Esperanto vs English
Ulf Lunde
>
> Could we use Esperanto as a kind of official language (for naming
> UU, for instance) and give teaching in English. Currently,
> (virtually) no-one knows Esperanto, so it's not a good idea
> to force one to use it. Some day Esperanto may be more common,
> so it can be used more.
What would be the point of an "official language" if one were supposed not to
use it, but use English instead? Could you state your idea in an a little
more explicit manner? I don't see the point in declaring a language which
we don't want to "force" anyone to use, official for any purpose.
However, I like your idea, and I shall try to explain how I interpret it.
The following is just my personal view of the problem. Not even I
see it as a realistic view of the future. Let me know whether or not
it is the same idea as the one you had in mind.
If Esperanto is going to become more common, I hope (as do you) it will not
happen by having it "forced" upon anyone. But, because the first users of Use-
net were computer scientists, English has become an almost universal de facto
standard here. (English is the one language all computer scientists under-
stand.) You might say that English is now being "forced" upon the users of
Usenet. It is inevitable that any attempt to change this "English-trend" will
be met with skepticism and negative reactions, no matter how carefully it be
introduced.
Until now Esperanto has only been learned by people who really wished to
learn it and who took an initiative themselves to learn it, mostly for fun.
Making Esperanto a mandatory course (as I imagine it must be, should it be
chosen as *the* official university language) would change all that in a
fundamental way. Linguists and spare time linguists probably wouldn't mind,
but a part of the natively English-speaking community would definitely object
to having to learn another language when teaching everyone else English would
be so much more convenient (for the English-speakers) and useful (for all).
One solution would be to let everyone use their own language, and have
all papers of interest translated into many languages.
Great care must however be taken to prevent the same expensive
evolution in Usenet as in the EC (and other international organi-
zations) from taking place. Many official languages means a lot of
unnecessary and expensive translation work, none of which can yet be
automated.
I think that a good solution might be to make Esperanto a
"source" language, in the sense that all documents should exist in
Esperanto, and be translated into native languages when necessary.
Even if (or perhaps especially if) *all* documents were translated
into *every* native language used, the gain from such an arrangement
would be substantial.
Consider an example: Five users with five different native languages
each have a document which they want to share with the others. Now,
without Esperanto, they'd need ten translators to make the twenty
necessary translations: (1) One who could translate from language L1 to
language L2 and from L2 to L1, (2) one for the translations L1-L3 and L3-L1,
and one for each of the following translations:
(3) L1-L4/L4-L1,
(4) L1-L5/L5-L1,
(5) L2-L3/L3-L2,
(6) L2-L4/L4-L2,
(7) L2-L5/L5-L2,
(8) L3-L4/L4-L3,
(9) L3-L5/L5-L3,
and (10) L4-L5/L5-L4.
Even if none of the documents were originally written in Esperanto and
none of the users knew how to read Esperanto (a worst-case scenario,
but a very likely one), the use of Esperanto as an official language
would now reduce the number of translators from ten to five, and the
number of necessary translations from twenty to ten, as the only
translators needed would be:
(1) L1 to Esperanto and Esperanto to L1,
(2) L2-E/E-L2, (3) L3-E/E-L3, (4) L4-E/E-L4, and (5) L5-E/E-L5.
Teaching those five translators Esperanto would take much less time
than teaching the ten translators in the first scenario the languages
they need for their jobs. On top of that, the translators who had
learned Esperanto would all become able to communicate directly with
one another!
Thus, introducing Esperanto as a "source" or even just "intermediate"
language would greatly simplify translation matters. It would
also be a great incentive for learning Esperanto: If one of the users
in our example knew Esperanto, she would not need a translator at all!
She could write in (or translate into) Esperanto herself, and read the
Esperanto versions of the others' documents without first having them
translated into her mother tongue. (That she could also do herself if it
were necessary.) This advantage would in turn mean that most people would
*want* to learn Esperanto for practical reasons. I.e., they would not
feel that it were being forced upon them.
And they lived happily ever after.
I know that this was very clumsily written, but I hope that I have
nevertheless conveyed my fuzzy opinion in sufficient clarity.
Ulf Lunde
(If you followup, please note that this article was crossposted
to soc.culture.esperanto.)
Brett Wuth
>Consider an example: Five users with five different native languages
>each have a document which they want to share with the others.
>Even if none of the documents were originally written in Esperanto and
>none of the users knew how to read Esperanto (a worst-case scenario,
>but a very likely one), the use of Esperanto as an official language
>would now reduce the number of translators from ten to five, and the
>number of necessary translations from twenty to ten
In fact, the number of translations would be 25 not 10, because each of
the 5 works would be translated to Esperanto (5) and from Esperanto to
the other languages (20). In any case, I like the sentiment.
==
Fakte, la numero da traduktoj estus 25, ne 10, cxar cxiu de la 5 verkajxo
devus traduki al Esperanto (5) kaj el Esperanto al la alia lingvoj (20).
Nepre, mi sxatas la sentimenton.
Gxis,
--
Brett Wuth wu...@castrov.cuc.ab.ca BCW...@uncamult.bitnet wu...@castrov.UUCP
U302, 3510 44St SW, Calgary, Alberta, T3E 3R9, CANADA Tel: +1 403 242-0848
Jose Manuel Martins
> Ulf....@kvatro.no (Ulf Lunde) writes:
> >Consider an example: Five users with five different native languages
> >each have a document which they want to share with the others.
>
> >Even if none of the documents were originally written in Esperanto and
> >none of the users knew how to read Esperanto (a worst-case scenario,
> >but a very likely one), the use of Esperanto as an official language
> >would now reduce the number of translators from ten to five, and the
> >number of necessary translations from twenty to ten
>
> In fact, the number of translations would be 25 not 10, because each of
> the 5 works would be translated to Esperanto (5) and from Esperanto to
> the other languages (20). In any case, I like the sentiment.
> ==
> Fakte, la numero da traduktoj estus 25, ne 10, cxar cxiu de la 5 verkajxo
> devus traduki al Esperanto (5) kaj el Esperanto al la alia lingvoj (20).
> Nepre, mi sxatas la sentimenton.
It looks that there's something wrong with your reasoning: why should I
make 20 translations to get only 5 languages????
The expression to get the number of translations:
without pivot language: t = (n-1)*(n-1)**2
with " " : t = 2n
e.g. n = 10 languages ==> t without = 729
t with = 20
It is obvious the pivot is usefull, isn't it?
Jxuze'
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
| o o em: j...@zeus.ci.ua.pt |
| Jose' Manuel Martins \_/ * tf: +351.34.25085 x 2616 |
| fx: 29290 |
| Dep. Ambiente/ Universidade/ Portugal 3800 Aveiro |
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Manuel Martins
Please ignore my previous message: wrong formula...
Brett Wuth skribas:
> Ulf....@kvatro.no (Ulf Lunde) writes:
> >Consider an example: Five users with five different native languages
> >each have a document which they want to share with the others.
>
> >Even if none of the documents were originally written in Esperanto and
> >none of the users knew how to read Esperanto (a worst-case scenario,
> >but a very likely one), the use of Esperanto as an official language
> >would now reduce the number of translators from ten to five, and the
> >number of necessary translations from twenty to ten
>
> In fact, the number of translations would be 25 not 10, because each of
> the 5 works would be translated to Esperanto (5) and from Esperanto to
> the other languages (20). In any case, I like the sentiment.
> ==
> Fakte, la numero da traduktoj estus 25, ne 10, cxar cxiu de la 5 verkajxo
> devus traduki al Esperanto (5) kaj el Esperanto al la alia lingvoj (20).
> Nepre, mi sxatas la sentimenton.
It looks that there's something wrong with your reasoning: why should I
make 20 translations to get only 5 languages????
The expression to get the number of translations:
without pivot language: t = n**2 - n
with " " : t = 2n
e.g. n = 10 languages ==> t without = 90
Gary L Snethen
>It looks that there's something wrong with your reasoning: why should I
>make 20 translations to get only 5 languages????
>The expression to get the number of translations:
> without pivot language: t = (n-1)*(n-1)**2
> with " " : t = 2n
>e.g. n = 10 languages ==> t without = 729
> t with = 20
>It is obvious the pivot is usefull, isn't it?
>Jxuze'
Originally, it was stated that there are 5 languages each with material in
their respective languages which needs to be translated to each of the
other four languages.
Without Esperanto (ie., direct translation) you have n*(n-1) translations.
Each of the 'n' books must be translated to 'n-1' other languages. Thus
you have a TOTAL of 20 translations. This can be done by 10 interpreters
(since the same interpreter can go from English to French or from French to
English).
With Esperanto, you need only 5 interpreters (each language to/from Esperanto)
but You need 25 separate translations. 5 translations to get the books into
Esperanto, and then each of those five must be translated into the other
4 languages (4*5=20) for a total of 25 translations.
I cannot see where you got (n-1)(n-1)^2, which is THIRD order (?).
This is the same as (n-1)^3...
It makes perfect sense that the books have to go through more translations
with a 'pivot' language than without... But also, it is important to remember
that by using Esperanto, the books are now availble in SIX languages
(including Esperanto) rather than five. It is also important to remember
that this process takes the 5/2 the time the other method takes, for each
interpreter must translate 5 books, while he/she only had to translate
2 before.
If anyone is still confused on the issue, try drawing a simple diagram in
the form of a pentagram (no evil motives here), and you should plainly see
(unless I've misinterpreted the question) the following numbers are correct:
Without pivot With pivot
Languages available: 5 6
Total translations: 20 25
Total interpreters: 10 5
Translations per book: 4 5
Translations per interpreter: 2 5
Now, let's assume that we pay PER translation. We have:
20/5=4 translations per language without a pivot, and:
25/6=4.167 translations per language with a pivot...
BUT we get an extra language (esperanto), if we added the cost of translating
each of the five books in the pivotless example to Esperanto, we'd have
4.167 translations per language as well.
So the only difference appears to be that the books need to be translated twice
(a copy of a copy) and that it takes twice as long to do it using a pivot
(assuming infinite translators are available and we pay per translation).
I still like the idea, however...
---Xeno
Bruce Sherwood
scientists, English has become an almost universal de facto standard
I'd like to make this more precise: "English is the one language all
computer scientists must and can READ."
In many areas of science and technology, almost everyone must and can
read the technical literature in English. But it is often the case that
many of these scientists and engineers cannot adequately write English,
speak English, or understand spoken English. The vaunted "simplicity"
of English applies almost solely to passive reading. The extremely
complex system of sounds makes fluent oral communication very hard to
achieve for many people, and writing scientific English is a truly
daunting challenge for many.
Last month I reviewed a computer-science article for publication,
submitted by a computer scientist with a foreign name living in the
United States. The paper was marred by about ten significant
grammatical errors per page. In some cases the English was so bad I
couldn't even guess what was meant.
The high difficulty of writing adequate scientific English imposes a
heavy discriminatory burden on non-native-English-speaking scientists,
who find it difficult to get their articles published in
internationally-recognized journals.
Similarly, many scientists are excluded from full participation in
science by the dominant use of English in conferences. Perhaps the
person can painfully read from a prepared paper but is unable to
understand and answer questions from the floor, and unable to
participate in the critical discussions in the halls.
It is important always to keep in mind that the universality of reading
English in the world of science is not nearly sufficient for adequate
communications. We really do need Esperanto for oral communications,
and to enable people to write.
Bruce Sherwood
Don HARLOW
Dato: 920804
Rilate al komunkajxoj de Martins, Snethen, kaj aliaj:
Versxajne la numero de _kanaloj_ estas malpli alta helpe de
interlingvo, sed la fina nombro de tradukoj estas pli altaj -- do
oni devas dungi pli da tradukistoj, kaj la fina rezulto estos egala
por la du kazoj.
Mi menciu, ke laux mia kompreno, la projekto "Harry" cxe UNO
traktis la _enarhxivigadon_ de dokumentoj en nur unu lingvo, ne la
senbezonan tradukadon en diversajn lingvojn. Laux la nuna
sistemo, verkajxo pri (ekzemple) seksaj kutimoj de la Andaman-
insulanoj devas esti enarhxivigita en ses lingvoj, malgraux tio, ke
poste eble nur du-tri homoj iam ajn legos gxin. Laux la projekto
"Harry", oni enarhxivigus gxin nur en Esperanto; poste oni tradukus
gxin al alia lingvo (ne necese nur oficiala lingvo de UNO) nur se
estus bezono por tio.
(Kompreneble, libro pri la seksaj kutimoj de kiu ajn popolo vendigxus
tiel rapide kiel krokodilaj pingloj, en multaj lingvoj.)
---
With respect to messages from Martins, Snethen, and others:
Apparently the number of _channels_ is lowere with the aid of an
interlanguage, but the eventual number of translations is higher --
so more translators have to be hired, and the final result will be the
same for both cases.
I should mention that, as I understand it, the Harry plan at the United
Nations treated the _archiving_ of documents in only one language,
not needless translation into various languages. In the present system,
a work about (e.g.) the sex habits of the Andaman Islanders has to be
archived in six languages, even if only two or three people may ever
read it. In the Harry plan, it would be archived only in Esperanto; it
would later be translated into some other language (not necessarily
just a UN official language) only if there were a need for it.
(Of course, a book on the sex habits of any group of people would sell
like hotcakes, in many languages.)
=============================================
Don HARLOW Redaktoro Esperanto U.S.A.
tel. (1 510) 222 0187
CompuServe [72627,2647]
Internet 72627...@compuserve.com
"To discipline Esperantists is to eat soup with chopsticks."
Confucius
=============================================
Don HARLOW
Dato: 920804
Bruce Sherwood! Estas bonege revidi vian nomon!!!
>Last month I reviewed a computer-science article for publication,
>submitted by a computer scientist with a foreign name living in the
>United States. The paper was marred by about ten significant
>grammatical errors per page. In some cases the English was so bad I
>couldn't even guess what was meant.
Bruce, vi eble rememoros la kazon de letero, verkita de
okcidenteuxropa sciencisto, kiu aperis antaux jaroj en iu
scienca revuo -- eble "Science". Gxi pledis por Esperanto,
sed estis en tiel bona angla lingvo, ke gxi en sia formo estis
kvazaux pledo por la angla lingvo.
Unu jaron poste mi vidis fotokopion de la originala letero,
kaj evidentigxis, ke la redaktoro, eble pro simpla bonvolo al
la sciencisto, poluris kaj purigis ties anglan lingvajxon por
komprenebligi la leteron al anglalingvaj legantoj ...
---
Bruce, you may remember the case of a letter, written by a
West European scientist, which appeared years ago in a
scientific magazine -- maybe "Science". It was a plea for
Esperanto, but it was in such good English that its very form
seemed to be a plea for English.
One year later I saw a photocopy of the original letter, and it
became clear to me that the editor, perhaps out of simple kindness
toward the scientist, had polished and purified his English language
to make the letter comprehensible to English-speaking readers ...
Bruce Sherwood
was "Physics Today," the house organ of the American Institute of
Physics, and the letter was from a young Belgian astronomer working at
an observatory in Spain. He wrote the letter in response to my "Guest
Comment" on the language problem which appeared in the July 1979 issue
of "Physics Today."
In that essay I argued that even in physics, perhaps the most
international and English-dominated science, oral communication suffers
enormously due to the great difficulty of speaking and understanding
English. There followed a flurry of mostly not very analytical letters
to the journal, one of which was the one you mentioned. That one was
good, and the writer spoke poignantly about the discriminatory situation
that meant that young physicists even from Western Europe had great
difficulty writing acceptable articles for publication in English. The
writer had sent me a copy of his letter, so I was able to see how poor
the original English was. But the readers of the journal of course saw
a heavily edited cleaned-up version.
This is one of the many many examples of how hidden are the problems of
language discrimination. As a result, many of the people who suffer the
most from English-only policies don't complain because they think they
have a personal problem or personal failings in not being able to cope
with English. They don't have the data to show the social dimension of
this, and that they are not alone.
Bruce
Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani
> The high difficulty of writing adequate scientific English imposes a
> heavy discriminatory burden on non-native-English-speaking scientists,
> who find it difficult to get their articles published in
> internationally-recognized journals.
These days, almost all review sheets sent to reviewers of papers submitted to
(English language) conferences contain a section on the (fluency) of English
used, alongside originality, technical contents etc. The reviewers are
encouraged to give similar weighting to the language as to other aspects of the
paper. With the results that more and more international conferences reject
submissions solely on the grounds that the language used is not up to standard.
A loss both to the international scientific community and the principle of
fairness and justice.
-hossein
mi...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
This is a very annoying problem--poor English ability in scientific writing--
and one sees it more and more. I am glad to hear that in the hard sciences, at
least, collections of papers are being rejected on such grounds. In my own
field, however (Linguistics, ironically) several collections appear every year
with wretched English, which in some cases is even _excused_ in the editorial
remarks! This is perhaps inevitable: as more and more people use English,
fewer and fewer of the users are native speakers. Perhaps English will go the
way of medieval Latin. Perhaps it already has. However, if Esperanto were
used I suspect we would have similar problems...
- Ken Miner
Reinhard Foessmeier
Bruce A. Sherwood skribis Bruce A. Sherwood wrote in s.c.e:
en soc.culture.esperanto pri
la prefero de la angla lingvo
en fakaj sciencaj revuoj,
interalie:
>
> Don Harlow refers to a letter by a West European scientist. The journal
> was "Physics Today," the house organ of the American Institute of
> Physics, and the letter was from a young Belgian astronomer working at
> an observatory in Spain. He wrote the letter in response to my "Guest
> Comment" on the language problem which appeared in the July 1979 issue
> of "Physics Today."
> This is one of the many many examples of how hidden are the problems of
> language discrimination. As a result, many of the people who suffer the
> most from English-only policies don't complain because they think they
> have a personal problem or personal failings in not being able to cope
> with English. They don't have the data to show the social dimension of
> this, and that they are not alone.
Mi povas suplementi tion per To this, I can add a little story
historieto kiun mi spertis kiam that happened to me when I submitted
mi kontribuis artikolon al la an article to the journal "Computing".
revuo "Computing". "Computing" "Computing" is edited in Austria
estas redaktata cxefe en Auxstrio and, according to its regulations,
kaj laux la regularo akceptas accepts contributions in German ans
artikolojn en la germana kaj English, with summaries in both
la angla, kun resumoj ambaux- languages.
lingvaj.
Mi sendis mian artikolon en la I submitted my article in German (my
germana, kaj estis petata de native tongue) and the editor asked
redaktisto traduki gxin. Kiam me to translate it. When I told him
mi diris ke tio estas malfacila that this would be difficult for
por mi kaj ke mi volas skribi en me and that I preferred to write
lingvo, kiun mi bone uzas, li in a language I am familiar with
konsentis. Tamen, antaux la apero he approved. When, however, the
de la artikolo, alia redaktisto article was about to be published
faris la saman peton, kaj mi devis another editor repeated the plea,
ripeti la saman argumentadon. and I had to go into the same
Finfine la artikolo aperis en la argumentation all over again.
germana. Gxi estis la sola en Eventually, the article appeared
tiu lingvo -- ne mirige. in German. It was the only one --
little wonder.
Cetere, antaux cx. 10 jaroj germanaj BTW, about ten years ago german
artikoloj estis ankoraux oftaj en articles were still quite frequent
Computing. in "Computing".
Reinhard Foessmeier