It might be easier if you look at it as a numerical scale where "native speaker" is a quality level at or near the top, and someone who speaks none of or only a handful of words in the language is at the bottom. From Jay's clarification:
"Perhaps a more clear way to write this sentence would have simply been to state that we're looking for a candidate who can speak English as well as another language at the 'native speaker' level - that is, someone who is bilingual. "
The way I read this is that they want you to have two languages at the "native speaker" quality level. Or in other words, if an average native English speaker can speak at a 4 out of 5 point scale (hypothetically assume that a full 5 would be reserved for someone like a university English professor or something), then they're asking that you speak both English and one other language at at least 4 out of 5 points.
On Apr 15, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:16, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Well, I would not be surprised to be wrong, but I don't think your legal theory would be valid, after all the candidate fluent in Urdo may well be an American citizen and have read at Oxford. The question is whether a global organization hires globally, hiring people who have experience and skill in communicating globally.
Right, I understand that. But my question is whether an employment ad in America could lawfully say (or imply), "Ideally your native language is not Urdu."
It looks like the problem here is that there is confusion on what is meant by "as a native speaker".
Some people are taking it to mean "We'd like it to be your first language", in which case Sarah is quite correct that it specifically excludes people whose first language is English from the "ideal" requirements. Others are taking it to mean "We'd like your ability to be as good as if it were your first language", in which case Berìa is correct that it is pragmatic, reasonable, and legitimately useful for the job.
I'd like to invoke the principle of charity and think that Wikimedia means the latter, but I can see why somebody might be interpreting it as the former, since the latter reads a bit more into the words.
-- Andrew Garrett http://werdn.us/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l