Are the languages that can be fluently spoken only if you are descendent of a particular community/country ?
Are the languages that can be fluently spoken only if you are descendent of a particular community/country ?
I find it amazing that if a child is brought up in a community/country different from the origin of the child, the child is still able to pick up and speak their language fluently. Our ability, as humans, to imitate and communicate is incredibly complex regardless of where we are from.
So my question is, is there a language that cannot be spoken like this? One which only people with a certain genetic advantage can speak fluently during upbringing.
Of course anyone can learn a language by putting effort into it. My question is only for one learnt during upbringing (native language).
(Not sure why my responses are downvoted. I'm a non-native English speaker. Sorry if I didn't communicate something properly. It's just a scientific curiosity.)
You're viewing a single thread.
Outside of a physiological abnormality, there is zero reason any human would be incapable of being entirely and completely fluent in any particular language.
The only potential differences could be: accent or maybe sentence structure. However if both were raised from talking age in the same place where birth origins are different those differences would never exist. Those potential differences are only for those who may learn it later in life. Even then, only a maybe.
I'm getting some serious eugenics vibes from the OP
I did see some comments by OP, whether feigning ignorance or truly unaware, I wanted to make a comment that was unambiguous and very clear.
It seemed OP was unhappy with some of the other responses or felt like it wasn't entirely answered so this way hopefully there is no confusion that the concept they were asking about just does not exist. If it was ignorance, hopefully they learned and move on. If not, well that's a choice they made and there's nothing us internet people can do beside answer honestly and condemn poor viewpoints like eugenics.
Ok. I thought I'll clear things up. Yes I had received the relevant responses and I'm happy with the answers I got.
But I'd like to bring attention to comments like yours or the one prior to it, because I see such comments throughout lemmy. It assumes the worst from someone's post/comment and gives a negative spin for the discussion.
My question was genuine and if you must know it arose from my curiosity that if there will be a language that I cannot be 100% fluent in even if I try. Thought I'd ask with others.
But now I'm wondering if any of my comments were offensive and reading through them again I don't think I was (hence this response). Again since I'm a non native English speaker, I apologise if it were.
But the whole discussion has moved away from the original point. I had never heard of Eugenics, which from the little I read now, are deeply disturbing concepts. I'm sad that my question could be compared to it.
The point is to ask stupid questions here. And mine was stupid enough. I got my responses from others. But please stop this trend of putting words into people's mouths and negativistic spin on things. It doesn't brew a healthy community. People will fear asking questions here (or anywhere in Lemmy).
You seem to misunderstand what I said and why I said it. In my response to the other person which is what you are responding to, I simply was giving you a concise answer based on your other replies.
I made no claims as to your intentions and offered only clarity. My response was specifically that. If you did not know here is clarity, hopefully you learned and moved on. Otherwise there is not much internet strangers can do. I did specifically mentioned I did not know your intentions which is why I wrote it, for clarity.
If you felt my response was negative than you failed to understand what I wrote and there's nothing I can really do about that
But please stop this trend of putting words into people's mouths and negativistic spin on things.
No.
Google "sealioning" and "JAQing off" to understand why not.
I see people accusing others of sealiening in order to dismiss their argument more often than actual sealioning.
If you don't do your homework and you ask in bad faith, you don't deserve explanations.
Well if you can't tell the difference. There is nothing more to say.
Hope you can look at the world more positively and leave the rest of us alone.
Hope you can look at the world more positively and leave the rest of us alone.
Hope one day you wake up, get out of your fantasy world and join us in the real one. Making it better requires looking clearly at reality, not wearing pink colored glasses.
Less dreaming, less prayer, and more reality.
You might get some personal variation based on cultural influences and the like too, but it isn't significant enough to affect fluency.
Like saying like a lot.
Although I am a little bit curious about how accents might work if someone's first language was something completely different to their second. If they spoke a click language, for example, would that carry over? Or the inverse.
If they spoke a click language, for example, would that carry over? Or the inverse.
Clicks are simply a category of consonants. They "carry over" as much as any other consonant. That is:
- if your L1 doesn't have clicks and your L2+ does, you'll probably have a hard time pronouncing them
- if your L1 has clicks and your L2+ doesn't have anything similar, you simply don't use them.
It would be theoretically possible that, if your L1 has clicks and your L2 has a consonant that your L1 doesn't, you end replacing some consonant there with a specific click. In practice I wouldn't count on that.