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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:16, Fred Bauder
<fredbaud(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l