Only in the case of scholarly
latin did the global language not supplant local languages, and that was
because its scope was restricted to scholarly work. In all the other
cases, the global language established itself by virtue of being the
language of a strong polity to where others looked for science and trade.

Maybe the case of scholarly latin is really different, having more in
common with sanskrit. In both cases there was no trade involved.
...

Ross Clark:

mb:
And yet this is precisely the situation in which most
researchers, teachers, students, and even schoolchildren find
themselves. They might speak any one of more than 6,000
languages used in the world today, but if they don't communicate
in English, then the sciences, especially the life sciences, are
closed to them.
This is a wild exaggeration. I'm sure schoolchildren around the
world are being taught elementary biology (and mathematics and
geography) in dozens if not hundreds of different languages. Not
in every single one of the 6,000, of course. And the further you
pursue your studies the narrower the range of languages gets.
Nevertheless, professional scientific communication (journal
articles, monographs, conferences) continues to take place in
French, Spanish, Japanese and other languages.

Which journals about natural science in other languages than English
would an American university library subscribe to?

[...]

There are two broad issues: fairness and efficiency. The first
can't be disputed; it is patently unjust to force the majority
to work in a nonnative tongue.
"Unfair" maybe, like life's unfair. The position of English in
the world means that the majority have to do some learning (and
not just in science) that native speakers of English don't.
It would be "unjust" only if there were some ready available
alternative.

That's rubbish. Injustice is injustice, no matter how long you have to
struggle to overcome it.

Aside from the individual struggles of scientists to
make themselves understood, there are also institutional biases.
For example, the various world rankings of research institutions
include only English-language publications in their assessments.
That Anglophone institutions will fill the top spots is a
built-in bias in the process.
If this is true, it merely confirms the stupidity of such
"rankings". They have been dreamed up, and are taken seriously,
mainly by ed-biz administrators with degrees in management
and suchlike.

Which "ready available alternative" to such rankings do the ed-biz
administrators (whatever that is) have for doing their work?

In fact this whole article seems to treat science as just another
industry, in which certain people are not getting a fair chance at
careers and advancement.

What's the difference between science and industry in this respect?

If you want to look at it that way, the most
obvious way of improving the situation would be to improve the
teaching and learning of English around the world.

Why stop there? Why not substitute university teaching in local
languages with English, then the college teaching in order to make the
transition to university easier, and then the whole educational system
down to the elementary level? Scandinavia and Holland are well under
way already!

But then that would probably be seen by some as "Imperial
oppression".

Just because it's imperial oppression, that doesn't mean you can get
rid of it right away. It's a job for several subsequent generations,
and you have to find the right place to start (once you have some idea
of where you want to end, that is).

Jens S. Larsen

And I still think "unjust" would be appropriate only if there was some
existing principle of "justice" that was being violated, and I don't
see it here.

I sense a reductio here. While teaching foreign languages at an early
age is a good idea, there is no need to make English the medium of
instruction. Only a minority of students are going to become
scientists, anyway.

My suggestion was in response to the original
article's picture of lots of aspiring scientists out there suffering
career frustration because their English was not good enough. Probably
most large national languages are capable of teaching science up to
tertiary level, but at that level students aiming at a scientific
career are going to have to develop English (and possibly other
language) skills to connect to the existing literature and the
international communication system of science. It's at that point that
assistance might be needed.

Just because it's imperial oppression, that doesn't mean you can get
rid of it right away. It's a job for several subsequent generations,
and you have to find the right place to start (once you have some
idea of where you want to end, that is).

On Apr 15, 3:44 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
...

And I still think "unjust" would be appropriate only if there was some
existing principle of "justice" that was being violated, and I don't
see it here.

Right. Frustrating, infuriating, etc. has nothing to do with
"justice".

Yah. Lots of life is like that.

I sense a reductio here. While teaching foreign languages at an early
age is a good idea, there is no need to make English the medium of
instruction. Only a minority of students are going to become
scientists, anyway.

Not limited to science; it's over the whole breadth of imperial
relevance including industry, commerce, arts, publishing, you name it.

My suggestion was in response to the original
article's picture of lots of aspiring scientists out there suffering
career frustration because their English was not good enough. Probably
most large national languages are capable of teaching science up to
tertiary level, but at that level students aiming at a scientific
career are going to have to develop English (and possibly other
language) skills to connect to the existing literature and the
international communication system of science. It's at that point that
assistance might be needed.

If you start trying to remedy the language thing "when it is needed"
it's way too late by definition: The L1 imperial speakers already have
a huge headstart and you are past the right age.

On Apr 16, 12:02 pm, mb <azyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
Right. Frustrating, infuriating, etc. has nothing to do
with "justice".

I wonder whether mb also sees injustice in the fact that
teachers routinely have to deal with exam papers that are
frustrating, infuriating, etc.

mb:
I sense a reductio here. While teaching foreign languages at an early
age is a good idea, there is no need to make English the medium of
instruction. Only a minority of students are going to become
scientists, anyway.

Not limited to science; it's over the whole breadth of imperial
relevance including industry, commerce, arts, publishing, you name it.

I would still say that the majority of students will not be dependent
on a knowledge of English for their life's work.

My suggestion was in response to the original
article's picture of lots of aspiring scientists out there suffering
career frustration because their English was not good enough. Probably
most large national languages are capable of teaching science up to
tertiary level, but at that level students aiming at a scientific
career are going to have to develop English (and possibly other
language) skills to connect to the existing literature and the
international communication system of science. It's at that point that
assistance might be needed.

If you start trying to remedy the language thing "when it is needed"
it's way too late by definition: The L1 imperial speakers already have
a huge headstart and you are past the right age.

I don't agree that it's that hopeless. Remember that many thousands of
people do in fact learn English well enough to pursue scientific
careers. Those who are held back by language difficulties (and we have
not even had a hint of how many they might be) will probably already
have had a start in English. Language learning is not impossible after
puberty, and we are not trying to produce native-like speakers, just
people who can handle the scientific register adequately.

On Apr 16, 3:52 am, "Jens S. Larsen" <jens_s_lar...@yahoo.dk> wrote:





Ross Clark:

mb:
And yet this is precisely the situation in which most
researchers, teachers, students, and even schoolchildren find
themselves. They might speak any one of more than 6,000
languages used in the world today, but if they don't communicate
in English, then the sciences, especially the life sciences, are
closed to them.
This is a wild exaggeration. I'm sure schoolchildren around the
world are being taught elementary biology (and mathematics and
geography) in dozens if not hundreds of different languages. Not
in every single one of the 6,000, of course. And the further you
pursue your studies the narrower the range of languages gets.
Nevertheless, professional scientific communication (journal
articles, monographs, conferences) continues to take place in
French, Spanish, Japanese and other languages.

Which journals about natural science in other languages than English
would an American university library subscribe to?

I was curious enough to search "Chemistry-Periodicals" in my
university's library. Out of about 150 titles I found about 50 in
languages other than English: (in descending order of numbers) German,
French, Latin, Russian, Italian, Swedish, Slovak, Croatian,
Macedonian, Finnish and Afrikaans.
Of course these are just titles (many journals are bilingually
titled), and don't tell you what languages the contents are in. If you
looked at this, as well as how often they are accessed, etc., English
might appear more dominant.
This doesn't contradict my original point. But it may be that
publishing in your national language in your national journal, since
it inevitably limits your audience, is not the way to an international
reputation, job offers from MIT, and Nobel Prizes. Not just in science
either. Compare the Ngugi Wa Thiongo debate about publishing
literature in your own (African) language vs going for the world
audience in English.

On Apr 16, 12:02 pm, mb <azyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 15, 3:44 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
...

And I still think "unjust" would be appropriate only if
there was some existing principle of "justice" that was
being violated, and I don't see it here.

Right. Frustrating, infuriating, etc. has nothing to do
with "justice".

Yah. Lots of life is like that.

If you start trying to remedy the language thing "when it
is needed" it's way too late by definition: The L1
imperial speakers already have a huge headstart and you
are past the right age.

I don't agree that it's that hopeless. Remember that many
thousands of people do in fact learn English well enough
to pursue scientific careers. Those who are held back by
language difficulties (and we have not even had a hint of
how many they might be) will probably already have had a
start in English. Language learning is not impossible
after puberty, and we are not trying to produce
native-like speakers, just people who can handle the
scientific register adequately.

On Apr 15, 6:28 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:02 pm, mb <azyth...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
Right. Frustrating, infuriating, etc. has nothing to do
with "justice".

I wonder whether mb also sees injustice in the fact that
teachers routinely have to deal with exam papers that are
frustrating, infuriating, etc.

What is that "also"?

On Apr 16, 3:52 am, "Jens S. Larsen" <jens_s_lar...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Which journals about natural science in other languages than English
would an American university library subscribe to?

I was curious enough to search "Chemistry-Periodicals" in my
university's library. Out of about 150 titles I found about 50 in
languages other than English: (in descending order of numbers) German,
French, Latin, Russian, Italian, Swedish, Slovak, Croatian,
Macedonian, Finnish and Afrikaans.

Of course these are just titles (many journals are bilingually
titled), and don't tell you what languages the contents are in. If you
looked at this, as well as how often they are accessed, etc., English
might appear more dominant.
This doesn't contradict my original point. But it may be that
publishing in your national language in your national journal, since
it inevitably limits your audience, is not the way to an international
reputation, job offers from MIT, and Nobel Prizes. Not just in science
either. Compare the Ngugi Wa Thiongo debate about publishing
literature in your own (African) language vs going for the world
audience in English.

Injustice is injustice, no matter how long you have to
struggle to overcome it.

Well, in this case there is no conceivable prospect of overcoming it.

And I still think "unjust" would be appropriate only if there was some
existing principle of "justice" that was being violated, and I don't
see it here.

If this is true, it merely confirms the stupidity of such
"rankings". They have been dreamed up, and are taken seriously,
mainly by ed-biz administrators with degrees in management
and suchlike.
Which "ready available alternative" to such rankings do the ed-biz
administrators (whatever that is) have for doing their work?

You'd have to ask them. Don't assume that their work is
indispensable.

In fact this whole article seems to treat science as just another
industry, in which certain people are not getting a fair chance at
careers and advancement.

What's the difference between science and industry in this respect?

Why stop there? Why not substitute university teaching in local
languages with English, then the college teaching in order to make the
transition to university easier, and then the whole educational system
down to the elementary level? Scandinavia and Holland are well under
way already!

I sense a reductio here. While teaching foreign languages at an early
age is a good idea, there is no need to make English the medium of
instruction.

Only a minority of students are going to become
scientists, anyway.

My suggestion was in response to the original
article's picture of lots of aspiring scientists out there suffering
career frustration because their English was not good enough. Probably
most large national languages are capable of teaching science up to
tertiary level,

but at that level students aiming at a scientific
career are going to have to develop English (and possibly other
language) skills to connect to the existing literature and the
international communication system of science. It's at that point
that assistance might be needed.

Just because it's imperial oppression, that doesn't mean you can get
rid of it right away. It's a job for several subsequent generations,
and you have to find the right place to start (once you have some idea
of where you want to end, that is).

So give us some idea of where you want to end.

mb wrote:
[I hope that my English is good enough to at least have made clear
(except of course to the usual suspects) that I was neither talking of
"injustice" nor expecting that much can be done about it, except
perhaps teaching the imperial language earlier and on a much wider
basis]

I guess your English isn't good enough if you thought that a message
with the title "imperial oppression" didn't carry an implication of
injustice.

English IS my first language, so maybe you'll accord me the possibility
that I know what I'm talking about?

mb wrote:
On Apr 16, 4:33 am, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
mb wrote:
[I hope that my English is good enough to at least have made clear
(except of course to the usual suspects) that I was neither talking of
"injustice" nor expecting that much can be done about it, except
perhaps teaching the imperial language earlier and on a much wider
basis]
I guess your English isn't good enough if you thought that a message
with the title "imperial oppression" didn't carry an implication of
injustice.

That, now, has nothing to do with the language but with the rest of
your upbringing. It's your logic, not your language.
Because your emotional conditioning makes you jump when the fact of
empire or its oppressive action is mentioned, you can't even stop to
think that the denotation of those words has nothing to do with BS
like "justice". Extremely frequent reaction in the US, by the way.

You're very funny, and you're not making any sense at all. I'm trying to
imagine what you imagine, or what you think anyone else imagines, *just*
oppression to be like. If you don't think "oppression" conveys
"injustice" then either something's wrong with your understanding of
those concepts or something is wrong with your understanding of the
meaning of those English words.

[I hope that my English is good enough to at least have made clear
(except of course to the usual suspects) that I was neither talking of
"injustice" nor expecting that much can be done about it, except
perhaps teaching the imperial language earlier and on a much wider
basis]

mb wrote:
On Apr 16, 6:52 am, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
mb wrote:
On Apr 16, 4:33 am, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
mb wrote:
[I hope that my English is good enough to at least have made clear
(except of course to the usual suspects) that I was neither talking of
"injustice" nor expecting that much can be done about it, except
perhaps teaching the imperial language earlier and on a much wider
basis]
I guess your English isn't good enough if you thought that a message
with the title "imperial oppression" didn't carry an implication of
injustice.
That, now, has nothing to do with the language but with the rest of
your upbringing. It's your logic, not your language.
Because your emotional conditioning makes you jump when the fact of
empire or its oppressive action is mentioned, you can't even stop to
think that the denotation of those words has nothing to do with BS
like "justice". Extremely frequent reaction in the US, by the way.
You're very funny, and you're not making any sense at all. I'm trying to
imagine what you imagine, or what you think anyone else imagines, *just*
oppression to be like. If you don't think "oppression" conveys
"injustice" then either something's wrong with your understanding of
those concepts or something is wrong with your understanding of the
meaning of those English words.

You only confirm what I was trying to say: Stop a moment to dissociate
ideological tinting from the bare concepts (which do not have an
obligation to be either-just-or-unjust, not more than a piece of rock
has).["logical"period intentional]

What does ideology have to do with it? I asked you to give an example of
just oppression, and you haven't done so.

Perhaps you didn't mean "oppression" in the first place. Perhaps you
only meant "hardship" or "disadvantage", which certainly don't imply
injustice, but then they also don't amount to oppression.

If now you would have preferred
said bare concepts to be expressed by euphemisms as they generally are
in some countries, that may be a legitimate wish but has nothing to do
with English per se. The point being that the connotation that you
seem to hear in it is country-specific.

That's ridiculous. You're making this up. OK, if you're right, give me
an example of something that *French* or *Greek* people consider to be
oppression but that they don't consider to be unjust.