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 <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 16:16, Fred Bauder <fredb...@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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
