Re: [atlarge-discuss] méthodes de travail normales

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

On 22:24 27/05/03, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
> I am not saying that people who do not speak English ought not to be 
> represented.  I think they ought to be represented by people who do speak 
> their language, but also speak, write, and understand English at a high 
> proficiency level.  Your English, for example, is much better than Maur's 
> and I had no problem understanding your message.
I do not say that people who represent English speaking countries should 
understand others' idioms.  I think they ought to be represented by people 
with enough multinational background to understand the international ways 
and language. The international language is a kind of lingua franca based 
on poor basic English with very low interest in semantic and grammar. Its 
purpose is not to satisfy purists, but to permit the largest number of 
people to understand each others. Its achievement is that I fully 
understand Mauro in using it. I am sorry if you have dificulty with it: you 
should only do as we did, to learn it - in a different way, but you 
obviously did not get yet up todate with us.

The problem of such International English is that it certainly gives the 
feeling to some American people (Bristish and most of the other English 
brands speakers are more sophisticated or still less internationally 
involved) that their language is a language of reference. It is not. What 
is of reference is what is ported (concept, ideas,  references, etc) by 
such an International English "transcoding". Such concepts, ideas, 
references, etc. can be carried through this way - and when necessary 
worded in a more conventional American when published in America (what is 
not necessarily the case in Europe and at ITU). But they remain the 
products of the culture which produced it; and its "after-sales" will need 
the tool of its language.

We see that after the Sept 11th: the major problem that US Research and 
Universities meet is with the foreign searchers who cannot come back. This 
kills the cultural melting pot. If cultures and languages were no direct 
part of the technical blend, American archives and e-mail would permit to 
replace them.

It is true that the "melting-pot (old English) American" is poor at 
supporting concept working (as we may see it from the failure of IAB to 
come up for years with an Internet architecture) but is an excellent vector 
for midle-level cross-culture understanding, when contained at low 
complexity (America is probably the only place where language complexity is 
legally graded). We have legal and technical examples with the DoD 
requirements, Boeing basic English using 800 words, Airbus one only 400.

> As for ICANN, may I ask you to go to http://www.icann.org/general/jobs.htm 
> and look at the second job opportunity with ICANN, the position of :
I hardly object that a US Government Agency - in particular at a time it 
recenters its organization inorder to eventually fulfill its legal duties - 
asks its own managers to have a good command of the local language. But I 
think it is a usual mistake of ICANN - of the kind we all object - not to 
take into account its own Melbourne resolution concerning multilinguism 
support. In partlcular for a position of relational responsiblities. This 
demonstrates that ICANN wants to concentrate itself on US business and 
market aspects. Incidently this confirms also that ALAC is to be used as a 
US policy tool, and that our action is the only one having a chance to 
eventually represent the international users.

jfc



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de