(1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (2) Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (3) And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (4) God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. (5) God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day
起初 神創造天地。
地是空虛混沌，淵面黑暗； 神的靈運行在水面上。
神說：“要有光。”就有了光。
神看光是好的，就把光暗分開了。
神稱光為晝，稱暗為夜。有晚上，有早晨，這是頭一日。
The word god is used a little more losely in the chinese language as we dont have a definition between the pronoun "God" and "god". However, it means a heavenly figure. However, Buddha has his own name as well as many of the other godly figures. It is a very literal translation and there was no large amount of difficulty. The main difference is the ordering in which the words are placed. Like many other languages, grammar changes in Chinese versus English. Hence, it was slightly necessary to rearrange the grammar.
It was relatively straightforward because in Chinese, there is no past vs. relative past and chinese does not have gender differences among words. The translation can be very literal and does not need the complications like many other languages. The difficulty with Chinese is writing and speaking, however in terms of translating, it is not quite as difficult. Of course, the flow of the verse will change but that applies will all translations.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
english language domination
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/apr/28/italy-europe
The large amount of English newspapers that are being printed in Europe reflects the quickly growing expansion of the English language all over the world. English has rapidly begun permeating the world as many foreigners are becoming familiar with the English language.
As an American, I can travel to almost any nation and most likely be able to get away with speaking just English. Many of the citizens (some countries exempt of course) are especially fascinated by the English language and/or want to try to test their English skills on a native speaker. An example that comes to mind is in China, when I travelled to rural China and told the citizens of Shantou that I spoke English. They got extremely excited and began their attempt as broken English. They were extremely proud of themselves and began asking me to translate everything around them, imitating me with their very strong Chinese accents.
Their actions (the excitement they exuded when they found out I could speak English) shows the growing popularity of the language all over the world. Speaking English is not just a skill but rather a commodity that everyone wants to be able to have. The domination of the English language reflects the power of the nations who use it as the main language. As the language begins to permeated into other nations whose native language is not english, the danger of losing the native tongue is always at risk.
However, it is amazing that a language can dominate over others and that the world, which is very diverse and large, can be dominated by a single language. The amazing aspect of society is that language is such a big influence among the world and that one language has the ability to override others.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
learning a new language
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/25/AR2010042503105.html
This reflects mainly what we have talked about in class: foreign languages and whether they are useful/necessary for students to learn. The author agrees that foreign languages are useful as he states it "allows students to take on an alternative identity and see the world in different ways."
I agree with him that foreign languages can change a student/person's identity and broaden a person's mind as he or she learns about a new culture. Like we talked in class, each culture has an emphasis on different things, such as in the Chinese language, we have different names for each aunt, uncle, son of [a person], daughter of [a person], grandfather, grandmother depending on which side of the family (mother's or fathers) that relative is coming from. This shows that the Chinese have a great respect for relationships and family, which is apparent in the continuously phrased believe that the Chinese value family more than anything else. By learning a language such as Chinese, a student may become aware of the relationships among their family members and gain a stronger understanding of bonds between relatives.
The author brings up an interesting question in regards to language: "This is especially true for less privileged students who can enter that world at relatively little cost from kindergarten through 12th grade. Or should more sophisticated education be limited to the privileged few?" He brings up the question of whether we should decide who has the right to learn a new language. As of the new age, we do not discriminate against race or class, thus, it seems natural to believe that we should not limit the privilege of learning a language to a certain group of people. However, another idea that could be brought up is whether learning a new language will help a person economically? Will learning a second language benefit someone who is concerned about making a living and being able to put bread on the table. Perhaps he or she should focus on subjects to earn degree or at least be educated enough to land a job. Where does the discrimination between what is necessary to learn and what is not fall?
This reflects mainly what we have talked about in class: foreign languages and whether they are useful/necessary for students to learn. The author agrees that foreign languages are useful as he states it "allows students to take on an alternative identity and see the world in different ways."
I agree with him that foreign languages can change a student/person's identity and broaden a person's mind as he or she learns about a new culture. Like we talked in class, each culture has an emphasis on different things, such as in the Chinese language, we have different names for each aunt, uncle, son of [a person], daughter of [a person], grandfather, grandmother depending on which side of the family (mother's or fathers) that relative is coming from. This shows that the Chinese have a great respect for relationships and family, which is apparent in the continuously phrased believe that the Chinese value family more than anything else. By learning a language such as Chinese, a student may become aware of the relationships among their family members and gain a stronger understanding of bonds between relatives.
The author brings up an interesting question in regards to language: "This is especially true for less privileged students who can enter that world at relatively little cost from kindergarten through 12th grade. Or should more sophisticated education be limited to the privileged few?" He brings up the question of whether we should decide who has the right to learn a new language. As of the new age, we do not discriminate against race or class, thus, it seems natural to believe that we should not limit the privilege of learning a language to a certain group of people. However, another idea that could be brought up is whether learning a new language will help a person economically? Will learning a second language benefit someone who is concerned about making a living and being able to put bread on the table. Perhaps he or she should focus on subjects to earn degree or at least be educated enough to land a job. Where does the discrimination between what is necessary to learn and what is not fall?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Sanskrit
http://www.livemint.com/2010/04/19202309/Sanskrit-reviving-the-languag.html
Singh speaks about the revival of the ancient language of India where different parts of a newspaper may be written in English, Hindi, and Sanskrit. The Indian constitution lists Sanskrit as the official language of India but most states use Hindi, English, or their respective regional language.
However, recently Sanskrit has been used more often through advertising and public text and Mahavir Agrawal, vice-chairman of the Uttaranchal Sanskrit Academy, is ecstatic about the rising popularity of the ancient language. Not only is it used in text but the idioms and common speech is common in India today.
As we had talked about in class before, many languages are becoming extinct due to the domination of a certain language or languages throughout a country and the world. Hence, in India, the continuation of the use of Sanskrit is important to prevent the language from going extinct. However, there is a significant differentiation between extinct through usage and extinct through history. Sanskrit will be alive through history as long as the holy texts and multitude of other text written in Sanskrit is kept safe. The language may go extinct in usage where no one speaks it again but it still can be seen through text.
A question that came to my mind when I was reading this is that I know Sanskrit is a very important part of Indian history as the ancient language, however, how do we determine which languages are deemed important enough to need to be revived or kept in history? Does a certain dialect that may die out because of overdomination of a language need the same attention? Why not?
Singh speaks about the revival of the ancient language of India where different parts of a newspaper may be written in English, Hindi, and Sanskrit. The Indian constitution lists Sanskrit as the official language of India but most states use Hindi, English, or their respective regional language.
However, recently Sanskrit has been used more often through advertising and public text and Mahavir Agrawal, vice-chairman of the Uttaranchal Sanskrit Academy, is ecstatic about the rising popularity of the ancient language. Not only is it used in text but the idioms and common speech is common in India today.
As we had talked about in class before, many languages are becoming extinct due to the domination of a certain language or languages throughout a country and the world. Hence, in India, the continuation of the use of Sanskrit is important to prevent the language from going extinct. However, there is a significant differentiation between extinct through usage and extinct through history. Sanskrit will be alive through history as long as the holy texts and multitude of other text written in Sanskrit is kept safe. The language may go extinct in usage where no one speaks it again but it still can be seen through text.
A question that came to my mind when I was reading this is that I know Sanskrit is a very important part of Indian history as the ancient language, however, how do we determine which languages are deemed important enough to need to be revived or kept in history? Does a certain dialect that may die out because of overdomination of a language need the same attention? Why not?
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Language by force
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=24215
Like we talked about in class, this article discusses language communication especially during times of war or military use. Dr. El-Baradei says that the best language communication between a military force and the victims is force and that force is a language that all can understand.
"El-Baradei said that Israel only understands the language of force, adding that the Arabs should back their negotiations option with force and deterrence...He told the PIC on Monday that the Egyptian leadership was cornering Hamas into signing the Egyptian-proposed Palestinian reconciliation paper."
I believe that force is a "language" that can be understood but I disagree in that I don't think it is the best way to approach the situation. Yes, force will most likely give the owner what he/she wants (reconciliation papers, obedience) but not by will. Because it is not by will, the victims will most likely retaliate at some later point in time and if reconciliation papers are signed against their will, the papers will most likely not hold for a long period of time.
I know that peace is not easily obtained and in fact, may never be obtained in certain war situations and that force seems to be the easiest way to get what he/she wants but attempts at language communication should be made first. Language barriers alienate both parties hence if the invaders attempt at language communication, they may at least be able to understand the victims better (though in most situations that is not what the invaders really care about).
Language barrier however makes a large difference in the situation. If neither side can speak the language of the other, the attackers are seen as more hostile and the victims are seen as less human.
Another interesting article that I found: http://indyposted.com/17786/croatian-girl-comes-out-of-24-hour-coma-suddenly-speaks-fluent-german/
Like we talked about in class, this article discusses language communication especially during times of war or military use. Dr. El-Baradei says that the best language communication between a military force and the victims is force and that force is a language that all can understand.
"El-Baradei said that Israel only understands the language of force, adding that the Arabs should back their negotiations option with force and deterrence...He told the PIC on Monday that the Egyptian leadership was cornering Hamas into signing the Egyptian-proposed Palestinian reconciliation paper."
I believe that force is a "language" that can be understood but I disagree in that I don't think it is the best way to approach the situation. Yes, force will most likely give the owner what he/she wants (reconciliation papers, obedience) but not by will. Because it is not by will, the victims will most likely retaliate at some later point in time and if reconciliation papers are signed against their will, the papers will most likely not hold for a long period of time.
I know that peace is not easily obtained and in fact, may never be obtained in certain war situations and that force seems to be the easiest way to get what he/she wants but attempts at language communication should be made first. Language barriers alienate both parties hence if the invaders attempt at language communication, they may at least be able to understand the victims better (though in most situations that is not what the invaders really care about).
Language barrier however makes a large difference in the situation. If neither side can speak the language of the other, the attackers are seen as more hostile and the victims are seen as less human.
Another interesting article that I found: http://indyposted.com/17786/croatian-girl-comes-out-of-24-hour-coma-suddenly-speaks-fluent-german/
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Language Barrier
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264329/Doctors-deadly-language-barrier-Failure-ensure-GPs-speak-English-properly-cost-lives-MPs-told.html
Martin writes about doctors in Europe and the difficulty and/or controversy over the language differences between doctors and patients and the country in general. The controversy is over doctors being unable to speak the national language of the country, thus creating communication problems with the patients.
As we had discussed in class before, language plays a large role in communication between two people. Without a common language between two people, it can become very difficult to try and converse or in this situation, tell the doctor what is wrong with the patient. I agree with this part of Martin's argument because especially for doctors, it is very important to be able to communicate with a patient to hear what part of the body is hurting or the other various symptoms that cannot be simply explained or examined by a machine. Miscommunication can be risky to a patient and as said in the article, death may even occur due to lack of correct communication.
However, on the other hand, Martin lightly grazes on this but is it unfair to not hire a doctor because he is not fluent in the common language of a country? A doctor is someone who helps people get better or to figure out what is wrong with them but it doesn't seem fair that they would be limited by language. Of course it is important that they be able to communicate with their patients and maybe language lessons should be encouraged, but should language be such a large component of whether a doctor can be hired or not?
In the end, I think it is very important that a doctor be able to communicate with his patients. From personal experience, it can be very frustrating to talk to a doctor who doesn't necessarily understand what you are trying to tell him and it is very limiting. Therefore, I agree with Martin that language fluency is necessary for a doctor in a foreign country.
Martin writes about doctors in Europe and the difficulty and/or controversy over the language differences between doctors and patients and the country in general. The controversy is over doctors being unable to speak the national language of the country, thus creating communication problems with the patients.
As we had discussed in class before, language plays a large role in communication between two people. Without a common language between two people, it can become very difficult to try and converse or in this situation, tell the doctor what is wrong with the patient. I agree with this part of Martin's argument because especially for doctors, it is very important to be able to communicate with a patient to hear what part of the body is hurting or the other various symptoms that cannot be simply explained or examined by a machine. Miscommunication can be risky to a patient and as said in the article, death may even occur due to lack of correct communication.
However, on the other hand, Martin lightly grazes on this but is it unfair to not hire a doctor because he is not fluent in the common language of a country? A doctor is someone who helps people get better or to figure out what is wrong with them but it doesn't seem fair that they would be limited by language. Of course it is important that they be able to communicate with their patients and maybe language lessons should be encouraged, but should language be such a large component of whether a doctor can be hired or not?
In the end, I think it is very important that a doctor be able to communicate with his patients. From personal experience, it can be very frustrating to talk to a doctor who doesn't necessarily understand what you are trying to tell him and it is very limiting. Therefore, I agree with Martin that language fluency is necessary for a doctor in a foreign country.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
language censorship
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/04/05/feminist-censorship-and-language-reform/
At the beginning of the article, Dalrymple discusses "mankind" vs. "humankind" and the differentiation between the two. He discusses how he dislikes the interchangeability between the two because he thinks the reasoning and logic behind it is wrong.
" If Mankind is objectionable because of its masculinity, Humankind is no better. It still contains the dread word, or should I say syllable, “man.” Nor would “Hupersonkind” be better, because of the masculinity of the syllable “son.”"
It is interesting that words can be taken apart and used against a writer or that a society might disagree with a word because of the nitpicky details such as words within a word. Association of the meaning of the word with the word and parts of the word can create such turmoil even though that was not what the author had intended.
The article mainly discusses censorship and language reform. He is unhappy with the way society does not accept certain words or phrases and that it is in its own way an intangible but very real method of censorship. In other words, language and expression through language is being limited because of society's "burden" of not insulting the audience or reader.
I agree with the article being that language plays a very big part in our expression of opinion and if we are limited by how we can say or what we can say, then our freedom of expression is being limited too. So to what extent do we have a right to freely express ourselves and where can the line be drawn as to what should or should not be censored?
At the beginning of the article, Dalrymple discusses "mankind" vs. "humankind" and the differentiation between the two. He discusses how he dislikes the interchangeability between the two because he thinks the reasoning and logic behind it is wrong.
" If Mankind is objectionable because of its masculinity, Humankind is no better. It still contains the dread word, or should I say syllable, “man.” Nor would “Hupersonkind” be better, because of the masculinity of the syllable “son.”"
It is interesting that words can be taken apart and used against a writer or that a society might disagree with a word because of the nitpicky details such as words within a word. Association of the meaning of the word with the word and parts of the word can create such turmoil even though that was not what the author had intended.
The article mainly discusses censorship and language reform. He is unhappy with the way society does not accept certain words or phrases and that it is in its own way an intangible but very real method of censorship. In other words, language and expression through language is being limited because of society's "burden" of not insulting the audience or reader.
I agree with the article being that language plays a very big part in our expression of opinion and if we are limited by how we can say or what we can say, then our freedom of expression is being limited too. So to what extent do we have a right to freely express ourselves and where can the line be drawn as to what should or should not be censored?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)