Language and Identity - A Joke!

An e-mail is being circulated which also came to me yesterday about the possiblity of English as the official language of the European Union. This may not be true, because the following has been taken from  www.ahajokes.com which is not found anymore. one can find this in http://www.nairaland.com/1053641/european-commission-adopt-english-official 

It seems to be interesting how certain changes in english would look like:

Enjoy the joke.

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU rather than German which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five year phase-in plan that would be known as 

"Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of the "k". This should klear up konfusion and 

keyboards kan have 1 less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be ekspekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e"s in the language is disgraseful, and they should go away.

By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru! And zen world!

Language certainly has an important role to play in human culture and identity. It would be hard for many to give up and think that language is only a tool for communication. The contemporary world should learn to live  with multilingusitic communities and diversity. The liberals often speak of rights and understanding humanism plainly based on human dignity. The strict secular regimes often claim that multiculturalism is no good to maintain human dignity but only narrows down our vision. The choice of one language as official can only result in misrecognition...... 

But why do also people in the liberal state become so fundamentalist about language? Nine months ago, the European was accused that it faours English by the French Press.[http://www.euractiv.com/culture/commission-denies-english-langua-news-513705] The problem may still continue... who knows?

MODERN AND PRE-MODERN

The former prime minister of Britain, Mr. Tony Blair, who is a Roman Catholic, has reacted to the recent violent protests that caused the life of many people all over the world, saying, “I think what we shouldn't do is lose sight of what the real issue is, and the real issue is how do people actually think it is justified to react in a way that ends up innocent people being killed. […] So no, this is a profound problem; it’s a problem, as I say, which is about the struggle of modernization. The good news is, in the end, the modernizers will win incidentally, but it will take a long time to do.”[1]

One can well agree with Tony Blair that no one can justify the death of innocent persons. He is right in asserting that demanding the persons behind the film should be held responsible. But I am interested in his comment about modernity.

Modernization for most westerners means that it is about the freedom of the individual. A society is considered to be modern only when the individual freedom is attained. There should not be a major issue with this understanding. The further explanation at the comment of Blair is to indicate that one should be able to respect the views of others. This means that the modern people will be more tolerant and magnanimous in accepting the view of others even if it is a false view.

But how is that the individual who expects that everybody’s view should be respected does not respect the view of others even if it is a false one. I explain: sorry to use the name of Blair. If Blair thinks that the modern notion of freedom is to respect the view of others, then the Muslims should be able to respect the view of the director of the Movie. That is the sign of being modern. Because they are not modern, then they react violently.

My question is – if the views of others should be respected, why the director, who is a modern, does not respect the view of the millions of Muslims. 

Who is pre-modern – the director or the Muslims? Or Both?

*****

The irony is that the sister-in-law of Mr. Tony Blair 

converted to Islam 

three years after his conversion to Catholicism.

***** 

---

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/17/tony-blair-reaction-to-anti-islam-film-absurd_n_1889232.html

Democracy and Demonstration

India is a country partly ruled by the majority, partly ruled by the law. It gives an equal status to all the citizens of the country yet it tries to fulfill the wish of the majority. In the synchronizing model [of both Republic and democracy], the sufferers are the people because they do not have either control over the rulers or do not receive what they are supposed to receive by the benefit of the law. It is also because the law is in the hands of the few and sometimes dictated by the rulers themselves. 

In the continuous protest that we witness in Tamil Nadu, one can hope to explain the complexity of the phenomenon. The rulers see the manifestation of the people as irrational and as a divisive factor that goes against the rational decision of the majority. The vast majority of the people are made to rationally believe that the nuclear plant is the only option available to the continuous 'power cut' they experience in the country.  Joining hands with the rational belief of the government and the indifferent majority, the 'media' [some of them]     makes a propaganda writing against the protests of the people for their‘collective good’, say the safety of the present and future generation. They write that these manifestations do show that the protesters are against the unity of the country. 

The truth is that some rulers, and a pillar of democracy in fact do not understand that India is also a country that values the protection of every citizen. They think that demonstrations and protests are dangerous to the unity of the nation. They are against the demonstrations only to create an opinion of the majority. They do not understand that these protests are the sources that strengthen the system of the Indian governance in which every body’s right can be protected. It is only the recognition of these protests that strengthen the unity of the country. 

Only when the voices of protests such as these are not respected and the recognition is suppressed, then there emerges a danger of division. The voice for fragmentation may become stronger when the collective rights of the people are not respected. 

Therefore those who oppose a legitimate protest should understand that by supporting a majoritarian decision or the silent acceptance of the decision made by the majority, they are only perpetrating the system of tyranny and not of ‘democracy’ which seems their conviction.