Re: interpreter strip

>
>There are two major "variations" of English, I'm told...American English and
>"traditional" or Old World English. Our British counterparts and those in
>Commonwealth countries as well as most of Canada speak "Old World
>English"; while us Yanks speak "American English", full of words that are
>spicy and hard to interprete let alone understand their full meanings.

I thought this was an interesting comment by Mike. My understanding is that
there is indeed a difference between "American" English and "Old World"
English to use Mike's terms, but this difference is largely to do with the
written rather than the spoken language. I generally draw the distinction
between those who follow the Webster dictionary and those who follow the
Oxford dictionary, these being the key recognised reference workd on the
English language in, respectively, the U.S.A. and Great Britain. If one is
to be pedantic, here in Australia there are sufficient differences from
either version of English that we have our own "Macquarrie" dictionary of
Australian English.

However, my understanding of scouting interpreter badges is that they were
really more to do with the spoken language; although there is a significant
written component in earning the badge, IMO their main purpose is to provide
a service as a translator, which is most commonly done in the spoken language.

Now while anyone would have to admit there are a huge variety of variations
in accent and regional expressions and vernacular in the various parts of
the English speaking world, generally we all can understand each other. To
draw a distinction between "American" and "Old World" spoken English would
be, IMO a confusing oversimplification. I would venture to suggest, for
example, that a Londoner would very likely find it easier to understand an
"American English" speaking Californian than to understand an fellow "Old
World English" speaking Glaswegian ;-) The key thing is that they can both
make themselves understood to one another. Even in the written language the
distinctions are generally limited to variations in spelling; I'm sure
Americans have no more trouble understanding my "colour" as being "color"
than I do in understanding their "jail" to mean "gaol".

I don't want to seem critical of Mike's contribution on this topic, but I
really see no need to distinguish between different regional variants of
English. I believe most people would realise that if they met someone
wearing an interpreter patch saying English that it means they are not
speakers of English as their first language and therefore may not be
entirely fleunt in all aspects of the language. When this is the case, most
people will be courteous enough to limit the use of expressions and idioms
that may not be taught in English classes - certainly as "courteous" scouts
I would hope we would all endeavour to do so.

As I see it, the alternative to using a generic "English" patch would be to
have a proliferation of "Australian English"; "Cockney English"; "Texan
English"; "Bronx English"; "Skouser English" - the sky's the limit! Now I
couldn't agree more on the "spicy and hard to interpret", and I'm sure most
Americans who have been downunder would make exactly the same comment on
Aussie and Kiwi vernacular; my point is that for a language such as Italian
we only concern ourselves with "Italiano" for the interpreter strip, and
ignore dialects such a Calabrese or Siciliano. I see no reason to treat
English any differently.

Just my $0.02 worth. Soap box mode off...
YiS
_ .
Grant O'Neil _r| Ll\
Assistant Venturer Leader | |_|__\
2nd Ballajura Venturer Unit => \ |_|_ /
Swan Valley District ~~ `_'
Western Australia v

poneilgdo@alpha2.curtin.edu.au

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message
• Previous message
• Maybe in reply to
• Next in thread