3 ms·

Wise words, kragen. With the excuse "you need english because" a new form of imperialism is on the making. And what is worse, is that this attitude is often sel

by kome 11y ago

Wise words, kragen. With the excuse "you need english because" a new form of imperialism is on the making. And what is worse, is that this attitude is often self-imposed.

chronial 11y ago
I think your are mixing “English, the lingua franca”, with “English, the language spoken in the US”. Why would using the lingua franca that everyone agrees on be imperialism?
- kome 11y ago
  Because there is no such a thing like “English, the lingua franca”; changing the name do not change the content. We should stop self-deluding ourselves in believing that English exits in a geopolitical void. English is the language of the anglosphere, and speaking English is a huge favor to those economies, and that comes with a sense of cultural inferiority as well, in many peoples.
  - Zancarius 11y ago
    There is a such thing as "English, the lingua franca" no matter how much one tries to will it away. Aviation is a curious industry. English is commonly spoke between flight crews and ground stations world wide (with few but notable exceptions). Circumstances where the English meaning of a word wasn't well understood by the flight crew or the wrong words were spoken have, on occasion, lead to disaster--Avianca Flight 52 [1] comes to mind, among others. I simply cannot agree that mutual intelligibility is bad simply on the merit that it somehow creates a "sense of cultural inferiority." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52
    - kragen 11y ago
      It sounds like you're saying that using English as the lingua franca of aviation puts at risk the lives of flight crews for whom English is not a native language, as well as their passengers. This seems like a good example of how English-as-lingua-franca gives special worldwide advantages to native English speakers.
      - Zancarius 11y ago
        Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that having a standard for communication is less likely to put lives at risk. I can't help but wonder if you're invoking Poe's Law by advocating from what is arguably an extremely fringe standpoint. Otherwise, the alternative would be to require air traffic controllers to learn a dozen languages, and then you wind up with an even worse problem than having everyone settle on a single language with codified standards. Didn't the Browser Wars teach you anything? :)

by kome 11y ago

Wise words, kragen. With the excuse "you need english because" a new form of imperialism is on the making. And what is worse, is that this attitude is often self-imposed.

chronial 11y ago

I think your are mixing “English, the lingua franca”, with “English, the language spoken in the US”. Why would using the lingua franca that everyone agrees on be imperialism?

kome 11y ago
Because there is no such a thing like “English, the lingua franca”; changing the name do not change the content. We should stop self-deluding ourselves in believing that English exits in a geopolitical void. English is the language of the anglosphere, and speaking English is a huge favor to those economies, and that comes with a sense of cultural inferiority as well, in many peoples.
- Zancarius 11y ago
  There is a such thing as "English, the lingua franca" no matter how much one tries to will it away. Aviation is a curious industry. English is commonly spoke between flight crews and ground stations world wide (with few but notable exceptions). Circumstances where the English meaning of a word wasn't well understood by the flight crew or the wrong words were spoken have, on occasion, lead to disaster--Avianca Flight 52 [1] comes to mind, among others. I simply cannot agree that mutual intelligibility is bad simply on the merit that it somehow creates a "sense of cultural inferiority." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52
  - kragen 11y ago
    It sounds like you're saying that using English as the lingua franca of aviation puts at risk the lives of flight crews for whom English is not a native language, as well as their passengers. This seems like a good example of how English-as-lingua-franca gives special worldwide advantages to native English speakers.
    - Zancarius 11y ago
      Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that having a standard for communication is less likely to put lives at risk. I can't help but wonder if you're invoking Poe's Law by advocating from what is arguably an extremely fringe standpoint. Otherwise, the alternative would be to require air traffic controllers to learn a dozen languages, and then you wind up with an even worse problem than having everyone settle on a single language with codified standards. Didn't the Browser Wars teach you anything? :)