austraLasia #2888
The language tangle
ROME: 14 July 2011 -- Once again a 'follow up' item, since every now and again a topic or theme seems to provoke more than the usual number of responses, as has been the case with austraLasia #2887 ('A fly on the wall or a fly in the ointment').
One response heads off in the direction of 'official languages', suggesting: "I have been concerned about the jumble of different terms used in our Salesian documents for years. After reading your piece austraLasia #2887, I looked up world languages at this site http://www.krysstal.com/spoken.html and found that according to that site: Mandarin is spoken by more people than any other(1151 Million, that is 1.151 billion) English is next with 1000 m OR 1 b; Italian is 24th and spoken by a mere 62 m people". The writer then goes on to propose (and as he says, not with 'thong in cheek') that the official languages of the Congregation be Mandarin (for evangelisation purposes, and the future) and English (because most educators and philanthropists speak English).
This view is hotly debated by a Spanish-speaking confrere who said (in Spanish, of course!): "talk of 'official language' is ideology-speak, and often driven by an anglo-oriented ideology at that. He goes on to say, since I sent him the previous comment, that maybe it was really English rather than Mandarin being proposed, and that another glance at the 'krystal' site indicated above shows that "Spanish is third in the list of most-spoken languages, with 500 million speakers". If we want to "restrict ourselves to the Salesian Congregation, it is by far the most spoken language in the Congregation" (he is correct - we can support that assertion with plenty of evidence).
Another response takes up the OPP EPP and similar acronyms mentioned in the original article, suggesting that "The answer is simple: stop using Italian acronyms, except in Italian. Always give the name of the activity in full, and leave each language time to provide a suitable acronym [for example Philippines North refer to SPP instead of OPP - Strategic Provincial Plan, instead of horrible things like 'Organic Provincial Plan'] once the activity is a familiar one". This comment did not come from the Philippines - I have simply added the SFF reference as support for the idea proposed.
Another direction altogether, and one in some ways closer to the issues that were actually being raised in #2887, was this: "I was trying to make head and tail of Strenna 2011 (Acts n. 409). To do that I have been doing a 'mind map' of it. At this point I feel exasperated. I find the whole piece complicated. I found it difficult to find internal connections. The issue that popped up in my mind is "accessibility". Will confreres really take time to read through it? Won't they stop and say: "For heaven's sake what does it want to say!! Or maybe it is just me. I'll persevere. I just have no. 3 (Aspects which have special significance in vocational animation and proposal) left. I'm reading the letter for the second time because it is related to my work. I am sending this email not just to vent my frustration but also because you're involved in communication. Can't we make the documents an easy piece of work like how the streets and avenues of New York are arranged rather than a maze? ".
Interesting comment that one. The telling comment is the last sentence, since it suggests that documents must have very obvious order. My original comment read thus: "But we have now become aware that web pages contain data as well, and this 'data' is less accessible and mostly not linked, and machines can't understand it - only humans can". The commentator on Strenna 2011 is also saying that in some cases not even human beings can read them! I would suggest that in the case of an item like the Strenna presentation, or others like it, it needs a number of checks before being published. To the content and general language checks that obviously must be done, in a 'semantic web' world, we now need a third check - how is the document structured, and how is the data it contains structured - and these are really two separate issues and activities.
Oh what a complicated world we live in! But the reality is, if we are going to publish material for a very wide audience, we need to do this kind of thing. Feel free to comment further if you wish.
_________________
AustraLasia is an email service for the Salesian Family of Asia Pacific. It also functions as an agency for ANS based in Rome. For queries please contact admin@bosconet.aust.com . RSS feeds - just go to Bosconet, click on austraLasia 2011 in the sidebar. You will see the RSS orange icon in your browser address bar - add it from there. Or be interactive with the EAO blog Cetera Tolle. Avail yourself of the Salesian Digital Library at http://sdl.sdb.org
The language tangle
ROME: 14 July 2011 -- Once again a 'follow up' item, since every now and again a topic or theme seems to provoke more than the usual number of responses, as has been the case with austraLasia #2887 ('A fly on the wall or a fly in the ointment').
One response heads off in the direction of 'official languages', suggesting: "I have been concerned about the jumble of different terms used in our Salesian documents for years. After reading your piece austraLasia #2887, I looked up world languages at this site http://www.krysstal.com/spoken.html and found that according to that site: Mandarin is spoken by more people than any other(1151 Million, that is 1.151 billion) English is next with 1000 m OR 1 b; Italian is 24th and spoken by a mere 62 m people". The writer then goes on to propose (and as he says, not with 'thong in cheek') that the official languages of the Congregation be Mandarin (for evangelisation purposes, and the future) and English (because most educators and philanthropists speak English).
This view is hotly debated by a Spanish-speaking confrere who said (in Spanish, of course!): "talk of 'official language' is ideology-speak, and often driven by an anglo-oriented ideology at that. He goes on to say, since I sent him the previous comment, that maybe it was really English rather than Mandarin being proposed, and that another glance at the 'krystal' site indicated above shows that "Spanish is third in the list of most-spoken languages, with 500 million speakers". If we want to "restrict ourselves to the Salesian Congregation, it is by far the most spoken language in the Congregation" (he is correct - we can support that assertion with plenty of evidence).
Another response takes up the OPP EPP and similar acronyms mentioned in the original article, suggesting that "The answer is simple: stop using Italian acronyms, except in Italian. Always give the name of the activity in full, and leave each language time to provide a suitable acronym [for example Philippines North refer to SPP instead of OPP - Strategic Provincial Plan, instead of horrible things like 'Organic Provincial Plan'] once the activity is a familiar one". This comment did not come from the Philippines - I have simply added the SFF reference as support for the idea proposed.
Another direction altogether, and one in some ways closer to the issues that were actually being raised in #2887, was this: "I was trying to make head and tail of Strenna 2011 (Acts n. 409). To do that I have been doing a 'mind map' of it. At this point I feel exasperated. I find the whole piece complicated. I found it difficult to find internal connections. The issue that popped up in my mind is "accessibility". Will confreres really take time to read through it? Won't they stop and say: "For heaven's sake what does it want to say!! Or maybe it is just me. I'll persevere. I just have no. 3 (Aspects which have special significance in vocational animation and proposal) left. I'm reading the letter for the second time because it is related to my work. I am sending this email not just to vent my frustration but also because you're involved in communication. Can't we make the documents an easy piece of work like how the streets and avenues of New York are arranged rather than a maze? ".
Interesting comment that one. The telling comment is the last sentence, since it suggests that documents must have very obvious order. My original comment read thus: "But we have now become aware that web pages contain data as well, and this 'data' is less accessible and mostly not linked, and machines can't understand it - only humans can". The commentator on Strenna 2011 is also saying that in some cases not even human beings can read them! I would suggest that in the case of an item like the Strenna presentation, or others like it, it needs a number of checks before being published. To the content and general language checks that obviously must be done, in a 'semantic web' world, we now need a third check - how is the document structured, and how is the data it contains structured - and these are really two separate issues and activities.
Oh what a complicated world we live in! But the reality is, if we are going to publish material for a very wide audience, we need to do this kind of thing. Feel free to comment further if you wish.
_________________
AustraLasia is an email service for the Salesian Family of Asia Pacific. It also functions as an agency for ANS based in Rome. For queries please contact admin@bosconet.aust.com . RSS feeds - just go to Bosconet, click on austraLasia 2011 in the sidebar. You will see the RSS orange icon in your browser address bar - add it from there. Or be interactive with the EAO blog Cetera Tolle. Avail yourself of the Salesian Digital Library at http://sdl.sdb.org
