Tutor profile: Tomas C.
¿De qué manera varía el español en los distintos países hispanohablantes de Latinoamérica?
En realidad, el español (o castellano), no varía mucho entre los distintos países hispanohablantes de Latinoamérica. Es cierto que su expresión oral puede ser bastante distinta, debido a las diferencias de entonación que muestran las personas de distintos países, sin embargo, un peruano puede comprender fácilmente a un argentino, y un argentino puede comprender fácilmente a un mexicano. Cierta dificultad puede encontrarse con la 'jerga', o con el idioma informal que cada país tiene. Sin embargo, al aprender cada nueva palabra informal, uno se adapta muy fácilmente a cualquier variedad del idioma. En este sentido el español en Latinoamérica es muy distinto a otros idiomas, ya que no tiene variantes muy marcadas (ni dialectos). Las diferencias formales suelen ser mínimas (por ejemplo el 'vos' vs. el 'tú' en ciertos países) y no llegan a obstaculizar la comunicación.
Subject: English as a Second Language
How may English be easier to learn if compared with other languages?
I speak English, Spanish, and Italian, besides some French. Given my experience, I would say that English is, in many ways, easier to learn than some other languages. How so? First, English is ubiquitous. If you turn on the TV, get on Youtube, or even browse through the internet, content in English is all over the place. Given that exposure to a new language facilitates the learning process, being exposed to English everywhere is very helpful. Someone trying to learn English should really profit from all the different types of content, both in written and audio form, that is publicly available. Second, English is so important, that its own importance and prominence works as a motivating factor to learn it! Whenever learning English, a beginner must think about all the different ways in which English may benefit his future personal and academic experiences! This will surely make the learning process easier.
Subject: European History
How may WWII be seen as a direct consequence of the Treaty of Versailles?
The unscrupulous reparations and agreements that were settled in the Treaty of Versailles in the aftermath of WWI have often been cited as a leading cause of WWII. John Maynard Keynes was one of the first public figures to publicly criticize the absurd and exaggerated reparation figures that were imposed on Germany, as he argued that excessive reparations would not only wound Germany, by directly leading to massive unemployment and inflation but also other nations which sought debt repayments from Germany. In that sense, the Treaty of Versailles led to disastrous economic and socio-political episodes in post-WWI Germany, exemplified by the high unemployment and inflation rates that affected the country after WWI. These dire economic conditions may be seen as a driver of the nationalist and imperialist sentiment the Nazi party sought to express and instill in the German populace about a decade later. Hence, WWII may be seen as a direct consequence of the Treaty of Versailles as the treaty led to several unstable economic and socio-political situations that inspired nationalist and imperialist sentiments and provoked a new wave of tensions in the 1930s.
needs and Tomas will reply soon.