Questões

Texto 2 – No começo era o pé

Sim, no começo era o pé. Se está provado, por descobertas arqueológicas, que há sete mil anos estes brasis já eram habitados, pensai nestas legiões e legiões de pés que palmilharam nosso território. E pensai nestes passos, primeiro sem destinos, machados de pedra abrindo as iniciais picadas na floresta. E nos pés dos que subiam às rochas distantes, já feitos pedra também, e nos que se enfeitaram de penas e receberam as primeiras botas dos conquistadores e as primeiras sandálias dos pregadores; pés barrentos, nus, ou enrolados de panos dos caminheiros, pés sobre-humanos dos bandeirantes que alargaram um império, quase sempre arrastando passos e mais passos em chãos desconhecidos, dos marinheiros dos barcos primitivos e dos que subiram aos mastros das grandes naus. Depois o Brasil se fez sedentário numa parte de seu povo. Houve os pés descalços que carregaram os pés calçados, pelas estradas. A moleza das sinhazinhas de pequeninos pés redondos, quase dispensáveis pela falta de exercício. E depois das cadeirinhas, das carruagens, das redes carregadas por escravos, as primeiras grandes estradas já com postos de montaria organizados, o pedágio de vinténs estabelecido já no século XVIII. Mas além da abertura dos portos, depois da primeira etapa da industrialização, com os navios a vapor, as estradas de ferro, o pé de sete milênios da terra do Brasil ainda faz seu caminho.

                                                                          (Dinah Silveira de Queiroz)

Texto 2 – No começo era o pé

Sim, no começo era o pé. Se está provado, por descobertas arqueológicas, que há sete mil anos estes brasis já eram habitados, pensai nestas legiões e legiões de pés que palmilharam nosso território. E pensai nestes passos, primeiro sem destinos, machados de pedra abrindo as iniciais picadas na floresta. E nos pés dos que subiam às rochas distantes, já feitos pedra também, e nos que se enfeitaram de penas e receberam as primeiras botas dos conquistadores e as primeiras sandálias dos pregadores; pés barrentos, nus, ou enrolados de panos dos caminheiros, pés sobre-humanos dos bandeirantes que alargaram um império, quase sempre arrastando passos e mais passos em chãos desconhecidos, dos marinheiros dos barcos primitivos e dos que subiram aos mastros das grandes naus. Depois o Brasil se fez sedentário numa parte de seu povo. Houve os pés descalços que carregaram os pés calçados, pelas estradas. A moleza das sinhazinhas de pequeninos pés redondos, quase dispensáveis pela falta de exercício. E depois das cadeirinhas, das carruagens, das redes carregadas por escravos, as primeiras grandes estradas já com postos de montaria organizados, o pedágio de vinténs estabelecido já no século XVIII. Mas além da abertura dos portos, depois da primeira etapa da industrialização, com os navios a vapor, as estradas de ferro, o pé de sete milênios da terra do Brasil ainda faz seu caminho.

                                                                          (Dinah Silveira de Queiroz)

Texto 1 – Um país em berço de sangue

O maior país da América Latina, com a maior população católica do mundo, não nasceu de forma tranquila. Neste livro, com o realismo dos documentos originais, vemos claramente a brutalidade do extermínio dos índios na costa brasileira, berço de sangue cujo marco determinante é a fundação da cidade do Rio de Janeiro.

O Brasil real começou a ser construído por homens como o degredado João Ramalho, que raspava os pelos do corpo para se mesclar aos índios e construiu um exército de mestiços caçadores de escravos mais poderoso que o da própria Coroa; personagens improváveis como o jesuíta Manoel da Nóbrega, padre gago incumbido de catequizar um povo de língua indecifrável, esteio da erradicação dos “hereges” antropófagos; líderes implacáveis como Aimberê, ex-escravo que tomou a frente da resistência e Cunhambebe, cacique “imortal”, que dizia poder devorar carne humana porque era “um jaguar”.

Incluindo protestantes franceses, que se aliaram aos índios para escapar dos portugueses e da Inquisição, além de mamelucos, os primeiros brasileiros verdadeiramente ligados à terra, que falavam tupi tanto quanto o português e partiram do planalto de Piratininga para caçar índios e estenderam a colônia sertão adentro, surge um povo que desde a origem nada tem da autoimagem do “brasileiro cordial”.

(Texto da orelha do livro A conquista do Brasil, de Thales Guaracy, Planeta, Rio de Janeiro, 2015) 

TEXT III

Use of language in diplomacy

What language should one use when speaking to diplomats, or what language should diplomats use? Or, to be more precise, what language/languages should a (young) diplomat try to learn to be more successful in his profession? 

The term "language in diplomacy" obviously can be interpreted in several ways. First, as tongue ("mother" tongue or an acquired one), the speech "used by one nation, tribe, or other similar large group of people"; in this sense we can say, for example, that French used to be the predominant diplomatic language in the first half of the 20th century. Second, as a special way of expressing the subtle needs of the diplomatic profession; in this way it can be said, for example, that the delegate of such-andsuch a country spoke of the given subject in totally nondiplomatic language. Also, the term can refer to the particular form, style, manner or tone of expression; such as the minister formulated his conditions in unusually strong language. It may mean as well the verbal or non-verbal expression of thoughts or feelings: sending the gunships is a language that everybody understands.

All of these meanings - and probably several others - can be utilised in both oral and written practice. In any of these senses, the use of language in diplomacy is of major importance, since language is not a simple tool, vehicle for transmission of thoughts, or instrument of communication, but very often the very essence of the diplomatic vocation, and that has been so from the early beginnings of our profession. That is why from early times the first envoys of the Egyptian pharaohs, Roman legates, mediaeval Dubrovnik consuls, etc., had to be educated and trained people, well-spoken and polyglots.

Let us first look into different aspects of diplomatic language in its basic meaning - that of a tongue. Obviously, the first problem to solve is finding a common tongue. Diplomats only exceptionally find themselves in the situation to be able to communicate in one language, common to all participants. This may be done between, for example, Germans and Austrians, or Portuguese and Brazilians, or representatives of different Arab countries, or British and Americans, etc. Not only are such occasions rare, but very often there is a serious difference between the same language used in one country and another. 

There are several ways to overcome the problem of communication between people who speak different mother tongues. None of these ways is ideal. One solution, obviously, is that one of the interlocutors speaks the language of the other. Problems may arise: the knowledge of the language may not be adequate, one side is making a concession and the other has an immediate and significant advantage, there are possible political implications, it may be difficult to apply in multilateral diplomacy, etc. A second possibility is that both sides use a third, neutral, language. A potential problem may be that neither side possesses full linguistic knowledge and control, leading to possible bad misunderstandings. Nevertheless, this method is frequently applied in international practice because of its political advantages. A third formula, using interpreters, is also very widely used, particularly in multilateral diplomacy or for negotiations at a very high political level - not only for reasons of equity, but because politicians and statesmen often do not speak foreign languages. This method also has disadvantages: it is time consuming, costly, and sometimes inadequate or straightforwardly incorrect. […] Finally, there is the possibility of using one international synthetic, artificial language, such as Esperanto; this solution would have many advantages, but unfortunately is not likely to be implemented soon, mostly because of the opposition of factors that dominate in the international political - and therefore also cultural and linguistic - scene.

So, which language is the diplomatic one? The answer is not simple at all […].

Words are bricks from which sentences are made. Each sentence should be a wound-up thought. If one wants to be clear, and particularly when using a language which he does not master perfectly, it is better to use short, simple sentences. On the contrary, if one wishes to camouflage his thoughts or even not say anything specific, it can be well achieved by using a more complicated style, complex sentences, digressions, interrupting one's own flow of thought and introducing new topics. One may leave the impression of being a little confused, but the basic purpose of withholding the real answer can be accomplished.

(adapted from http://www.diplomacy.edu/books/language_and_ diplomacy/texts/pdf/nick.PDF)

TEXT III

Use of language in diplomacy

What language should one use when speaking to diplomats, or what language should diplomats use? Or, to be more precise, what language/languages should a (young) diplomat try to learn to be more successful in his profession? 

The term "language in diplomacy" obviously can be interpreted in several ways. First, as tongue ("mother" tongue or an acquired one), the speech "used by one nation, tribe, or other similar large group of people"; in this sense we can say, for example, that French used to be the predominant diplomatic language in the first half of the 20th century. Second, as a special way of expressing the subtle needs of the diplomatic profession; in this way it can be said, for example, that the delegate of such-andsuch a country spoke of the given subject in totally nondiplomatic language. Also, the term can refer to the particular form, style, manner or tone of expression; such as the minister formulated his conditions in unusually strong language. It may mean as well the verbal or non-verbal expression of thoughts or feelings: sending the gunships is a language that everybody understands.

All of these meanings - and probably several others - can be utilised in both oral and written practice. In any of these senses, the use of language in diplomacy is of major importance, since language is not a simple tool, vehicle for transmission of thoughts, or instrument of communication, but very often the very essence of the diplomatic vocation, and that has been so from the early beginnings of our profession. That is why from early times the first envoys of the Egyptian pharaohs, Roman legates, mediaeval Dubrovnik consuls, etc., had to be educated and trained people, well-spoken and polyglots.

Let us first look into different aspects of diplomatic language in its basic meaning - that of a tongue. Obviously, the first problem to solve is finding a common tongue. Diplomats only exceptionally find themselves in the situation to be able to communicate in one language, common to all participants. This may be done between, for example, Germans and Austrians, or Portuguese and Brazilians, or representatives of different Arab countries, or British and Americans, etc. Not only are such occasions rare, but very often there is a serious difference between the same language used in one country and another. 

There are several ways to overcome the problem of communication between people who speak different mother tongues. None of these ways is ideal. One solution, obviously, is that one of the interlocutors speaks the language of the other. Problems may arise: the knowledge of the language may not be adequate, one side is making a concession and the other has an immediate and significant advantage, there are possible political implications, it may be difficult to apply in multilateral diplomacy, etc. A second possibility is that both sides use a third, neutral, language. A potential problem may be that neither side possesses full linguistic knowledge and control, leading to possible bad misunderstandings. Nevertheless, this method is frequently applied in international practice because of its political advantages. A third formula, using interpreters, is also very widely used, particularly in multilateral diplomacy or for negotiations at a very high political level - not only for reasons of equity, but because politicians and statesmen often do not speak foreign languages. This method also has disadvantages: it is time consuming, costly, and sometimes inadequate or straightforwardly incorrect. […] Finally, there is the possibility of using one international synthetic, artificial language, such as Esperanto; this solution would have many advantages, but unfortunately is not likely to be implemented soon, mostly because of the opposition of factors that dominate in the international political - and therefore also cultural and linguistic - scene.

So, which language is the diplomatic one? The answer is not simple at all […].

Words are bricks from which sentences are made. Each sentence should be a wound-up thought. If one wants to be clear, and particularly when using a language which he does not master perfectly, it is better to use short, simple sentences. On the contrary, if one wishes to camouflage his thoughts or even not say anything specific, it can be well achieved by using a more complicated style, complex sentences, digressions, interrupting one's own flow of thought and introducing new topics. One may leave the impression of being a little confused, but the basic purpose of withholding the real answer can be accomplished.

(adapted from http://www.diplomacy.edu/books/language_and_ diplomacy/texts/pdf/nick.PDF)