I have been thinking about the "Saudi Subversion" section of OSC's latest War watch over the last day or so. I'm puzzled and frustrated because my husband has spent a couple of months looking for jobs as an Arabic translater and there apparently aren't any. The few jobs for instructors in academia invariably want a native speaker.
quote: It's that laziness (or bias) that Yasser Arafat always counted on, when he said one thing in English and the opposite in Arabic, and expected not to be caught by the western media. He was rarely disappointed.
Okay, this part was largely true. I wonder if on some level, Arafat subscribed to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language dictates thought. So when he wanted to be honest and sincere he spoke Arabic and when he wanted to be smarmy and appeasing he spoke English.
quote: It should be required that any publication imported into the United States in Arabic should have an accurate side-by-side English translation in the same publication. Publications in Arabic alone should be turned back at the border.
This runs up against the problem that in Muslim eyes, the only true Quran is the Arabic original; many believe that translations are evil on their face.
So the Quran itself should be the sole exception. As long as it consists of the Quran and only the Quran, it can be entirely in Arabic. But any commentary must be in Arabic and English.
I think the trouble with this approach is that the translations (which I suppose will be produced at government expense) will probably not be more consistent than the translations we have had of Bin Laden's speeches. The pattern has been for any Arabic language broadcast to have the sound effectively obfuscated so it wouldn't be possible for people who understand Arabic to hear what is actually being said. There is a reason for this- the concern is that a coded message could get through to a terrorist cell.
So why not just encourage more people to learn Arabic? I know OSC has done a bit of research in preparing his Shadow series, but I don't know how much of that has been the study of Arabic. The trouble is, people who study Arabic are generally not capable of maintaining the level of hostility and paranoia toward Arabs that will serve this view.
It has been my experience that most people cling to some version of the aforementioned Sapir Whorf hypothesis. They think that people who speak Arabic are more likely to have certain traits. After all, does not the language inflect every word for gender? Does it not build most other words from some verb (implication, Arabic speakers may be more action oriented and have less appreciation for abstractions).
But once a person studies Arabic and attempts to think their own thoughts in it, it becomes clear that the language is not the person. At least no more so than speaking English makes one venal, soft and greedy (surely there are Arabs who believe this.)
One major problem with Arabic language education, though, is the belief that it is harder (for English speakers) to learn than other languages. The trouble, I think, has to do with Arabic's structure and the way language is taught. In most languages, vocabulary is the larger learning curve and grammar is somewhat secondary. My English dictionary boasts 250,000 entries. An Arabic dictionary has maybe 10,000. But each of those 10,000 can produce in the neighborhood of 20 morphological variants (read, book, reader, library etc. are all under the same entry). In the end, Arabic probably has as many words as most languages but the means of producing them happens to be different.
Anyway, Arabic is seen as this mysterious thing, a figurative burka that separates us from understanding the Arabs of the world. We know this war is going to last for a bit. Just start learning it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's why OSC's suggestion on that is a non-starter: a translation requires meaningful input by the translator. The law recognizes this by granting translations copyright protections as derivative works - which means that it acknowledges a fair bit of creativity and expressiveness in the process.
There being more than one way to translate something, the government would be forced to judge the "quality" of the translation, which is a judgment of the expression, which is a form of content-based government regulation.
So I'm against it.
Dagonee
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
It bugged me to no end. It almost sounded like OSC thought Americans were too stupid and lazy to even bother learning Arabic to avoid terrorism.
Oh wait...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Hmm... so a certain number of arabs are trying to kill us so I should learn Arabic...
Wouldn't it be better to teach people languages that will help them better themselves financially and kill the terrorists? Isn't that what the military is for? To handle such things so we can live our lives?
Arabic... Useful if you're Texxon(*) looking for a new place to drill.
Pix
(*) How many of you old SNL fans recognize Texxon?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Given that Saudi Arabia is one of the US's biggest economic partners, learning Arabic is certainly a good thing economically.
Not to mention Egypt and Iraq, just to mention two other Arabic speaking places with lots of economic opportunity for Americans.
Then of course, there's that to evaluate the translations of these Arabic works, we would need people who spoke Arabic anyways, rendering OSC's suggesting completely silly.
And more in response to you, Pixiest, you're saying we should determine what steps we take towards national security purely based on private economic interests? Because that sure sounds like what you're saying -- don't teach people to read Arabic in order to protect our country because they wouldn't be able to put Arabic to good economic use (which, as already pointed out, is false anyways).
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Saudi Arabia is pretty much a one trick pony. It's Oil and pretty much only Oil.
I have not researched how far down Egypt and Iraq are as trading partners but I'm pretty sure they're below China and Japan.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not to mention that even if Saudi Arabia was "only oil", given how gosh darn important oil is in the economy that's an incredibly stupid reason for dismissing the learning of Arabic for economic reasons.
[ February 10, 2005, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
My uncle is Lebanese, educated in the US, and got some very high-level job offers by major computer manufacturers once he graduated - he chose to go to work for Compaq in Dubai and was making triple figures the year after school.
Speaking Arabic is not only useful in the oil industry.
Besides, why are we so indignant when faced with learning another language? "Why should I have to?..." is the automatic response. Why should you not? It's not like we're crippling you with all this extra information you'll have.
There is a serious lack of Arabic speakers, even in the US military. My brother told me this morning that there were native Arabic speakers, Egyptians and Lebanese, in his boot camp group, and the government wouldn't certify them as translators because they only spoke and didn't read and write Arabic. They ended up working in the mess hall or repairing tanks.
And we wonder why things in Iraq are such a mess...
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
That's weird, prior to Gulf I the Military's own language training program doesn't teach how to read and write in Arabic. They taught speaking and listening using a Roman alphabet transcription method. But then, I knew a foreign exchange student from France who got a C in French at my high school. Someone can be a native speaker and not understand their own grammar.
The point is not the actual volume of S.A. imports as that the necessity of those imports in every other segment of the economy would hogtie us if S.A. decided the honeymoon was over.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Someone can be a native speaker and not understand their own grammar.
This is very true...look at the native English speakers online and elsewhere who butcher English grammar every day of their lives.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
In any case, I would certainly like to learn Arabic. It's one of the most beautiful languages in the world, with arguably the most beautiful script in the world. I'll learn it right after I've learned German and Hebrew. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I've always wanted to learn Arabic. It's funny how non-standard it is, though. My Moroccan friends and Palestinian friends couldn't understand each other at all, so they spoke English.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
When I was studying at Laval University, I tried to get into an Arabic course, but all the language ones were full with long waiting lists.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
So now we should all be forced to learn the language of our enemies just to live in our own country? I don't get it.
Of course there should be people in the military who speak it. And of course anyone who wants to learn it should be allowed to. I'm all for encouraging foreign language instruction in general. I think everyone should study a foreign language. But I don't see why everyone should have to specifically study Arabic just because it's the language that our current enemy speaks.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's somebody saying we should?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Whio said forced? I think most of the arguments here have been good reasons to learn it, not good reasons why it ashould be required.
BTW< I do think that we should all speak more thann one language....it is required in most other mojor nations.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)