Why English sucks as the language for international and scientific communication(madore.org)
madore.org
Why English sucks as the language for international and scientific communication
http://www.madore.org/~david/weblog/d.2015-03-20.2284.html#d.2015-03-20.2284
56 comments
To make a dot-point list, preface each line with four spaces. HN interprets that as 'code snippet' and keeps your formatting.
On-topic, one thing I see missing when I read articles detracting from English is the benefits of English. Like not having genders for non-gendered things. This article talks of ambiguity in English, but in turn an English student doesn't have to figure out whether a pair of scissors is male or female.
On-topic, one thing I see missing when I read articles detracting from English is the benefits of English. Like not having genders for non-gendered things. This article talks of ambiguity in English, but in turn an English student doesn't have to figure out whether a pair of scissors is male or female.
> To make a dot-point list, preface each line with four spaces. HN interprets that as 'code snippet' and keeps your formatting.
* so each point is in its own paragraph.
If you do this, remember to add line breaks
every 50 characters or so for mobile screens.
* so each point is in its own paragraph.
> malleability and adaptability are English's strengths
My understanding of this point was that he sees this as both a strength and a weakness. It's a feature for expressiveness, and a bug for interoperability.
My understanding of this point was that he sees this as both a strength and a weakness. It's a feature for expressiveness, and a bug for interoperability.
> English has succeeded not only because it is the voice of global hegemony, but also the voice of global resistance.
The argument is not 'how' English got where it is, but if it is the best language for the job.
Because it is the voice of global resistance? I don't even know what that means. It's akin to waving a flag and playing an anthem to make your point.
The argument is not 'how' English got where it is, but if it is the best language for the job.
Because it is the voice of global resistance? I don't even know what that means. It's akin to waving a flag and playing an anthem to make your point.
Your words are profound and spot on. This is excellent insight. Thank you.
"I am not trying to argue that we should now give up English for international or scientific communication, or try to replace it with this or that other language (except possibly in a limited way, e.g., see below on Basic English). I am not proposing to use Interlingua, Esperanto, Latin, Italian, Chinese, Russian, or anything else: I am maybe saying that we should have used Interlingua, Esperanto, Latin, Italian, Chinese, Russian, or something of the sort (probably any of the above would have been better than English) "
He really lost me when he suggested that Chinese would be a better scientific language than English. First, he didn't say which Chinese language or dialect. It's truly remarkable how many Chinese people cannot understand each other even though they speak the same language. Second, all Chinese languages are far harder than English to master speaking. Finally, writing is yet another steep learning curve.
He really lost me when he suggested that Chinese would be a better scientific language than English. First, he didn't say which Chinese language or dialect. It's truly remarkable how many Chinese people cannot understand each other even though they speak the same language. Second, all Chinese languages are far harder than English to master speaking. Finally, writing is yet another steep learning curve.
Nor does he address the creation of dialects, an odd omission given how much time he dedicates to analyzing the ways different speakers of english dialects may misunderstand himself. Italian, for example, is primarily spoken in Italy and almost nowhere else except by expat Italians. If Italian were to explode as an international language, you can be sure there would be regional dialects pop up that may misunderstand each other in systematic ways.
My wife speaks Italian. My brother-in-law also speaks Italian. However, they both speak different dialects (Sicilian and Bari), and have a hard enough time understanding one another. So, there is no need to wait for it to explode. =)
Yeah, the non-phonic nature of written Chinese leads to dozens of dialects in which two Chinese speakers can read the exact same sentence without a single overlapping syllable between them.
Regarding scientific communication in particular, the most obscure Chinese characters are for words unique to scientific fields, so while the average English speaker might not be able to understand an English physics paper, the average Chinese speaker can't even read a Chinese physics paper. In other words, you must possess above average Chinese skills to communicate about science.
Regarding scientific communication in particular, the most obscure Chinese characters are for words unique to scientific fields, so while the average English speaker might not be able to understand an English physics paper, the average Chinese speaker can't even read a Chinese physics paper. In other words, you must possess above average Chinese skills to communicate about science.
Seems like English for international and scientific communication is like Javascript for the internet.
I felt like I was reading a "Why PHP sucks..." article.
Pretty much so. It is one of the easiest to learn, almost everybody gets at least the basics, the codebase is huge, and it works on all platforms, err.. continents, modulo tiny accent issues.
His reference to a simplified English (already established in aerospace) seemed like an under-appreciated concept. Why not have a standard simplified language construct? Much like we do with Javascript.
The large size of the English lexicon isn't just a result of the Norman invasion and subsequent merging of Old English and Norman French. During the renaissance, a huge number of words were consciously imported into English from classical Greek and Latin by scholars and scientists seeking to make English a better language for learned discourse. The so-called "inkhorn controversy"[1] arose when some other writers objected to all these new, foreign-sounding words, particularly those for which there was already a suitable alternative in English. Despite the objections, many of the new words did gain acceptance, and the English lexicon swelled accordingly.
So it's a little ironic that one of the author's chief complaints is partly a result of scientists trying to turn English into a scientific language in the first place.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkhorn_term
So it's a little ironic that one of the author's chief complaints is partly a result of scientists trying to turn English into a scientific language in the first place.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkhorn_term
No one got up one morning and said, "You know what? We really should be conducting all of our business in English." It was the result of many years, and many different accidents of history that led to English having its current position in the world. World War II, the growth of American industry, the dominant position that the US has played in research and business, and the growth of the computer industry in the US all led to English being adopted world-wide. And you're not going to change that now.
Every language has its own trade-offs. It's totally true that English has crazy spelling, a huge vocabulary, and lots of ambiguous syntax. But it uses a simple alphabet, and doesn't have a centralized body making decisions about its direction, which also gives it flexibility.
So yes, maybe Spanish or German would have been a better choice. But that implies that there was a "choice" to be made. There wasn't.
It's definitely true that this has resulted in native English speakers having advantages over other people. But unless we decide to use an artificial language that is native to no one, there will always be some native-speaking group with an advantage. Fortunately, the diversity and flexibility of English are such that even if someone has an accent or stilted syntax, they're still (largely) accepted, and are able to get their points across.
Every language has its own trade-offs. It's totally true that English has crazy spelling, a huge vocabulary, and lots of ambiguous syntax. But it uses a simple alphabet, and doesn't have a centralized body making decisions about its direction, which also gives it flexibility.
So yes, maybe Spanish or German would have been a better choice. But that implies that there was a "choice" to be made. There wasn't.
It's definitely true that this has resulted in native English speakers having advantages over other people. But unless we decide to use an artificial language that is native to no one, there will always be some native-speaking group with an advantage. Fortunately, the diversity and flexibility of English are such that even if someone has an accent or stilted syntax, they're still (largely) accepted, and are able to get their points across.
For me it seems a global language strength lies, in fact, in this ambiguity, loose standards and acceptance of errors (in pronunciation, for example) - I'm thinking like HTML - it really can be buggy and still render text fine. French, German or Polish, on the other hand, are like XML - sure, it's strict and there are all these rules - but boy, try to make a mistake and it will blow in your face ;)
The spelling leaves lots to be desired though. Luckily it is among the easiest things to change in a language.
Is it? What's the smallest set of organizations that need to agree to make meaningful spelling reform (of a hundred troublesome words, say) actually stick?
[deleted]
Indeed, flexibility and adaptability are vital to a global language.
The thing is, there are no perfect language, just like programming languages. You will always find advantages and disadvantages of them at some point.
Yes, I agree with the author on the points that he is making, but comparing to other languages, I think that English is one of the easiest languages that can be learned and understood easily.
"Ease" is an important aspect in the context of languages, since people all around the world are not using latin alphabet and to get them using the language as fast as possible requires to eliminate some parts of the language like the meaning of the words for instance.
"Like" can be used for several different categories such as liking somebody/food/something. It is not the same for other languages, there are different words for liking somebody and liking something. Which puts more learning curve to get going with the language. Sure, you can express yourself better if you have time learn everything.
I guess this was one of the important reasons why English took off as well. (I might be totally wrong on this)
Interestingly I find this topic kind of similar to programming languages. Most of our interns in the company prefers Ruby over Java when they are learning web development. Because they can get something working during the day. On the other side, ones that choose java are spending time with configuring their libraries to compile the project. They will both eventually find out the advantages and disadvantages of both over the time.
Yes, I agree with the author on the points that he is making, but comparing to other languages, I think that English is one of the easiest languages that can be learned and understood easily.
"Ease" is an important aspect in the context of languages, since people all around the world are not using latin alphabet and to get them using the language as fast as possible requires to eliminate some parts of the language like the meaning of the words for instance.
"Like" can be used for several different categories such as liking somebody/food/something. It is not the same for other languages, there are different words for liking somebody and liking something. Which puts more learning curve to get going with the language. Sure, you can express yourself better if you have time learn everything.
I guess this was one of the important reasons why English took off as well. (I might be totally wrong on this)
Interestingly I find this topic kind of similar to programming languages. Most of our interns in the company prefers Ruby over Java when they are learning web development. Because they can get something working during the day. On the other side, ones that choose java are spending time with configuring their libraries to compile the project. They will both eventually find out the advantages and disadvantages of both over the time.
> The thing is, there are no perfect language, just like programming languages.
There has got to be some name for this argument tactic. It's so trite and useless.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9259764
There has got to be some name for this argument tactic. It's so trite and useless.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9259764
I am not sure what you did not like about the argument. What is really useless of relating languages to programming languages?
I'm referring to the "nothing is perfect argument". It gets used to muddy the water so that one can imply that it's all a wash. "Nothing is perfect" should be taken as a given on almost all topics, so it's useless except for as a dishonest rhetorical device.
I don't like to compare programming languages and human languages, but for different reasons. (Hint: because they have so little in common.)
I don't like to compare programming languages and human languages, but for different reasons. (Hint: because they have so little in common.)
One and two are not a problem; three is. German, Italian, and Korean might have been better choices in that regard. French has some frustrating silent letters and horrifying irregular verbs (although not to the scale of English)
It's even more annoying when you learn new words mostly through a text channel (like, say, most of the Web).
For instance: I've read elsewhere that no common word rhymes with "orange". But what about "range"? If it doesn't rhyme, then I'm pronouncing one of them (or both) wrong, but how would I know if it weren't for that "nothing rhymes with this" tidbit?
For instance: I've read elsewhere that no common word rhymes with "orange". But what about "range"? If it doesn't rhyme, then I'm pronouncing one of them (or both) wrong, but how would I know if it weren't for that "nothing rhymes with this" tidbit?
I think to some degree, the spelling problem is unfixable because we're not likely to come to an international agreement on pronunciation.
The "a" in orange is commonly silent in my experience although I've also heard it given a two-syllable pronunciation like OR-unj. Neither comes close to rhyming with range, but which is "correct"?
The "a" in orange is commonly silent in my experience although I've also heard it given a two-syllable pronunciation like OR-unj. Neither comes close to rhyming with range, but which is "correct"?
For what it's worth, dictionary.com will play a little sound clip of spoken words:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orange?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/range?s=t
Of course, it's only one possible accent, but might be helpful with things like this. (In this example, it says "orange" is pronounced, [AWR-inj], and "range" is [reynj]. That's about how I would pronounce "range", but you don't hear that strong distinction between syllables of "orange" here. It comes out more like [awrj].)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orange?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/range?s=t
Of course, it's only one possible accent, but might be helpful with things like this. (In this example, it says "orange" is pronounced, [AWR-inj], and "range" is [reynj]. That's about how I would pronounce "range", but you don't hear that strong distinction between syllables of "orange" here. It comes out more like [awrj].)
Are French irregular verbs really more horrifying than German irregular verbs?
Any human language would fail at one point or another when you need a strict interpretation, a strict pronounciation, and a strict syntax. It's a inherent human species trait to make the language evolve in inconsistent ways on all fronts.
A good candidate would have to be specially created with unambiguity in mind, like with formal languages, but as importantly, it would have to be aggressively controlled to avoid any misuse or divergence of usage. The later is most probably impossible in practice: enforcement would not scale. A simple question: how would a user of that language deal with a concept for which no word exists? The only possibility is to formulate that concept in lengthy sentences (Ents do speak like that), until a word is officially adopted by the language conformance body. Of course, people wouldn't be able to wait for that adoption each time they stumble on the issue, and it's bound to happen all the time. From then, one or more unofficial words would pop up for ideas yet inexistant in the language lexicon, and of course subtle semantic differences would crop up among these variants. Or maybe the author is implying that agglutinative languages don't suffer from that problem?
I am only talking about vocabulary, because this issue alone is enough to demonstrate the problem. For grammar, Lojban and a few other artificial languages have been created with syntactical unambiguity as a goal.
A good candidate would have to be specially created with unambiguity in mind, like with formal languages, but as importantly, it would have to be aggressively controlled to avoid any misuse or divergence of usage. The later is most probably impossible in practice: enforcement would not scale. A simple question: how would a user of that language deal with a concept for which no word exists? The only possibility is to formulate that concept in lengthy sentences (Ents do speak like that), until a word is officially adopted by the language conformance body. Of course, people wouldn't be able to wait for that adoption each time they stumble on the issue, and it's bound to happen all the time. From then, one or more unofficial words would pop up for ideas yet inexistant in the language lexicon, and of course subtle semantic differences would crop up among these variants. Or maybe the author is implying that agglutinative languages don't suffer from that problem?
I am only talking about vocabulary, because this issue alone is enough to demonstrate the problem. For grammar, Lojban and a few other artificial languages have been created with syntactical unambiguity as a goal.
I more than agree. The tragedy is the contender to the throne is Mandarin Chinese (with it's tonality). You will beg to have your perplexing English back.
> "there is no such English word as costlily;"
There isn't? I've certainly used it as such.
There isn't? I've certainly used it as such.
I read that and thought "there is now"
A few times in conversations I've found myself trying to force "friendlily" (friendly as an adverb) out of my mouth. Aside from me tripping on my tongue trying to pronounce it, the people around me understood what I was saying just fine.
Adverbs for adjectives ending in -ly end in -like instead, e.g. "costly-like", "friendly-like".
I've never seen either of those in use; nor can I find evidence for them on the internet easily. While people will often probably understand either costlily/friendlily or costlylike/friendlylike, not trying to force either into a single word and just using an adverbial phrase (e.g., "in a friendly manner") is probably the most common and understandable way to express the idea in English. Not every adjective needs a corresponding single-word adverb.
I would just go with "cost-wise", "friend-wise", although I feel there's a nuance in there somewhere.
Hmmm, how about costlywise & friendlywise?
"friendlylike" and "friendwise" have different meanings and usage contexts, but I wouldn't use "friendlywise" except in an unusual context.
"friendlylike" is used because the adjective "friendly" already has an -ly ending which makes the corresponding adverb "friendlily" sound clumsy, so e.g. "I spoke slowly and friendlylike to him". We could use "friendwise" to introduce a context, e.g. "Friendwise, I don't have many, but acquaintancewise, I do". But "friendlywise" requires an unusual adjectival context, e.g. "I show different behaviors for different situations: suspiciouswise, on the train or in the mall; attackingwise, on the sports field; friendlywise, at work or in karaoke." It sounds very contrived though.
"friendlylike" is used because the adjective "friendly" already has an -ly ending which makes the corresponding adverb "friendlily" sound clumsy, so e.g. "I spoke slowly and friendlylike to him". We could use "friendwise" to introduce a context, e.g. "Friendwise, I don't have many, but acquaintancewise, I do". But "friendlywise" requires an unusual adjectival context, e.g. "I show different behaviors for different situations: suspiciouswise, on the train or in the mall; attackingwise, on the sports field; friendlywise, at work or in karaoke." It sounds very contrived though.
I understand the issues with English and well Latin is a great scientific language BUT...
English is the most spoken language in the world. There are 4 times as many second language speakers for each native English speakers. I totally get the issues listed. I am a native English speakers with horrible Spanish skills and 4 years of ancient Hebrew and Greek studies.
English just works as a language for people and it is 100% about the content that is available in English as opposed to every other language.
English is the most spoken language in the world. There are 4 times as many second language speakers for each native English speakers. I totally get the issues listed. I am a native English speakers with horrible Spanish skills and 4 years of ancient Hebrew and Greek studies.
English just works as a language for people and it is 100% about the content that is available in English as opposed to every other language.
According to Wikipedia [0] Mandarin has slightly more speakers. 1200M vs 1350M.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_num...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_num...
Good post showing the content part of my argument.
http://blog.esl-languages.com/blog/esl/most-spoken-languages...
http://blog.esl-languages.com/blog/esl/most-spoken-languages...
Disagree write words not down vote please.
It's interesting how there is an International Academy of Sciences San Marino that uses Esperanto as its language platform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademio_Internacia_de_la_Scien...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademio_Internacia_de_la_Scien...
Once I read that German is the language of science.
I'm sorry HN people for not remembering exactly where, but it easy to find a ton of results about this on Google: http://bit.ly/1CewLMB
I'm sorry HN people for not remembering exactly where, but it easy to find a ton of results about this on Google: http://bit.ly/1CewLMB
German was the language of science decades ago. Before that, it was Latin. Before that, it was Greek. (Your mileage may vary in various regions.) Things change.
That changed dramatically after the second world war. There is a good article about it here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29543708
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29543708
Study of German was mandatory for undergraduate chemists intending to do postgraduate work at University of St. Andrews in the 1960s. Not sure about other institutions.
I've always found such linguistic criticisms of human languages to be quite intriguing. Most are used to thinking of programming languages as "tools" (though there are persuasive arguments for them being more like materials), and consequently this axiom leads to the implication of using the right tool for the right job.
Yet we seldom see such ideas for human languages - that some could be better for expressing certain concepts than others. Is it because the huge keyword count of human languages necessitate us to desire a single lingua franca for quick communication, or is it a fear of cultural insensitivity?
Yet we seldom see such ideas for human languages - that some could be better for expressing certain concepts than others. Is it because the huge keyword count of human languages necessitate us to desire a single lingua franca for quick communication, or is it a fear of cultural insensitivity?
We seldom see this idea because it's mostly not true. To the extent that it is, it's because some cultures have spent more time thinking about algebra and spaceflight than others, and have more words for them. But words are cheap, they're easy to make.
Spelling reform is surely needed, but the ferst wun to spell rite shall lede us.
English has succeeded not only because it is the voice of global hegemony, but also the voice of global resistance.
International English can't happen as something people create in a lab and try to impose in the world. It comes when you have a dictionary and grammar of Standard Indian English and Standard Filippino English and Standard Nigerian English, where people are comfortable speaking English to a non-American or non-British standard. It will be pluricentric.