Comment about Tom’s new article.

<<I mean that it is not certain that the entertainment benefits of localization outweigh the educational costs.
>>

If only everyone cared this much about education! There would be no unemployment, no developing countries, no crime, no poverty, no truants etc.

<<Perhaps we should care if our doctors know English well enough to read about the latest research in medical journals. >>

Reading research papers is huge difference to understanding video games. In fact, video game English could probably even be detrimental to the formal kind of English needed for this, or if not, it would be only marginally beneficial and not worth the trouble, (for example, it would be better just to play the game in Polish for 2 hours and then spend 30 minutes reading a medical article in English). Learning specialised English is not very difficult, I once was studying mathematics and it took me only a few months to learn German and French to the level of being able to read mathematical texts in those languages, and I don't think playing video games in thsoe languages would have helped at all.


<<
I'm certainly for bilingual education. However, the problem I see with this solution is that it favors people from English-speaking countries. Should we be telling our students to spend a lot of time learning two languages while American students are only learning English and can devote the rest of their time to other subjects? One has to ask: what are the benefits of maintaining all the other languages? >>


I don't find this to be very convincing. The importance of school as a whole is minimal and thus language learning should be emphasised, as this is a much mroe long lasting skill than some other subjects. You make it sound like for every second that a child is not in a language class, they will be fervently studying advanced science, which is obviously not true. You don't need to devote that much time to get the necessary knowledge when you're in school, and advanced material is never studied at school. University is what is important, and as long as the child has the fundamentals down at this point they have equal footing, regardless of whether they spent 45 minutes a day or 55 minutes a day in science class. I know this well as my children were slackers at school, who skipped class and smoked mariuana and occasionally failed, but they got over it and did well as anyone else at university.

And besides there is no evidence that Anglophone countries have better education systems. I would have to say that it seems like the non-Anglophones are the better educated ones. They are fluent in English AND have just as good knowledge of the subject. Many monolinguals feel inferior.


<<but it will never overtake English for the simple reason that English is the language of science, technology, and business.>>


This is true, and will be for some time, but it is only a 'de facto' arrangement. There is no way to say that in 50 years it will still be the same. 50 years ago, Russian competed with English in importance and now where is it? Think of all those students who learnt Russian because they thought it was the language of science, technology and business. They must have felt like they wasted their time.


<<
I beg the readers to look deep inside themselves to ponder this notion: Preservation efforts of a certain language--any language--are based on ego, and ego alone>>

All the people I ever speak to who are in favour of letting languages die out are the people who speak major unendangered languages. The outlook of small language speakers is often quite different. It is similar to a feeling of being invaded by a foreign imperial power (which it basically is) and having a foreign culture forced on you. Tom, would you like it if Russia invaded Poland again and forced Russian on you? Eventually, everyone would give up Polish and you would become a Russian, like it or not.

<<but it will never overtake English for the simple reason that English is the language of science, technology, and business.>>

Never say never. Latin was once the language of science and sophistication, and French was the language of politics and culture. And where are these languages now?

<<I very much regret the loss of Shakespeare's English and Classical Greek.>>

Why these languages? Neither of them has actually died out, but evolved into the modern versions of these languages. Shakespearean English is nothing more than an archaic form of English. There are several languages that have really become extinct, having no "descendants alive".

<<but literature is of little importance to our civilization.>>

That was a very stupid thing to say. There would be no civilization whatsoever without literature.

<<How many people today bemoan the loss of the telegraph machine?>>

Telegraph machines are not (at least for most of us) a part of our identity.


How does the translation of books differ from the translation of video games? Should books also be left untranslated?

(BTW, Doom 1-2 are very good games, but Doom 3 is rubbish.)

"That was a very stupid thing to say. There would be no civilization whatsoever without literature. "

I think he means non-prosaic literature

If the world comes to an agreement on a lingua franca, I will happily learn it ***IF*** the language is culturally neutral and fundamentally regular. This rules out English.
Esperanto is the most likely option. Yeah, I know, boo hoo, but at least I'm being honest.

You seem to already know English so you wouldn't even have to learn it if the language they agreed upon were English.

"You seem to already know English so you wouldn't even have to learn it if the language they agreed upon were English."

True, but I don't think that would ever happen, and I can't say I'm sorry about it.
I like the English language a lot, but I wouldn't want it, or any other language that's not culturally neutral for that matter, to be the world's lingua franca.

Why can't English be culturally neutral? If it becomes the universal lingua franca then it will cease to be associated with one particular culture.

«If it becomes the universal lingua franca then it will cease to be associated with one particular culture.»

Probably true if everybody starts speaking it as their *native* tongue. Otherwise, the natives would still be seen as those setting the standard of what is correct and what isn't, giving them an unfair control on the lingua franca. *Thus*, using English as a lingua franca implies the extinction of every other languages.
However, Esperanto and some other made-up, regular languages were designed to be easily learned and spoken as *second* languages, which is why I would favor them. Not that I think the world will ever agree on a lingua franca, but if it would I know what language I'd support.

<<but literature is of little importance to our civilization.>>

Tom, do you *mean* it or you are just being sarcastic? I hope it's the latter.

Tom is saying there are two options: learn English at all costs because it is the language of everything, or be confined to nothingness. But there is a third option: increase the presence of other languages so it is no longer necessary for everyone to dominate English. Make the international communication multilingual. You will now complain that that will require a huge amount of translators, but in compensation it will require less English teachers, so it will balance out.

It was a very interesting article.

"If the world comes to an agreement on a lingua franca, I will happily learn it ***IF*** the language is culturally neutral and fundamentally regular. This rules out English. Esperanto is the most likely option"

The trouble with those artificial languages is that they almost by default tend to reflect more influence from one culture(s) than others. Esperanto, in my opinion, looks too much like Spanish or Italian, so I think a lot of learners will assess it with a pan-cultural Latin influence. Wouldn't this defeat your own purpose?

(For balance, other constructed languages such as Volapuk looks too much like German to be seen as free from that influence.)

Countries that speak Indo-European langs should use PIE as a lingua franca. That way it would not be biased towards one culture or another.

If you insist on Pie, let it be apple or cherry. Rhubarb is good, but it is not a pie for everyone. Oh, I guess you meant Proto-IE.

No pie for me!

"In fact, video game English could probably even be detrimental to the formal kind of English needed for this"

Games teach you grammar, pronunciation, general vocabulary. I agree that they are not optimal practice for someone who wants to read research papers, but they are useful.

If you think they're detrimental to understanding scientific English, then you have to also think that talking to native speakers or living in an English-speaking country is detrimental. I think you don't believe this argument yourself.

"(...) Learning specialised English is not very difficult. I once was studying mathematics and it took me only a few months ..."

You should know that mathematics is not medicine or engineering. You can understand math papers as long as you understand mathematical notation + some key words and phrases. There is little grammar and vocabulary in mathematical papers.

Medicine, engineering and other sciences are different. You need to be familiar with English grammar and vocabulary. If you collaborate or communicate with people in other countries, then conversational English skills (developed by videogames) are a must.

"You make it sound like for every second that a child is not in a language class, they will be fervently studying advanced science"

No, of course not. But some children (the "nerds") will. If I hadn't had to learn Polish in high school, I would've had more time to develop my programming skills.
And even if we assume dropping non-English languages has no benefits, that's still no reason to teach them. Every subject you teach at school has to be justified, and where's the justification for non-English languages? All people talk about is superstitious nonsense: "cultural identity", "diversity", etc. Where are the actual benefits?

"It is similar to a feeling of being invaded by a foreign imperial power"

1. If some people choose to cling to their native languages because it gives them a feeling of tribal identity or because of emotional attachment, then they are not acting in the interest of humanity. They should realize that.
2. Because of these feelings, we have to proceed slowly -- just like with the EU. If some countries do not want the Euro out of "national pride", they can opt out. They will come round eventually.


"You will now complain that that will require a huge amount of translators, but in compensation it will require less English teachers, so it will balance out."

That's insane. How much thought did you put into this -- 5 seconds?

My solution (evolution towards one language for the world) means that eventually we will need neither teachers nor translators. Your solution requires legions of translators forever. Which is more efficient?

You studied math. Here's a problem for you: If there are 20 people in a room, each speaking a different language, how many interpreters do you need so that they can all communicate, assuming each interpreter handles one language combination? The answer is 190.

The number is smaller if you use intermediate languages as the EU does (e.g. first we translate language A to English then English into language B), but the reason we CAN use English as an intermediate language is that it is known so widely. If we reduce the number of English teachers like you propose, this will no longer be possible.

Translators cost money, time, they are inconvenient and they introduce mistakes. They are an ugly solution to a problem which should not exist. My cousin is a PhD student of physics and he does research in cooperation with a German institution (most big science in Europe is international). Imagine he had to bring in an interpreter every time he phoned, emailed or met his German partners. What about my communication with my friends and relatives in the US? Should we hire interpreters, too? Or perhaps communication between people in different countries should stop altogether?