On 18-Jan-09 0:06, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> English as lingua franca.
> 
> I just want you to know how much this made me giggle.
> 
>> - Also native speakers have learn to speak it.
> 
> It takes a certain awareness. It doesn't take a lot of "learning" as 
> much as it takes "paying attention to your metaphors". The more 
> parochial you are, the more likely you are to mess things up.
> 
>> - If a way of expression is commonly used that is not correct from a 
>> linguistic point of view, you don't have to start a campaign to 
>> correct that error. On the contrary, if you think it is wrong you are 
>> the one that is wrong. 
> 
> This is kind of true of all languages, if I understand what you mean.

No, they might be qualified to judge errors in the usage of standard 
English, but they are not qualified to apply the same rules to 
international English. That would take as much sense as me pointing out 
that according to the Dutch rules for constructing sentences the English 
do it wrong. What confuses them is that both languages share a lot of 
words (most international ones come from the standard of course) and 
most of the syntax.

>> Perhaps not a good example but one that I remember: a Dutch politician 
>> talked about 'golden showers' to express how expensive the bathrooms 
>> in a new European headquarters were. Some people ridiculed him saying: 
>> what a fool he is for not knowing that golden showers mean something 
>> else (if you don't know what, stay ignorant). My POV: what a fool that 
>> commentator is for not knowing that in international English that 
>> expression does not exist, he is confusing 'international English' 
>> with 'standard English'.
> 
> Well, I don't know what the expression means in Dutch, but it would seem 
> to be a bit of an embarrassing mistake, assuming you get embarrassed by 
> such mistakes.

It doesn't mean anything in Dutch and my point is that it is not a 
mistake. People tend to think it is a mistake, but they are wrong. The 
only objection you could have is that there is another language where it 
does have a different meaning and that people who know that will be too 
occupied by that to listen to what you have to say.

>> - there is no literature and no history. You can e.g. not refer to 
>> Shakespeare as a common background.
> 
> I would imagine you can refer to history (either ancient or recent) or 
> to recent literature (say, Star Wars comments, perhaps?)  Yes? No?

I wouldn't refer to Star Wars in a talk at a conference. I have never 
see anybody do that and would frown if they did. Unless in a cartoon as 
the last slide if it gives a comment on the talk.

>> - slang does not exist in international English. If every expression 
>> that has a different meaning somewhere in the English spoken world id 
>> forbideed, there is not much to say anymore.
> 
> True. Keep it simple. My wife still asks me questions about slang and 
> idioms, even tho she's been speaking English fluently for 20+ years.
> 
>> - Never use words expressions that force people to use a dictionary. I 
>> should probably have not used 'lingua franca' above and the use of 
>> 'liberally' was also questionable.
> 
> I think in writing it's not so bad, especially interactive writing like 
> a newsgroup, where people can ask if it's unclear. In group speaking, 
> you have to take care. I wrote most of my international English in 
> highly technical places, so that may influence my thinking on this.

The context we were discussion was indeed Biomedical conferences ans such.

>> - Jargon, smileys, and common abbreviations are allowed in 
>> international communication. ASAP and IMHO are recognized by all. OTOH 
>> one should not use 'on the gripping hand'.
> 
> That's because "on the gripping hand" comes from literature. :-)

I know, and you know why I said it that way.

>> - It is not just dumbing down,
> 
> No. It's using a restricted range of expressions that are the most common.
> 
>> Any opinions?
> 
> Other things: Don't use sentences whose meaning depends on complex 
> tenses of the verb. E.g., don't use a sentence where "I would have been 
> X" means something different than "I would have X".
> 
> Also, when speaking, you don't have to speak slowly, but you do have to 
> clearly separate the words. I've found that most non-native speakers 
> understand *much* more easily if there's a distinct if brief break 
> between words, so it's obvious where the word breaks are. It also helps 
> me immensely when trying to understand a foreign language (of which I 
> barely understand one, so ... :-)

Dus   zal   ik   duidelijk   mijn   woorden   gescheiden   uitspreken.

;)

Post a reply to this message