Russia's Foreign Affairs Ministry cries into its vodka over demise of Russian abroad

[Tadas Blinda]

RUSSIA: The Language of Influence Weakens
By Kester Kenn Klomegah

MOSCOW, Sep 16 (IPS) - Nearly all of the former Soviet republics have
adopted native languages that were suppressed during the communist era
at the expense of Russian. This is affecting Russia's influence over
the commonwealth of independent states.

For more than seven decades, the Russian language spanned all 15
Soviet republics with a combined population that had grown to 270
million. Russia is still looking for recognition of its language in
these republics.

Russia's effort stems from the fact the authorities still view it as
an instrument by which they can exert control in the Soviet region,
says Aleksandr Lytvynenko from the Kiev-based Razumkov Centre, a non-
government think tank researching public policy.

"This relates especially to Ukraine and Belarus, whose population in
Russia is considered an integral part of the united Russian people,"
Lytvynenko told IPS from Kiev. "The strengthening of the position of
the Russian language and culture in these states becomes more
important, and also in the Baltic states and central Asia." Russian is
widely spoken in many parts of the former Soviet republics, but is not
officially recognised as state language.

Some analysts think that the Russian language cannot be used as an
instrument for exerting influence, even though it has a role to play.

"During the period of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
it was absolutely a necessity which, in my opinion, remains today,"
Bahodirkhon Anvarhojayevich Eliboyev from the Independent Human Rights
Defenders in Fergana, Uzbekistan, told IPS. "Russian language was and
remains the language of inter-ethnic communication. However, during
that period, there was suppression of other language cultures, which
has taken a heavy toll on society."

He said the Baltics states Estonia, Latvia and Lituania have joined
the European Union (EU), and "for these republics there is no benefit
in speaking Russian; they need a language which Europeans speak."

Ara Sanjian from the Armenian Research Centre at the University of
Michigan says that in Armenia and in many of the republics there are
now few Russian language television programmes, and as a rule they are
shown with subtitles in native languages.

In the south Caucasus, Sanjian said, (where the number of Russians is
small compared, say, to Kazakhstan), use of the native language "is a
by-product of growing national consciousness and pride. Russia is
definitely seen as using economic pressure and energy resources to
maintain its grip. I am certain it will also use language if it
believes it can be used as a tool to achieve the same aim."

In July, Tajikistan President Emomali Rakhmon proposed banning the use
of Russian in public institutions and official documents. He said the
move would promote the development of Tajik, and bolster patriotism.
The Baltic states banned the use of Russian soon after the Soviet
collapse.

Language has been a contentious issue in relations between Russia and
Ukraine, where some political groups have opposed the 'Russification'
of the country. Russian dominates in the east, the Crimea and the
capital. Many in the former Soviet republic never learnt Ukrainian.

Use of Russian has been restricted in many republics despite Russian
government efforts at preserving the language. Last year Russia
earmarked 16 million dollars for promoting Russian and to support an
estimated 30 million ethnic Russians living abroad, mostly in former
Soviet states.

Russian is the official state language in Belarus, and has official or
semi- official status in some ex-Soviet republics such as Kazakhstan
and Kyrgyzstan, says Alexander Chepurin, head of relations with the
Russian diaspora at the Foreign Ministry.

Russian officials say 'de-Russification' policies and the forcible
adoption of native languages in education, media, judicial and
administrative institutions is creating cultural gaps in the former
Soviet space.

Several international human rights organisations have called on the
former Soviet republics to make Russian a second official language,
but most governments have not changed their policies.

"No one disputes efforts by a state to reinforce the state language,
but it is also well known that such actions must not harm the language
rights of national minorities, especially when a country's population
is nationally heterogeneous," the Russian foreign affairs ministry
says in an official statement

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Post by Tadas Blinda
RUSSIA: The Language of Influence Weakens
By Kester Kenn Klomegah
MOSCOW, Sep 16 (IPS) - Nearly all of the former Soviet republics have
adopted native languages that were suppressed during the communist era
at the expense of Russian. This is affecting Russia's influence over
the commonwealth of independent states.
For more than seven decades, the Russian language spanned all 15
Soviet republics

After reading the sentence above one can safely quit on the author as it
is obvious that he has no clue what he is talking about.
One more whore of "free" media tearing his ass apart to bring home a
little of bread.

VM.


with a combined population that had grown to 270

Post by Tadas Blinda
million. Russia is still looking for recognition of its language in
these republics.
Russia's effort stems from the fact the authorities still view it as
an instrument by which they can exert control in the Soviet region,
says Aleksandr Lytvynenko from the Kiev-based Razumkov Centre, a non-
government think tank researching public policy.
"This relates especially to Ukraine and Belarus, whose population in
Russia is considered an integral part of the united Russian people,"
Lytvynenko told IPS from Kiev. "The strengthening of the position of
the Russian language and culture in these states becomes more
important, and also in the Baltic states and central Asia." Russian is
widely spoken in many parts of the former Soviet republics, but is not
officially recognised as state language.
Some analysts think that the Russian language cannot be used as an
instrument for exerting influence, even though it has a role to play.
"During the period of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
it was absolutely a necessity which, in my opinion, remains today,"
Bahodirkhon Anvarhojayevich Eliboyev from the Independent Human Rights
Defenders in Fergana, Uzbekistan, told IPS. "Russian language was and
remains the language of inter-ethnic communication. However, during
that period, there was suppression of other language cultures, which
has taken a heavy toll on society."
He said the Baltics states Estonia, Latvia and Lituania have joined
the European Union (EU), and "for these republics there is no benefit
in speaking Russian; they need a language which Europeans speak."
Ara Sanjian from the Armenian Research Centre at the University of
Michigan says that in Armenia and in many of the republics there are
now few Russian language television programmes, and as a rule they are
shown with subtitles in native languages.
In the south Caucasus, Sanjian said, (where the number of Russians is
small compared, say, to Kazakhstan), use of the native language "is a
by-product of growing national consciousness and pride. Russia is
definitely seen as using economic pressure and energy resources to
maintain its grip. I am certain it will also use language if it
believes it can be used as a tool to achieve the same aim."
In July, Tajikistan President Emomali Rakhmon proposed banning the use
of Russian in public institutions and official documents. He said the
move would promote the development of Tajik, and bolster patriotism.
The Baltic states banned the use of Russian soon after the Soviet
collapse.
Language has been a contentious issue in relations between Russia and
Ukraine, where some political groups have opposed the 'Russification'
of the country. Russian dominates in the east, the Crimea and the
capital. Many in the former Soviet republic never learnt Ukrainian.
Use of Russian has been restricted in many republics despite Russian
government efforts at preserving the language. Last year Russia
earmarked 16 million dollars for promoting Russian and to support an
estimated 30 million ethnic Russians living abroad, mostly in former
Soviet states.
Russian is the official state language in Belarus, and has official or
semi- official status in some ex-Soviet republics such as Kazakhstan
and Kyrgyzstan, says Alexander Chepurin, head of relations with the
Russian diaspora at the Foreign Ministry.
Russian officials say 'de-Russification' policies and the forcible
adoption of native languages in education, media, judicial and
administrative institutions is creating cultural gaps in the former
Soviet space.
Several international human rights organisations have called on the
former Soviet republics to make Russian a second official language,
but most governments have not changed their policies.
"No one disputes efforts by a state to reinforce the state language,
but it is also well known that such actions must not harm the language
rights of national minorities, especially when a country's population
is nationally heterogeneous," the Russian foreign affairs ministry
says in an official statement

[Tadas Blinda]

Post by Vladimir Makarenko

Post by Tadas Blinda
RUSSIA: The Language of Influence Weakens
By Kester Kenn Klomegah
MOSCOW, Sep 16 (IPS) - Nearly all of the former Soviet republics have
adopted native languages that were suppressed during the communist era
at the expense of Russian. This is affecting Russia's influence over
the commonwealth of independent states.
For more than seven decades, the Russian language spanned all 15
Soviet republics

After reading the sentence above one can safely quit on the author as it
is obvious that he has no clue what he is talking about.
One more whore of "free" media tearing his ass apart to bring home a
little of bread.
VM.

Silly o me to pay any attention to anything you say, nut
nonetheless ...

If the bee in your bonnet is due to the author's words "native
languages that were suppressed during the communist era", then I agree
that "discriminated against" would be a better choice of vocabulary
than "suppressed". Of course the author, like you and all other
russkies, misses the main point, namely, that the USSR was an illegal
empire, forged together by brutality. The same can still be said
about most of the Russian Federation. Indigenous languages are still
getting a shitty deal there. But chauvinism is in you bastards' blood
– along with the vodka and brutality.

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Post by Tadas Blinda

Post by Vladimir Makarenko

Post by Tadas Blinda
RUSSIA: The Language of Influence Weakens
By Kester Kenn Klomegah
MOSCOW, Sep 16 (IPS) - Nearly all of the former Soviet republics have
adopted native languages that were suppressed during the communist era
at the expense of Russian. This is affecting Russia's influence over
the commonwealth of independent states.
For more than seven decades, the Russian language spanned all 15
Soviet republics

After reading the sentence above one can safely quit on the author as it
is obvious that he has no clue what he is talking about.
One more whore of "free" media tearing his ass apart to bring home a
little of bread.
VM.

Silly o me to pay any attention to anything you say, nut
nonetheless ...
If the bee in your bonnet is due to the author's words "native
languages that were suppressed during the communist era", then I agree
that "discriminated against" would be a better choice of vocabulary
than "suppressed". Of course the author, like you and all other
russkies, misses the main point, namely, that the USSR was an illegal
empire, forged together by brutality. The same can still be said
about most of the Russian Federation. Indigenous languages are still
getting a shitty deal there. But chauvinism is in you bastards' blood
– along with the vodka and brutality.

I thought I typed in English "the sentence above".

Which in turn said:
"For more than seven decades, the Russian language spanned all 15
Soviet republics."

I am afraid you as the author has no clue what is wrong with this stupid
assertion.

VM.

[Tadas Blinda]

Post by Vladimir Makarenko

Post by Tadas Blinda

Post by Vladimir Makarenko

Post by Tadas Blinda
RUSSIA: The Language of Influence Weakens
By Kester Kenn Klomegah
MOSCOW, Sep 16 (IPS) - Nearly all of the former Soviet republics have
adopted native languages that were suppressed during the communist era
at the expense of Russian. This is affecting Russia's influence over
the commonwealth of independent states.
For more than seven decades, the Russian language spanned all 15
Soviet republics

After reading the sentence above one can safely quit on the author as it
is obvious that he has no clue what he is talking about.
One more whore of "free" media tearing his ass apart to bring home a
little of bread.
VM.

Silly o me to pay any attention to anything you say, nut
nonetheless ...
If the bee in your bonnet is due to the author's words "native
languages that were suppressed during the communist era", then I agree
that "discriminated against" would be a better choice of vocabulary
than "suppressed".  Of course the author, like you and all other
russkies, misses the main point, namely, that the USSR was an illegal
empire, forged together by brutality.  The same can still be said
about most of the Russian Federation. Indigenous languages are still
getting a shitty deal there.  But chauvinism is in you bastards' blood
– along with the vodka and brutality.

I thought I typed in English "the sentence above".
"For more than seven decades, the Russian language spanned all 15
Soviet republics."
I am afraid you as the author has no clue what is wrong with this stupid
assertion.
VM.

I don't particularly care what your alcohol-addled brain thinks. To
my mind the major flaw in the sentence "For more than seven decades,
the Russian language spanned all 15 Soviet republics." is that
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were not Soviet Republics for 7
decades. Praise be to God. Without those 22 wonderful years
(1918-1940) when my father (pbuh – his „ketvirtinės“ just passed) grew
up in the first Republic of Lithuania, we might have ended up like
Belarus.

[vello]

I don't particularly care what your alcohol-addled brain thinks.  To
my mind the major flaw in the sentence "For more than seven decades,
the Russian language spanned all 15 Soviet republics." is that
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were not Soviet Republics for 7
decades.  Praise be to God.  Without those 22 wonderful years
(1918-1940) when my father (pbuh – his „ketvirtinės“ just passed) grew
up in the first Republic of Lithuania, we might have ended up like
Belarus.

There was a break for two decades, but it was very short period of
time since Russia expanded to its biggest size.  These two decades
were very significant in recent history, but there was no intention to
eliminate Russian language.  In fact, use of Russian was encouraged by
Latvian government.  There were Russian schools and
teachers were trained in Latvia.

Do you know when Latvia gets it's large russian minority? (I mean pre-
war time)? For us everything up to 1918 was "German rule" no matter
what flag was flying over Herrmann tower in Toompea :-). btw, estonian
coalition takes city govt of Tallinn from germans first time in 1905
just with help of local russian party. Some big ship- and machinery
plants were built in Tallinn in the very end of 19th century and some
workforce from Russia with them.

[Dmitry]

Post by vello

I don't particularly care what your alcohol-addled brain thinks.  To
my mind the major flaw in the sentence "For more than seven decades,
the Russian language spanned all 15 Soviet republics." is that
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were not Soviet Republics for 7
decades.  Praise be to God.  Without those 22 wonderful years
(1918-1940) when my father (pbuh – his „ketvirtinės“ just passed) grew
up in the first Republic of Lithuania, we might have ended up like
Belarus.

There was a break for two decades, but it was very short period of
time since Russia expanded to its biggest size.  These two decades
were very significant in recent history, but there was no intention to
eliminate Russian language.  In fact, use of Russian was encouraged by
Latvian government.  There were Russian schools and
teachers were trained in Latvia.

Do you know when Latvia gets it's large russian minority? (I mean pre-
war time)? For us everything up to 1918 was "German rule" no matter
what flag was flying over Herrmann tower in Toompea :-). btw, estonian
coalition takes city govt of Tallinn from germans first time in 1905
just with help of local russian party. Some big ship- and machinery
plants were built in Tallinn in the very end of 19th century and some
workforce from Russia with them.

From Wiki:
"According to the first statistical data of 1920 the number of the
Russian population at that time was 91,000. In 1935 the number of the
Russian minority had increased up to 206,000. During the whole period
of independence, Russians remained the biggest national minority of
the country. In 1935, the part of Russians in the whole structure of
the population of Latvia made up 10.5% (in 1920 - 7.8%)."

[vello]

Post by Dmitry

Post by vello

I don't particularly care what your alcohol-addled brain thinks.  To
my mind the major flaw in the sentence "For more than seven decades,
the Russian language spanned all 15 Soviet republics." is that
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were not Soviet Republics for 7
decades.  Praise be to God.  Without those 22 wonderful years
(1918-1940) when my father (pbuh – his „ketvirtinės“ just passed) grew
up in the first Republic of Lithuania, we might have ended up like
Belarus.

There was a break for two decades, but it was very short period of
time since Russia expanded to its biggest size.  These two decades
were very significant in recent history, but there was no intention to
eliminate Russian language.  In fact, use of Russian was encouraged by
Latvian government.  There were Russian schools and
teachers were trained in Latvia.

Do you know when Latvia gets it's large russian minority? (I mean pre-
war time)? For us everything up to 1918 was "German rule" no matter
what flag was flying over Herrmann tower in Toompea :-). btw, estonian
coalition takes city govt of Tallinn from germans first time in 1905
just with help of local russian party. Some big ship- and machinery
plants were built in Tallinn in the very end of 19th century and some
workforce from Russia with them.

"According to the first statistical data of 1920 the number of the
Russian population at that time was 91,000. In 1935 the number of the
Russian minority had increased up to 206,000. During the whole period
of independence, Russians remained the biggest national minority of
the country. In 1935, the part of Russians in the whole structure of
the population of Latvia made up 10.5% (in 1920 - 7.8%)."- Hide quoted text -

And that 115 000 between 1920 and 1935? Was door open for everyone
wanting to live in Latvia?

[J. Anderson]

Post by vello

Post by Dmitry
"According to the first statistical data of 1920 the number of the
Russian population at that time was 91,000. In 1935 the number of the
Russian minority had increased up to 206,000. During the whole period
of independence, Russians remained the biggest national minority of
the country. In 1935, the part of Russians in the whole structure of
the population of Latvia made up 10.5% (in 1920 - 7.8%)."- Hide quoted text -

And that 115 000 between 1920 and 1935? Was door open for everyone
wanting to live in Latvia?

As a comparison it may be of interest that in the year 1900, when Finland
had been ruled by the czars for more than 90 years, the number of Russians
in Finland was 6,000 which represents 0.2% of the population. Twenty years
later we had 5,000 Russians and in 1960 only 2,000. Then the number started
growing, first as a result of cross-border marriages: Finland had lots of
construction projects in the USSR, and our workers brought home Russian
wives when they returned. Then came the Ingrians (who mostly registered as
Russian-speakers). In 1990 we had 4,000 Russians, but now the number has
passed the 40,000 mark. Their integration, however, has not been very
successful, and here we have to put the blame on both Finns and Russians.
Our officials don't offer much service in Russian, and many Russians don't
bother even to try learning Finnish or Swedish.

[vello]

Post by J. Anderson

Post by vello

Post by Dmitry
"According to the first statistical data of 1920 the number of the
Russian population at that time was 91,000. In 1935 the number of the
Russian minority had increased up to 206,000. During the whole period
of independence, Russians remained the biggest national minority of
the country. In 1935, the part of Russians in the whole structure of
the population of Latvia made up 10.5% (in 1920 - 7.8%)."- Hide quoted text -

And that 115 000 between 1920 and 1935? Was door open for everyone
wanting to live in Latvia?

As a comparison it may be of interest that in the year 1900, when Finland
had been ruled by the czars for more than 90 years, the number of Russians
in Finland was 6,000 which represents 0.2% of the population. Twenty years
later we had 5,000 Russians and in 1960 only 2,000. Then the number started
growing, first as a result of cross-border marriages: Finland had lots of
construction projects in the USSR, and our workers brought home Russian
wives when they returned. Then came the Ingrians (who mostly registered as
Russian-speakers). In 1990 we had 4,000 Russians, but now the number has
passed the 40,000 mark. Their integration, however, has not been very
successful, and here we have to put the blame on both Finns and Russians.
Our officials don't offer much service in Russian, and many Russians don't
bother even to try learning Finnish or Swedish.

Big nation. Italians are also very lazy to learn English. But in Egypt
salesmen do talk any language on Earth. Sure for Finnish, must check,
do they differ local finnish dialects :-)

[Dmitry]

Post by vello

Post by J. Anderson

Post by vello

Post by Dmitry
"According to the first statistical data of 1920 the number of the
Russian population at that time was 91,000. In 1935 the number of the
Russian minority had increased up to 206,000. During the whole period
of independence, Russians remained the biggest national minority of
the country. In 1935, the part of Russians in the whole structure of
the population of Latvia made up 10.5% (in 1920 - 7.8%)."- Hide quoted text -

And that 115 000 between 1920 and 1935? Was door open for everyone
wanting to live in Latvia?

As a comparison it may be of interest that in the year 1900, when Finland
had been ruled by the czars for more than 90 years, the number of Russians
in Finland was 6,000 which represents 0.2% of the population. Twenty years
later we had 5,000 Russians and in 1960 only 2,000. Then the number started
growing, first as a result of cross-border marriages: Finland had lots of
construction projects in the USSR, and our workers brought home Russian
wives when they returned. Then came the Ingrians (who mostly registered as
Russian-speakers). In 1990 we had 4,000 Russians, but now the number has
passed the 40,000 mark. Their integration, however, has not been very
successful, and here we have to put the blame on both Finns and Russians.
Our officials don't offer much service in Russian, and many Russians don't
bother even to try learning Finnish or Swedish.

In Britain, Russian population increased 10 times (estimated, there is
no official data) since 1991. They do learn English though and some
of them are reasonably fluent in it.

Post by vello
Big nation. Italians are also very lazy to learn English. But in Egypt
salesmen do talk any language on Earth. Sure for Finnish, must check,
do they differ local finnish dialects :-)

English are the worst (and Americans too), "we" go everywhere in the
world and expect everyone to speak English. That includes Russia (few
people who visited Russia said to me that communicating in English
wasn't that much of a problem).

[Anton]

Post by Dmitry
English are the worst (and Americans too), "we" go everywhere in the
world and expect everyone to speak English. That includes Russia (few
people who visited Russia said to me that communicating in English
wasn't that much of a problem).

It also can be the other way around: an Englishman who lives here was
very frustrated that most of the locals he encountered insisted on
speking English with him when he really wanted to speak the local
language insted so he could learn it.

[Tadas Blinda]

Post by Anton

Post by Dmitry
English are the worst (and Americans too), "we" go everywhere in the
world and expect everyone to speak English.  That includes Russia (few
people who visited Russia said to me that communicating in English
wasn't that much of a problem).

It also can be the other way around: an Englishman who lives here was
very frustrated that most of the locals he encountered insisted on
speking English with him when he really wanted to speak the local
language insted so he could learn it.
--
Anton

That is indeed a problem, and you don't have to be an Englishman to
encounter it. It seems that everyone, everywhere in the world
(especially young people) are keen to show how trendy they are by
speaking what they think is English to you once they sense that you're
probably a naitve English speaker. At times I have had to pretend
that I'm monolingual in Lithuanian just so that I could get a
Spaniard, Italian, Frenchman or German to speak to me in the relevant
language.

[Dmitry]

Post by Anton

Post by Dmitry
English are the worst (and Americans too), "we" go everywhere in the
world and expect everyone to speak English.  That includes Russia (few
people who visited Russia said to me that communicating in English
wasn't that much of a problem).

It also can be the other way around: an Englishman who lives here was
very frustrated that most of the locals he encountered insisted on
speking English with him when he really wanted to speak the local
language insted so he could learn it.
--
Anton

Of course not all English are ignorant and most that move to other
country want to learn local language, but it can become a difficult
task when they become language learning instruments themselves.
Learning Finnish must be a very difficult process for Indo-European
speaker on its own, and when people don't let you practice it it can
be almost impossible task.

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Post by J. Anderson

Post by vello

Post by Dmitry
"According to the first statistical data of 1920 the number of the
Russian population at that time was 91,000. In 1935 the number of the
Russian minority had increased up to 206,000. During the whole period
of independence, Russians remained the biggest national minority of
the country. In 1935, the part of Russians in the whole structure of
the population of Latvia made up 10.5% (in 1920 - 7.8%)."- Hide quoted text -

And that 115 000 between 1920 and 1935? Was door open for everyone
wanting to live in Latvia?

As a comparison it may be of interest that in the year 1900, when Finland
had been ruled by the czars for more than 90 years, the number of Russians
in Finland was 6,000 which represents 0.2% of the population. Twenty years
later we had 5,000 Russians and in 1960 only 2,000. Then the number started
growing, first as a result of cross-border marriages: Finland had lots of
construction projects in the USSR, and our workers brought home Russian
wives when they returned. Then came the Ingrians (who mostly registered as
Russian-speakers). In 1990 we had 4,000 Russians, but now the number has
passed the 40,000 mark. Their integration, however, has not been very
successful, and here we have to put the blame on both Finns and Russians.
Our officials don't offer much service in Russian, and many Russians don't
bother even to try learning Finnish or Swedish.

So how do they earn for living?

VM.

[Valtsu]

Post by Vladimir Makarenko

Post by J. Anderson

Post by vello

Post by Dmitry
"According to the first statistical data of 1920 the number of the
Russian population at that time was 91,000. In 1935 the number of the
Russian minority had increased up to 206,000. During the whole period
of independence, Russians remained the biggest national minority of
the country. In 1935, the part of Russians in the whole structure of
the population of Latvia made up 10.5% (in 1920 - 7.8%)."- Hide quoted text -

And that 115 000 between 1920 and 1935? Was door open for everyone
wanting to live in Latvia?

As a comparison it may be of interest that in the year 1900, when
Finland had been ruled by the czars for more than 90 years, the number
of Russians in Finland was 6,000 which represents 0.2% of the
population. Twenty years later we had 5,000 Russians and in 1960 only
2,000. Then the number started growing, first as a result of
cross-border marriages: Finland had lots of construction projects in
the USSR, and our workers brought home Russian wives when they
returned. Then came the Ingrians (who mostly registered as
Russian-speakers). In 1990 we had 4,000 Russians, but now the number
has passed the 40,000 mark. Their integration, however, has not been
very successful, and here we have to put the blame on both Finns and
Russians. Our officials don't offer much service in Russian, and many
Russians don't bother even to try learning Finnish or Swedish.

So how do they earn for living?

Quite a big number of the russian speaking population, i.e. people
living in Finland who have registered themselves as speaking russian as
their mother tongue when they are inserted in the census records have
already got Finnish citizenship (usually 5 years residence qualifies for
it). Unemployment figures are broken down according to finnish citizens
and non-finnish citizens, so exact numbers according to mother tongue or
ethnicity are not easy to obtain. What I have previously read in
newspapers is that roughly half of the working age russian speakers
would be unemployed. From that number you should abstract genuine
housewives and students. Any way, a big part is on the dole. Russian
speakers are generally well educated, but their diplomas often are of no
value in in the EU without supplemenatary studies. For example a doctor
in general practice needs minimum one year of studies to pass the exam.

Nevertheless, you can find russianspeakers in all professions, but
unfortunately many PhD's do work as cleaners especially if they don't
speak finnish or swedish or do not have the motivation to learn it.


In general the biggest proportions of unemployed are among the somalis
and the smallest among the vietnamese. On the whole one should bear in
mind that Finland is one of the most homogeneous if not the most
homogenious country in Europe. The number of foreigners and foreign born
citizens is still very low. - Please do correct me if I remember wrong.

Timo

[Vladimir Makarenko]

Post by Valtsu

Post by Vladimir Makarenko

Post by J. Anderson

Post by vello

Post by Dmitry
"According to the first statistical data of 1920 the number of the
Russian population at that time was 91,000. In 1935 the number of the
Russian minority had increased up to 206,000. During the whole period
of independence, Russians remained the biggest national minority of
the country. In 1935, the part of Russians in the whole structure of
the population of Latvia made up 10.5% (in 1920 - 7.8%)."- Hide quoted text -

And that 115 000 between 1920 and 1935? Was door open for everyone
wanting to live in Latvia?

As a comparison it may be of interest that in the year 1900, when
Finland had been ruled by the czars for more than 90 years, the
number of Russians in Finland was 6,000 which represents 0.2% of the
population. Twenty years later we had 5,000 Russians and in 1960 only
2,000. Then the number started growing, first as a result of
cross-border marriages: Finland had lots of construction projects in
the USSR, and our workers brought home Russian wives when they
returned. Then came the Ingrians (who mostly registered as
Russian-speakers). In 1990 we had 4,000 Russians, but now the number
has passed the 40,000 mark. Their integration, however, has not been
very successful, and here we have to put the blame on both Finns and
Russians. Our officials don't offer much service in Russian, and many
Russians don't bother even to try learning Finnish or Swedish.

So how do they earn for living?

Quite a big number of the russian speaking population, i.e. people
living in Finland who have registered themselves as speaking russian as
their mother tongue when they are inserted in the census records have
already got Finnish citizenship (usually 5 years residence qualifies for
it). Unemployment figures are broken down according to finnish citizens
and non-finnish citizens, so exact numbers according to mother tongue or
ethnicity are not easy to obtain. What I have previously read in
newspapers is that roughly half of the working age russian speakers
would be unemployed. From that number you should abstract genuine
housewives and students. Any way, a big part is on the dole. Russian
speakers are generally well educated, but their diplomas often are of no
value in in the EU without supplemenatary studies. For example a doctor
in general practice needs minimum one year of studies to pass the exam.
Nevertheless, you can find russianspeakers in all professions, but
unfortunately many PhD's do work as cleaners especially if they don't
speak finnish or swedish or do not have the motivation to learn it.
In general the biggest proportions of unemployed are among the somalis
and the smallest among the vietnamese. On the whole one should bear in
mind that Finland is one of the most homogeneous if not the most
homogenious country in Europe. The number of foreigners and foreign born
citizens is still very low. - Please do correct me if I remember wrong.
Timo

It looks like the existing model of immigration is out of sync with the
modern welfare state: previously people were immigrating on their own
risk, today they immigrate to (Europe) at risk of the accepting state.
Looks like unless these risks are re distributed this will be never
ending story. Not to remove social assistance totally but somehow
restrict it.

VM.

[Eugene Holman]

In article <TYftm.18152$***@uutiset.elisa.fi>, Valtsu
<***@stadissa.fi> wrote:

<deletions>

Post by Valtsu
In general the biggest proportions of unemployed are among the somalis
and the smallest among the vietnamese. On the whole one should bear in
mind that Finland is one of the most homogeneous if not the most
homogenious country in Europe. The number of foreigners and foreign born
citizens is still very low. - Please do correct me if I remember wrong.

What you wrote is generally true, but there is one caveat. Helsinki is
quite heterogeneous. Approximately ten per cent of the population in
Helsinki is 'ulkomaalaistaustainen' ­ of foreign origin, that is to say,
foreign born or with a parent who was foreign born. In Kallio, where I
live, the percentage is notably higher. The block that I live on has two
Chinese, one Russian, and one Middle Eastern restaurant.

Although many Somalis in Helsinki are unemployed, a considerable number
work for the City of Helsinki Transit Authority as bus drivers and
cleaners. Russians are not as visible, but I have noticed that several
merchants at the Hakaniemi market hall apeak Finnish with a slight Russian
accent and serve clients in fluent, evidently native, Russian. Russians
can 'disappear' in Finland simply by Fennicizing their names Medvedev >
Karhunen, Malinsky > Malinen or, if they are females, by acquiring a
Finnish surname through marriage. Some of the Estonians who have settled
in Helsinki are also actually native speakers of Russian.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

[Tadas Blinda]

Post by Eugene Holman
<deletions>

Post by Valtsu
In general the biggest proportions of unemployed are among the somalis
and the smallest among the vietnamese. On the whole one should bear in
mind that Finland is one of the most homogeneous if not the most
homogenious country in Europe. The number of foreigners and foreign born
citizens is still very low. - Please do correct me if I remember wrong.

What you wrote is generally true, but there is one caveat. Helsinki is
quite heterogeneous. Approximately ten per cent of the population in
Helsinki is 'ulkomaalaistaustainen' ­ of foreign origin, that is to say,
foreign born or with a parent who was foreign born. In Kallio, where I
live, the percentage is notably higher. The block that I live on has two
Chinese, one Russian, and one Middle Eastern restaurant.
Although many Somalis in Helsinki are unemployed, a considerable number
work for the City of Helsinki Transit Authority as bus drivers and
cleaners. Russians are not as visible, but I have noticed that several
merchants at the Hakaniemi market hall apeak Finnish with a slight Russian
accent and serve clients in fluent, evidently native, Russian. Russians
can 'disappear' in Finland simply by Fennicizing their names Medvedev >
Karhunen, Malinsky > Malinen or, if they are females, by acquiring a
Finnish surname through marriage. Some of the Estonians who have settled
in Helsinki are also actually native speakers of Russian.
Regards,
Eugene Holman

We are all so used to hearing English spoken with such a variety of
accents that it's no big deal. But it's fascinating to – because of
its rarity – to hear foreigners speaking Lithuanian.

BTW, unlike in Spain, where the Gypsy language (Caló) is well and
truly dead, the Gypsy language is alive and well in Lithuania, and it
has a future, as I have seen and heard young people speaking it. I
had reason to spend some time in the cemetery at Jonava recently
(significant Gypsy population there), during which time a Gypsy
funeral was taking place. Everybody, without exception, was speaking
the Gypsy language. It sounds like Punjabi spoken with an Eastern
European accent. :-) I heard the occasional Lithuanian and Russian
loanword (especially „blet“ and „nachui“ from the younger folk), but
otherwise it was all Romani.

There are Gypsies in Spain (probably elsewhere too, such as UK) who
claim they speak "Gypsy" or "Romani" at home, but when you look into
it you find that it's just English that's heavily sprinkled with
vocabulary (anglicised) of Gypsy/Romani origin.

It's interesting how ethnics of various sorts are reluctant to 'fess
up and admit that they have been to lazy to learn their ancestral
language. In the New World I have also heard people of various ethnic
backgrounds claim that they "speak" their ancestral language, but when
you look into it you find that it's like with the English-speaking
Gypsy example above (just English that's sprinkled with anglicised
vocabulary of ethnic origin).

Another face-saving ploy (especially among the young) is claiming that
you can "speak" the language, but all you can do is listen to your
parents speaking it to you, comprehend very vaguely, and answer in
English.

[Dmitry]

Post by Tadas Blinda

Post by Eugene Holman
<deletions>

Post by Valtsu
In general the biggest proportions of unemployed are among the somalis
and the smallest among the vietnamese. On the whole one should bear in
mind that Finland is one of the most homogeneous if not the most
homogenious country in Europe. The number of foreigners and foreign born
citizens is still very low. - Please do correct me if I remember wrong.

What you wrote is generally true, but there is one caveat. Helsinki is
quite heterogeneous. Approximately ten per cent of the population in
Helsinki is 'ulkomaalaistaustainen' ­ of foreign origin, that is to say,
foreign born or with a parent who was foreign born. In Kallio, where I
live, the percentage is notably higher. The block that I live on has two
Chinese, one Russian, and one Middle Eastern restaurant.
Although many Somalis in Helsinki are unemployed, a considerable number
work for the City of Helsinki Transit Authority as bus drivers and
cleaners. Russians are not as visible, but I have noticed that several
merchants at the Hakaniemi market hall apeak Finnish with a slight Russian
accent and serve clients in fluent, evidently native, Russian. Russians
can 'disappear' in Finland simply by Fennicizing their names Medvedev >
Karhunen, Malinsky > Malinen or, if they are females, by acquiring a
Finnish surname through marriage. Some of the Estonians who have settled
in Helsinki are also actually native speakers of Russian.
Regards,
Eugene Holman

We are all so used to hearing English spoken with such a variety of
accents that it's no big deal.  But it's fascinating to – because of
its rarity – to hear foreigners speaking Lithuanian.
BTW, unlike in Spain, where the Gypsy language (Caló) is well and
truly dead, the Gypsy language is alive and well in Lithuania, and it
has a future, as I have seen and heard young people speaking it.  I
had reason to spend some time in the cemetery at Jonava recently
(significant Gypsy population there), during which time a Gypsy
funeral was taking place.  Everybody, without exception, was speaking
the Gypsy language.  It sounds like Punjabi spoken with an Eastern
European accent.  :-)

They both from Indo-Aryan branch. The intonations are very similar to
Punjabi, much more similar than to Hindi. It sounds like they are
arguing whilst in fact it is just a normal conversation. I can
remember the sound of Gypsy as I used to live next to Gypsy area in
Riga for 7 years. They all spoke their language (with using loan
words as you described below) as well as fluent Latvian and Russian
(with a bit of an accent).

Post by Tadas Blinda
 I heard the occasional Lithuanian and Russian
loanword (especially „blet“ and „nachui“ from the younger folk), but
otherwise it was all Romani.
There are Gypsies in Spain (probably elsewhere too, such as UK) who
claim they speak "Gypsy" or "Romani" at home,
but when you look into
it you find that it's just English that's heavily sprinkled with
vocabulary (anglicised) of Gypsy/Romani origin.
It's interesting how ethnics of various sorts are reluctant to 'fess
up and admit that they have been to lazy to learn their ancestral
language.  In the New World I have also heard people of various ethnic
backgrounds claim that they "speak" their ancestral language, but when
you look into it you find that it's like with the English-speaking
Gypsy example above (just English that's sprinkled with anglicised
vocabulary of ethnic origin).

In the UK Gypsies were assimilated. You'll find that almost all of
them are white in appearence and speak the accent of the place where
they live (may be some older people can speak Romani, I'm not sure).
They are not "travelers" any more, they only move from their sites
when the local council wins the case to evict them.

Post by Tadas Blinda
Another face-saving ploy (especially among the young) is claiming that
you can "speak" the language, but all you can do is listen to your
parents speaking it to you, comprehend very vaguely, and answer in
English.

True. This happens across many ethnic minority communities in UK. I
know many examples of what you describe. I think it is normal and
healthy.

[Tadas Blinda]

Post by Tadas Blinda
We are all so used to hearing English spoken with such a variety of
accents that it's no big deal.  But it's fascinating to – because of
its rarity – to hear foreigners speaking Lithuanian.
BTW, unlike in Spain, where the Gypsy language (Caló) is well and
truly dead, the Gypsy language is alive and well in Lithuania, and it
has a future, as I have seen and heard young people speaking it.  I
had reason to spend some time in the cemetery at Jonava recently
(significant Gypsy population there), during which time a Gypsy
funeral was taking place.  Everybody, without exception, was speaking
the Gypsy language.  It sounds like Punjabi spoken with an Eastern
European accent.  :-)

They both from Indo-Aryan branch.  The intonations are very similar to
Punjabi, much more similar than to Hindi.  It sounds like they are
arguing whilst in fact it is just a normal conversation.  I can
remember the sound of Gypsy as I used to live next to Gypsy area in
Riga for 7 years.  They all spoke their language (with using loan
words as you described below) as well as fluent Latvian and Russian
(with a bit of an accent).

Post by Tadas Blinda
 I heard the occasional Lithuanian and Russian
loanword (especially „blet“ and „nachui“ from the younger folk), but
otherwise it was all Romani.
There are Gypsies in Spain (probably elsewhere too, such as UK) who
claim they speak "Gypsy" or "Romani" at home,
but when you look into
it you find that it's just English that's heavily sprinkled with
vocabulary (anglicised) of Gypsy/Romani origin.
It's interesting how ethnics of various sorts are reluctant to 'fess
up and admit that they have been to lazy to learn their ancestral
language.  In the New World I have also heard people of various ethnic
backgrounds claim that they "speak" their ancestral language, but when
you look into it you find that it's like with the English-speaking
Gypsy example above (just English that's sprinkled with anglicised
vocabulary of ethnic origin).

In the UK Gypsies were assimilated.  You'll find that almost all of
them are white in appearence and speak the accent of the place where
they live (may be some older people can speak Romani, I'm not sure).
They are not "travelers" any more, they only move from their sites
when the local council wins the case to evict them.

Post by Tadas Blinda
Another face-saving ploy (especially among the young) is claiming that
you can "speak" the language, but all you can do is listen to your
parents speaking it to you, comprehend very vaguely, and answer in
English.

True.  This happens across many ethnic minority communities in UK.  I
know many examples of what you describe.  I think it is normal and
healthy.

Normal and healthy? Well, to those who don't give a stuff about the
survival of ethnic languages abroad, maybe. I think it's sad when
cultural richness is lost. It's no big deal to speak English. These
days it's like shitting – any asshole can do it.

[Dmitry]

Post by Tadas Blinda
We are all so used to hearing English spoken with such a variety of
accents that it's no big deal.  But it's fascinating to – because of
its rarity – to hear foreigners speaking Lithuanian.
BTW, unlike in Spain, where the Gypsy language (Caló) is well and
truly dead, the Gypsy language is alive and well in Lithuania, and it
has a future, as I have seen and heard young people speaking it.  I
had reason to spend some time in the cemetery at Jonava recently
(significant Gypsy population there), during which time a Gypsy
funeral was taking place.  Everybody, without exception, was speaking
the Gypsy language.  It sounds like Punjabi spoken with an Eastern
European accent.  :-)

They both from Indo-Aryan branch.  The intonations are very similar to
Punjabi, much more similar than to Hindi.  It sounds like they are
arguing whilst in fact it is just a normal conversation.  I can
remember the sound of Gypsy as I used to live next to Gypsy area in
Riga for 7 years.  They all spoke their language (with using loan
words as you described below) as well as fluent Latvian and Russian
(with a bit of an accent).

Post by Tadas Blinda
 I heard the occasional Lithuanian and Russian
loanword (especially „blet“ and „nachui“ from the younger folk), but
otherwise it was all Romani.
There are Gypsies in Spain (probably elsewhere too, such as UK) who
claim they speak "Gypsy" or "Romani" at home,
but when you look into
it you find that it's just English that's heavily sprinkled with
vocabulary (anglicised) of Gypsy/Romani origin.
It's interesting how ethnics of various sorts are reluctant to 'fess
up and admit that they have been to lazy to learn their ancestral
language.  In the New World I have also heard people of various ethnic
backgrounds claim that they "speak" their ancestral language, but when
you look into it you find that it's like with the English-speaking
Gypsy example above (just English that's sprinkled with anglicised
vocabulary of ethnic origin).

In the UK Gypsies were assimilated.  You'll find that almost all of
them are white in appearence and speak the accent of the place where
they live (may be some older people can speak Romani, I'm not sure).
They are not "travelers" any more, they only move from their sites
when the local council wins the case to evict them.

Post by Tadas Blinda
Another face-saving ploy (especially among the young) is claiming that
you can "speak" the language, but all you can do is listen to your
parents speaking it to you, comprehend very vaguely, and answer in
English.

True.  This happens across many ethnic minority communities in UK.  I
know many examples of what you describe.  I think it is normal and
healthy.

Normal and healthy?  Well, to those who don't give a stuff about the
survival of ethnic languages abroad, maybe.

I communicate with my children in English. We learned it together and
this is much easier way for us to communicate than using Russian.
They communicate in Russian with their grandparents though. I do what
I think is natural, do you think it is unhealthy? And frankly, I
don't give a stuff about survival of Russian language in England (it
is not on the list of disappearing languages) -)) My worry is with
small languages' survival in their native lands rather than abroad.

 I think it's sad when
cultural richness is lost.

I agree, but I value integration more than retaining own cultural
traditions abroad.

 It's no big deal to speak English.  These
days it's like shitting – any asshole can do it.

[Tadas Blinda]

I communicate with my children in English.  We learned it together and
this is much easier way for us to communicate than using Russian.
They communicate in Russian with their grandparents though.  

That's how long their Russian will last: until their grandparents
die. After that, it's koniec for russkij jazik ...

I don't give a stuff about survival of Russian language in England (it
is not on the list of disappearing languages) -))  My worry is with
small languages' survival in their native lands rather than abroad.

The two things (knowing the ethnic language and surviving in their
English-speaking environment) are not incompatible.

One of the biggest lies ever told, and unfortunately it fools a lot of
victims, is "don't let your kids learn the ethnic language or it will
ruin their English accent".

[Dmitry]

Post by Tadas Blinda

Post by Dmitry
I communicate with my children in English. We learned it together and
this is much easier way for us to communicate than using Russian.
They communicate in Russian with their grandparents though.

That's how long their Russian will last: until their grandparents
die. After that, it's koniec for russkij jazik ...

As far as I'm concerned, it is up to them whether they want to retain
it or not. But, you are right, I don't think my future grand children
will know Russian.

Post by Tadas Blinda

Post by Dmitry
I don't give a stuff about survival of Russian language in England (it
is not on the list of disappearing languages) -)) My worry is with
small languages' survival in their native lands rather than abroad.

The two things (knowing the ethnic language and surviving in their
English-speaking environment) are not incompatible.

They are compatible. I know many parents who pushes their mother
tongue onto their kids and it works, but in most cases it still
remains limited to communication with parents and other older members
of the family - kids speak English to each other.

Post by Tadas Blinda
One of the biggest lies ever told, and unfortunately it fools a lot of
victims, is "don't let your kids learn the ethnic language or it will
ruin their English accent".

I've never heard of such “utopistic” attitude. Besides, there is no
such thing as an "English accent" in England.

[Valtsu]

Post by Dmitry

Post by Tadas Blinda

Post by Dmitry
I communicate with my children in English. We learned it together and
this is much easier way for us to communicate than using Russian.
They communicate in Russian with their grandparents though.

That's how long their Russian will last: until their grandparents
die. After that, it's koniec for russkij jazik ...

As far as I'm concerned, it is up to them whether they want to retain
it or not. But, you are right, I don't think my future grand children
will know Russian.

Post by Tadas Blinda

Post by Dmitry
I don't give a stuff about survival of Russian language in England (it
is not on the list of disappearing languages) -)) My worry is with
small languages' survival in their native lands rather than abroad.

The two things (knowing the ethnic language and surviving in their
English-speaking environment) are not incompatible.

They are compatible. I know many parents who pushes their mother
tongue onto their kids and it works, but in most cases it still
remains limited to communication with parents and other older members
of the family - kids speak English to each other.

Post by Tadas Blinda
One of the biggest lies ever told, and unfortunately it fools a lot of
victims, is "don't let your kids learn the ethnic language or it will
ruin their English accent".

I've never heard of such “utopistic” attitude. Besides, there is no
such thing as an "English accent" in England.

Queen's English?

[Tadas Blinda]

Post by Valtsu

Post by Tadas Blinda
One of the biggest lies ever told, and unfortunately it fools a lot of
victims, is "don't let your kids learn the ethnic language or it will
ruin their English accent".

I've never heard of such “utopistic” attitude.  Besides, there is no
such thing as an "English accent" in England.

Queen's English?

Jesus, I meant "the accent with which one speaks English", or "one's
manner of pronouncing English". I have documentary evidence (having
worked in the field) that Education Departments in USA, Canada and
Australia were preaching to parents – right up into the late 1960s and
early 1970s in some cases – "Don't speak your ethnic language to your
children at home or else it will ruin the way they speak English."
Well what could be stupider advice? Many parents took this advice and
spoke heavily-accented English with their children. Even that didn't
usually rub off on the kids. As with other things, the kids' role
model in language is other kids, not their parents.

One complication with this scenario is that while the kids' role model
in all things is other kids, their attention seems to be focusing more
and more not on the other kids in their neighbourhood but on the kids
they see in movies, videos and TV: mostly Yankee. This leads to
problems that we are all aware of. (Gross materialism plus a
reluctance to work or even to get up before mid-day, for starters.)

[J. Anderson]

a reluctance to work or even to get up before mid-day, for starters

Is that how kids are in the States? I thought only Baltic and Nordic kids
were that way ;-)

[Dmitry]

Post by Tadas Blinda
As with other things, the kids' role
model in language is other kids, not their parents.

Very true!

Post by Tadas Blinda
One complication with this scenario is that while the kids' role model
in all things is other kids, their attention seems to be focusing more
and more not on the other kids in their neighbourhood but on the kids
they see in movies, videos and TV: mostly Yankee.

Movies are there, some American words enter the vocabulary, but it
doesn't have any effect on the accents here.

Post by Tadas Blinda
 This leads to
problems that we are all aware of.  (Gross materialism plus a
reluctance to work or even to get up before mid-day, for starters.)

I think this is universal.

[Dmitry]

Post by Valtsu

Post by Dmitry

Post by Tadas Blinda

I communicate with my children in English.  We learned it together and
this is much easier way for us to communicate than using Russian.
They communicate in Russian with their grandparents though.

That's how long their Russian will last: until their grandparents
die.  After that, it's koniec for russkij jazik ...

As far as I'm concerned, it is up to them whether they want to retain
it or not.  But, you are right, I don't think my future grand children
will know Russian.

Post by Tadas Blinda

I don't give a stuff about survival of Russian language in England (it
is not on the list of disappearing languages) -))  My worry is with
small languages' survival in their native lands rather than abroad.

The two things (knowing the ethnic language and surviving in their
English-speaking environment) are not incompatible.

They are compatible.  I know many parents who pushes their mother
tongue onto their kids and it works, but in most cases it still
remains limited to communication with parents and other older members
of the family - kids speak English to each other.

Post by Tadas Blinda
One of the biggest lies ever told, and unfortunately it fools a lot of
victims, is "don't let your kids learn the ethnic language or it will
ruin their English accent".

I've never heard of such “utopistic” attitude.  Besides, there is no
such thing as an "English accent" in England.

Queen's English?

The are accents within England (incl. Queen's -)), but none of them
are called "English accents", not in England.

[Eugene Holman]

In article
<b938d274-d52d-4e3a-a1c7-***@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Dmitry <***@inbox.lv> wrote:

<deletions>

Post by Dmitry
The are accents within England (incl. Queen's -)), but none of them
are called "English accents", not in England.

But certainly in Wales, Scotland, and Ulster :-)

Regards,
Eugene Holman

[Dmitry]

Post by Eugene Holman
In article
<deletions>

Post by Dmitry
The are accents within England (incl. Queen's -)), but none of them
are called "English accents", not in England.

But certainly in Wales, Scotland, and Ulster :-)

Really -)) I'm sure people in Glasgow can tell the difference between
Cockney and Geordie -)) I've never ever heard a term "English accent"
from Welsh, Scotts or Irish.

Post by Eugene Holman
Regards,
Eugene Holman

[Tadas Blinda]

Post by Eugene Holman

Post by Dmitry
The are accents within England (incl. Queen's -)), but none of them
are called "English accents", not in England.

But certainly in Wales, Scotland, and Ulster :-)

Really -))  I'm sure people in Glasgow can tell the difference between
Cockney and Geordie -))  I've never ever heard a term "English accent"
from Welsh, Scotts or Irish.

Google gives nearly half a million hits on the term. Sure, not all
refer to UK, but many of them do, such as this sentence from a Wiki
article:

"English accents and dialects vary widely across the British Isles.
This may be related to the fact that the language has its origins
there and has been evolving there for many hundreds of years."

[Eugene Holman]

In article

Post by Tadas Blinda

Post by Eugene Holman

Post by Dmitry
The are accents within England (incl. Queen's -)), but none of them
are called "English accents", not in England.

But certainly in Wales, Scotland, and Ulster :-)

Really -)) =A0I'm sure people in Glasgow can tell the difference between
Cockney and Geordie -)) =A0I've never ever heard a term "English accent"
from Welsh, Scotts or Irish.

Google gives nearly half a million hits on the term. Sure, not all
refer to UK, but many of them do, such as this sentence from a Wiki
"English accents and dialects vary widely across the British Isles.
This may be related to the fact that the language has its origins
there and has been evolving there for many hundreds of years."

I've spent some time in Glasgow and the people there are certainly aware
of generic non-Scots ­ English, Ulster Protestant, Ulster Catholic, Welsh,
and Irish ­ British accents. But, then again, many of the people I was
hanging out with were in the theater and media, where these things matter.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

[Dmitry]

Post by Eugene Holman
In article

Post by Eugene Holman

Post by Dmitry
The are accents within England (incl. Queen's -)), but none of them
are called "English accents", not in England.

But certainly in Wales, Scotland, and Ulster :-)

Really -)) =A0I'm sure people in Glasgow can tell the difference between
Cockney and Geordie -)) =A0I've never ever heard a term "English accent"
from Welsh, Scotts or Irish.

Google gives nearly half a million hits on the term.  Sure, not all
refer to UK, but many of them do, such as this sentence from a Wiki
"English accents and dialects vary widely across the British Isles.
This may be related to the fact that the language has its origins
there and has been evolving there for many hundreds of years."

I've spent some time in Glasgow and the people there are certainly aware
of generic non-Scots ­ English, Ulster Protestant, Ulster Catholic, Welsh,
and Irish ­ British accents. But, then again, many of the people I was
hanging out with were in the theater and media, where these things matter.

I know few actors who can speak with wide range of accents. Ordinary
Stott, however, would be able to distinguish between Newcastle and
Essex - he/she might struggle to get the difference between Sheffield
and Rotherham though.

Post by Eugene Holman
Regards,
Eugene Holman

[Dmitry]

Post by Eugene Holman

Post by Dmitry
The are accents within England (incl. Queen's -)), but none of them
are called "English accents", not in England.

But certainly in Wales, Scotland, and Ulster :-)

Really -))  I'm sure people in Glasgow can tell the difference between
Cockney and Geordie -))  I've never ever heard a term "English accent"
from Welsh, Scotts or Irish.

Google gives nearly half a million hits on the term.  Sure, not all
refer to UK, but many of them do, such as this sentence from a Wiki
"English accents and dialects vary widely across the British Isles.
This may be related to the fact that the language has its origins
there and has been evolving there for many hundreds of years."

There are plenty of accents (or some could be called dialects) in
England, but there is no "English accent" as such - they are all
different. Take other countries, for example Germany: whatever
accents are spoken there, nobody says that they are speaking German
with "German accent".

[Eugene Holman]

In article
<deletions>

Post by Dmitry

Post by Tadas Blinda
"English accents and dialects vary widely across the British Isles.
This may be related to the fact that the language has its origins
there and has been evolving there for many hundreds of years."

There are plenty of accents (or some could be called dialects) in
England, but there is no "English accent" as such - they are all
different. Take other countries, for example Germany: whatever
accents are spoken there, nobody says that they are speaking German
with "German accent".

Not, perhaps, in Germany, but certainly in Austria and Switzerland. When
visiting Austria I have been told that I speak "Reichsdeutsch", their way
of saying that my accent reveals that I am speaking German according to
the pronunciation norms used in the German media rather than to those used
outside of Germany, specifically Austria. I know for a fact that it is
primarily a matter of certain intonation patterns, tessitura, and
nasalization, the pronunciation of certain consonants (the manner in which
the difference between Gepäck 'luggage' and Gebäck 'pastry' is made), and
the realization certain sounds as monophthongs (ü tending towards i, ö
tending towards e) or diphthongs (gut or guot 'good'). That is another way
of saying that I speak German with a "German" as opposed to an "Austrian"
accent. I am able to mimic a lower class Viennese accent, if necessary,
having taken as my model the Papageno in a non-opera house performance of
Mozart's *Die Zauberflöte*, originally a *Singspiel intended for a
low-brow audience, that I saw performed in Vienna many years ago.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

[Eugene Holman]

In article
<aa17cf78-ec18-4af0-a770-***@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Dmitry <***@inbox.lv> wrote:

<deletion>

Post by Tadas Blinda
One of the biggest lies ever told, and unfortunately it fools a lot of
victims, is "don't let your kids learn the ethnic language or it will
ruin their English accent".

I've never heard of such =93utopistic=94 attitude. Besides, there is no
such thing as an "English accent" in England.

Accent is a noteriously slippery and subjective term. It refers to fatures
of pronunciation that reveal geographical origin, class, and native
speaker or foreign language influened proficiency.

When you are warned that learning the ethnic language will "ruin their
English accent", the idea is that they might grow up to be bilinguals, but
with a trace of foreign articulation in their English. They would have a
foreign accent.

Otherwise, within the UK accent often means the features of pronunciation
that indicate a speaker's social position, e.g. a "posh" vs. "non-posh"
accent, as see with RP and Estuary English vs. Cockney in London, as well
as those indicating regional origin or identity. In this sense among the
older population there are several "English accents", e.g. Yorkshire,
Dorset, "southern English" vs. "northern English". These stand in
opposition to Scots, Welsh, and Irish accents. Among those with a more
recent immigrant background there are certainly West Indian, African,
Indian, Chinese, North American, and Eastern European accents, all of them
being regarded as indications of non-Britishness, this also properly
including non-Englishness.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

[J. Anderson]

Post by Eugene Holman
When you are warned that learning the ethnic language will "ruin their
English accent", the idea is that they might grow up to be bilinguals, but
with a trace of foreign articulation in their English. They would have a
foreign accent.

You didn't reveal if you believe in this theory. It goes against all my
personal experience. All the Sweden Finns I know who have had Finnish as
their home language speak Swedish without any trace of a foreign accent.
That includes my younger brother, who speaks göteborgska having grown up in
the Gothenburg region. That was also my own first Swedish dialect, and it's
still very easy for me to slip back to speaking it.

I've been working in an international organization most of my life, and
refering to my own childhood experience I've always adviced my Finnish
colleagues to keep speaking their own language with their children even when
they are stationed abroad. This should be done also when they are married to
non-Finns: each parent should speak his/her own language at home. In many
cases the children of my colleagues have later thanked me for influencing
their parents in favour of maintaining the use of Finnish. For example two
boys with Norwegian fathers and having lived all their life in Norway have
later established close ties with Finland. One came to study in Helsinki,
the other one will do his military service in Finland (although he could
easily avoid conscription if he wanted to). Probably he too will later study
here. None of this would have been possible, had their mothers not spoken
Finnish to them from the very beginning.

I know of opposite cases as well, of children who curse their parents for
not having taught them their own language. Or like one young man (Finnish
mother, foreign father) put it: 'My mother robbed me of half of my personal
background by not speaking Finnish to me.'

[Dmitry]

Post by J. Anderson
I've been working in an international organization most of my life, and
refering to my own childhood experience I've always adviced my Finnish
colleagues to keep speaking their own language with their children even when
they are stationed abroad. This should be done also when they are married to
non-Finns: each parent should speak his/her own language at home.

It is of course an advantage to be able to speak several languages,
but I think it is up to parents and children what language/s they want
to speak. I do agree with you though. When I was a child, Latvian was
spoken at home only when they didn't want me to know what they are
talking about, so I had to make my own effort, which was not as easy
as it may seem. Russian-speaking bernudarzs, Russian skola and
Latvian-speaking friends constantly switching to Russian for sake of
convenience. Those things don't help. But again, every situation is
different.

Post by J. Anderson
In many
cases the children of my colleagues have later thanked me for influencing
their parents in favour of maintaining the use of Finnish. For example two
boys with Norwegian fathers and having lived all their life in Norway have
later established close ties with Finland. One came to study in Helsinki,
the other one will do his military service in Finland (although he could
easily avoid conscription if he wanted to).

The other one sounds very patriotic.

Post by J. Anderson
Probably he too will later study
here. None of this would have been possible, had their mothers not spoken
Finnish to them from the very beginning.
I know of opposite cases as well, of children who curse their parents for
not having taught them their own language. Or like one young man (Finnish
mother, foreign father) put it: 'My mother robbed me of half of my personal
background by not speaking Finnish to me.'

Child's personal background doesn't necessarily have to be the same of
their parents'.

[J. Anderson]

Post by Dmitry

Post by J. Anderson
I know of opposite cases as well, of children who curse their parents for
not having taught them their own language. Or like one young man (Finnish
mother, foreign father) put it: 'My mother robbed me of half of my personal
background by not speaking Finnish to me.'

Child's personal background doesn't necessarily have to be the same of
their parents'.

Many people on SCB would disagree. They are here for the very reason that
they have recognized their background. Even if their actual link to the
Baltics is two or three generations away, they still take an interest in
their parents' or grandparents' old country.

'We' have recently had an astronaut up in space by the name of Timothy
Kopra. His father's parents were from Finland and moved to the States
already in 1914, but despite all the years that have elapsed since then, Mr
Kopra treasures his Finnish background and, when in space, had a telephone
conversation with the president of Finland.

But of course there are also emigrants who seem to be in a hurry to wipe out
all traces of a foreign background. A former colleague of mine,
Swedish-speaker from Finland and living in New York, married a
Finnish-speaking girl over there. They had a son and decided that they would
only speak English at home. I wonder if young Nicholas will ever know that
he actually comes from a famous and respected family back in old Finland.

An opposite example: when I was living in Hamburg I got to know a
German-Finnish family where the mother consistently spoke Finnish to her
children. Sebastian, their son, later moved to Finland and became the
secretary of international affairs for the Social Democratic parliament
group. In that capacity he caught the attention of Mr Lipponen, our former
PM and presently a consultant for Nord Stream, the infamous gas pipe
project. Now the young man is Head of Nord Stream's EU Representation. So
the value of retaining your ties to the old country is not only sentimental,
there may also be a career waiting for you somewhere.

It pays to

[Tadas Blinda]

Post by J. Anderson

Post by Dmitry

Post by J. Anderson
I know of opposite cases as well, of children who curse their parents for
not having taught them their own language. Or like one young man (Finnish
mother, foreign father) put it: 'My mother robbed me of half of my personal
background by not speaking Finnish to me.'

Child's personal background doesn't necessarily have to be the same of
their parents'.

Many people on SCB would disagree. They are here for the very reason that
they have recognized their background. Even if their actual link to the
Baltics is two or three generations away, they still take an interest in
their parents' or grandparents' old country.
'We' have recently had an astronaut up in space by the name of Timothy
Kopra. His father's parents were from Finland and moved to the States
already in 1914, but despite all the years that have elapsed since then, Mr
Kopra treasures his Finnish background and, when in space, had a telephone
conversation with the president of Finland.
But of course there are also emigrants who seem to be in a hurry to wipe out
all traces of a foreign background. A former colleague of mine,
Swedish-speaker from Finland and living in New York, married a
Finnish-speaking girl over there. They had a son and decided that they would
only speak English at home. I wonder if young Nicholas will ever know that
he actually comes from a famous and respected family back in old Finland.
An opposite example: when I was living in Hamburg I got to know a
German-Finnish family where the mother consistently spoke Finnish to her
children. Sebastian, their son, later moved to Finland and became the
secretary of international affairs for the Social Democratic parliament
group. In that capacity he caught the attention of Mr Lipponen, our former
PM and presently a consultant for Nord Stream, the infamous gas pipe
project. Now the young man is Head of Nord Stream's EU Representation. So
the value of retaining your ties to the old country is not only sentimental,
there may also be a career waiting for you somewhere.

Yeah, one can become a translator in one's senior years! :-)

{It's a great way to learn a lot about one's country.}

[Dmitry]

Post by J. Anderson

Post by Dmitry

Post by J. Anderson
I know of opposite cases as well, of children who curse their parents for
not having taught them their own language. Or like one young man (Finnish
mother, foreign father) put it: 'My mother robbed me of half of my personal
background by not speaking Finnish to me.'

Child's personal background doesn't necessarily have to be the same of
their parents'.

Many people on SCB would disagree. They are here for the very reason that
they have recognized their background. Even if their actual link to the
Baltics is two or three generations away, they still take an interest in
their parents' or grandparents' old country.

And it is good. I particularly respect Peteris and Gintai for making
that move to settle in the land of their parents. All I'm saying that
it doesn't have to be this way. Every individual should be able to
decide whether they want to keep the identity of their parents or to
have their own (or any mixture of those).

Post by J. Anderson
'We' have recently had an astronaut up in space by the name of Timothy
Kopra. His father's parents were from Finland and moved to the States
already in 1914, but despite all the years that have elapsed since then, Mr
Kopra treasures his Finnish background and, when in space, had a telephone
conversation with the president of Finland.
But of course there are also emigrants who seem to be in a hurry to wipe out
all traces of a foreign background. A former colleague of mine,
Swedish-speaker from Finland and living in New York, married a
Finnish-speaking girl over there. They had a son and decided that they would
only speak English at home. I wonder if young Nicholas will ever know that
he actually comes from a famous and respected family back in old Finland.
An opposite example: when I was living in Hamburg I got to know a
German-Finnish family where the mother consistently spoke Finnish to her
children. Sebastian, their son, later moved to Finland and became the
secretary of international affairs for the Social Democratic parliament
group. In that capacity he caught the attention of Mr Lipponen, our former
PM and presently a consultant for Nord Stream, the infamous gas pipe
project. Now the young man is Head of Nord Stream's EU Representation. So
the value of retaining your ties to the old country is not only sentimental,
there may also be a career waiting for you somewhere.
It pays to

I totally agree. There are plenty of benefits. D, when he was
younger, wanted to work in UN (a dream, but a good one) and thought
that his knowledge of Russian can be a benefit... I probably am in
minority in my approach. I never made a decission on whether to
communicate with my children in Russian or English, I just went with
the flow. And the "flow" was - all three of us were learning new
tools together. Their mother was fluent in English (and Latvian), but
kept Russian as the main communication tool within a family.
Eventually it became 3 against 1 and we developed a compromised
version - our own "house dialect". It was mainly Yorkshire English
with some Russian words and phrases (some Russian words were changed
to fit English sentence structure and grammar). It was probably one
of the most short lived dialects, but it was part of our identity at
the time -))

Friend of mine (from Ukraine, living in England) always speaks to her
child in Russian and Ukrainian. The boy speaks Russian to her and his
dad, but always switches to English when speaking to me.

All of my friends from Greek-Cypriot background speak English to their
parents. They can speak Greek, but find English an easier tool for
communication.

[Eugene Holman]

In article

Post by Dmitry
Every individual should be able to
decide whether they want to keep the identity of their parents or to
have their own (or any mixture of those).

Alas, some people are denied that basic right. Barack Obama, who is
precisely as much African as he is white American, had no choice but
assume an African-American identity when he moved to Chicago. Nobody would
think of regarding him as "white" or just "American#. The birthers, who
shrilly scream that he is a foreigner and fraud who has usurped the
American presidency, always mention his Kenyan father, Barack Hussein
Obama Sr., but hardly ever his corn-fed, Kansas-born mother, Stanley Ann
Dunham:

"He is not an American citizen! He is a citizen of Kenya!"
- Hysterical birther woman (0:48 to 0.56 at

Regards,
Eugene Holman

[Tadas Blinda]

Post by Eugene Holman
In article

Post by Dmitry
Every individual should be able to
decide whether they want to keep the identity of their parents or to
have their own (or any mixture of those).

Alas, some people are denied that basic right. Barack Obama, who is
precisely as much African as he is white American, had no choice but
assume an African-American identity when he moved to Chicago. Nobody would
think of regarding him as "white" or just "American#. The birthers, who
shrilly scream that he is a foreigner and fraud who has usurped the
American presidency, always mention his Kenyan father, Barack Hussein
Obama Sr., but hardly ever his corn-fed, Kansas-born mother, Stanley Ann
"He is not an American citizen! He is a citizen of Kenya!"
- Hysterical birther woman (0:48 to 0.56 http://youtu.be/9V1nmn2zRMc
Regards,
Eugene Holman

How does this work in USA? You say "Barack Obama, who is

Post by Eugene Holman
precisely as much African as he is white American, had no choice but
assume an African-American identity when he moved to Chicago."

Does that mean that when he went to university and started work the
only fellow students or work colleagues that would associate with him
were black? Surely there are mixed race couples around? I mean, it's
obvious that a lot of gene blending has been going on, because very
few "African Americans" are anywhere near as dark as their African
brethren.

[J. Anderson]

I mean, it's obvious that a lot of gene
blending has been going on, because very
few "African Americans" are anywhere
near as dark as their African brethren.

Also sub-Sahara Africans come in many shades of 'black'. Genetic blending
has been taking place in Africa as well. I fail to understand why this
preoccupation with pigmentation is at all necessary. Pushkin would probably
have been labelled 'black' by American standards.

[Dmitry]

Post by Eugene Holman

I've never heard of such =93utopistic=94 attitude.  Besides, there is no
such thing as an "English accent" in England.

Accent is a noteriously slippery and subjective term. It refers to fatures
of pronunciation that reveal geographical origin, class, and native
speaker or foreign language influened proficiency.
When you are warned that learning the ethnic language will "ruin their
English accent", the idea is that they might grow up to be bilinguals, but
with a trace of foreign articulation in their English. They would have a
foreign accent.

I know, but it doesn't work like this. Most bilingual kids don't have
the accent of their foreign born parent. Many kids from Pakistani
background pick up bits of Jamaican accent probably due to their
musical preferences, but that's another matter - many English kids do
the same because it's considered to be cool.

Post by Eugene Holman
Otherwise, within the UK accent often means the features of pronunciation
that indicate a speaker's social position, e.g. a "posh" vs. "non-posh"
accent,

Some Notherners call Southern accents "posh" (excl. Cockney -))

Post by Eugene Holman
as see with RP and Estuary English vs. Cockney in London, as well
as those indicating regional origin or identity. In this sense among the
older population there are several "English accents", e.g. Yorkshire,
Dorset, "southern English" vs. "northern English". These stand in
opposition to Scots, Welsh, and Irish accents.

Yes there are all sorts of definitions. You can see how they vary as
you travel across the country. Did you know know that there are two
quite different Scottish accents, one of which is very close to
Irish? But then they also vary from region to region. The term
"Yorkshire accent" is used by Southeners, but that could also include
nearby areas in the North. In South Yorkshire (the smallest Yorksire
county) there are terms such as "Sheffield accent", "Rotherham accent"
and "Doncaster accent". And there is also a "posh Yorkshire". Even
more - thre is "male" and "female" Yorkshire (believe it or not, but
in traditional working class communities accents are also split by
gender).

Post by Eugene Holman
Among those with a more
recent immigrant background there are certainly West Indian, African,
Indian, Chinese, North American, and Eastern European accents, all of them
being regarded as indications of non-Britishness, this also properly
including non-Englishness.

I think Jamaican accent is now part of the "family" and Indian is
moving towards it. It's North American that sounds foreign.

Post by Eugene Holman
Regards,
Eugene Holman

[Tadas Blinda]

Even more - thre is "male" and "female" Yorkshire (believe it or not,
but in traditional working class communities accents are also split by
gender).

Linguists generally agree that Lithuania is a country where there is
very little dialectal variation, especially when you compare it to
some other European countries. Sure, Žemaitian looks different on
paper – but who actually speaks it? Only a few elederly in a few
villages.

The main difference that I detect is more an "education-based"
difference (so as not to call it "class-based"). Interestingly, to my
ear it's more noticeable in females than in males. In males speech
differences are more vocab-based (e.g. „bardačiokas“ instead of
„daiktadėžė“; plus lots of use of "blet"!), whereas in females there
are quite discernible differences from speaker to speaker based on
pronunciation or articulation. Yes, perhaps more the latter. It's
hard to describe it in articulatory terms, but critics of the "low
class" pronunciation (such as teachers or disappointed mothers — or
mothers in law!) tend to refer to it in negative terms such as
'nasal' ('per nosį') or 'lazy' ('vos pajudina lūpas'). It includes a
slight tendency to simplify diphthongs, with "bauda" ( a fine or
penalty) being pronounced almost like "boda" and the triphthong -iai
(which is already almost always pronounced as -ei) being reduced
further, almost to -ė, especially in the word final (unstressed)
position ("dviračiai" {bicycles} becomes almost "dviračė".

As for true regionalisms, there are indeed few (compared to many other
European countries). My female cousin in Suvalkija regularly uses
"mažu" for maybe (the pair of „suvalkiečiai“ fellows on „Dviračio šou“
also say that) and she tends to apocopate the final -a ("darbininks"
for "darbininkas"). What's most interesting is here occasional use of
the dual form of verbs, such as "eisiva" ("we'll go" referring to 2
people) and "darykita" ("do it" as an imperative referring to 2
people).

[Dmitry]

Post by Tadas Blinda

Even more - thre is "male" and "female" Yorkshire (believe it or not,
but in traditional working class communities accents are also split by
gender).

Linguists generally agree that Lithuania is a country where there is
very little dialectal variation, especially when you compare it to
some other European countries.  Sure, Žemaitian looks different on
paper – but who actually speaks it?  Only a few elederly in a few
villages.

Similar with Livonian dilect in Latvia, it is less and less noticeable
probably due to the same reasons.

Post by Tadas Blinda
The main difference that I detect is more an "education-based"
difference (so as not to call it "class-based").  Interestingly, to my
ear it's more noticeable in females than in males.  In males speech
differences are more vocab-based (e.g. „bardačiokas“ instead of
„daiktadėžė“; plus lots of use of "blet"!),

You'll also find that swear words are used much more by males than
females in Russian language.

Post by Tadas Blinda
whereas in females there
are quite discernible differences from speaker to speaker based on
pronunciation or articulation.  Yes, perhaps more the latter.  It's
hard to describe it in articulatory terms, but critics of the "low
class" pronunciation (such as teachers or disappointed mothers — or
mothers in law!) tend to refer to it in negative terms such as
'nasal' ('per nosį') or 'lazy' ('vos pajudina lūpas').  It includes a
slight tendency to simplify diphthongs, with "bauda" ( a fine or
penalty) being pronounced almost like "boda" and the triphthong -iai
(which is already almost always pronounced as -ei) being reduced
further, almost to -ė, especially in the word final (unstressed)
position ("dviračiai" {bicycles} becomes almost "dviračė".
As for true regionalisms, there are indeed few (compared to many other
European countries).  My female cousin in Suvalkija regularly uses
"mažu" for maybe (the pair of „suvalkiečiai“ fellows on „Dviračio šou“
also say that) and she tends to apocopate the final -a ("darbininks"
for "darbininkas").  What's most interesting is here occasional use of
the dual form of verbs, such as "eisiva" ("we'll go" referring to 2
people) and "darykita" ("do it" as an imperative referring to 2
people).

[J. Anderson]

Post by Dmitry
I agree, but I value integration more
than retaining own cultural traditions abroad.

Every additional language we know has its special value.

My own background is bilingual (father Swedish-speaker, mother
Finnish-speaker, although both spoke both languages). We lived in Sweden
when I was between 4 and 15 years of age. At home we spoke Finnish. Thanks
to that, moving back to Finland caused no problem for me.

In retrospect, however, I resent that my father did not speak Russian to me,
Russian being his best language. I could easily have picked up yet another
language, if he'd have started early enough, and knowing Russian would have
been a great asset later on. I hope your boys retain their language skill
and are able to make use of it not only when visiting Mummi in Mustanummi.

(Mummi = granny and Mustanummi = Melnsils in Finnish)

[Dmitry]

Post by J. Anderson

Post by Dmitry
I agree, but I value integration more
than retaining own cultural traditions abroad.

Every additional language we know has its special value.

Of course. More languages you know - more advantage you have. It is
as any other skills or knowledge.

Post by J. Anderson
My own background is bilingual (father Swedish-speaker, mother
Finnish-speaker, although both spoke both languages). We lived in Sweden
when I was between 4 and 15 years of age. At home we spoke Finnish. Thanks
to that, moving back to Finland caused no problem for me.

I do recall that in many multi-lingual families in Latvia the language
of mother determined what the child's first language was.

Post by J. Anderson
In retrospect, however, I resent that my father did not speak Russian to me,
Russian being his best language. I could easily have picked up yet another
language, if he'd have started early enough, and knowing Russian would have
been a great asset later on.

With you talent you would be able to speak all Slavic languages in no
time. That covers quite a big chunk of Europe.

Post by J. Anderson
I hope your boys retain their language skill
and are able to make use of it not only when visiting Mummi in Mustanummi.

I'm sure if there is a need they will easily get it back, but I hardly
see any scenario apart from communicating with "grands".

Post by J. Anderson
(Mummi = granny and Mustanummi = Melnsils in Finnish)

-)) They do love their "Mummi in Mustanummi". When they were 13/14
she was worried that when they grow up they will give up on visits,
but they still go there regularly (more often than me). Both their
girlfriends love go there too and have learned few Russian and Latvian
words and phrases. However, when it happens to be few of us visiting
at the same time the predominant language spoken in the house is
English.

[J. Anderson]

Post by Dmitry

Post by J. Anderson

Post by Dmitry
I agree, but I value integration more
than retaining own cultural traditions abroad.

Every additional language we know has its special value.

Of course. More languages you know - more advantage you have. It is
as any other skills or knowledge.

Post by J. Anderson
My own background is bilingual (father Swedish-speaker, mother
Finnish-speaker, although both spoke both languages). We lived in Sweden
when I was between 4 and 15 years of age. At home we spoke Finnish. Thanks
to that, moving back to Finland caused no problem for me.

I do recall that in many multi-lingual families in Latvia the language
of mother determined what the child's first language was.

Post by J. Anderson
In retrospect, however, I resent that my father did not speak Russian to me,
Russian being his best language. I could easily have picked up yet another
language, if he'd have started early enough, and knowing Russian would have
been a great asset later on.

With you talent you would be able to speak all Slavic languages in no
time. That covers quite a big chunk of Europe.

Post by J. Anderson
I hope your boys retain their language skill
and are able to make use of it not only when visiting Mummi in Mustanummi.

I'm sure if there is a need they will easily get it back, but I hardly
see any scenario apart from communicating with "grands".

Post by J. Anderson
(Mummi = granny and Mustanummi = Melnsils in Finnish)

-)) They do love their "Mummi in Mustanummi". When they were 13/14
she was worried that when they grow up they will give up on visits,
but they still go there regularly (more often than me). Both their
girlfriends love go there too and have learned few Russian and Latvian
words and phrases. However, when it happens to be few of us visiting
at the same time the predominant language spoken in the house is
English.

I remember speaking German with your mother, so she is multilingual too.

[Dmitry]

Post by J. Anderson

Post by J. Anderson

Post by Dmitry
I agree, but I value integration more
than retaining own cultural traditions abroad.

Every additional language we know has its special value.

Of course.  More languages you know - more advantage you have.  It is
as any other skills or knowledge.

Post by J. Anderson
My own background is bilingual (father Swedish-speaker, mother
Finnish-speaker, although both spoke both languages). We lived in Sweden
when I was between 4 and 15 years of age. At home we spoke Finnish. Thanks
to that, moving back to Finland caused no problem for me.

I do recall that in many multi-lingual families in Latvia the language
of mother determined what the child's first language was.

Post by J. Anderson
In retrospect, however, I resent that my father did not speak Russian to me,
Russian being his best language. I could easily have picked up yet another
language, if he'd have started early enough, and knowing Russian would have
been a great asset later on.

With you talent you would be able to speak all Slavic languages in no
time.  That covers quite a big chunk of Europe.

Post by J. Anderson
I hope your boys retain their language skill
and are able to make use of it not only when visiting Mummi in Mustanummi.

I'm sure if there is a need they will easily get it back, but I hardly
see any scenario apart from communicating with "grands".

Post by J. Anderson
(Mummi = granny and Mustanummi = Melnsils in Finnish)

-))  They do love their "Mummi in Mustanummi".  When they were 13/14
she was worried that when they grow up they will give up on visits,
but they still go there regularly (more often than me).  Both their
girlfriends love go there too and have learned few Russian and Latvian
words and phrases.  However, when it happens to be few of us visiting
at the same time the predominant language spoken in the house is
English.

I remember speaking German with your mother, so she is multilingual too.

It is amaizing. So many years passed and she can still use it. My
German friend who spoke to her recently said that she speaks very good
Volksdeutsche with strong Swabian influence. And she can speak some
English picked up from her visits here. I visit Germany every year
since 1998, but still can't speak German. I'm hopeless at languages,
I forget them soon after I stop using them. I used to be able to
speak some very basic Polish after few short visits there, but now my
knowledge of it is limited to a couple of words.

[lorad]

Post by Tadas Blinda
We are all so used to hearing English spoken with such a variety of
accents that it's no big deal.  But it's fascinating to – because of
its rarity – to hear foreigners speaking Lithuanian.
BTW, unlike in Spain, where the Gypsy language (Caló) is well and
truly dead, the Gypsy language is alive and well in Lithuania, and it
has a future, as I have seen and heard young people speaking it.  I
had reason to spend some time in the cemetery at Jonava recently
(significant Gypsy population there), during which time a Gypsy
funeral was taking place.  Everybody, without exception, was speaking
the Gypsy language.  It sounds like Punjabi spoken with an Eastern
European accent.  :-)

They both from Indo-Aryan branch.  The intonations are very similar to
Punjabi, much more similar than to Hindi.  It sounds like they are
arguing whilst in fact it is just a normal conversation.  I can
remember the sound of Gypsy as I used to live next to Gypsy area in
Riga for 7 years.  They all spoke their language (with using loan
words as you described below) as well as fluent Latvian and Russian
(with a bit of an accent).

Post by Tadas Blinda
 I heard the occasional Lithuanian and Russian
loanword (especially „blet“ and „nachui“ from the younger folk), but
otherwise it was all Romani.
There are Gypsies in Spain (probably elsewhere too, such as UK) who
claim they speak "Gypsy" or "Romani" at home,
but when you look into
it you find that it's just English that's heavily sprinkled with
vocabulary (anglicised) of Gypsy/Romani origin.
It's interesting how ethnics of various sorts are reluctant to 'fess
up and admit that they have been to lazy to learn their ancestral
language.  In the New World I have also heard people of various ethnic
backgrounds claim that they "speak" their ancestral language, but when
you look into it you find that it's like with the English-speaking
Gypsy example above (just English that's sprinkled with anglicised
vocabulary of ethnic origin).

In the UK Gypsies were assimilated.  You'll find that almost all of
them are white in appearence and speak the accent of the place where
they live (may be some older people can speak Romani, I'm not sure).
They are not "travelers" any more, they only move from their sites
when the local council wins the case to evict them.

Post by Tadas Blinda
Another face-saving ploy (especially among the young) is claiming that
you can "speak" the language, but all you can do is listen to your
parents speaking it to you, comprehend very vaguely, and answer in
English.

True.  This happens across many ethnic minority communities in UK.  I
know many examples of what you describe.  I think it is normal and
healthy.

Normal and healthy?  Well, to those who don't give a stuff about the
survival of ethnic languages abroad, maybe.

I communicate with my children in English.  We learned it together and
this is much easier way for us to communicate than using Russian.
They communicate in Russian with their grandparents though.  I do what
I think is natural, do you think it is unhealthy?  And frankly, I
don't give a stuff about survival of Russian language in England (it
is not on the list of disappearing languages) -))  My worry is with
small languages' survival in their native lands rather than abroad.

 I think it's sad when
cultural richness is lost.

I agree, but I value integration more than retaining own cultural
traditions abroad.

Do you still go to temple on Fridays"

[Tadas Blinda]

Post by lorad

Post by Tadas Blinda
We are all so used to hearing English spoken with such a variety of
accents that it's no big deal.  But it's fascinating to – because of
its rarity – to hear foreigners speaking Lithuanian.
BTW, unlike in Spain, where the Gypsy language (Caló) is well and
truly dead, the Gypsy language is alive and well in Lithuania, and it
has a future, as I have seen and heard young people speaking it.  I
had reason to spend some time in the cemetery at Jonava recently
(significant Gypsy population there), during which time a Gypsy
funeral was taking place.  Everybody, without exception, was speaking
the Gypsy language.  It sounds like Punjabi spoken with an Eastern
European accent.  :-)

They both from Indo-Aryan branch.  The intonations are very similar to
Punjabi, much more similar than to Hindi.  It sounds like they are
arguing whilst in fact it is just a normal conversation.  I can
remember the sound of Gypsy as I used to live next to Gypsy area in
Riga for 7 years.  They all spoke their language (with using loan
words as you described below) as well as fluent Latvian and Russian
(with a bit of an accent).

Post by Tadas Blinda
 I heard the occasional Lithuanian and Russian
loanword (especially „blet“ and „nachui“ from the younger folk), but
otherwise it was all Romani.
There are Gypsies in Spain (probably elsewhere too, such as UK) who
claim they speak "Gypsy" or "Romani" at home,
but when you look into
it you find that it's just English that's heavily sprinkled with
vocabulary (anglicised) of Gypsy/Romani origin.
It's interesting how ethnics of various sorts are reluctant to 'fess
up and admit that they have been to lazy to learn their ancestral
language.  In the New World I have also heard people of various ethnic
backgrounds claim that they "speak" their ancestral language, but when
you look into it you find that it's like with the English-speaking
Gypsy example above (just English that's sprinkled with anglicised
vocabulary of ethnic origin).

In the UK Gypsies were assimilated.  You'll find that almost all of
them are white in appearence and speak the accent of the place where
they live (may be some older people can speak Romani, I'm not sure).
They are not "travelers" any more, they only move from their sites
when the local council wins the case to evict them.

Post by Tadas Blinda
Another face-saving ploy (especially among the young) is claiming that
you can "speak" the language, but all you can do is listen to your
parents speaking it to you, comprehend very vaguely, and answer in
English.

True.  This happens across many ethnic minority communities in UK.  I
know many examples of what you describe.  I think it is normal and
healthy.

Normal and healthy?  Well, to those who don't give a stuff about the
survival of ethnic languages abroad, maybe.

I communicate with my children in English.  We learned it together and
this is much easier way for us to communicate than using Russian.
They communicate in Russian with their grandparents though.  I do what
I think is natural, do you think it is unhealthy?  And frankly, I
don't give a stuff about survival of Russian language in England (it
is not on the list of disappearing languages) -))  My worry is with
small languages' survival in their native lands rather than abroad.

 I think it's sad when
cultural richness is lost.

I agree, but I value integration more than retaining own cultural
traditions abroad.

Do you still go to temple on Fridays"

To whom is your question addressed, Loradski?

And what's behind such a ridiculous question?

[lorad]

Post by Tadas Blinda

Post by lorad

Post by Dmitry
I agree, but I value integration more than retaining own cultural
traditions abroad.

Do you still go to temple on Fridays"

To whom is your question addressed, Loradski?

Obviously not to you..
Read here >> On Sep 20, 12:17 pm, Dmitry <***@inbox.lv>
Clearer now?

Post by Tadas Blinda
And what's behind such a ridiculous question?

".. I value integration more than retaining own cultural traditions
abroad."

No go run along.


Referring to

[Dmitry]

Post by lorad

Post by Tadas Blinda

Post by lorad

Post by Dmitry
I agree, but I value integration more than retaining own cultural
traditions abroad.

Do you still go to temple on Fridays"

To whom is your question addressed, Loradski?

Obviously not to you..
Clearer now?

Post by Tadas Blinda
And what's behind such a ridiculous question?

".. I value integration more than retaining own cultural traditions
abroad."
No go run along.
Referring to

Are you hallucinating? What temple?

[Tadas Blinda]

Post by Valtsu

Post by Vladimir Makarenko

Post by J. Anderson

Post by vello

Post by Dmitry
"According to the first statistical data of 1920 the number of the
Russian population at that time was 91,000. In 1935 the number of the
Russian minority had increased up to 206,000. During the whole period
of independence, Russians remained the biggest national minority of
the country. In 1935, the part of Russians in the whole structure of
the population of Latvia made up 10.5% (in 1920 - 7.8%)."- Hide quoted text -

And that 115 000 between 1920 and 1935? Was door open for everyone
wanting to live in Latvia?

As a comparison it may be of interest that in the year 1900, when
Finland had been ruled by the czars for more than 90 years, the number
of Russians in Finland was 6,000 which represents 0.2% of the
population. Twenty years later we had 5,000 Russians and in 1960 only
2,000. Then the number started growing, first as a result of
cross-border marriages: Finland had lots of construction projects in
the USSR, and our workers brought home Russian wives when they
returned. Then came the Ingrians (who mostly registered as
Russian-speakers). In 1990 we had 4,000 Russians, but now the number
has passed the 40,000 mark. Their integration, however, has not been
very successful, and here we have to put the blame on both Finns and
Russians. Our officials don't offer much service in Russian, and many
Russians don't bother even to try learning Finnish or Swedish.

So how do they earn for living?

Quite a big number of the russian speaking population, i.e. people
living in Finland who have registered themselves as speaking russian as
their mother tongue when they are inserted in the census records have
already got Finnish citizenship (usually 5 years residence qualifies for
it). Unemployment figures are broken down according to finnish citizens
and non-finnish citizens, so exact numbers according to mother tongue or
ethnicity are not easy to obtain. What I have previously read in
newspapers is that roughly half of the working age russian speakers
would be unemployed. From that number you should abstract genuine
housewives and students. Any way, a big part is on the dole. Russian
speakers are generally well educated, but their diplomas often are of no
value in in the EU without supplemenatary studies. For example a doctor
in general practice needs minimum one year of studies to pass the exam.
Nevertheless, you can find russianspeakers in all professions, but
unfortunately many PhD's do work as cleaners especially if they don't
speak finnish or swedish or do not have the motivation to learn it.
In general the biggest proportions of unemployed are among the somalis
and the smallest among the vietnamese. On the whole one should bear in
mind that Finland is one of the most homogeneous if not the most
homogenious country in Europe. The number of foreigners and foreign born
citizens is still very low. - Please do correct me if I remember wrong.
Timo

You are wrong. Iceland is the most homogeneous. (No indigenous
minorities, either.)

After that comes Malta, I think. (Actually, perhaps the places most
likely to have the smallest number of foreigners per capita are tiny
places like Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Monaco and
Luxembourg.) I know that there are very few foreigners in Hungary too.

[Eugene Holman]

In article
<ff04f9ec-23d0-4cb3-93b6-***@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, Tadas
Blinda <***@lycos.es> wrote:

<deletions>

Post by Tadas Blinda
You are wrong. Iceland is the most homogeneous. (No indigenous
minorities, either.)

Due to the fact that its population is far too small to be able to provide
the manpower needed to use the money locally with which the country was
awash before the financial collapse effectively, Iceland attracted massive
waves of immigration during the last years of the 20th century. Russia,
Poland, and former Yugoslavia were well represented, as were Philippinos
and Thais. For details, see e.g.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3760/is_199810/ai_n8825466/pg_5/?tag=content;col1.
At the time the article in question was written, 1998, immigrants made up
2% of the Icelandic population. The beginning dynamic described there has
evolved into the present situation in which immigrants now make up 7.78%
(source: http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ic-iceland/imm-immigration)
of thr Ielandic population.

Post by Tadas Blinda
After that comes Malta, I think. (Actually, perhaps the places most
likely to have the smallest number of foreigners per capita are tiny
places like Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Monaco and
Luxembourg.)

No, quite the opposite. Andorra is a low taxing haven between two high
taxing countries where you can make a comfortable living off of smuggling.
San Marino, Luxembourg, and Monaco are also tax havens adjacent to or
surrounded by high-taxing countries. Liechtenstein, another tax haven,
has, statistically, the world's overwhelmingly highest standard of living
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html).
All of these tiny countries have large immigrant populations. According to
the statistics at
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_imm_pop_imm_as_per_of_sta_pop-immigrant-population-immigrants-percentage-state,
we have:
Percentage of immigrant population
Andorra 77.25%
Monaco 70.11%
Luxembourg 37.42%
Liechtenstein 35.31%
San Marino 32.01%

In line with this, and a piece of factual information that utterly
demolishes your hypothesis, is the fact that the country in the world with
the highest percentage of immigrants, 100%, is also the tiniest one:
Vatican City. On the other hand, the country with the largest population,
China, has an extremely low percentage of immigrants in its population,
0.2944%.

Post by Tadas Blinda
I know that there are very few foreigners in Hungary too.

There are enough Austrians, Germans, and members of the Hungarian diaspora
who, although ethnically Hungarian, have settled in Hungary, for the
percentage of foreigners there, 3.136%, to be higher than the percentage
in Finland, 2.962, or Malta, 2.723. According to the statustics given at
this source, the European country with the lowest percentage of immigrants
in its population is, hardly surprisingly, Romania, with 0.596%. Other
European countries with extremely low immigration rates are Poland, with
1.843%, and Bulgaria, with 1.346% (source ibid.).

Regards,
Eugene Holman

[Dmitry]

Post by Valtsu

Post by Vladimir Makarenko

Post by J. Anderson

Post by vello

Post by Dmitry
"According to the first statistical data of 1920 the number of the
Russian population at that time was 91,000. In 1935 the number of the
Russian minority had increased up to 206,000. During the whole period
of independence, Russians remained the biggest national minority of
the country. In 1935, the part of Russians in the whole structure of
the population of Latvia made up 10.5% (in 1920 - 7.8%)."- Hide quoted text -

And that 115 000 between 1920 and 1935? Was door open for everyone
wanting to live in Latvia?

As a comparison it may be of interest that in the year 1900, when
Finland had been ruled by the czars for more than 90 years, the number
of Russians in Finland was 6,000 which represents 0.2% of the
population. Twenty years later we had 5,000 Russians and in 1960 only
2,000. Then the number started growing, first as a result of
cross-border marriages: Finland had lots of construction projects in
the USSR, and our workers brought home Russian wives when they
returned. Then came the Ingrians (who mostly registered as
Russian-speakers). In 1990 we had 4,000 Russians, but now the number
has passed the 40,000 mark. Their integration, however, has not been
very successful, and here we have to put the blame on both Finns and
Russians. Our officials don't offer much service in Russian, and many
Russians don't bother even to try learning Finnish or Swedish.

So how do they earn for living?

Quite a big number of the russian speaking population, i.e. people
living in Finland who have registered themselves as speaking russian as
their mother tongue when they are inserted in the census records have
already got Finnish citizenship (usually 5 years residence qualifies for
it). Unemployment figures are broken down according to finnish citizens
and non-finnish citizens, so exact numbers according to mother tongue or
ethnicity are not easy to obtain. What I have previously read in
newspapers is that roughly half of the working age russian speakers
would be unemployed. From that number you should abstract genuine
housewives and students. Any way, a big part is on the dole. Russian
speakers are generally well educated, but their diplomas often are of no
value in in the EU without supplemenatary studies. For example a doctor
in general practice needs minimum one year of studies to pass the exam.
Nevertheless, you can find russianspeakers in all professions, but
unfortunately many PhD's do work as cleaners especially if they don't
speak finnish or swedish or do not have the motivation to learn it.
In general the biggest proportions of unemployed are among the somalis
and the smallest among the vietnamese. On the whole one should bear in
mind that Finland is one of the most homogeneous if not the most
homogenious country in Europe. The number of foreigners and foreign born
citizens is still very low. - Please do correct me if I remember wrong.
Timo

You are wrong.  Iceland is the most homogeneous.  (No indigenous
minorities, either.)
After that comes Malta, I think. (Actually, perhaps the places most
likely to have the smallest number of foreigners per capita are tiny
places like Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Monaco and
Luxembourg.) I know that there are very few foreigners in Hungary too.

I've been to Liechtenstein and seen quite a few African and Asian
(mailny Turkish) looking people that are certainly not tourists. I've
read somewhere (can't remember the source) that there are 14% of
ethnic minorities living there.

[Dmitry]

Post by vello

Post by Dmitry

Post by vello

I don't particularly care what your alcohol-addled brain thinks.  To
my mind the major flaw in the sentence "For more than seven decades,
the Russian language spanned all 15 Soviet republics." is that
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were not Soviet Republics for 7
decades.  Praise be to God.  Without those 22 wonderful years
(1918-1940) when my father (pbuh – his „ketvirtinės“ just passed) grew
up in the first Republic of Lithuania, we might have ended up like
Belarus.

There was a break for two decades, but it was very short period of
time since Russia expanded to its biggest size.  These two decades
were very significant in recent history, but there was no intention to
eliminate Russian language.  In fact, use of Russian was encouraged by
Latvian government.  There were Russian schools and
teachers were trained in Latvia.

Do you know when Latvia gets it's large russian minority? (I mean pre-
war time)? For us everything up to 1918 was "German rule" no matter
what flag was flying over Herrmann tower in Toompea :-). btw, estonian
coalition takes city govt of Tallinn from germans first time in 1905
just with help of local russian party. Some big ship- and machinery
plants were built in Tallinn in the very end of 19th century and some
workforce from Russia with them.

"According to the first statistical data of 1920 the number of the
Russian population at that time was 91,000. In 1935 the number of the
Russian minority had increased up to 206,000. During the whole period
of independence, Russians remained the biggest national minority of
the country. In 1935, the part of Russians in the whole structure of
the population of Latvia made up 10.5% (in 1920 - 7.8%)."- Hide quoted text -

And that 115 000 between 1920 and 1935? Was door open for everyone
wanting to live in Latvia?

Well, one of the doors was closed from outside. My grandfather
managed to sneak in (in 1920), but he wasn't deported back by Latvian
government, he became Latvian citizen and worked in Latgale as a
lecturer until WWII. But I guess, the other doors (Estonia, Lithuania
and whoever could come from Baltic Sea) were open.

[Dmitry]

I don't particularly care what your alcohol-addled brain thinks.  To
my mind the major flaw in the sentence "For more than seven decades,
the Russian language spanned all 15 Soviet republics." is that
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were not Soviet Republics for 7
decades.  Praise be to God.  Without those 22 wonderful years
(1918-1940) when my father (pbuh – his „ketvirtinės“ just passed) grew
up in the first Republic of Lithuania, we might have ended up like
Belarus.

There was a break for two decades, but it was very short period of
time since Russia expanded to its biggest size. These two decades
were very significant in recent history, but there was no intention to
eliminate Russian language. In fact, use of Russian was encouraged by
Latvian government. There were Russian schools and
teachers were trained in Latvia.

[Dmitry]

Post by Tadas Blinda
He said the Baltics states Estonia, Latvia and Lituania have joined
the European Union (EU), and "for these republics there is no benefit
in speaking Russian; they need a language which Europeans speak."

Which one? Dutch, French, Danish, Polish? It is good to hear the
opinion of Bahodirkhon Anvarhojayevich Eliboyev from the Independent
Human Rights
Defenders in Fergana, but I don't think his views are going to change
anything in linguistic reality in Baltics.

Whether there are benefits of speaking Russian or not it is out of his
control and frankly non of his business. People will speak whatever
language they want.