next up previous
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 up previous
Next: Elaboration 46 Up: Elaboration 45 Previous: Elaboration 45
Ven 2007-09-11