want to discredit him, far from it, but to state the objective fact — it's damn hard to maintain even a single language at a high level. That's why, honestly, the idea of six languages seems like utopian nonsense to me.

As far as I remember, his idea of polyglottery first and foremost oriented for reading. So you should just be able to read in six languages, and speak in whatever is really needed if needed at all .

[einzelne]

In his defense his wife is Korean and I know I've heard him say they'll use Korean when they don't want their kids to understand them, so it's not unbelievable that he gets some decent practice.

I have a couple of American friends who lived in Russia and I've witnessed firsthand how their Russian dramatically deteriorated when they moved back. Even their Russian wives and monolingual parents-in-law couldn't help it. Of course, there are exceptionally talented people but for the vast majority, it's hard, it's damn hard.

It is a bit like calling yourself an expert on the Iliad and the Odyssey having read Homer only in English translation. (And I am sorry to say such people exist as well.)

Yes, earlier in this thread I complained about a PhD thesis on Hegel which doesn't quote a single secondary source in German... It's a real disgrace, I don't argue with that.

As far as I remember, his idea of polyglottery first and foremost oriented for reading. So you should just be able to read in six languages, and speak in whatever is really needed if needed at all .

Yes, I know, I know. Still, I find it baffling. And, honestly, even reading in 6 languages seems like an unattainable goal for normal folks.