Tag society - humanist @ roua.org :

european union, the common language

Written by Romeo Anghelache no comments

I see a lot of competitions going on hiring translators and interpreters for the European instutions and that makes me think about the issue.

The E.U. administration should provide a table with two cells: how much does the European administration spend on translating and interpreting, and how much does it spend on the research and administrative work.

I'm pretty sure at some point in the near future the language related expenses will surpass the real-work expenses.

It seems obvious, to me, at least, that a true E.U. community cannot exist without a common language.

Those who object to the idea of a common E.U. language will bring the argument that such a choice will produce a uniform E.U. , and I would reply that there should have been concerns already when the global businesses were sweeping the local flavors of everything, it's already too late to object to this blanketing. I can also add that international scientific institutes are using a common language and you don't find many people there thinking uniformly in scientific matters. I invite the ones who still disagree to sell their car, end their telephone, TV and internet connections, and never buy a plane ticket again: then we'll have plenty of diversity, a diversity which will happen to be ignored, or be visited only over the weekends.

So we should use a common language in the E.U. schools .

Now comes the more difficult part: which language? Each E.U. country with a population larger than 30 millions hopes it will be their language to be chosen as the common one. In this matter we should forget about the concept of nation which, I agree, was useful to start wars and make people kill around in its name, but now it's a brake in communication.

Pragmatic reasons should be at the base of such a choice: how many people are talking that and that language? Chinese, hindi, english, spanish are the first four languages in use today globally. The most popular language used on Internet is english for obvious reasons but that may change with the numbers of PCs connected in the non-english speaking countries, so an argument using the "main language on the internet" statistic is weak.

As europeans, it will be easier for the new generations to commonly learn one of the old european languages (english, spanish, french, german, italian) or to learn an entirely new one, like esperanto. The global use of these languages select english and spanish and discard french, german and italian.

So E.U. is left with three options for the common language: english, spanish or esperanto.

Esperanto might be more difficult to put into effective use, but if taught early in schools, as a comoon E.U. alternative language, it might win in the long term. This way, the national pride of any E.U. country stands unaffected. But preserving the national pride of all the E.U. countries might kill the intention of having a common language: the peoples will still use their own language, and use esperanto only for contact with E.U. foreigners, which will end up in the situation we are today: the majority of germans, french, spaniards barely know a foreign language (e.g. english), even if taught in schools. One can feel that on the street.

So esperanto might be a failure because it's fresh new for the most. It only relies on early schools and local politics to be promoted to a successful use. That might be costly, although not as much as the current translating/interpreting practices in the E.U. administration.

So let's return to english and spanish. It's easier and cheaper for either of them to become the common E.U. language. The adoption of english might seems advantageous today because its the "language of science" and "language of the internet". But none of these two are real arguments: 1. the few global publishers of today who adopted english language as a standard might dissapear sooner than you think and the scientific publishing might get distributed sooner than I think. 2. the language of the Internet goes with the users of Internet, and it might be possible that the majority of these users to become spanish or portuguese, not english, globally, as their infrastructure grows.

There is also a cultural argument against english: the habits of the native english language users are associated with the english language in a fuzzy way. As these habits resemble arrogance more than human compassion, the english might lose sympathy if nothing in global politics changes.

E.U. can wait until english installs as a de facto common language, but this waiting costs a lot. And the result of a natural evolution might still be spanish.

So we're left with spanish. The advantages of promoting it as a common main or second language for all the E.U. countries might bring some fun with the novelty itself, and the fact that many E.U. languages have a lot of latin in them can only help. This way, E.U. might also gain a feeling of community identity (as opposed to the dangers of being confused with U.S. in terms of style).

The conclusion: start teaching spanish in all the primary schools in E.U. as the main national language and start using it in the public administration, teach english as the second language and keep the rest for the arts/history classes. Make some room for chinese, hindi or bengali classes.

publicly funded copyright

Written by Romeo Anghelache no comments

If the public of a country funds some research or educational activity which results in an article, book or report, that should be accessible unconditionally to that public.

In other words, the results of any kind of activity that is at least partially funded from public money, should be accessible to the public, right? There's no justification for copyright, then.

Ah, some would say, public money, ok, but accessing the results of private research should be paid for. Wait a minute, the public pays that too, if you buy an apple, or a kind of detergent, you are funding the research of that company which sells you the detergent or the apple. So you have the right to access it and use the results.

When you hear that a large company is funding a large musical event, remember it's your own money at work if you ever bought something from them, if not, then it's your neighbour's money, so go thank him for that.

Copyright is a form of getting paid at least twice for the same thing. And it is only encouraged by the people who get a profit out of maintaining the copyright without participating in the creation effort of the copyrighted work (lawyers, publishers).

In the current form, copyright is just another way of transferring money from those who work, to those who make a business out of handling that work, and outside of that work. Aren't you tired of it?

Sounds too radical, or abstract? Read on.

For example, the spanish people should have the right to access directly the results of a group of spanish researchers who seem to have found an effective solution for a certain class of cancers. Clicking on the above link will give you the abstract, would you like to see the details? Pay 23 USD. But the spanish people already paid for that.

So, what's the point of the copyright then? The only point is to make money at least once more for those who claim to protect such a concept, without ever getting involved in the real work. The irony is, they are already paid once by the same public, either by private or public funding, or by buying from them different consulting services.

Nobody writes or does something out of thin air, there are research grants people use to write books, and they get a salary for that too, or a raise, from either the government or a private company. And the public pays them both. So the public has the right of accessing their results.

My point is that whoever structures information, has the natural right to be considered the author of that work, and that's all of it. Because of that, the author gets known, consulted, hired and paid for those services. Who will hire someone else for help in that specific area where the author commited the work, unless that someone else became a specialist in the same area by making some other work visible?

Beside paying several times for this, everybody's access to the work paid for is effectively cut: copyright stands against progress, it slows down or postpones work built on previous works. If you want to acknowledge the funding of your public, copyleft your work or use a Creative commons license which ensures others can build their work on yours.

It's relatively cheap these days to provide access, electronically, to the research the public paid for, because almost everybody's editing on a computer. Don't forget to ask that access for "free" to your government, today. It's not for free anyway: you already paid for it.

Rss feed of the tag