Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why English sucks as the language for international and scientific communication

madore.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 57 posts

Re: Why English sucks as the language for international and scientific communication

#21

Post by baldfat »

I understand the issues with English and well Latin is a great scientific language BUT...

English is the most spoken language in the world. There are 4 times as many second language speakers for each native English speakers. I totally get the issues listed. I am a native English speakers with horrible Spanish skills and 4 years of ancient Hebrew and Greek studies.

English just works as a language for people and it is 100% about the content that is available in English as opposed to every other language.

Re: Why English sucks as the language for international and scientific communication

#22

Post by svachalek »

cesarb wrote: post #12
dnautics wrote: post #2

One and two are not a problem; three is. German, Italian, and Korean might have been better choices in that regard. French has some frustrating silent letters and horrifying irregular verbs (although not to the scale of English)

It's even more annoying when you learn new words mostly through a text channel (like, say, most of the Web). For instance: I've read elsewhere that no common word rhymes with "orange". But what about "range"? If it doesn't rhyme, then I'm pronouncing one of them (or both) wrong, but how would I know if it weren't for that "nothing rhymes with this" tidbit?

I think to some degree, the spelling problem is unfixable because we're not likely to come to an international agreement on pronunciation.

The "a" in orange is commonly silent in my experience although I've also heard it given a two-syllable pronunciation like OR-unj. Neither comes close to rhyming with range, but which is "correct"?

Re: Why English sucks as the language for international and scientific communication

#23

Post by bdamm »

beloch wrote: post #13

"I am not trying to argue that we should now give up English for international or scientific communication, or try to replace it with this or that other language (except possibly in a limited way, e.g., see below on Basic English). I am not proposing to use Interlingua, Esperanto, Latin, Italian, Chinese, Russian, or anything else: I am maybe saying that we should have used Interlingua, Esperanto, Latin, Italian, Chi…

Nor does he address the creation of dialects, an odd omission given how much time he dedicates to analyzing the ways different speakers of english dialects may misunderstand himself. Italian, for example, is primarily spoken in Italy and almost nowhere else except by expat Italians. If Italian were to explode as an international language, you can be sure there would be regional dialects pop up that may misunderstand each other in systematic ways.

Re: Why English sucks as the language for international and scientific communication

#24

Post by Dewie »

whizzkid wrote: post #19
Dewie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing is, there are no perfect language, just like programming languages. There has got to be some name for this argument tactic. It's so trite and useless. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9259764

I am not sure what you did not like about the argument. What is really useless of relating languages to programming languages?

I'm referring to the "nothing is perfect argument". It gets used to muddy the water so that one can imply that it's all a wash. "Nothing is perfect" should be taken as a given on almost all topics, so it's useless except for as a dishonest rhetorical device.

I don't like to compare programming languages and human languages, but for different reasons. (Hint: because they have so little in common.)

Re: Why English sucks as the language for international and scientific communication

#25

Post by tempestn »

cesarb wrote: post #12
dnautics wrote: post #2

One and two are not a problem; three is. German, Italian, and Korean might have been better choices in that regard. French has some frustrating silent letters and horrifying irregular verbs (although not to the scale of English)

It's even more annoying when you learn new words mostly through a text channel (like, say, most of the Web). For instance: I've read elsewhere that no common word rhymes with "orange". But what about "range"? If it doesn't rhyme, then I'm pronouncing one of them (or both) wrong, but how would I know if it weren't for that "nothing rhymes with this" tidbit?

For what it's worth, dictionary.com will play a little sound clip of spoken words:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orange?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/range?s=t

Of course, it's only one possible accent, but might be helpful with things like this. (In this example, it says "orange" is pronounced, [AWR-inj], and "range" is [reynj]. That's about how I would pronounce "range", but you don't hear that strong distinction between syllables of "orange" here. It comes out more like [awrj].)

Re: Why English sucks as the language for international and scientific communication

#26

Post by xxxyy »

MollyR wrote: post #4

Seems like English for international and scientific communication is like Javascript for the internet.

Pretty much so. It is one of the easiest to learn, almost everybody gets at least the basics, the codebase is huge, and it works on all platforms, err.. continents, modulo tiny accent issues.

Re: Why English sucks as the language for international and scientific communication

#27

Post by bdamm »

MollyR wrote: post #4

Seems like English for international and scientific communication is like Javascript for the internet.

His reference to a simplified English (already established in aerospace) seemed like an under-appreciated concept. Why not have a standard simplified language construct? Much like we do with Javascript.

Re: Why English sucks as the language for international and scientific communication

#28

Post by viewer5 »

afarrell wrote: post #6

> "there is no such English word as costlily;" There isn't? I've certainly used it as such.

A few times in conversations I've found myself trying to force "friendlily" (friendly as an adverb) out of my mouth. Aside from me tripping on my tongue trying to pronounce it, the people around me understood what I was saying just fine.

Re: Why English sucks as the language for international and scientific communication

#29

Post by baldfat »

baldfat wrote: post #21

I understand the issues with English and well Latin is a great scientific language BUT... English is the most spoken language in the world. There are 4 times as many second language speakers for each native English speakers. I totally get the issues listed. I am a native English speakers with horrible Spanish skills and 4 years of ancient Hebrew and Greek studies. English just works as a language for people and it is…

Disagree write words not down vote please.
Post reply on HN