Pared - Page 2

Sounds great. I think it's a great gift to children when they're raised bilingually. :)

Are you bilingual yourself?:confused: Finnish-Danish?:thinking: Or 'just' good at languages?:pelota:

No, no, I was raised with Danish only. I just think children who have parents who raise them bilingually are lucky. :)

Danés,
The way you write English seems so good that it appears you were raised
speaking both Danish and English. Were you taught English at a very young age? You may know that among native English speakers, mastery of a foreign language is not nearly as common as it is in Scandanavia and in The Netherlands.

Thank you! :)

I started learning English at school when I was 10 or 11, but I already took my first attempts at translating English lyrics into Danish at an age of 7, because I wanted to know what my favorite artists were singing about. I'm not saying I succeeded, but it was the first time I actually tried. I've never actually studied its grammar, like I do know with Spanish, it has just come naturally to me. So, it's actually new for me to learn and study a language in this manner.

And yes, I've noticed that many Americans are only speaking their native language, but I guess it's actually like that here in Scandinavia as well, although it may not seem like that. Most adults are only fluent in their native language, and have only a bit of knowledge in English (I'm not counting the other Scandinavian languages, as a speaker of one language, will naturally be able to understand much of another Scandinavian languages; Danish/Swedish/Norwegian). The younger generation, however, is getting better, but to be honest, I think it's somewhat like in the U.S., but I can't say for sure. I've never been in the U.S.

In the U.S. there are a lot of people who are bilingual, but the great majority of them are immigrants.

Like you, I fell in love with songs sung in foreign languages and commited
some of the lyrics to memory. I was German songs not Spanish songs that fascinated me, then. I loved Weil and Brecht ( I was an unusual nine year old). I can't say it made me a German speaker, but I know how to say some very Brechtian things in German.

I think it has been easier for me to learn English, than German for you, because most of the medias in Denmark (and other Scandinavian countries) are highly Americanized. This means we're loaning modern words from the English language, most movies are in English, and so on. I doubt they're broadcasting many German movies in the U.S., or other English-speaking countries.

In fact, one of our two biggest television-channels has been ordered to broadcast more Danish television by the government. Last year, 2007, less than 50% of all the television on the particular channel was in foreign languages (mostly English).

... most of the media in Denmark ...
medium - singular
media - plural

Yes, those are the Latin declinations, but I thought media was used as singular in English. A lot of Latin words have been adopted into English, and lots of times, with the wrong endings just to make it sound "English." I'm not saying it is the same in this case, but I was just thinking.

I don't know anywhere else to look for usage, so I used Wiktionary, to check, and it seems like it uses media like I did.

I'm not sure about this. Just a thought.

I agree with Poli, your English is great, but I had already told you on a previous occasion. :pelota:
David is right, though. As far as I know you always use the media or mass media to refer to the plural: TV, radio...;)
In Spain when I was little all programs were either Spanish or dubbed and the same happened at the cinema. Now you can get original version films through satellite dishes, cable television and DVDs, but national public television broadcasts exclusively in Spanish, although some channels offer you the possibility of watching certain films in both languages.
The good news is that we have quite a few cinemas now where you can watch films in English, French...at least here in Madrid.
Although the dubbing industry in Spain is said to be wonderful and the actors have great experience, it has a negative influence on language learning.
The situation, I think, is very similar to what you have described for your country (only worse). A few years ago I read the results of a survey that said only 7 % of the Spanish population spoke a foreign language. Younger people are helping change those depressing statistics, but we still have a long way to go. When my students 'moan' about how horrible their English is I tell them to feel proud of themselves because they are still a minority.
Some of my friends from Africa and South America are surprised at the very small number of people who speak English over here.:shh:

I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right, I'm just asking because I'm curious. :)
What I was thinking when I wrote the post was that "newspapers" are one media, "television-channels" another media, "radio-channels" a third media, thus medias. Or, do one still just talk about them all as one, single mass-media?

I think dubbing ruins movies. It looks so funny when the sound doesn't fit to the movement of the actors mouths. I know it's the same in Germany. Everything - everything is in German, all movies, series, etc. are dubbed. Luckily, it isn't like that here in Denmark. We have the original sound, with subtitles. :)

7% is not much. But do you think those people who don't know a foreign language actually want to learn one? I mean, many people think their life's fine, so they can't see why they should learn another language, when they don't have a need for it.

Except for Europe, where a neighboring country has a different tongue, I think most people are happy to speak just one language (there is no need to learn another one, so why do it?). In the United States, unfortunately, many people are actually appalled when a foreign language is spoken in their presence. I, on the other hand, am grateful that I had the opportunity to learn another language (and I haven't been satisfied with knowing only two).

Yes, probably the most common usage is to use media for both the singular and plural, unless you're talking about art media (oil paint, acrylic paint etc), then the plural would be medias.

So true, and so unfortunate.

You know more than two, I think, even if it just a bit. :D

I feel a bit stupid now, because I always use is with there. :sad:
Now when I think of it, I have always used there as a pronoun. It is first now you make me think of it, and now I understand, that the verb, to be, don't actually belong to there, but a noun later in the sentence.

There is some cows. :bad:
Some cows is there. :bad:
There are some cows. :good:
Some cows are there. :good:

It's exactly the same here. In fact, I've seen it happen lots of time. My dad was born, raised and lived a lot of his life in Finland, thus his Danish has a bit of an uncommon accent, although he has been speaking it for more than twenty years. Some people feel uncomfortable when they first meet him, because he sounds a bit different (not much, but a bit). I wonder what they think, when they meet a complete foreigner. :p

Don't feel stupid. You're speaking the way most people do when you say "there's some cows over there." It isn't correct, but most people wouldn't think twice about saying it that way. I try really hard to say "there're some cows over there," but even then the contraction is pronounced almost the same as the word "there" by itself and the "s" in the next word makes it sound like I said "there's." Maybe that's why the mistake is so prevalent.

From a dictionary:
The verb following there is singular or plural according to the number of the subject that follows the verb: There is a message for you. There are patients in the waiting room. With compound subjects in which all the coordinate words are singular, a singular verb often occurs, although the plural may also be used: There was (or were) a horse and a cow in the pasture. When a compound subject contains both singular and plural words, the verb usually agrees with the subject closest to the verb, although a plural verb sometimes occurs regardless, especially if the compound has more than two elements: There were staff meetings and a press conference daily. There was (or were) a glass, two plates, two cups, and a teapot on the shelf.

That's a shame. :(

You too! :)

It's actually funny, because I have always used was or were right with there. It's strange that I've only been doing it wrong in present tense. I guess the reason is what you explained. Common usage among people has made me use it as well.
And thank you for the corrections! :thumbsup: