Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts

Monday, March 11, 2013

Writing Hebrew and Arabic the wrong way

A few weeks ago, I visited the Singapore Night Safari with a friend who was visiting from Australia. We spotted some mugs at the souvenir shop which featured the names of 'popular' animals translated into various languages. Incidentally, this friend of mine is also a speaker of Hebrew, and quickly pointed out the glaring error on all of the mugs.


For those of you who can read Hebrew, it's a very obvious one. The word for lion in Hebrew is אריה (ari) and not הירא. While the makers of this mug have written the Hebrew word using the correct letters, they have failed to realise that unlike English, Hebrew is written from right to left, not left to right. The equivalent of this in English would be like spelling lion as noil.


Similarly, for 'African Elephant', we should have פיל אפּריקני (pil afriykaniy). Here, the word order is also incorrect, which is expected since the writer has gone from left to right, giving us the equivalent of tnahpele nacirfa.



Finally, for the 'Black Rhinoceros' mug, we should expect to see קרנף שחור (karnaf shah'or) - well you can't really see the word for 'black' in the photo, but you can see the word for 'rhino' קרנף karnaf.

Take note that in Hebrew, some letters have different forms depending on whether they occur at the end of a word or not. One example is the letter which represents corresponds to the English letter 'f'. In Hebrew it is written as פּ in the middle of a word, but as ף at the end of a word. On the mug we find the word-final form of this letter right at the end of word, if Hebrew were written from left to right. This suggests that the makers of the mug did not start with a Romanised transliteration of the Hebrew words, but translated them directly into Hebrew written in the Hebrew script (most likely using an online translator). Somehow in the editing process, whether by accident or on purpose, they moved the letters around so that they now go from left to right.


On a similar note, a picture by Bartosz Ostrowski, a Polish photographer and illustrator, has been making the rounds on Tumblr.


A number of commentators have pointed out that the Arabic for 'meow', naw naw has been incorrectly written in the Arabic script. The picture gives ون ون, when it should be نونو. Like the Hebrew script, the Arabic script is also read from right to left. Arabic letters also have different forms depending on whether they occur at the start of the word, in the middle, or at the end, and if they occur in isolation. The mistake in the picture is that the words have been written using the 'isolated' forms of the letters, and written from left to right.


Going back to the animal mugs, I do hope the manufacturers eventually realise their mistake and fix the Hebrew translations. However, given that the mistake was the reason my friend bought one as a souvenir, it may be in their best interests not to correct these errors...

Saturday, December 31, 2011

One language to unite them all?

To start the new year, I thought I'd focus on a very linguistic issue.

At the wedding I attended a few weeks ago, I had a long conversation with a guy who remained convinced that the Nagas needed both a common 'Naga' language, as well as their own unique script.

-What about Nagamese? People from all different tribes and language backgrounds already speak it.

-But it's not Naga. It's from Assamese.

He was right - the local lingua franca Nagamese is largely based on Assamese, with a fair bit of Hindi and Bengali vocabulary thrown in, and hardly any input from individual 'Naga' languages. But the suggestion that all Nagas needed a common 'Naga' language (and script to boot) seemed to me a tad ridiculous.

From a practical perspective, creating a 'new language' from scratch is a massive feat. Which languages do we draw from? And how much should the new language draw on each existing Naga language? 20% Angami, 20% Sumi, 20% Ao... ? Or should we choose a particular language / dialect and base our new language on that, the way Standard Mandarin was based to some extent on the Beijing dialect of Mandarin, or Bahasa Indonesia was based on a dialect of Malay from Sumatra?

Then, how do we go about implementing the -for what of a better word- imposition of this new language on the inhabitants of the state? China managed to impose Mandarin across the country, while Indonesia did the same with Bahasa. Both required considerable resources and a concerted national effort. Nagaland currently has official and unofficial governments and corruption drains away most of the money being channelled into the state by the Government of India.

Also, how would people feel about having another language imposed on them? Most education is already conducted in English, with compulsory Hindi in most schools. Add that to the home language and Nagamese (if Nagamese isn't already the language of the home). Do we really need another language?


But hang on, we also need to create an indigenous script to accompany this new language too.

-What's wrong with the Latin alphabet?

-It's not ours. It can't represent the sounds of the languages here.

Well the Latin alphabet wasn't made to write English either. But somehow English, and other completely unrelated languages like Swahili and Bahasa Indonesia have managed to adopt the same script to represent their respective sounds. Letters can be added and removed, depending on the language's needs. The same letter may be used in two different writing systems to represent different sounds, like 'x' in English usually represents the sounds [ks], while 'x' in Sumi represents the voiceless velar fricative [x].

As with implementing a new language, introducing a new script would require considerable resources. But again, people already have to learn to read English (and Hindi) - do they really need another script to learn? Furthermore, it'll be used to write a language that no one currently speaks!


Looking at the bigger picture, what is the point of having a common 'Naga' language and a unique script? Undoubtedly, the perceived need for these is motivated largely by political and ideological factors, not practical ones. After all, having a common indigenous language is one way of asserting a 'Naga' identity, in contrast to an 'Indian' one. Similarly, an indigenous script is seen as necessary to being a 'real' language when viewed within a larger 'Indian' discourse, given that individual languages across the subcontinent like Bengali, Kannada and Tamil usually come with their own scripts. (European languages that use the Latin script aren't judged along this criterion though.)

This person I spoke to also believed that speaking one language would help unite the Nagas. There are people around the world who believe that if we all spoke one language, there would be less conflict. China and Indonesia had national language policies designed to create a sense of unity their respective countries.

But does speaking the same language reduce conflict? As important as language is in the creation of identity, it's still just one component - other differences may still arise within the same speech community.

For instance, one thing I've noticed is that there are very few dialectal differences in Sumi (with the exception of speakers from the Pughoboto area), so that people from across Zunheboto district as well as those in Dimapur and Kohima, are able to communicate with each other in Sumi. In contrast, Angami speakers from neighbouring villages sometimes have to converse with each other in Nagamese because they speak such different 'dialects' of Angami. I was told that this was the case for Angami speakers from Bara Bosti in Kohima when they meet people from nearby Jotsoma village.

But despite this 'linguistic unity' of the Sumis, it hasn't prevented the interfactional violence we've seen this past week around Zunheboto town between NSCN (K) and Unification.

So would one language unite all Nagas? I seriously doubt it.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

On the importance of writing

In light of this week's post about a certain person who shall remain unnamed (lest he receive any more publicity), I thought I'd mention that when I started this blog last year, I made it a point not to turn it into a personal online venting ground. Rather, it was meant be a way of keeping in touch with people back home while I was in Nepal and NE India. It has since become a place where I share interesting things about the places I visit, the languages I come into contact with, and language in general.

In this blog, I try to be as positive as possible, even after spending 3 hours standing on a train or 10 hours on a bus suppressing the urge to throw up because of food poisoning. My little outburst this week was actually many weeks coming, having read some of the idiotic comments this person had been making on Twitter and in articles featured on The Age. The final straw was when he launched a ludicrously personal attack on a colleague who had written a rather lengthy criticism of him. (While I disagreed with some of the original criticisms, the reply was quite disproportionate.) The comment that this person posted on this blog was also equally idiotic, and never even addressed the discrepancy I had tried to point out.

In fact, his style of argument reminded me of a religious fanatic who, in the absence of any good evidence, has to resort to making assumptions about the personal character of the people they're arguing with to make a point. I suppose I got off easy - if I had been any more vehement in my criticism, no doubt he would have called me a 'chronic under-achiever' (as he did my colleague) or something to that effect.

Now the thing is, why did I even bother addressing this person, when most people would probably just sit back and wait for him to disappear into obscurity. My friend who's working out here in Assam even asked me how and why I was able to devote so much time and energy to maintaining a blog. I said there was a point to all of this, beyond the simple narcissistic pleasure of broadcasting one's thoughts.

Recently, my friend Lauren (who has a personal blog lozguistics and also maintains the linguistics-related blog Superlinguo) attended a writing workshop at the University of Melbourne. The main point of the workshop seemed to be to encourage academics to write for a more general audience. There are a number of reasons to do, including the potential for a career change. I suppose one reason I see the need for this is that, at least in Australia, research at universities is largely funded by the government and taxpayers want to see what their money is getting them. Of course this doesn't mean that all research should, or needs to, have immediate recognisable and tangible benefits - knowledge itself is a worthy pursuit. However, as purse strings tighten in a world dominated by a GFC, it is becoming increasingly important for researchers to be able to 'justify' the value of their research in order to remain being funded, whether it's by producing results or by simply creating interest in the general public.

I certainly don't think my little blog comes anywhere to doing this but it's my small way of sharing the knowledge I have with others. Keeping a blog is also good writing practice for me, since I'm also not a great writer and often struggle to write in a concise and engaging manner.

Finally, returning to he-who-shall-not-be-named, I think part of my frustration with him has also been that there are people in my department who are so much more qualified to comment on the things that he has been talking about. The lesson here is not to wait for people like him to come and 'steal' the limelight with their misinformation (based largely on personal views), but to find ways to engage the public with the knowledge that we do have.
(Incidentally, I was told that if you google 'his' name, my post appears on the first page of results!)