Top languages in global information production
Sergey Lobachev
This paper attempts to examine global information production from a cultural perspective. Its goal is to answer the question: "Which languages are most widely used in the production and dissemination of information?" In other words, if we were to gather all books, journals, films and web pages published and created on the planet, what part of this huge collection would be available in English, French, Spanish, Chinese and other languages? One might agree that English would be at the top of the list, but what language would follow it? What would the top ten languages be? What percentage of overall information resources might each language comprise?
Answering these questions will enable us to better understand the diversity of the information universe and to determine current trends in global information production.
...almost 78 % of all information in the world is produced in the following ten languages: English, German, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin), French, Japanese, Italian, Russian, Portuguese, and Dutch. English dominates universal information space and constitutes more than 44 % of printed and electronic materials. German follows English and comprises 7.6 % of the global information production.
14.69 % of the world population is literate in Mandarin,the most spoken language in the world, but only 4.85 % of global information resources are produced in this language.
Other widely spoken languages include Hindi, Arabic, Bengali, and Korean. At the same time, the number of information resources in these languages is relatively small. For example, there are 230 million people literate in Arabic, which constitutes 4.24 % of the world's entire literate population, but only 0.43 % of all information is available in the Arabic language.
What do these numbers mean?
First of all, they can measure the importance of a particular language. Its rank is not necessarily related to a percentage of the literate population, but rather depends upon the level of cultural and economic development of the countries where the language is used.
Secondly, they underline the gap between the users of information and available information resources. They clearly show how the "language divide" contributes to the exclusion of countries and peoples from universal knowledge. This primarily concerns countries with low literacy rates and poor education. At the same time, the educated community tends to view English as a universal language. Many countries have special programs which encourage citizens to achieve proficiency in English (Weber).
Nevertheless, we need to realize that more than half of the world's information resources are produced in non-English languages. These resources will likely continue to grow in the near future...
This trend must be taken seriously by publishers and vendors in English-speaking countries, where non-English resources are largely ignored. According to the Bowker publishing group, only 3 % of all books available for sale in the United States are new translations from other languages (English-Speaking Countries). The term "language divide" can be equally applied to the English-speaking world.
https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.p ... j0BPYtzK6J
Reineke's SLA Notebook
-
reineke
- Black Belt - 3rd Dan
- Posts: 3570
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:34 pm
- Languages: Fox (C4)
- Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=6979
- x 6554
-
reineke
- Black Belt - 3rd Dan
- Posts: 3570
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:34 pm
- Languages: Fox (C4)
- Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=6979
- x 6554
Re: Team Me: Foxing around
The Hidden Bias of Science’s Universal Language
The vast majority of scientific papers today are published in English. What gets lost when other languages get left out?
Newton’s Principia Mathematica was written in Latin; Einstein’s first influential papers were written in German; Marie Curie’s work was published in French. Yet today, most scientific research around the world is published in a single language, English.
Since the middle of the last century, things have shifted in the global scientific community. English is now so prevalent that in some non-English speaking countries, like Germany, France, and Spain, English-language academic papers outnumber publications in the country’s own language several times over. In the Netherlands, one of the more extreme examples, this ratio is an astonishing 40 to 1.
A 2012 study from the scientific-research publication Research Trends examined articles collected by SCOPUS, the world’s largest database for peer-reviewed journals. To qualify for inclusion in SCOPUS, a journal published in a language other than English must at the very least include English abstracts; of the more than 21,000 articles from 239 countries currently in the database, the study found that 80 percent were written entirely in English. Zeroing in on eight countries that produce a high number of scientific journals, the study also found that the ratio of English to non-English articles in the past few years had increased or remained stable in all but one.
This gulf between English and the other languages means that non-English articles, when they get written at all, may reach a more limited audience. On SCImago Journal Rank—a system that ranks scientific journals by prestige, based on the citations their articles receive elsewhere—all of the top 50 journals are published in English and originate from either the U.S. or the U.K.
In short, scientists who want to produce influential, globally recognized work most likely need to publish in English—which means they’ll also likely have to attend English-language conferences, read English-language papers, and have English-language discussions. In a 2005 case study of Korean scientists living in the U.K., the researcher Kumju Hwang, then at the University of Leeds, wrote: “The reason that [non-native English-speaking scientists] have to use English, at a cost of extra time and effort, is closely related to their continued efforts to be recognized as having internationally compatible quality and to gain the highest possible reputation.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ch/400919/
The vast majority of scientific papers today are published in English. What gets lost when other languages get left out?
Newton’s Principia Mathematica was written in Latin; Einstein’s first influential papers were written in German; Marie Curie’s work was published in French. Yet today, most scientific research around the world is published in a single language, English.
Since the middle of the last century, things have shifted in the global scientific community. English is now so prevalent that in some non-English speaking countries, like Germany, France, and Spain, English-language academic papers outnumber publications in the country’s own language several times over. In the Netherlands, one of the more extreme examples, this ratio is an astonishing 40 to 1.
A 2012 study from the scientific-research publication Research Trends examined articles collected by SCOPUS, the world’s largest database for peer-reviewed journals. To qualify for inclusion in SCOPUS, a journal published in a language other than English must at the very least include English abstracts; of the more than 21,000 articles from 239 countries currently in the database, the study found that 80 percent were written entirely in English. Zeroing in on eight countries that produce a high number of scientific journals, the study also found that the ratio of English to non-English articles in the past few years had increased or remained stable in all but one.
This gulf between English and the other languages means that non-English articles, when they get written at all, may reach a more limited audience. On SCImago Journal Rank—a system that ranks scientific journals by prestige, based on the citations their articles receive elsewhere—all of the top 50 journals are published in English and originate from either the U.S. or the U.K.
In short, scientists who want to produce influential, globally recognized work most likely need to publish in English—which means they’ll also likely have to attend English-language conferences, read English-language papers, and have English-language discussions. In a 2005 case study of Korean scientists living in the U.K., the researcher Kumju Hwang, then at the University of Leeds, wrote: “The reason that [non-native English-speaking scientists] have to use English, at a cost of extra time and effort, is closely related to their continued efforts to be recognized as having internationally compatible quality and to gain the highest possible reputation.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ch/400919/
0 x
-
reineke
- Black Belt - 3rd Dan
- Posts: 3570
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:34 pm
- Languages: Fox (C4)
- Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=6979
- x 6554
Re: Team Me: Foxing around
Absolute English
Science once communicated in a polyglot of tongues, but now English rules alone. How did this happen – and at what cost?
"If you can read this sentence, you can talk with a scientist. Well, maybe not about the details of her research, but at least you would share a common language. The overwhelming majority of communication in the natural sciences today – physics, chemistry, biology, geology – takes place in English; in print and at conferences, in emails and in Skype-mediated collaborations, confirmable by wandering through the halls of any scientific research facility in Kuala Lumpur or Montevideo or Haifa. Contemporary science is Anglophone.
More significantly, contemporary science is monoglot: everyone uses English almost to the exclusion of other languages. A century ago, the majority of researchers in Western science knew at least some English, but they also read, wrote and spoke in French and German, and sometimes in other ‘minor’ languages, such as the newly emergent Russian or the rapidly fading Italian.
The past polyglot character of modern science might seem surprising. Surely it is more efficient to have one language? How much time would be lost learning to read and write three languages in order to synthesise benzene derivatives! If everyone uses the same language, there is less friction caused by translation – such as priority disputes over who discovered what first when the results appear in different tongues – and less waste in pedagogy. By this view, contemporary science advances at such a staggering rate precisely because we have focused on ‘the science’ and not on superficialities such as language.
This point is much easier to sustain if the speaker grew up speaking English, but the majority of scientists working today are actually not native English speakers. When you consider the time spent by them on language-learning, the English-language conquest is not more efficient than polyglot science – it is just differently inefficient. There’s still a lot of language‑learning and translation going on, it’s just not happening in the United Kingdom, or Australia, or the United States. The bump under the rug has been moved, not smoothed out.
Yet today’s scientists are utterly surrounded by Anglophonia, and the rapid churn and ferment of scientific research shortens disciplinary memories. Wasn’t science always this way? No, it was not, but only much older scientists recall how it used to be. Often, scientists or humanists assume that English science replaced monoglot German, preceded by French and then by Latin in a ribbon that unfurls back to the dawn of Western science, which they understand to have been conducted in monoglot Greek. Understanding the history of science as a chain of monolingual transfers has a certain superficial appeal, but it isn’t true. Never was.
To paint with a very broad brush, we can observe two basic linguistic regimes in Western science: the polyglot and the monoglot. The latter is quite new, emerging just in the 1920s and vanquishing the centuries-old multilingual regime only in the 1970s. Science speaks English, but the first generation who grew up within that monoglot system are still alive. To understand how this important change happened, we need to start way back.
In the 15th century in western Europe, natural philosophy and natural history – the two domains of learning that would, by the 19th century, come to be known as ‘science’ – were both fundamentally polyglot enterprises. This is the case despite the fact that the language of learning in the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance was Latin.
This unusual status of Latin does not contradict the polyglot system; on the contrary, it confirms it. As any good Renaissance humanist or scholastic of the Late Middle Ages knew, natural philosophy in Latin enjoyed a history going back to the glory days of Rome. (Cicero and Seneca both wrote significant works in the field.) But those same humanists and scholastics also knew that the dominant language of scholarship in antiquity down to the final sack of Rome was not Latin but Hellenistic Greek. They knew that, in the centuries before them, more natural philosophy was done in Arabic than in either classical language. The translation of works in canonical natural philosophy from Arabic into Latin helped birth the revival of learning in the West. Learning, learned people knew, was a multilingual enterprise.
Latin became a fitting vehicle for claims about universal nature. But everyone in this conversation was polyglot.
So was life. Aside from the rare oddball with overzealous parents (Montaigne claimed to be one), no one learned Latin as a first language and few used it orally. Latin was for written scholarship, but everyone who used it – such as Erasmus of Rotterdam – deployed it alongside other languages that they used to communicate with servants, family members and patrons. Latin was a vehicular language, used to bridge linguistic communities, and it was understood as more or less neutral. It excluded on class lines, to be sure, since it demanded more education, but it crossed confessional and political divides easily: Protestants used it frequently (often more elegantly than Catholics), and it was even imported as late as the 18th century into Orthodox Russia as the scholarly language of the newly established St Petersburg Academy of Sciences.
Perhaps most importantly, since Latin was no specific nation’s native tongue, and scholars all across European and Arabic societies could make equal use of it, no one ‘owned’ the language. For these reasons, Latin became a fitting vehicle for claims about universal nature. But everyone in this conversation was polyglot, choosing the language to suit the audience. When writing to international chemists, Swedes used Latin; when conversing with mining engineers, they opted for Swedish.
This system started to break down in the 17th century, in the midst of, and as an essential part of, what was once dubbed ‘the scientific revolution’. Galileo Galilei published his discovery of the moons of Jupiter in the Latin Sidereus Nuncius of 1610, but his later major works were in Italian. As he aimed for a more local audience for patronage and support, he switched languages. Newton’s Principia (1687) appeared in Latin, but his Opticks of 1704 was English (Latin translation 1706).
Across Europe, scholars began to use a mélange of tongues, and translations into Latin and French flourished to enable communication. By the end of the 18th century, works in chemistry, physics, physiology and botany appeared increasingly in English, French and German, but also in Italian, Dutch, Swedish, Danish and other languages. Until the first third of the 19th century, many learned elites still opted for Latin. (The German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss kept his scholarly notebooks, at least through the 1810s, in the same language Julius Caesar used for his.) Modern science emerged organically from the polyglot stew of the Renaissance..."
https://aeon.co/essays/how-did-science- ... ly-english
Science once communicated in a polyglot of tongues, but now English rules alone. How did this happen – and at what cost?
"If you can read this sentence, you can talk with a scientist. Well, maybe not about the details of her research, but at least you would share a common language. The overwhelming majority of communication in the natural sciences today – physics, chemistry, biology, geology – takes place in English; in print and at conferences, in emails and in Skype-mediated collaborations, confirmable by wandering through the halls of any scientific research facility in Kuala Lumpur or Montevideo or Haifa. Contemporary science is Anglophone.
More significantly, contemporary science is monoglot: everyone uses English almost to the exclusion of other languages. A century ago, the majority of researchers in Western science knew at least some English, but they also read, wrote and spoke in French and German, and sometimes in other ‘minor’ languages, such as the newly emergent Russian or the rapidly fading Italian.
The past polyglot character of modern science might seem surprising. Surely it is more efficient to have one language? How much time would be lost learning to read and write three languages in order to synthesise benzene derivatives! If everyone uses the same language, there is less friction caused by translation – such as priority disputes over who discovered what first when the results appear in different tongues – and less waste in pedagogy. By this view, contemporary science advances at such a staggering rate precisely because we have focused on ‘the science’ and not on superficialities such as language.
This point is much easier to sustain if the speaker grew up speaking English, but the majority of scientists working today are actually not native English speakers. When you consider the time spent by them on language-learning, the English-language conquest is not more efficient than polyglot science – it is just differently inefficient. There’s still a lot of language‑learning and translation going on, it’s just not happening in the United Kingdom, or Australia, or the United States. The bump under the rug has been moved, not smoothed out.
Yet today’s scientists are utterly surrounded by Anglophonia, and the rapid churn and ferment of scientific research shortens disciplinary memories. Wasn’t science always this way? No, it was not, but only much older scientists recall how it used to be. Often, scientists or humanists assume that English science replaced monoglot German, preceded by French and then by Latin in a ribbon that unfurls back to the dawn of Western science, which they understand to have been conducted in monoglot Greek. Understanding the history of science as a chain of monolingual transfers has a certain superficial appeal, but it isn’t true. Never was.
To paint with a very broad brush, we can observe two basic linguistic regimes in Western science: the polyglot and the monoglot. The latter is quite new, emerging just in the 1920s and vanquishing the centuries-old multilingual regime only in the 1970s. Science speaks English, but the first generation who grew up within that monoglot system are still alive. To understand how this important change happened, we need to start way back.
In the 15th century in western Europe, natural philosophy and natural history – the two domains of learning that would, by the 19th century, come to be known as ‘science’ – were both fundamentally polyglot enterprises. This is the case despite the fact that the language of learning in the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance was Latin.
This unusual status of Latin does not contradict the polyglot system; on the contrary, it confirms it. As any good Renaissance humanist or scholastic of the Late Middle Ages knew, natural philosophy in Latin enjoyed a history going back to the glory days of Rome. (Cicero and Seneca both wrote significant works in the field.) But those same humanists and scholastics also knew that the dominant language of scholarship in antiquity down to the final sack of Rome was not Latin but Hellenistic Greek. They knew that, in the centuries before them, more natural philosophy was done in Arabic than in either classical language. The translation of works in canonical natural philosophy from Arabic into Latin helped birth the revival of learning in the West. Learning, learned people knew, was a multilingual enterprise.
Latin became a fitting vehicle for claims about universal nature. But everyone in this conversation was polyglot.
So was life. Aside from the rare oddball with overzealous parents (Montaigne claimed to be one), no one learned Latin as a first language and few used it orally. Latin was for written scholarship, but everyone who used it – such as Erasmus of Rotterdam – deployed it alongside other languages that they used to communicate with servants, family members and patrons. Latin was a vehicular language, used to bridge linguistic communities, and it was understood as more or less neutral. It excluded on class lines, to be sure, since it demanded more education, but it crossed confessional and political divides easily: Protestants used it frequently (often more elegantly than Catholics), and it was even imported as late as the 18th century into Orthodox Russia as the scholarly language of the newly established St Petersburg Academy of Sciences.
Perhaps most importantly, since Latin was no specific nation’s native tongue, and scholars all across European and Arabic societies could make equal use of it, no one ‘owned’ the language. For these reasons, Latin became a fitting vehicle for claims about universal nature. But everyone in this conversation was polyglot, choosing the language to suit the audience. When writing to international chemists, Swedes used Latin; when conversing with mining engineers, they opted for Swedish.
This system started to break down in the 17th century, in the midst of, and as an essential part of, what was once dubbed ‘the scientific revolution’. Galileo Galilei published his discovery of the moons of Jupiter in the Latin Sidereus Nuncius of 1610, but his later major works were in Italian. As he aimed for a more local audience for patronage and support, he switched languages. Newton’s Principia (1687) appeared in Latin, but his Opticks of 1704 was English (Latin translation 1706).
Across Europe, scholars began to use a mélange of tongues, and translations into Latin and French flourished to enable communication. By the end of the 18th century, works in chemistry, physics, physiology and botany appeared increasingly in English, French and German, but also in Italian, Dutch, Swedish, Danish and other languages. Until the first third of the 19th century, many learned elites still opted for Latin. (The German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss kept his scholarly notebooks, at least through the 1810s, in the same language Julius Caesar used for his.) Modern science emerged organically from the polyglot stew of the Renaissance..."
https://aeon.co/essays/how-did-science- ... ly-english
1 x
-
reineke
- Black Belt - 3rd Dan
- Posts: 3570
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:34 pm
- Languages: Fox (C4)
- Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=6979
- x 6554
Re: Team Me: Foxing around
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
7 x
-
reineke
- Black Belt - 3rd Dan
- Posts: 3570
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:34 pm
- Languages: Fox (C4)
- Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=6979
- x 6554
Re: Team Me: Foxing around
The worldwide catalog of library resources
Vital statistics
Number of bibliographic records: 404,242,755 (as of September 2017)
Number of holdings : 2,591,327,999 (as of September 2017)
Top 10 languages
1 English 39%, 153 million records
2 German 13%, 49 million records
3 French 9%, 36 million records
4 Spanish 5%, 19 million records
5 Chinese 3%, 12 million records
6 Japanese 3%, 10 million records
7 Italian 3%, 10 million records
8 Dutch 2%, 6 million records
9 Russian 2%, 6 million records
10 Latin 1%, 5 million records
1+ million records
Polish 4.7 million
Swedish 4.7 million
Danish 3.6 million
Portuguese 2.8 million
Hebrew 2.3 million
Arabic 2.3 million
Slovenian 2.2 million
Czech 1.6 million
Thai 1.2 million
Catalan 1.0 million
Hungarian 1.0 million
Korean 1.0 million
Finnish 1.0 million
BSC 1.0 million
500,000–1 million records
Romanian 760,000
Turkish 750,000
Indonesian 660,000
Norwegian 610,000
Greek, Modern (1453-) 550,000
Croatian 540,000
250,000–500,000 records
Malay 490,000
Ukrainian 440,000
Serbian 430,000
Persian 390,000
Vietnamese 320,000
Afrikaans 310,000
Bulgarian 290,000
Hindi 280,000
Tamil 270,000
Yiddish 260,000
100,000–250,000 records
Greek, Ancient (to 1453) 240,000
Frisian 220,000
Urdu 210,000
Slovak 170,000
Basque 160,000
Lithuanian 140,000
Bengali 130,000
Sanskrit 110,000
Welsh 100,000
Icelandic 100,000
https://www.oclc.org/en/worldcat/inside-worldcat.html
https://libguides.gwu.edu/c.php?g=259097&p=1729227
Vital statistics
Number of bibliographic records: 404,242,755 (as of September 2017)
Number of holdings : 2,591,327,999 (as of September 2017)
Top 10 languages
1 English 39%, 153 million records
2 German 13%, 49 million records
3 French 9%, 36 million records
4 Spanish 5%, 19 million records
5 Chinese 3%, 12 million records
6 Japanese 3%, 10 million records
7 Italian 3%, 10 million records
8 Dutch 2%, 6 million records
9 Russian 2%, 6 million records
10 Latin 1%, 5 million records
1+ million records
Polish 4.7 million
Swedish 4.7 million
Danish 3.6 million
Portuguese 2.8 million
Hebrew 2.3 million
Arabic 2.3 million
Slovenian 2.2 million
Czech 1.6 million
Thai 1.2 million
Catalan 1.0 million
Hungarian 1.0 million
Korean 1.0 million
Finnish 1.0 million
BSC 1.0 million
500,000–1 million records
Romanian 760,000
Turkish 750,000
Indonesian 660,000
Norwegian 610,000
Greek, Modern (1453-) 550,000
Croatian 540,000
250,000–500,000 records
Malay 490,000
Ukrainian 440,000
Serbian 430,000
Persian 390,000
Vietnamese 320,000
Afrikaans 310,000
Bulgarian 290,000
Hindi 280,000
Tamil 270,000
Yiddish 260,000
100,000–250,000 records
Greek, Ancient (to 1453) 240,000
Frisian 220,000
Urdu 210,000
Slovak 170,000
Basque 160,000
Lithuanian 140,000
Bengali 130,000
Sanskrit 110,000
Welsh 100,000
Icelandic 100,000
https://www.oclc.org/en/worldcat/inside-worldcat.html
https://libguides.gwu.edu/c.php?g=259097&p=1729227
5 x
-
Jar-Ptitsa
- Brown Belt
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:13 pm
- Location: London
- Languages: Belgian French (N)
I can speak: Dutch, German, English, Spanish and understand Italian, Portuguese, Wallonian, Afrikaans, but not always correctly. - x 652
Re: Team Me: Foxing around
Those maps and statistics are great!!!
It's sad that the most commonly spoken language other than English is Spanish, and not the original american langauges from before the european invasions. Yupik seems stronger than the others, and then Navajo.
It must be difficult to discover those data. In London for example people speak all the languages...
It's sad that the most commonly spoken language other than English is Spanish, and not the original american langauges from before the european invasions. Yupik seems stronger than the others, and then Navajo.
It must be difficult to discover those data. In London for example people speak all the languages...
2 x
I am Jar-ptitsa and my Hawaiian name is ʻā ʻaia. Please correct my mistakes in all the languages. Thank you very much.: Spanish grammar
: Spanish vocabulary
-
Jar-Ptitsa
- Brown Belt
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:13 pm
- Location: London
- Languages: Belgian French (N)
I can speak: Dutch, German, English, Spanish and understand Italian, Portuguese, Wallonian, Afrikaans, but not always correctly. - x 652
Re: Team Me: Foxing around
You were busy today with your Christmas tree 
2 x
I am Jar-ptitsa and my Hawaiian name is ʻā ʻaia. Please correct my mistakes in all the languages. Thank you very much.: Spanish grammar
: Spanish vocabulary
-
Xmmm
- Blue Belt
- Posts: 821
- Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:19 am
- Languages: ru it tr
- x 2221
Re: Team Me: Foxing around
Jar-Ptitsa wrote:It's sad that the most commonly spoken language other than English is Spanish, and not the original american langauges from before the european invasions. Yupik seems stronger than the others, and then Navajo.
It's sad that the most commonly spoken languages in European are degenerate versions of the Roman invaders' Latin, and not the original European languages. Basque seems stronger than Etruscan, Gaulish, Gothic, Shuadit, Zarphatic, Aquitanian, Celtiberian, Lusitanian, Gallaecian, Iberian, Sorothaptic, and Tartessian.
3 x
Ещё раз сунешь голову туда — окажешься внутри. Поняла, Фемида? -- аигел
-
Jar-Ptitsa
- Brown Belt
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:13 pm
- Location: London
- Languages: Belgian French (N)
I can speak: Dutch, German, English, Spanish and understand Italian, Portuguese, Wallonian, Afrikaans, but not always correctly. - x 652
Re: Team Me: Foxing around
Xmmm wrote:Jar-Ptitsa wrote:It's sad that the most commonly spoken language other than English is Spanish, and not the original american langauges from before the european invasions. Yupik seems stronger than the others, and then Navajo.
It's sad that the most commonly spoken languages in European are degenerate versions of the Roman invaders' Latin, and not the original European languages. Basque seems stronger than Etruscan, Gaulish, Gothic, Shuadit, Zarphatic, Aquitanian, Celtiberian, Lusitanian, Gallaecian, Iberian, Sorothaptic, and Tartessian.
Yes haha
It's sad that the most commonly spoken langauge in France and Wallonia is only French, and not the various langauges spoken until about 50 years ago. Catalan seems stronger than Picard, lorrain, Walon, Champenois, Saintongeais, Provençal, Limousin, etc etc
2 x
I am Jar-ptitsa and my Hawaiian name is ʻā ʻaia. Please correct my mistakes in all the languages. Thank you very much.: Spanish grammar
: Spanish vocabulary
-
reineke
- Black Belt - 3rd Dan
- Posts: 3570
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:34 pm
- Languages: Fox (C4)
- Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=6979
- x 6554
Re: Team Me: Foxing around
Jar-Ptitsa wrote:You were busy today with your Christmas tree
Thanks! Merry Christmas, Jar-Ptitsa!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
3 x
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: DaveAgain and 2 guests