Re: [wg-review] Education & Outreach and Languages

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Eric,
There are two issues here.

1. technical understandability. Words are not taken as English,
    Russian, French or Chinese. They are taken as technical. I
    am a French language purist. But I hate using a French translation
    for technical issues: I just do not understand the words and several
    different words may be used by different translators. Windows in
    French is awful to understand.

2. language understandability

     I am unable to understand part of what you say and 60% of what
     Joanna says. Even in paying real attention. I am sure that a broad
     part of this comes from that she speaks and thinks in her sophisticated
     English. Usually I have no problem understanding the thinking of
     American (which is old English and is quite nearer from Latin roots)
     and non English mother tongue people (Russian may be).
     Irish are often complex. Popular English is quite OK. The Queen
     is like hearing French to me. But English middle sophisticated
     class is a real problem to us. Very difficult to follow the idiom
     but mostly the idiom based form of thinking. Just hear the
     reports from Commons and Lords. A part from the accents
     Commons are far more difficult to understand than Lords.
     The thinking is more complex. There are a lot of abstractions.
     It is very dense. A lot of non-said things.

     iCANN (I suppose Mike Roberts is important in the writing)
     is OK. We will see if Stuart Lynn import some English complexity.


3. This difficulty lead to a new language named "Basic English".
     Typical Basic English is 400 words. AirBus BE is 200.

      Example: "Depress a key" nobody knows what it means and
                     crash the plane.
                     "Hit a key" every one knows and you land it.

      The bottom of the story is if you oblige yourself to a very
      limited and technically precise vocabulary, you think with that
      tool and become clear to all. Short matter of fact sentences
      with a real meaning. You try to understand the meaning of every
      word you use, just because clarifying would be a complex task
      you want to avoid.

      BTW that does not preclude you to use precise, conceptually
      involved words and meanings. I recall a teaching by Joanna
      about the difference of "constituency" in English and in American.
      She did not see all the implications, all the more when compared
      to the French understanding. This did not prevent her to be very
      precise on a complex issue. (I take Joanna as an example,
      because she probably is the more difficult to follow for a non-
      Anglo-Saxon person, and she probably is intellectually interesting
      to read for an American, I mean the melody of the phrase and of
      the thinking?).

      This kind of consideration led the ccTLD to a drafting committee
      about languages (the issue started here with the Spanish ccTLD
      after my proposition that every iCANN participant should speak
      2 languages to understand the difficulty of the other to speak
      in English, and to have some training at  listening others... :-)

      The ccTLD concern - as far as I understand - was also about
      end-users who have no English and have no reason to learn
      that language.

      Just think about our own difficulty if we were to speak the real
      most widely spoken languages: Chinese, Arabic...

4. Just consider the language complexity degree rulling every
     DoD document. There are legal softwares to evaluate a text
     complexity. The mailing programs should include them. No
     mail should be sent on an iCANN mailing list if more
     complex than grade 5 or 6 for example.

Jefsey





On 15:42 01/03/01, Eric Dierker said:
>I am coming up with a conclusion which is quite troublesome.  It goes
>against my grain and does not sit well so I ask for comments before I
>take the logic any further.
>
>It appears that as far as outreach goes multi-lingualism is a must.
>With that said it also appears that for the purposes of clarification
>and technical communication and understanding we must speak english.
>
>I walked into a server room in a developing southeast asian country and
>noticed that all the techies were native.  They were installing the
>equipment for a software development center.  They were all speaking
>english.  When I asked why they simply replied we don't even have the
>words for this in our language.  In writing policy for that country we
>have included ESL as a technical certificate requirement.
>
>I hate the idea of the ugly American.  The language of a region is the
>best key to understanding, and enjoying it's culture.  In translation
>way to much is lost. I am afraid that the internet is historically a
>result of american culture and therefor translating it loses to much of
>it's essence.
>
>Any aid in developing this logic or illogic will be appreciated.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html