Next: Elaboration 46
Up: Elaboration 45
Previous: Elaboration 45
Elaboration 45.1
Man's specific need in ideational trickery, because of his (extra)
freedom to have ideas at his disposal, he solved by an internal
language. A host of digits, of yesses and no's, fixedly grouped
together, under one symbol. It made thinking easier
(classification), but it also implied the principle of
'standardization'. This, it is clear, because the classification
also meant ALWAYS using the same major symbol for the same string of
digits (internal standardization). Always putting the tin-opener,
the scissors, the keys, etc. in the same place, saves a lot of
un-necessary searching, at, mostly ackward moments. Intelligence is
standardising all things and solutions (once well thought over) for
inessentialia, and therefore, gives more time for essences.
Classification means putting things in known classes, but
standardization is to do this always in the same way. A railway
guide not only classifies, telling you that H is on the line between
K and V, but also standardises it in so far that H will not be
called O or A at some other time. It is well to remember however,
that classification is not identical with standardisation (both are
parts, aspects of the whole: 'ideation'). Man in socio, soon started
a communicative standardisation for sounds linked to a class, an
idea. It was his first intelligent act. It opened up a huge store of
new possibilities. Classification became easier, but also, man could
exchange ideas, speak. But for the very importancy of 'sticking to
the standard' my experience with the taxi driver must be related.
The first traffic light namely, was red, and he went right through
it. It told him what he had done, but he answered in a jovial way:
'Don't you worry guvnr, I always do that, nothing will happen'.
Indeed, the next light was red too, and again, he went through it. I
became slightly uncomfortable but fortunately the next light was
green. But then, he slammed the brakes. I cried out 'it is green
man, why don't you go on?' His answer was clear. 'You know, my
brother is a taxi driver too, and is just like me, he therefore
could well be coming out of that side street and ram me'. The point
is that when everybody did as the driver, the standardization would
work out just as well. The paramount advantages of classification,
for mankind, stand or fall with standardisation. Yet, we seem not
able to profit by this miraculous gift, in more than some
insignificant fields, or more than one step over random. We have
standardized the nuts and bolts, but not pistons, cylinder heads,
crankcases, whole engines, whole frames, cars. It is like inventing
electricity, but using it only for making artificial sparks,
lightning. Standardisation of nuts and bolts only, is but one step
from random, intelligent behaviour should do further steps, and
still further steps, all the time saving effort, making man more
free, happier (potentially). In the same manner have we not improved
our first step in language, we have not improved over the
Neandertaloid custom. It is no longer recognized that it is very,
very, necessary that everybody at least tries to speak clearly, and
as much 'up to the standard' as possible. It is no longer known that
the training for this, when done at an early age, is no effort
compared to the efforts for repairing damages, even loss of life.
From a survey about causes of air-disasters, it appeared that the
difficulties (causes) already start when e.g. a Russian pilot,
speaking the World-Language, English, communicates with a control
tower in Zambia, that also replies in the World-Language. Both
Englishes simply are not good enough. When a Dutch minister speaks
of 'udder', meaning 'other', and the listener thinks (sinks) that
udder is the interest on money, there may be room for confusion.
Before and during World War 2, a lot of my primary school training
was taken up with clear and proper speaking. They taught the roughly
equivalent of English R. P. that is A. B. Dutch. Nowadays, teachers
do not seem to bother. They do not train themselves in clear, and
proper standard speech, nor their pupils. One can see a protest
march of teachers with banners ON WHiCH THE TEXT iS in capitals
except the i's and j's, so the writing lessons share the same fate.
Teachers, today, triumphantly declare that the kids are entitled to
(keep) their own standardization, slang, twang, mispronunciations,
grammatical errors. Hearing university graduates say (in Dutch):
'Their are going home.', does not seem to surprise a soul (at
Batavudurum university). On the B.B.C. programs (World-Service),
there is no effort at all to improve the abilities of the listener.
They do not 'care' about good speakers for ALL the programs. Often,
in science (thienth in akthion) programs, the listener is treated on
a professor, surgeon, or what not, speaking with a gutter accent.
When there is a reading of a story, written by a contributor from
India or Malaysia, they choose a speaker who speaks almost pidgin
English, in order to preserve the atmosphere. A radio course for
English speakers, apart from feeding the listener on 'pop',
pedagogical-pop (!!!), let you be introduced to a professor
Grammatica who rolls the 'r's like potatoes on an empty loft-floor.
Imagine a World Service broadcast from a group of native,
World-Language speakers, that you switch on in order to hear, ...
indeed, French, German or crooked English! There was a man who
triumphantly mentioned a letter from a listener, saying that 75 %
of the listeners were non-native English speakers, and would he
please slow down, and try to pronounce clearly (not mumbling parts
of every sentence in a hurry). Five seconds afterwards, he speaks
... enfin. When we have a World-Language already, we might as well
improve it (not programmes, metres, litres but programs, meters,
liters (even littel, Lester, etc.) ). Then we must take 'a' standard
for pronunciation, one that is achievable(able) by all native- and
other speakers, say, R. P. This means that e.g. Americans must learn
the letter (not ledder) t, and so forth. Australians should then aim
at not saying rhine when they mean reign, rain, or rein.
Next: Elaboration 46
Up: Elaboration 45
Previous: Elaboration 45
Ven
2007-09-11