June 18, 2007
GOVERNATOR: "Turn Off the Spanish Television Set"
(Jimmy Akin)
There are a lot of things I disagree with Arnold Schwarzenegger about--from abortion to immigration--but he was dead-on recently when he indicated the best way to learn a language.
EXCERPT:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told a gathering of Hispanic journalists that immigrants should avoid Spanish-language media if they want to learn English quickly.
"You've got to turn off the Spanish television set," the Republican governor said Wednesday night at the annual convention of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. "It's that simple. You've got to learn English.
"I know this sounds odd and this is the politically incorrect thing to say and I'm going to get myself in trouble," he said. "But I know that when I came to this country, I very rarely spoke German to anyone."
Now telling a group of Hispanic journalists that Latinos should avoid media produced in Spanish was bound to provoke reaction, and it did:
"I'm sitting shaking my head not believing that someone would be so naive and out of it that he would say something like that," said Alex Nogales, president and chief executive of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, who called the remarks "preposterous."
Nogales said Schwarzenegger must have forgotten the challenges of being an immigrant in the United States. Hispanic immigrants need Spanish-language media to stay informed and "function in this society," he said.
"That doesn't mean they are going to sit there," he said. "They are also going to learn English in the meantime."
I'm sorry, but it's Mr. Nogales that is naive and out of it. You will have greater success in a country if you can speak the local language, and you will learn the language faster and better if you use a total immersion methodology, which means denying yourself access to material in languages you already speak. The more time you force yourself to spend interacting with the local langauge, and the less you use your native language as a crutch, the better you will learn the new language. Period.
To the extent Spanish-speakers--or speakers of any language (English included)--allow themselves to have recourse to their native language, it will slow their acquisition of a new one. Every hour a person spends watching TV in their native language is an hour that they're not spending watching TV in the language they're trying to learn, or studying the language formally, or talking to people who speak the new language. It hinders their ability to think in the new language, which is essential for language mastery.
Slowing (or stagnating) your acquisition of the language of the local environment is precisely what will cause one to have problems trying to "function in this society."
The longer you don't know the local language, the longer your ability to function in the society will be limited, leaving you more vulnerable and exploitable by those who do know the local language. Getting the local language down is key to personal empowerment and the ability to succeed in a society.
The course recommended by Mr. Nogales would prolong and intensify the struggles that native Spanish-speakers in the U.S. have, potentially (especially for those who are here illegally) putting them or keeping them in situations of exploitation and danger.
If I relocated to a non-English speaking country, one of my highest priorities would be learning the local language as fast as possible, and the way for me to do that would be to spend as much time functioning in the new language as possible, denying myself the crutch of English at every possible opportunity.
Once I'd mastered the new language, I could indulge myself by reading English language newspapers or watching English language television or listening to English language music or reading English Internet sites, but during the crucial period of language acquisition, I'd avoid English as much as possible.
This is not a matter of identity politics; it's a matter of how humans learn languages.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Languages | Permalink | Comments (120)
February 09, 2007
The Our Father In Aramaic
(Jimmy Akin)
Yesterday there was a caller on the show who wanted to know about finding the Our Father in Aramaic. I mentioned that it's found in the Pshitta, an Aramaic translation of Scripture, and it's also available online. Unfortunately, the address of the site I had was too long, so I promised to put it up on the blog this morning.
Unfortunately, after the show, a closer inspection of the site showed it to be kooky to the extreme. The translation they gave of the Aramaic into English was completely wrong, so I decided just to print the text of the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic.
First, though, here's an audio file of it (.wav format):
After doing a little digging around, I found the following nice image, which contains the prayer in English and the Aramaic alphabet, with an Aramaic pronounciation also. Bear in mind that the English and the Aramaic pronunciation runs left-to-right, while the Aramaic script itself runs right-to-left.
Also bear in mind that the pronunciation the prayer is given in Aramaic will vary from one group of speakers to another, based on accent. For example, the first word of the Lord's prayer in Aramaic is Abun, which will be pronounced by some groups as "Ah-boon," others as "Ah-woon," and still others (as in the transliteration below) as "Ah-voon."
Click to enlarge.
One word of warning about the above: What's on the Aramaic transliteration line doesn't always match up to exactly what's on the English line. Because of word division and length, the lines don't match up exactly. For example, on the third line from the bottom in the Aramaic column, you'll see the word Malkutha ("Mal-koo-tha"), which means "Kingdom," but Kingdom is on the fourth line from the bottom in the English column.
I can't go through the whole prayer line by line right now, but some folks might find it interesting to understand a little of how the language works.
The prayer is often called the Abun Dbashmaya in Aramaic, which are its first two words. This is similar to the way we call it the Our Father after it's first two words. But in Aramaic "Abun Dbashmaya" means more than just "Our Father."
The "Our Father" part of it is just the first word: Abun. As you know, one of the Aramaic words for "father" (there are actually several variants) is Abba, which is just spelled ABA in Aramaic (it being understood that the B reduplicates in pronunciation).
In Aramaic, pronouns often take the form of suffixes on the ends of words, and the suffix -un is a pronoun suffix that means "our." When you stick -un on Abba, you get "Abun," meaning "Our Father."
The Aramaic word for "heaven" is shmaya, and you can see that in the second word of the prayer. The prefix b- (sometimes followed by a vowel, sometimes not) is the Aramaic equivalent of "in" (remember the in/on discussion we had recently?), so bashmaya means "in heaven." And the prefix d- is the Aramaic equivalent of "who," "which," or "that." Dbashmaya thus means "who (is) in heaven." (Aramaic sometimes omits the verb "to be," as it does here.)
Thus you can see how "Abun dbashmaya" translates as "Our Father, who art in heaven."
Cool, huh?
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Languages | Permalink | Comments (52)
December 05, 2006
A Public Service Announcement
(SDG)
SDG here with an important public service announcement:
Please Note:
Prophecy is a noun — not a verb. It is pronounced "prof-e-see" — not "prof-e-sigh."
Prophesy is a verb — not a noun. It is pronounced "prof-e-sigh" — not "prof-e-see."
Prophesize, also spelled prophecize, is not a word. Do not pronounce it.
Thank you.
(P.S. Feel free to note additional public service announcement in the combox.)
Posted by SDG in Languages | Permalink | Comments (126)
August 16, 2006
Latin-Speaking Guy Or Gal Needed!
(Jimmy Akin)
I'm seeking someone who speaks Latin well to help me out on something.
As part of an effort to be of service to the broader Catholic community, I'm trying to translate a number of documents that generally aren't available in English and that aren't likely to receive an official translation.
What I need, though, is someone to look over my shoulder and nitpick what I'm doing, because I want the translations to be as good as possible.
This AIN'T a secret project, though, so I can tell you exactly what I'm doing:
At the moment, I've got a translation I did of the old Rite of Excommunication and Absolution, by which a bishop would impose and rescind the sentence of anathema on a person.
It seemed to me that translating the rite would provide a tangible demonstration that a lot of what you hear about the meaning of anathemas is simply wrong. They aren't sentences to hell. They aren't things that take effect automatically. They were a special kind of excommunication that had to be applied with a special ceremony by the bishop and that were meant to prompt repentence (so they were lifted when the person repented). As a result, they almost never were applied to Protestants since Protestants made no pretense of being part of the Catholic community. When Trent said things like, "If anyone says X, let him be anathema" that meant basically "If anyone claiming to be Catholic says X then let him be ceremonially excommunicated" not "We hereby damn all Protestants to hell."
So it seems to me that this document would be a useful thing to have in English but, because it's no longer used as the penalty of anathema has been abolished in canon law (Surprise! Anathemas also no longer exist!) it's not likely to get officially translated by anybody.
So I did it.
It's about 1400 words long in Latin and a similar (slightly longer) number of words in English. I've got it in a Word-readable document with the Latin and English in facing columns, lined up so that it's easy to read one paragraph in Latin and then the same thing in English.
If you have significant Latin skills and would be willing to nitpick the translation for me, I'd really appreciate it!
Also, this is a one-time deal without a long-term commitment. I won't come bugging you to nitpick future documents I translate.
Thanks much, and lemme know by combox or e-mail if you'd be willing to help!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Languages | Permalink | Comments (15)
May 22, 2006
Sen. Reid's "Racism"
(Jimmy Akin)
According to the Washington Times:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called a proposal to make English the official language "racist" on the Senate floor [Thursday].
"This amendment is racist. I think it's directed basically to people who speak Spanish," the Democrat said during the already tense debate over immigration reform.
Moments later, the Senate approved the measure on a 63-34 vote. Virtually all Republicans were joined by 11 Democrats to approve the largely symbolic amendment. Immediately following that vote, the Senate approved a second amendment, declaring on a 58-39 vote that English is the "common and unifying language."
It comes as little surprise that as the Senate head of a party specializing in identity politics, Senator Reid would attempt to play the race card to get his way in Congress, but isn't this particular card getting rather worn?
There was a time--in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement and the numerous injustices that it served to correct--that the accusation of racism was a potent thing, and playing the race card could be a powerful instrument for altering the state of a discussion.
But the race card has been played so often--and so inaccurately--that it's getting rather worn and easy to spot as part of a political bluff (to keep with the card playing metaphor for a moment).
False accusations of racism have been made so frequently (as, for example, by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney) that the potency of the racism charge is diluting. People no longer reflexivly assume that when the charge is made that it must be based on truth because those making the allegation have so over-used it that the situation has begun to resemble "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf!'"
Particularly noteworthy is Sen. Reid's accusation that a move to declare English the official language of the nation to be "racist" on the grounds that it is "directed basically to people who speak Spanish."
For a speaker of contemporary, 21st century English, this may leave one scratching one's head: "What does race have to do with language? They're completely separate. People of any race can speak any language that they choose to learn. This charge makes no sense."
It would have made a little more sense in the 18th century, when the term "race" still had more of its original meaning, which was to refer to a family, tribe, culture, or nation, such that one could speak of "the English race" or "the French race" or "the German race" or "the Spanish [meaning: 'from Spain'] race," but that usage has been virtually lost from contemporary English.
As a result of the history of racism in the English-speaking world, the term "race" has changed to refer in normal speech to particular genetic backgrounds associated principally with skin color.
Given that change in meaning, language simply has nothing to do with race because people of every genetic background have the same basic language genes and can speak any language they choose to learn. Saying, "In this country the official language is English (or Spanish or Mandarin or Swahili or Arabic or Hebrew or Russian or what have you)" has nothing to do with a person's genes and thus has nothing to do with race.
People of every race can speak every language, as illustrated by the fact that there are already millions of Americans of every race who are native English speakers.
Now, you'll note something interesting about the 18th century use of the word "race": in examples like "the English race," "the French race," "the German race," and so on the distinguishing terms ("English," "French," "German") are also the names of languages.
There's a very good reason for that: Language is one of the most fundamental aspects of culture--arguably the most fundamental aspect of culture--and so people who are members of a common nation and its culture tend to share a common language.
It is not easy to maintain a nation that does not share a common language. If you don't believe that, look at Canada.
If people don't share a common language then from an important perspective they simply aren't part of the same culture because they can't talk to each other and thus can't participate to any significant degree in common cultural life.
Nations that don't have a common language thus fail to have a common culture. What they have instead are different, sharply-defined cultures within them which are separated by linguistic barriers. This leads to friction between the language communities and to identity politics.
Sen. Reid's refusal to endorse the idea of English as the common language in America thus would have the tendency to foster more identity politics and more friction between groups in American society.
Whether you want to call that "racism" or not, it's something that we don't need.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Languages | Permalink | Comments (38)
February 03, 2006
Language Questions
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
A few quick questions:
1) Is the only difference between classical latin and ecclesiastical latin the pronunciation?
No. Ecclesiastical Latin also has vocabulary that classical Latin doesn't (esp. biblical and theological terms). The grammar and syntax are also a little different. For example, ecclesiastical Latin has a tendency to use prepositions where classical Latin would rely on cases alone. This makes ecclesiastical Latin easier for English-speakers since we are used to using prepositions rather than cases.
2) I know there are at least three different versions of the Vulgate floating around currently . . . is there a particular version/edition you recommend? I checked out a version of the Vatican's edition of the 'Nova Vulgata' and it has absolutely no footnotes, introductions, etc., so I'm looking for something a bit different . . .
I'm afraid that I don't have a special recommendation, here. I tend to use the Neo-Vulgate because it's available for free, in electronic form, on the Vatican's web site. (HERE.) I've seen a nice edition of the Vulgate NT with the Greek NT on the facing page, but with my preference for electronic formats (makes it easier when I'm writing), I haven't bothered getting one. (And, unfortunately, I don't have the name of it, though Googling should turn it up.)
3) Similar question for the Septuagint . . . what edition should I pick up?
Same kind of answer as before. I don't really have a recommendation. Almost any edition of the Septuagint will suffice for most purposes. Unless you're doing someting of a scholarly nature, it really doesn't matter which edition of the Vulgate or the Septuagint you use. Neither are original-language versions of the Bible, and if you're just wanting them for language study or personal Bible study or for writing non-academic articles then any edition will work well.
Readers are welcome to share their favorite editions in the combox, though.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Languages | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
January 17, 2006
Amabo Te
(Jimmy Akin)
Down yonder some folks were asking about a Latin equivalent for "please" and someone wrote:
Doesn't Latin have "amabo te"? That's what I learned, anyhow...
Another person then wrote:
This subject was discussed before on JA.O, and I also asked about "amabo te." I think Jimmy said it wasn't really used that much.
I don't recall saying that "amabo te" isn't used much, though that's certainly true in prayers. One reason why may be that--I am given to understand--"amabo te" is considered distinctive of women's speech, but most prayers in Church historically have been lead by and composed for men.
The fundamental thing, though, is that "amabo te" is not a particle, the way "please" is. "Amabo te" is an idiomatic phrase used to express entreaty, but not a particle of entreaty. Literally, "amabo te" means "I will love you."
Every language has ways of expressing entreaty, but in some languages (like English) we have a particle we do it with and in other languages (like Latin) they have a phrase (or other devices) they do it with.
Also, I don't know that it's a very Christian sentiment to use "amabo te" in prayers.
I for one would feel *even less polite* saying to God "I will love you if you do this for me" or "Do this for me and I will love you."
I want to love God whether he does it for me or not.
To a native Latin speaker "amabo te" might possibly have lost its literal resonance (the way "roll out the red carpet" has lost its literal resonance for most native English speakers), but I'm not a native Latin speaker, and putting "amabo te" in prayers I say in Latin would totally call attention to its literal meaning in my mind.
Translating it literally into English prayers would be even worse.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Languages | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
January 10, 2006
"Truthiness" Is The Top Word Of 2005? That's Just Cruisazy.
(Jimmy Akin)
Actually, I'm not wild about either "truthiness" or "Cruisazy."
"Podcast," however, deserves recognition.
And "sudoku" is likely to have legs.
"Pope squatting" may also come back to haunt us some day.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Languages | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
December 13, 2005
Lost In Translation
(Michelle Arnold)
Michelle here.
Last week my brother-in-law found some time to install the DVD player he and my sister gave me last Christmas -- which goes to show you that I'm no techno-geek, since it had to sit on my couch for nearly a year. Delighted to finally have DVD capability, I went out and bought three seasons worth of I Love Lucy (Seasons One, Four, and Five), my all-time favorite TV show.
When I put in Season One for my own personal I Love Lucy marathon, I was frustrated to find that most of the episodes were subtitled in Spanish. I was even more frustrated that Ricky Ricardo's famous Spanish rages were not translated into English, but that's another story. Since I couldn't figure out how to turn off the subtitles, I assumed that they were standard to the set and decided to tolerate them.
Once I did, I started to notice something interesting.
I am not especially well-versed in Spanish, having only taken three years in high school and nothing since, but I can read a bit of it unassisted and recognize some more if put side-by-side with English. What I found fascinating during my viewing of I Love Lucy was seeing how English was translated into Spanish. Being fluent in English (I hope) and knowing enough Spanish to recognize translations, I found that a lot was lost in translation.
Some examples:
- English colloquialisms apparently did not have exact translations. When the English-speaker would say "Easy!" while moving something, the translation into Spanish would be "Careful!" or "With caution." The meaning of the colloquialism was captured, but not a translation.
- A whole range of English versions of "okay" would have one Spanish translation: "Bien."
- The subtleties of language, which were sometimes used to humorous effect, were lost. Comical alliterations like "tubby trio" and "flabby foursome" could not be recaptured once they were translated.
All of this made up for the annoyance of subtitles that were not needed. Eventually, after fiddling around with the DVD remote, I finally figured out how to turn off the subtitles. But the translational game was so much fun I may turn them on again in the future to see if I can catch more translational glitches.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Languages | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
August 30, 2005
Bad Mood
(Jimmy Akin)
They had a visting priest at Mass this weekend, and he preached a really good homily (for the most part). His celebration of the liturgy of the Eucharist was also generally good, but he had a few quirks in how he said thing.
Most notably, he used the wrong mood when in greeting the congregation.
When the priest does this, he is supposed to say "The Lord be with you."
This gentleman, unfortunately, said "The Lord is with you."
He may not know enough grammar to understand the shift in meaning and simply thought that the latter is a more contemporary, vivid way of saying the same thing as the former.
It's not.
The "be" in "The Lord be with you" is an example of the subjunctive mood, while the "is" in "The Lord is with you" is the indicative mood, and there is a marked difference in meaning between the two moods.
In English (and in many other languages) the indicative mood is used to make statements about the way world is. In other words, to state facts. (It also is used to ask questions about the way the world is, but the above isn't a question.)
The subjunctive mood, however, is more tentative than the indicative. It doesn't claim to state the way the world is, but the way it might be. Thus it gets used in hypothetical clauses ("If I were a rich man . . . "). It also is used to expres wishes. That's what it's doing in "The Lord be with you." The priest is expressing a wish that God be with the people, not stating for a fact that he is.
English has been losing it's subjunctive mood and its functions have begun to be taken over by auxiliary verbs like "may," "let," and "should." Sometimes an auxiliary appears in the same sentence as a subjunctive verb, calling attention to it. Thus "May the Lord be with you" conveys the same meaning as "The Lord be with you."
Unfortunately, as the subjunctive has weakened in English, many people don't recognize it if one of the auxiliaries isn't present. That may be what happened with this priest. In the absence of "may" or "let" in front of "The Lord be with you," he may have thought that the latter is just a stuffy, old fashioned way of saying that "The Lord is with you."
But it's not. While the Lord is omnipresent and thus present with all people everywhere in that sense, he is also "present with" certain people in additional senses. He may be "present with" people in blessing, approval, etc.
That's what's happening here. To say "The Lord be with you" means something like "May the Lord bless you, approve of your moral conduct, comfort you with his presence" or something along these lines. In any event, it's the expression of a wish that God do something good for the people.
It's therefore presumptuous for the priest to shift the mood to the indicative and simply up and declare that God will do this good thing (whatever it is understood to be) with respect to the people.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Languages | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack
