SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The love of all things English begins at a young age in non-English-speaking countries, promoted by pop culture, Hollywood movies, fast-food brands, sports events and TV shows.
Later, with English skills and international education qualifications from high school, the path is laid to prestigious international universities in the English-speaking world and employment opportunities at home and abroad.
But those opportunities aren't distributed equally across socioeconomic groups. Global education in English is largely reserved for middle-class students.
This is creating a divide between those inside the global English proficiency ecosystem and those relegated to parts of the education system where such opportunities don't exist.
[...] It's unfortunate so many schools view an English-speaking model as the gold standard and overlook their own local or regional wisdoms. We need to remember that encouraging young people to join a privileged English-speaking élite educated in foreign universities is only one of many possible educational options.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2020, @06:26AM (38 children)
Let's go back to the days when academic literature came in many, many different languages! I for one can't wait to have to pay translators for every 2nd paper that crosses my desk! English is the new Latin, and for good reason.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2020, @06:54AM (22 children)
No, for bad reason. Of course, when I think about it, despite having the ablative case, Latin is not bad as a lingua franca, despite not having a kappa. But English, being a bastardized German dialect, with no discipline on irregular formations and such, has nothing to recommend it beyond being the language of the dominate race: Americans. Of course, Americans do not actually speak English, but, then, neither do any of their subjects. The language is fucked up, imprecise, full of ambiguity, and Rupert Murdock. May it die a quick and painful death.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday August 11 2020, @07:08AM (17 children)
All languages have their own demons. Would you prefer German to be the global language with its weird article mess, where "the girl puts the milk on the table" is essentially "it puts her on him"? Or is French more your thing where the spoken language barely has anything to do with the written words?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2020, @07:50AM (5 children)
Fun fact, Latin has that too. The article was originally based on which deity's domain the "thing" in question fell under. English is thankfully free of such nonsense.
(Score: 5, Funny) by kazzie on Tuesday August 11 2020, @09:42AM (1 child)
Thank God for that!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2020, @05:26PM
Which one, though? There are so many to choose from, even if you limit yourself to Greek and Latin (Roman). Expand your horizons and there are thousands to choose from.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 11 2020, @10:00AM
In Greek we have articles. Very handy. Latin, not so much. Barbarian language, really. Interesting historical fact, when the first translated the Bible, or at least the Greek and Aramaic sections, into Latin, since is was the "word of God, and immutable", they had to find some particles to represent the Greek articles, since one does not simply
walk into Mordorleave out the immutable word of god. Nearly unreadable, those early translations were. But on the on the other hand, incomprehensibility is the first requirement for a "sacred text".(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday August 12 2020, @01:36AM (1 child)
I didn't think Latin had articles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @06:13AM
It doesn't. Read more carefully. The pronouns are very important, when you do not have articles. Especially with multiple genders.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 11 2020, @08:52AM (5 children)
That's minor quibbling, a native German may cringe if you mix them, but won't get confused.
And I think is well preferable to English, where the youngsters still engage in spelling bees close to the age of sexual maturity [bustle.com] (up to the age of 15). Fer God's sake, isn't anything better to do for the young minds than to ask them to rote learn how to spell their native language?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday August 11 2020, @09:45AM (3 children)
For that all you would have had to do is evolve the written language along with the changes in the spoken one. When you look back in the history of the English language, you'll notice that it was once actually closer to what is written. German has simply done that.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday August 11 2020, @10:12AM (2 children)
A good part of the Anglosphere is yet to ditch the old imperial unit system and there's big resistance to that. Can you imagine the amount of resistance against changing the spelling? Will take many generations of rotten by rote brains until English gets a logical spelling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by nostyle on Tuesday August 11 2020, @03:01PM
The reform of spelling of English in America has actually been tried, most notably around 1906 with the "Simplified Spelling Board" spearheaded by Andrew Carnegie and endorsed by executive order of president Teddy Roosevelt (who used that spelling system for the remainder of his life). The effort did not succeed, although many government communications employed that system during Roosevelt's tenure.
Such undertakings fail to notice that there is a
perfectly / ˈpər-fik(t)-lē /
wonderful / ˈwən-dər-fəl /
system / ˈsi-stəm /
for denoting, phonetically, English words, which is nearly universally understood, and instantly accessible to web-enabled folk via online dictionaries.
So why don't we simply use that wonderful system? I suppose it is because some folk like me develop an odd affection for the warts in the spelling of English. (exa: I thought I brought enough dough to get through to tomorrow.) One gets used to it and learns to appreciate it.
And no matter how pure a language system you start with, there will always be those wish to introduce gotchas so as to distinguish the erudite from the plebeian - kind of like the co-worker who touches a file named "-rf *" into one of your working directories.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2020, @08:48PM
Some of the Imperial units are just better.
An inch = natural distance apart you hold thumb and finger
A foot = natural distance apart you hold hands
A yard = meter (stride length)
A pound = a handful
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday August 11 2020, @01:57PM
It would be funny to see Chinese kids do spelling bees in Mandarin. On the plus side, most words only have two characters. On the downside, most characters have multiple radicals.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2020, @01:55PM (4 children)
Esperanto says hi.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday August 11 2020, @01:58PM (2 children)
You might as well just say Ni Hao. You are more likely to find a person that understands that greeting, albeit somewhat depending on where in the world you are. Esperanto is just one gigantic failure of a language.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday August 12 2020, @01:42AM (1 child)
One thing it got wrong was genders. Yes, it has masculine and feminine. You get the feminine from the masculine bu adding a suffix. To get the common-gender word, you add a prefix. This establishes masculine as the unmarked gender. As a result, speakers tend to use the masculine word in common-gender situations. So if you're talking about ducks, you tend not to bother putting the common-gender prefix on, and you end up using the masculine form even when the ducks are female.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday August 12 2020, @01:43AM
Should have said I was talking about Espreanto.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday August 11 2020, @01:58PM
Jen nia mondo.
That's all I got.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Tuesday August 11 2020, @02:30PM (3 children)
Its dominance is a result of British hegemony from the previous centuries, though American dominance in the 20th century is basically its continuation.
Anyway, its imprecision and ambiguity are what make it fun! How many puns, jokes and general humour are a result of deliberate misuse or wilful misinterpretation of the language? A goodly-sized fraction of them. Or should that be bigly? Having a dozen ways to say the same thing with very subtle differences in emphasis are what make it interesting. In comparison, other languages seem so literal they are dry and boring in comparison. Whereas in English you can imply one thing while actually saying something completely different. Being exact is fine in its own way, but it doesn't really open up the imagination, or permit abuse of the language in regular conversation just for the hell of it. English might be a bastardised language which freely steals from other languages, but it's very expressive and very flexible. There is a good reason we didn't stick with Latin (or French). How many other languages use double or even triple negatives in normal sentences, leaving people confused if you take them all out and just state things exactly?!
Language is intrinsically tied to thought. I read about some South American tribe which doesn't have any conception of mathematics because their language has no words for numbers higher than (IIRC) six. Their mental model of the world is intrinsically constrained by the lack of abstraction in the literal way they perceive the world and the language they have to express it. It does make you wonder how much this constrains our thinking as well. Do stricter and less flexible languages also constrain our thought processes, making it less likely for being able to conceive wholly new ways of thinking and doing?
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday August 12 2020, @01:45AM (2 children)
Let me submit
as a literal translation from Esperanto.
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Wednesday August 12 2020, @12:27PM (1 child)
Interesting! What was the original intent? "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" or similar?
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday August 12 2020, @02:49PM
Yes.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jb on Tuesday August 11 2020, @07:05AM (14 children)
I think you've missed the point.
We should instead go back to all academic literature, teaching & exams being in Latin.
Why? Firstly because Latin is a far more precise language than English (which makes it far more suitable for academic use). Secondly because it's much easier to learn as a second language than English. And thirdly because choosing something that is nobody's first language puts every student on an even playing field.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2020, @07:42AM (1 child)
I wouldn't want everything taught in Latin, but it's well worth learning. It was available at my high school in the 80s, and it's probably still available at prep schools. The Catholic Church allowed Mass in something other than Latin in what, the 1960s with Vatican II? Among Catholics I've known, I seem to recall hearing that Latin Mass was still performed not that long ago, and probably still is.
I'm willing to wager that places like Notre Dame University and Georgetown with strong Catholic roots probably still have a strong Latin language program. Let's not forget all the medical and legal terms too. Latin is still entrenched!
The point being, it wouldn't be that hard to transition higher learning back to Latin... not that we should necessarily do that. What's interesting to me is how many of the "SAT words" I learned had Latin roots. I suspect it wouldn't be that hard to pick up if I really had to do it; but to reiterate, no thanks.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday August 12 2020, @01:47AM
Mass in Latin is still permitted. But the controversy about it deals with the use of the *old* Latin ritual instead of the official *new* Latin mass.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2020, @07:59AM (1 child)
Eh, everyone here is required to learn either Latin or French as a third language in school, yet I don't think I've ever met anyone who found it easier to learn than English. Additionally, you'd run into considerable trouble trying to express modern concepts in a dead language unless you first create some bastardized, mock version of it (that would undoubtedly import much of the imprecision and ambiguity innate to all things modern).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2020, @10:03AM
Not Latin, BTW. But who these days could tell?
(Score: 5, Informative) by FunkyLich on Tuesday August 11 2020, @08:58AM (8 children)
Esperanto was designed to be a language for exactly that purpose.
Yet, my vote goes to Lojban - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban [wikipedia.org] - as the language that in an ideal world, would be the language that all need to learn.
A synthetic engineered language, it has been thought and designed to be the best tool for the job. After all, the job of any language is as the medium of transport of ideas and information. And Lojban seems to be so very efficient in many directions at that. It has relatively short words and easy to pronounce. The writing is phonetic based, so when you read you have WYSIWYS (the last S being "speak"). It has a beautiful logic and well defined grammar which virtually avoids ambiguities of meaning in a sentence (eg: "I poked the man with an umbrella." Did I use an umbrella to poke the man, or did I poke the man who had an umbrella? The grammar of the language simply does not allow the existence of sentences like this example).
I wish I had come across it years ago. I'd have studied it for fun when I had so much more free time.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Tuesday August 11 2020, @12:23PM (6 children)
Esperanto failed because the name itself sounds Spanish. Was it beyond them to think of a neutral name? If they fuck up even getting its own name right to start with, how many more fuck-ups there must be along the road.
(Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Tuesday August 11 2020, @01:45PM (1 child)
IMHO Esperanto failed because so many words end in 'j'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2020, @01:57PM
Actually no, they don't. Unless you have problems with “many” English English words ending with -s.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nuke on Tuesday August 11 2020, @04:49PM (3 children)
I just took a look at some sample Esperanto text. It was clearly doomed to failure in that it uses accents. IDK about devices in countries that do use accents, but in the English speaking world at least, keyboards just don't have accented letters on them, and it would have been even worse in typewriter days.
Someone no doubt will explain to me how to get accented letters on this keyboard by some key combination, but I would not want the faff. It seems that some accented letters in Esperanto are simply to save using another letter eg "u" with a circumflex is pronounced "w", because the latter is not used in Esperanto. That's just fucking stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2020, @05:41PM (2 children)
And yet English has had no problem adopting accented words into the language: résumé, façade, fiancé/fiancée, naïve, and Noël, to name a few. (Strictly speaking, the dieresis should be used more frequently in English than it is, but I assume writers got lazy. Without the dieresis, words like "cooperate", "coordinate" and "reelect" should be pronounced starting with "coop", "coor" and "reel", respectively.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11 2020, @07:54PM (1 child)
Accents don't exist in English, when a word is stolen from another language that should have accents they are dropped and we just pronounce it however we want. For you list of words, I have never seen naive or facade accented in any context. Noel generally has accents on decorations to look cool, never in and normal context. The others are sometimes used to look more formal, but again not generally. No English class would ever teach you what an accent means so there is no point in complaining it does not follow another languages rules, it is just another weirdly pronounced word.
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Wednesday August 12 2020, @12:38PM
"Accents don't exist in English"
Absolutely untrue. They might get omitted because of laziness, but all the above examples are completely correct. You've never seen "café"? It's all over the place, and it's the correct spelling. "Naive" is wrong, and is correctly spelled "naïve" What about "coöperate"? Not as common nowadays, but it's in plenty of 20th century writing. That's not an umlaut, it's a diaeresis. Accents are not commonly used in English, it's true. But that's not to say they are unused. Quite a number of words require accents to be strictly correct.
(Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Tuesday August 11 2020, @02:54PM
I looked at it too but I don't like its grammar and syntax. I would prefer free word order with synthetic or agglutinative grammar.
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday August 12 2020, @01:14AM
Latin, having been frozen, would have to have an immense number of new words gerrymandered into the language.
Also, the various conjugations and declensions in Latin are spurious and arbitrary, making memorization a nightmare.
English has great range for nuance that is simply absent in Latin, just because there are so many English words that nominally mean the same thing, but don't really mean the same thing.