On 5/31/12 10:58 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need
to change here. And I do think we might lose something
if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers
did say "yes, I found that made the document less
useful" then I'd be more convinced that all these
changes were worth it.
As a non-native speaker I agree. I think colloquial is fine. The one
thing causes me some trouble is all the references that Americans make
to sports that nobody in the civilized world cares about ;-) ("left
field", "Hail Mary passes" etc.) But I think the Tao pretty much avoids
those (perhaps "Home base" is the exception).
Klaas
On 05/31/2012 08:47 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/31/2012 9:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I actually have no evidence either way; that's why I suggested asking
some of them;-)
1. Reliance on self-reporting for such things is methodologically
problematic. It presumes a degree of self-awareness that is often
missing. For example a native speaker of a language that uses noun
doubling -- saying the noun twice -- to indicate plurals was quite
insistent with me that that wasn't the rule.
2. To claim a lack of evidence presumes some previous effort to acquire
it. However a quick search discloses:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=054711CCAB4AFB348F7E70C9079E7305.journals?fromPage=online&aid=2546012
Paywalled. Abstract says "comprehen-sibility of the non-native's
interlanguage" so is a worse sinner IMO:-)
http://dc.library.okstate.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/theses/id/1031/rec/9
Drives NoScript bonkers and needs some kind of FF plug in.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CF0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1255%26context%3Detd&ei=iyDHT4eBB874sgaa-rGQDw&usg=AFQjCNFnYm2MzlDnknB6AzfB0Oi4tUVyVg
289 pages, so only read abstract.
That's about adolescents. My experience at IETF meetings is
that more native English speakers seem to behave like
adolescents, but maybe that's just me:-)
It does make the point that there's a (presumably positive)
correlation between understanding of idiom and academic
achievement,
I guess the argument could also be made that the Tao should
be about as difficult to read as a typical IETF mailing list.
S.
among others.
The mere existence of these ought to make clear that there is a
significant issue in the use of colloquialisms with non-native listeners.
d/