EU Multilingualism Vs Reality?

AR385 · Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:38 am

The EU has decided to embrace and make official the languages of its 27 members. This means 3 million pages a year in translations plus other inconviniences. Should the EU adopt a common language? If so, which one should it be? What about the other languages spoken in the same country? Te dialects? I find it crazy to have 27 different official languages. What do you think?

scbriml · Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:11 am

The only realistic possibility for a common language would be English. I'm pretty sure France would never vote in favour of that. wink

While I think it's a possibility for the EU to use English for general conversation and discussion, I can see risks for legislative issues where complex clauses might be open to being misunderstood because they're not in the native language. It does also beg the question of why a person should be disadvantaged if they don't speak the common language.

ME AVN FAN · Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:02 am

Quoting AR385 (Thread starter):
The EU has decided to embrace and make official the languages of its 27 members. This means 3 million pages a year in translations plus other inconviniences. Should the EU adopt a common language? If so, which one should it be? What about the other languages spoken in the same country? Te dialects? I find it crazy to have 27 different official languages. What do you think?

-
EFTA, consisting of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein has English as its official language in spite of the fact that none of the four countries is English speaking. HOWEVER, all texts are translated into Icelandic, Norwegian, German, French and Italian.
-
In Switzerland, all federal laws and all federal proceedings and affairs are permanently published in German, French and Italian and get permanently translated. In the armed forces, everything is around in these three languages.
-
So that I cannot quite see what the problem in case of the EU should be. True, 27 languages, but many many millions of people of each language-area, so what.

bwest · Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:40 am

One "Lingua Franca" for the European Union would be the ideal solution, but nationalistic proud will make this nearly impossible.

As for the languages spoken inside the Union, English is the world dominant language, but Spanish has more native speakers around the world.
Germany could argue that German is the largest language group inside the EU.

Also, the former east-bloc countries who know joined the EU share Russian as a common language, as it was educated in school when those countries were still under the influence of the USSR. Still, I suppose Russian is not even remotely an option Smile

Now, I think we should just go for a small language, like that nearly everybody has to learn it... Dutch anybody? Wink

ME AVN FAN · Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:18 am

Quoting Bwest (Reply 3):
Dutch

Why not Lechteburgish or Maltese ?

slz396 · Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:29 am

Still remember the discussion about the name of the single European currency? Should it become the European Franc (since no less than 3 founding countries: Belgium, Luxembourg and France had it), the European Mark (since Germany has the biggest economic weight in the EU), or something completely new and neutral? It became 'euro' in the end....

If the EU is ever to find itself a single common language, why not pick an artificial one, made up of all the European languages: Esperanto anyone? The advantage is it has such easy grammar rules and it can be learned in a matter of weeks as you only need to study the vocabulary really, which is not too hard either, if you have some notions of the main European language groups.

Oh, and it sounds sexy too.... Wink

[Edited 2008-03-03 02:31:30]

lobster · Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:31 am

Is the EU going to charge themselves for their "carbon footprint" for all the paper that will create? Thats alot of trees being cut, hauled, processed, electricity used, etc. Yeah sure

It does seem kinda stupid though. You'd figure that they might just choose English, since it is the pretty much recognized international language. Looks like alot of translators are going to have a good job for a while though.

Zkpilot · Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:42 am

Quoting AR385 (Thread starter):
The EU has decided to embrace and make official the languages of its 27 members. This means 3 million pages a year in translations plus other inconviniences. Should the EU adopt a common language? If so, which one should it be? What about the other languages spoken in the same country? Te dialects? I find it crazy to have 27 different official languages. What do you think?

Pretty petty and ridiculous really! Perhaps French, German and of course English. I think you will find that between those first two languages you have at least half if not more of the European population. English of course should be the common verbal language as it is the international language and a large number of people throughout Europe speak it. Perhaps it could also be the official written language but with each country having a copy of everything in their own language also. I don't however think that the EU parliament/policy makers should have to deal with and have everything written in the languages of the 27 members.

NG1Fan · Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:44 am

Yeah, I wonder how many translators there are for Maltese - Estonian and Slovenian - Finnish....

I think informally (what I could gather from some press articles), the main language is English anyway...

NG1Fan

kc135topboom · Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:47 am

Why not Arabic, or Persian? duck

Quoting Lobster (Reply 6):
Is the EU going to charge themselves for their "carbon footprint" for all the paper that will create? Thats alot of trees being cut, hauled, processed, electricity used, etc.

But, I seem to recall how a few years ago the EU officially weighed in and said the US should not establish English as our official language. banghead

ME AVN FAN · Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:19 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Why not Arabic

I on purpose mentioned Maltese which basically is an Arabic dialect, with portions of French Italian and English mixed in. The Arab countries on the Mediterranean are NOT E.U. members but only E.U. associates with wideranging Bilateral Treaties, but Malta is a full E.U. member.

TheSonntag · Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:50 am

This will never happen, nor should it ever happen. We have 1000 years of culture, and language is more than just understanding each other.

You see this already when it it comes to legal texts. The legal language in every country is not only different, it is tied deeply to the respective national history.

I have no problem learning different languages, I speak German, Danish, English and a little bit French, and can understand Swedish and Norwegian texts, but I do not want an English speaking EU.

killjoy · Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:00 pm

Translating everything is massively inefficient. Within a few generations everyone will hopefully speak English well enough to rely on one language for official business.

In the meantime I think we should definitely restrict the official languages to German, French and English. If you don't speak even one of those you've obviously lived such an isolated life that you have no business influencing EU affairs anyway.

Finalized documentation such as laws should always be translated to each language, because no matter how uneducated you are, you have the right to understand things that affect you directly.

Dreadnought · Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:22 pm

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 12):
Finalized documentation such as laws should always be translated to each language, because no matter how uneducated you are, you have the right to understand things that affect you directly.

The question is which language will be held as THE definative version of a law. Legal translation is difficult to do correctly at best, when some languages lack the specific language that the law requires to convey its meaning. German is good for that, so is English, French is not so good IMHO, etc. This is why, in business contracts between cultures with differing language, the contract specifies which language version of the contract is definative. The same logic goes for the EU - if a case goes up to the EU version of the Supreme Court, the judges should not have to dig through 27 versions every time.

ME AVN FAN · Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:28 pm

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 12):
Translating everything is massively inefficient. Within a few generations everyone will hopefully speak English well enough to rely on one language for official business.

-
Whether people speak English well enough is NOT the point. Things have to be translated for legal reasons. All legal and political texts done on a federal level in Switzerland are ALWAYS published in German, French and Italian, whenever the Italian speakers generally understand German and/or French very well. And I do NOT see an efficiency problem. Those who work on something particular will do so in ONE work-language, and other people will do the translating.

killjoy · Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:01 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
The question is which language will be held as THE definative version of a law. Legal translation is difficult to do correctly at best, when some languages lack the specific language that the law requires to convey its meaning. German is good for that, so is English, French is not so good IMHO, etc. This is why, in business contracts between cultures with differing language, the contract specifies which language version of the contract is definative. The same logic goes for the EU - if a case goes up to the EU version of the Supreme Court, the judges should not have to dig through 27 versions every time.

Don't national governments have to ratify every law separately anyway? Intuitively it would seem that the local version would always apply due to that. If it goes all the way to an EU court, the court would only have to check two versions for inconsistencies.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 14):
Whether people speak English well enough is NOT the point. Things have to be translated for legal reasons. All legal and political texts done on a federal level in Switzerland are ALWAYS published in German, French and Italian, whenever the Italian speakers generally understand German and/or French very well.

Yes, we seem to agree that final, officially published documents should be translated. I said so much in my previous post.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 14):
And I do NOT see an efficiency problem. Those who work on something particular will do so in ONE work-language, and other people will do the translating.

Do you realize just how many translators they employ? Every single MEP has the right to address the parliament in their native language, for example. This is our tax money being used for this.

Asturias · Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:06 pm

No, there should never be one language more official than any other in the EU. It goes against the principles of the EU, so you people had better forget it.

saludos

Asturias

killjoy · Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:21 pm

That principle is very expensive. Are you willing to pay for it? I'm not.

Of course it could be argued that one shouldn't compromise on principles, but then one must also examine the value of the principle. One that's constructed mainly to placate nationalists isn't worth much in my opinion.

iliribdl · Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:30 pm

I don't think they should change it. The more languages they know the better.

Asturias · Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:32 pm

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 17):
That principle is very expensive. Are you willing to pay for it? I'm not.

Of course it could be argued that one shouldn't compromise on principles, but then one must also examine the value of the principle. One that's constructed mainly to placate nationalists isn't worth much in my opinion.

It is not to placate nationalists, it is to ensure that all members of the EU have stand on an equal ground. The EU isn't a country.

Every member country pays for the translations itself anyway with fees to the EU. I suppose I could agree that individual countries could opt-out of translations and get a rebate from membership fees, but that would have to be their own decision.

After realizing how little rebate you'd receive and that no more EU documents would exist in your language, then I'm not so sure you'd be so gung-ho on this issue.

However, this should not be an EU decision, because it goes completely against the principles of the EU on protecting European culture, which is a cornerstone to the Union.

saludos

Asturias

killjoy · Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:43 pm

Quoting Asturias (Reply 19):
After realizing how little rebate you'd receive and that no more EU documents would exist in your language, then I'm not so sure you'd be so gung-ho on this issue.

For the third time, I agree that final documents should be translated.

For everything else, it's not just a matter of a small rebate:

a) They waste money in a lot of small ways. Once we eliminate enough of them, the savings will be quite large.
b) we're not just paying in the form of direct taxes. We're also paying in the form of possible parliament miscommunication, impact on economic growth, etc.

ME AVN FAN · Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:48 pm

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 15):
Every single MEP has the right to address the parliament in their native language, for example. This is our tax money being used for this.

sure, the right to do so. But most will revert to one of the major languages to be understood life. The costs of the translating are not so gruesome, but well within acceptable limits. And the translating is important.
-

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 17):
That principle is very expensive.

No, whenever not free of charge, it is not so very expensive.
-

Asturias · Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:00 pm

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 20):
a) They waste money in a lot of small ways. Once we eliminate enough of them, the savings will be quite large.
b) we're not just paying in the form of direct taxes. We're also paying in the form of possible parliament miscommunication, impact on economic growth, etc.

a) The EU is not a business, they do not waste money. The EU uses money in many ways you do not agree with and feel is a waste. There are people who think that the things you consider waste are an important expense. Can you give examples of wasteful translations?

b) We are talking about translation here and having professional translators will surely ensure less miscommunication than MEPs making their point in broken English - or whatever language would be chosen. Are you saying MEPs language skills are better than professional translators' language skills?

You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Generally not a good idea.

saludos

Asturias

Klaus · Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:26 pm

The EU has almost half a billion citizens. Employing a handful of translators to ensure that every citizen will be capable of understanding official european publications is a negligible effort by comparison.

Supporting the diversity of cultures is one of the defining properties of the united Europe and all EU citizens are supposed to have equal rights, so this is just how it has to be.

Asturias · Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:31 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 23):
The EU has almost half a billion citizens. Employing a handful of translators to ensure that every citizen will be capable of understanding official european publications is a negligible effort by comparison.

Supporting the diversity of cultures is one of the defining properties of the united Europe and all EU citizens are supposed to have equal rights, so this is just how it has to be.

Precisely! Well said.

saludos

Asturias

Banco · Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:46 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 23):
so this is just how it has to be.

In that, you're probably right, and of all the things to be concerned about with the EU, this really isn't one of them.

However...

Quoting Klaus (Reply 23):
Employing a handful of translators

It's a bit more than that, because of course each language has to be translated into every other language, and that is therefore a pretty big undertaking. Nevertheless, I can't see it's something to lose too much sleep over, it would be easy for someone who speaks the lingua franca of English to say that all others should conform and not appreciate the importance of less widely spoken languages to have an official status. It would be rather arrogant and insulting to demand others adhere to us rather than the other way around, particularly given the prevalence of English anyway.

Besides, given that English isn't actually an official language in Britain (unlike Welsh and Norman French!) I rather suspect we ought to take action first, don't you? Wink

ME AVN FAN · Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:54 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 25):
each language has to be translated into every other language

not really. Texts are translated out of what was/is the work language on a particular matter into the various languages. To give the Swiss example. If a parliamentary commission is working in the Ticino, the work-language is Italian, and so, translation is done A) from Italian into German and B) from Italian into French ---- but NOT from German into French

ajd1992 · Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:10 pm

Quoting AR385 (Thread starter):
The EU has decided to embrace and make official the languages of its 27 members. This means 3 million pages a year in translations plus other inconviniences. Should the EU adopt a common language? If so, which one should it be? What about the other languages spoken in the same country? Te dialects? I find it crazy to have 27 different official languages. What do you think?

It would never, ever happen purely for the fact that the UK has an abysmal language teaching program. We teach 3 hours of French/German a week for 3 years, and that's it. It's not compulsory for the whole of your school life, like it is in other EU countries. The UK would basically become isolated if the official language became French, German or Spanish (3 main EU languages, well the biggest ones anyway). Nobody here speaks decent English, nevermind a foreign language!

andrej · Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:23 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 7):
Perhaps French, German and of course English.

I say the official language of EU should be Slovak! devil

After all, the EU is organization that values its diversity so why should there be only three official languages? Smile

Isn't the motto of the EU; 'United in diversity' (whatever that means! crazy

)

In reality I don't think that this idea would work. However I think that German should be the official language if this scenario would ever realize. It is most spoken language within the EU (Germany has ~80 million citizens compared with ~64 million in France and ~ 60 million in the UK Source: Wiki) and French as well English would have to learn it. So there would not be an issue of favoritism over English or French. duck

But that would never be possible because no other member nations would approve such idea. Being from small country, we have to learn other languages and to be honest I like that idea. More you know, better for you!

Cheers,
Andrej

IH8BY · Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:19 pm

Quoting Bwest (Reply 3):
One "Lingua Franca" for the European Union

In that case, how about Latin? duck

LOT767-300ER · Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:31 pm

Quoting Bwest (Reply 3):
Also, the former east-bloc countries who know joined the EU share Russian as a common language, as it was educated in school when those countries were still under the influence of the USSR.

What? No one remembers Russian that is under 45 years old or can speak it/remember it unless they specifically chose to do so.

English outnumbers Russian probably 100 to 1

SBBRTech · Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:33 pm

They should pick one language a year and stick to it 'til the following year. That would save massive amounts of paper to say the least. So 2008 is all in german. Don't know german? Too bad. 2009 italian...2010 bulgarian...and so on. box

bwest · Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:25 pm

Quoting IH8BY (Reply 29):
In that case, how about Latin?

Historically that would make sense. I don't think any other language was ever wider spread in Europe, thanks to the Romans and later the Catholic church. But of course, Latin was only spoken by the elite and the clergy, for the common people, it was all hocus-pocus (that term btw finds it origin in the Latin the local priest was talking in church, people couldn't understand what he said, but it sounded like hocus pocus).

French used to be also very wide spread throughout Europe, as it was the dominant language at nearly all European courts for many centuries, even the Russian Tsars at a certain time spoke French at their court.

AR385 · Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:14 pm

I have read an article and it states that there is a paradox. The more languages are spoken within a certain region, the more the tendency to speak one common language. I suppose in the EU that would be English? In any case that's why I titled the thread "Multilingualism vs Reality"

ME AVN FAN · Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:49 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 33):
I have read an article and it states that there is a paradox. The more languages are spoken within a certain region, the more the tendency to speak one common language. I suppose in the EU that would be English? In any case that's why I titled the thread "Multilingualism vs Reality"

Sure, English of course --- BUT a revised spelling had to be introduced, so that your text will be as follows :
-
have red an articl and it staits tat tar is a paradox. De mor langidzs ar spoukn widin a serten ridzon, de more de tendenci tu spik wan komn langidz. Ei syupous in de EU dat wud be Inglish? In ani cais dat's wei ei teitld de sred "Multilingalism vs Rialiti"
Sur, Inglish of cors -- bat a riveised spelling had tu bi introdyusd, so dat yur text will bi as ...............
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AverageUser · Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:46 am

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 5):
made up of all the European languages: Esperanto anyone

People always tend to forget that there are languages spoken within the EU already that are not Indo-European and do not contribute anything towards those artificial languages loosely based on some Indo-European languges such as Esperanto and Volapük. They are (in the order of popularity): Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, Basque, and Sami (variants spoken in Finland and Sweden are eligible).

]

[Edited 2008-03-04 01:05:02]

TheSonntag · Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:00 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
The question is which language will be held as THE definative version of a law. Legal translation is difficult to do correctly at best, when some languages lack the specific language that the law requires to convey its meaning. German is good for that, so is English, French is not so good IMHO, etc. This is why, in business contracts between cultures with differing language, the contract specifies which language version of the contract is definative. The same logic goes for the EU - if a case goes up to the EU version of the Supreme Court, the judges should not have to dig through 27 versions ever

Yes they have to, and in fact the European court does exactly that, as ALL of the language versions are authentic.

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 15):
Don't national governments have to ratify every law separately anyway? Intuitively it would seem that the local version would always apply due to that. If it goes all the way to an EU court, the court would only have to check two versions for inconsistencies.

That is not the way EU works. Once you have a regulation from the EC, it is binding to ALL member states directly, and the same applies to the treaties itself.

Quoting Andrej (Reply 28):
I say the official language of EU should be Slovak!

It is. Just like Danish, Czech, German, English, French, Spanish, Netherlands, Swedish, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Bulgarian, Polish, Slovenic, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Finnish (Somehow I think I forgot one, not sure on that, though).

AverageUser · Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:17 am

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 36):
Once you have a regulation from the EC, it is binding to ALL member states directly, and the same applies to the treaties itself.

It depends on the nature of the statue. Regulations are directly binding, but the directives are the hazy stuff the national governments can apply pretty much as they please, but can be sued in the European Court of Justice for not complying.
The various EU treaties at the moment are not law as such, but intergovernmental agreements. This will change when the EU constitutional treaty will be ratified by the former national governments, and the EU superlaws can then be enforced.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 36):
Somehow I think I forgot one, not sure on that, though).

Like I said above, the non Indo-European languges tend to be forgotten. You missed three of them of which one is a major national language. The language most favoured in Holland is Dutch (or Nederlands according to the native spelling).

[Edited 2008-03-04 01:22:29]

kc135topboom · Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:05 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 14):
Quoting Killjoy (Reply 12):
Translating everything is massively inefficient. Within a few generations everyone will hopefully speak English well enough to rely on one language for official business.

-
Whether people speak English well enough is NOT the point. Things have to be translated for legal reasons. All legal and political texts done on a federal level in Switzerland are ALWAYS published in German, French and Italian, whenever the Italian speakers generally understand German and/or French very well. And I do NOT see an efficiency problem. Those who work on something particular will do so in ONE work-language, and other people will do the translating.

You can always count on the Swiss to live on all sides of all issues.

You don't see an efficiency problem?

Well, if you want to spend tax money and please everyone, why just limit yourselves to only 3 languages? There are billions of more people around the world you cannot communicate with.

Then again, if everyone spoke, read and wrote English, that would be a very efficient world.

ME AVN FAN · Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:06 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 38):
You don't see an efficiency problem?

No, the actual expense is minimal. A single flight-hour of a F.18 costs more than the translations of months. A single morning of snow removal needs more men-hours than translations of a year. A single lawyer working on a matter for a day costs more than a whole crew of translators. And the work in question is done in one single "work-language" and only the results are translated.

Toast · Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:20 pm

Quoting Lobster (Reply 6):
Looks like alot of translators are going to have a good job for a while though.

Like yours truly. Smile

Quoting NG1Fan (Reply 8):
I wonder how many translators there are for Maltese - Estonian and Slovenian - Finnish....

I don't have the exact figures right now, but between 200 and 500 for each of those languages.

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 12):
Translating everything is massively inefficient.

Not everything is translated. In fact, the vast majority of daily EU proceedings are not translated.

The EU institution have only two de facto linguae francae, English and French. Every EU official is expected to be fluent in at least these two. The very lowest number of languages required to be a EU translator is 3, and it'll be 4 soon.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
The question is which language will be held as THE definative version of a law.

Every one of them.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
Legal translation is difficult to do correctly at best, when some languages lack the specific language that the law requires to convey its meaning. German is good for that, so is English, French is not so good IMHO, etc.

That's why the EU employs the best, and best-paid, translators in the world. ( praise

) There is literally nothing we cannot translate accurately. As a matter of fact, legal translation is relatively easy.

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 15):
Do you realize just how many translators they employ? Every single MEP has the right to address the parliament in their native language, for example. This is our tax money being used for this.

1) About 5,000. 2) Only a handful of those work for the handful of monoglot MPs. 3) Less than 2 euro per year per EU citizen.

Banco · Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:36 pm

Quoting Toast (Reply 40):
3) Less than 2 euro per year per EU citizen.

Ahh, I would hate to point out that for a Briton, that means we actually pay more for interpreters in Brussels (and Strasbourg - now that really is a stupid bit, but I digress) than we do for the monarchy. grumpy

Toast · Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:42 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 41):
we actually pay more for interpreters (...) than we do for the monarchy.

Well, the monarchy is a handful of old farts sitting around and sipping tea. Translators actually do a shitload of work. Smile

Klaus · Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:42 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 41):
Ahh, I would hate to point out that for a Briton, that means we actually pay more for interpreters in Brussels (and Strasbourg - now that really is a stupid bit, but I digress) than we do for the monarchy.

And the european translators don't even provide entertaining scandals every now and then - you're truly getting ripped off! mischievous

Banco · Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:53 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 43):
And the european translators don't even provide entertaining scandals every now and then - you're truly getting ripped off!

Precisely! Think of all those newspapers and magazines that get sold on the back of it. It's a veritable money-machine. I'm glad you're finally thinking my way. Wink

MD11Engineer · Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:20 pm

Quoting Andrej (Reply 28):
Being from small country, we have to learn other languages and to be honest I like that idea. More you know, better for you!

Not just the small countries. Everybody should be able to converse in 2-3 languages at least.

Jan

Banco · Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:51 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 45):
Everybody should be able to converse in 2-3 languages at least.

What for when you lot work so much time and effort learning ours, bless your little cotton socks... Wink

Klaus · Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:10 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 46):
What for when you lot work so much time and effort learning ours, bless your little cotton socks...

It seems that attitude and rampant paranoia go hand in hand, so maybe there's a reason why... mischievous

Banco · Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:24 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 47):
It seems that attitude and rampant paranoia go hand in hand, so maybe there's a reason why...

Maybe. But then again it also seems that it offers an ability to tease and be absolutely sure that someone will bite. Big grin

Klaus · Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:40 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 48):
Maybe. But then again it also seems that it offers an ability to tease and be absolutely sure that someone will bite.

You could have noticed that this "ability" is gratuitously afforded to everyone by the a.net crowd, monolingual or not.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net