Y HN SearchHacker News Search

new|comments|top|jobs

loading thread…

8 ms·

I speak English only. I find it much easier to translate either online or via English-to-X dictionary if the other language uses Latin script. Could it be done?

by jsgo 8y ago

I speak English only. I find it much easier to translate either online or via English-to-X dictionary if the other language uses Latin script. Could it be done? I'm sure it is possible, but without previously interacting with them, not easily. I'll say this, for work I travel to Montreal at moderately regular intervals. Because everything is in French, it makes it a bit harder, but I can either: a) infer based off similarities to English words b) look it up as it only has a few unique glyphs versus what I'm accustomed to.

emodendroket 8y ago
English has a very large vocabulary either derived from French or having the same roots as French words, which I do not believe is the case with Kazakh.
jsgo 8y ago
Okay, how about this then: If it is in Latin script, the tourists from countries with Latin-based languages can phonetically butcher whatever it is they're attempting to communicate with the other party. If it is in Cyrillic script, the tourists from countries with Latin-based languages can just stare at a person blankly or point at words on paper/signage if the other party is close enough. Provided they traveled at all for fear of this scenario. Honestly, I think it is reasonable to attempt to obtain at least a passing capability to communicate in a foreign area, but the question is why would someone used to a Latin language prefer a similarly derived language vs one with completely different glyphs.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  This benefit, again, seems small (you may just be completely impossible to understand), and ignores the fact that Kazakhstan probably has more visitors from Russian-speaking places.
- jsgo 8y ago
  while I think it seems pretty reasonable to assume that their tourists are currently from countries with Cyrillic-based languages, they're making a concerted effort to draw more Western audiences. How that'll play out, not sure, but I don't think the premise is silly.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    I expect that this change will make almost no difference, if not no difference at all, in that respect, while imposing significant costs in other ways.
  - amaccuish 8y ago
    I can't recall a time I chose not to go to a country because their alphabet was different...
- gsich 8y ago
  Cyrillic is not hard to learn.
  - yosito 8y ago
    Most people don't learn a new alphabet just to go on vacation though, so this change will remove a lot of friction.
    - disordinary 8y ago
      You're just backing up the stereotype of an English speaker unfortunately. Cyrilic is extremely easy to learn, you can do it in under an hour, and even in Russia most places that tourists interact will have latin and cyrilic versions of the same text (on the metro, etc). Countries like China are tougher to travel in, but it's not exactly difficult.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        > Countries like China are tougher, but it's not exactly difficult. Uh, no, that's definitely wrong. Learning Chinese script is a very difficult and time-consuming task. Literacy in Japanese requires about 2,000 characters; literacy in Chinese requires about 5,000.
        disordinary 8y ago
        I mean difficuilt to get around as a tourist - of course I didn't mean learn the glyphs, I've backpacked across China and, yes, if you're looking for a particular street you have to compare it carefully, you're making out the shapes as a picture rather than reading it like a language, but it's not that hard. I modified my comment to better reflect the intention.
      - yosito 8y ago
        I speak three languages. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - shard 8y ago
c-smile 8y ago
"infer based off similarities to English words" English and French are both originated from Latin languages so are similarities. Try to read Turkish web site: http://www.mfa.gov.tr/default.tr.mfa http://www.mfa.gov.tr/default.tr.mfa , will its Latin alphabet help you? The site has English version so you can compare.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  I agree with your point, but strictly speaking English is a Germanic language, not a Romance language. However, Norman rule over England brought substantial French influence to English.
- jsgo 8y ago
  the quoted is one scenario if the similarity to words applies (this doesn't always apply in Spanish or French either). But to your example, I'd feel more comfortable fumbling around looking in a English to Turkish book looking for D followed by i without dot (I'm sure it has a better name than that, but furthering the point where vaguely similar glyphs help), followed by s with a protruding curl at bottom (see previous parentheses), etc. take "Лекарь (doctor), not Пекарь (baker)" from a comment lower in the page, I can't say for certain that I would have known the first two characters in each of the two words were different with maybe it being an analog to capitalization, cursive, italics or some other modification of an individual character.
  - amaccuish 8y ago
    The second letter in both those words is the same. The first character differs, the next does not.
    - jsgo 8y ago
      I probably stated it wrong, but meant the first two characters between them, that was my mistake. As in first position of each. Kind of repeated it initially.
- panzagl 8y ago
jacquesm 8y ago
> I speak English only. That's the problem right there. Speaking only one language is super limiting.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  If you are going to pick just one, English is a pretty good choice, because there are few places you can go where absolutely nobody speaks it.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    You typically do not get to pick the language of the place you are born in.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      It is a figure of speech. Surely you did not think I was confused on this point.
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        GGGP wrote that they spoke only one language, that implies that this is their mother tongue. So as soon as you 'pick one language' you are talking about two languages, your birth tongue and another one. This was not the case with the comment I replied to so either you are off-topic or you really are confused. So I guess you are off-topic then rather than confused?
        emodendroket 8y ago
        In a hypothetical situation where you were given the choice of any language on Earth as your native language before being born, [insert the rest of my comment here]. I hope this helps.
        jsgo 8y ago
        The GGGGP (who you’re talking to) asked the GGGGGP if a country having a Latin based alphabet would really be easier for a non-speaker than another alphabet (in this case Cyrillic). I stated I only speak English for context (I can get by with Spanish and a middling amount of French, but neither at a level where I’d say proficient) as to why, yes, I would personally find a Latin based alphabet easier to search for words than one where the glyphs are very different as being able to locate said words helps with the stresses of traveling in a foreign area. If anything, I’d say the initial statement of the limited nature of speaking a single language was off-topic. True, yes, on topic, not so sure.

Neither is the basics of the Korean writing system (I memorized the writing and pronunciation system in about a day). However, if you want to look up what a word means, is it easier to type in the Latin alphabet or hunt and peck the Korean text? I expect that for most visitors to Korea, they are not going to spend the time to learn the Korean writing system, and rely on the faith that the basic English skills of the locals will get them through the trip.

gsich 8y ago
I would argue that Cyrillic is still easier then Korean. Similar amount of characters, some have similar pronunciation. So you might recognize a word even if you don't know the whole alphabet. (CCCP is somewhat known as an example) Besides, if you know the Greek alphabet (I guess many people here do), Cyrillic is not that far away.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Technically Korean characters are composed of smaller elements that have pronunciations, so for learning purposes you can essentially act like it is an alphabet. The biggest challenge is distinguishing between consonants that sound the same to English-speaking ears... but the writing system can't help you with that.
emodendroket 8y ago
> I expect that for most visitors to Korea, they are not going to spend the time to learn the Korean writing system, and rely on the faith that the basic English skills of the locals will get them through the trip. Of course. But would converting Korean to a romanized system somehow change that?

No, but a Latin alphabet would help a Turkish tourist in Kazakhstan.

Mediterraneo10 8y ago
Maybe not. The Latin alphabet that Kazakhstan is moving to, is deliberately far from the Turkish alphabet. A Turkish tourist would need to spend some time especially learning Kazakh’s new alphabet (plus, different sound values and loads of faux amis await him).
- mda 8y ago
  No. it is much easier to read latin Kazakh than cyrillic for a Turkish speaker.

mda 8y ago

Sure. But a Turk or Azeri now can read Kazakh and can learn it easier.

amaccuish 8y ago

Actually it's more common than you think. I've lived in Russia, Germany and France, each with varying levels of proficiency in English. Many people know basic English but not much more. If you're not a tourist then it's more likely than not that someone you meet has a low level of English.

emodendroket 8y ago
I've never been to Europe but I have spent time in Asia. It is certainly true that not everyone speaks English and some people may speak English only at a rudimentary level -- but how many languages give you the ability to expect even that? I'd bet that English is also very near the top, if not at the top, of the list of languages used to conduct conversations where neither speaker is native.

Mediterraneo10 8y ago

> there are few places you can go where absolutely nobody speaks it. I can only assume you have never been to francophone or lusaphone Africa or many Latin American countries. Yes, if you search you might be able to find an intelligentsia that can manage some English, but the majority of people you meet will expect to communicate in French, Spanish or Portuguese.

emodendroket 8y ago
I'm not talking about having a discussion on the finer points of Melville here. I personally have some familiarity with Spanish and French and anyway haven't ever traveled to Africa.
- Mediterraneo10 8y ago
  > I'm not talking about having a discussion on the finer points of Melville here. No, seriously, the level of English in those countries is sometimes so low that you won’t even be able to obtain the most rudimentary things. In francophone Africa, even French is sometimes limited only to the upper classes. (In Madagascar, for instance, French disappears as soon as you leave the capital city and people generally speak solely Malagasy from then on.) Only a person who hasn’t actually traveled on every continent will believe that English (or even other languages) is widely enough spoken now to always get by. There is a reason that that "point to the picture" phrase book is still published and loads of travelers swear by it.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    Alright, man, you got me. I've never traveled around rural Madagascar. I think you can appreciate the point, though, which is that no other language has the same kind of reach English does. Even Africa, as a whole, has many fluent speakers of English (including many native ones).

disordinary 8y ago

You'd think that, but it's not true. Or, people learn it at school which is quite different from being able to convey even basic conversation in it. With a language if you don't use it you forget it.

emodendroket 8y ago
There is a good chance whoever you find will have halting, stilted, or limited English. But that's a little different than the situation you'd encounter if you tried, for instance, speaking Japanese outside of Japan.
- disordinary 8y ago
  Maybe in the cities, but it can still take time and you're often in the street trying to find someone to act as a translator, disrupting their day. It's a completely different proposition if you're somewhere rural.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    I mean, sure, that's true.

skissane 8y ago

As an English speaker, one problem with learning another language is that there isn't an obvious choice of which other language to learn. Whereas, if you are from a non-English speaking background, then English seems the most obvious choice of language to learn in today's world. I think that is worse here in Australia than in some other parts of the English-speaking world. I mean, in Canada, the obvious choice is French; in parts of the US it is probably Spanish. There is no obvious choice in Australia.

rangibaby 8y ago
Chinese, Japanese, or Malay?
- skissane 8y ago
  That's still three choices, how does one choose which one? Back in the 1980s, Japan was having a major economic boom, and it was thought that everyone should learn Japanese. Since then, the Japanese economy has been rather sluggish, and now people don't think that so much any more. China is booming, so now people think they should learn Chinese instead. (Although, I think learning Japanese is easier for native English-speakers than learning Chinese–no tones to worry about.)

bluGill 8y ago

There are several thousand different languages in the world. Until you speak them all I can find a situation where not knowing the right language will limit you. (you will not live long enough to learn them all). English is currently the most useful language to know if you travel the world, any language you learn after English might or might not be useful. Depending on where you travel some other language might be more useful, but they are all regional. (though sometimes the region is vast and has very few people who know English)

disordinary 8y ago

Not to mention the proven cognitive benefits and reduction in things like Alzheimers when you learn a second language.