Re: [atlarge-discuss] méthodes de travail normales

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey and all fellow members,

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> 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.

  Ah!  Now the true facts in your regard are revealed and explain allot
as to your current behavior, but not all.  In any event your desire here
is not realistic in any way and is unlikely to ever be so. The UN tried
this approach for over two decades and failed.  Therefore what you
seem to desire may be a wonderful dream but has no place here
as far as the members are concerned and the fact that most stakeholders/users
are NOT multilingual is why.  You have no right or mandate to attempt
to force such upon the members either.  But surely you may suggest so.


> 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.

  Unfortunately such does not accomplish that laudable goal or
desire. As English is the international language of choice and has been
for 4 decades at least, what you are suggesting with respect to
"lingua franca" is unrealistic for this membership or even the international
community as a whole to consider.  Hence why it is not broadly excepted
or even discussed.

> 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.

  Nonsense!  English is the international language of choice globally
not your "lingua franca", Jefsey.  So it is you that are creating confusion
and disgruntlement with your insistence in using lingua franca.  Please
do yourself and this membership the common courtesy of discontinuing
such nonsense ASAP.

>
>
> 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.

  Nonsense here as well.  And every reasonable member here knows it
except you it now seems.

> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



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