Lost in Translation...

Setting an example, my avatar is now bilingual!  All other language versions of Rabid Dog will be gratefully received...

 I know that Bowens did not intend to offend anyone by what he wrote initially. Also, I imagine that most people did not take offense to what he wrote (I didn't, anyway).

But look at what he wrote in his first post:  Someone should tell them that the resulting gibberish makes zero sense.... Below is an example of the kind of post that leads me to ask this question (no offense to the author)

I keep seeing this kind of nonsensical mess in posts on chess.com, and the aforementioned is the only reasonable explanation that has occured to me; is there a way to let these people know that their posts are utterly worthless when they do this?

Then, he goes on to explain in a further post that he actually understood 99% of what AWARDCHESS was trying to say. So, clearly, what was written was not at all "gibberish" or "nonsense" that is "worthless" and "makes zero sense". I know that Bowens wasn't trying to offend, but surely you can see why people reacted the way they did.

Furthermore, many people (myself included) find it hugely ironic when people criticize someone's English - even though English may be that person's second, third, or fourth language - despite the fact that they cannot speak a second language themselves. I'm not saying that Bowens is such a person - but I have met many such people in real life.

Also, I don't think anyone is pretending to be "holier than thou". They are just explaining that they know how difficult it is to learn a second (or third, fourth, fifth) language and thus they have some understanding when others make an effort to learn a language foreign to them. 

Yes, this is a site based in the USA and things here are conducted in English. Having some translation service available isn't a bad idea. The suggestion to have bilingual members volunteer to perform translation services was probably a good one. On the other hand, we don't need a grammar gestapo to go around ripping up ESL people for every grammatical mistake. Just let me reiterate: I know that Bowens wasn't trying to offend, but some of the language in the OP did sound unnecessarily confrontational.

I think I'm going to go make a thread where I post some examples of incredibly poor English coming from native English speakers, and wonder aloud whether it was written by a person or an English text-generating program. (This last sentence was a joke by the way). 

Lance, you beat me to posting that.  Grrrr.

 I second what lance just posted... mainly some word choices in the op put me on edge. 

I would also like to add that a translation program (if it did work) or even volunteer translators are not the answer.  For starters, if such a translation component did exist I imagine anyone TRYING to post in english, all be it with errors, could be told to use a translator before post. The original poster with his language choices in his first post sort of sounds like the kind of person who would do that.  (No offense meant to the original poster...  (as a side does this note that I mean no offense to the original poster make it all right that I seem to be accusing him of being intolerant of people trying to communicate in another language?) )

For large posts / articles I could understand wanting translations but for mere antecdotes I don't believe it is necessary.  Bowens talks about the gist of the post.  It almost sounds as though he wants a reference rather than better grammar... both of which I don't believe are necessary.

The chicken cross the road why?

Otherside to get to!

RE: Lance

 Thank you for your post; however, I would like to clarify a few things.  I did not say that I understood %99 of what the author wrote, in fact I did not quantify at all.  What I did say was that I understood the gist, and even that is pushing it.

Also, you are correct that there are many ignorant and/or untolerant people roaming the web and streets who view ESL "members" of society as second rate or stupid; all of those people are indeed ignorant and petty to the highest degree.  Also, thank you for understanding that my purpose in starting this thread was far from that. 

As to my initial post being somewhat confrontational, I can say only this.  It was intended to be.  That is for two reasons; first, I was genuinely frustrated at not being able to understand the jumbled post that seemed like it would be a great story.  I am a huge fan of chess, and I am always happy to absorb any piece of chess history or trivia that I run accross.  This little tidbit about Tal and Fisher seemed like just such a gem, and yet its substance was obscured from me by poor translation.  That frustrated me and motivated me to start this thread, hoping to prevent such occurences in the future.  The second reason is that provocative threads get read (as is evident in this thread). 

On the charge that I wrote/write in a PRETENTIOUS tone, I'd like to ask those of you who have accused me of such what exactly you mean by that?  As we all know, "Pretentious" means full of Pretense, and "Pretense" is a false air of importance.  So, to do something in a Pretentious manner means to do something that your audience does not consider important, in a way that insists it is important.  If you find this thread to be trivial, then perhaps my approaching it with sincerity is, in your eyes, pretentious; in that case just ignore the thread which you deem to be unimporant.

The other possibility is that because, instead of using a sea of emoticons and bad grammar, I write in a mostly correct fashion (which is my custom regardless of the medium), you describe me as pretentious.  Either way I think you are mistaken in your accusations.

Also, as far as incredibly poor english coming from native enlgish speakers, I wholly agree with you guys that this happens, and is shameful.  However, those who post gibberish in their mother tongue do not usually post anything worth reading.  If I were to criticize those people I would just be petty, which I am trying not to be.  =P  (Emoticon to hopefully make me seem less pretentious)

Oh, and let me be sure to mention that I am saying incredibly poor english is shameful, not informal english, in particular when the writer is criticising something or someone else, and this is the most common circumstance in which you find incredibly poor english from native english speakers.  If someone, be they ESL or not, is sincere in their effort, and their English is poor, then I do not find it shameful, nor would I criticise it.

Forgot the point I was going to say.

A better form of translation for everyone involved (I think), would be for a person to try to post it in the forum medium and people who got the gist of it but saw the poor grammar could politely repost their message with the "correct" grammar and changes and ask - is this what you meant?  That way the non-native speaker can see that they were understood but also see that there was a more "correct" way of posting their thoughts in english.

If the non-native english poster continues to post and be retranslated into better english, in theory their understanding of english grammar rules will improve and as such their posts will need less and less adjustment from kind readers who got the gist of it.

Interestingly enough though, at what point does this sort of behaviour become that of a grammar nazi?

I bet you never thought this topic would get such partizan responses from either side ay Bowens ?

 My 2 pence - In the example that you give I find it easy to understand and in someway this style gives it character.  Admitedly though, for large paragraphs/pages of text it may become harder to read.

Is it such a broad problem that you need translators or would it be fair to point out a particular persons mistakes (politely) in order that their grasp of language and grammar improves and subsequent posts are more fluent ?

EDIT sorry you have already answered this in the previous post

In order to further exacerbate the difference in viewpoints in this topic, I would venture that the only form of English which can be considered, as EnGliSHCheSsPlAy so eloquently put it, to be 'the best language in the world' is the pure English (i.e. not American) form.

Hahaha. You cheeky git.

@Bowens

Provocation is not how I would desribe it; I view it more as putting ideas (which are not neccessarily my own) up for debate. I hope you can appreciate that sense.

Personally I feel that the stylistic differences between American and British (point taken) English, whilst minor, are important and I am displeased when I see American grammatical usage, pronounciation or vocabulary being used here in England. I also myself dislike seeing colour spelt color, or centre spelt center.

However, none of this should be seen as an attack on American English, more as a partly patriotical, partly sentimental viewpoint.

 I must note that I do like Canadian English, as well as Canada

RE: Schofio

 So, in fact, what you are identifying as "superior" elements of difference between American & British english, are in fact mere stylistic differences, namely in spelling.  While you may prefer what you are familiar with (naturally), there is no substantial difference in the grammatical structure or versatility of either dialect; in fact, it is a stretch to even call the two "dialects," as they essentially share the same lexicons (I would venture that fewer than one hundred words differ between the two).

 That said, I share your sentiment that English is a beautiful and complex language (much of it's value and versatility is derived from its complexity).  That said, I dare not enter a debate over which language is better than the other, regarding English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Cantonese, etc, as all have their strengths and weaknesses, and one who is fluent in more than one always has more options in how he can express himself!

.

@ Bowens

I couldn't agree more with many of your points and am enjoying this discussion immensely.

I will respond to a few of your points:

I'm not going to go into minor grammatical differences such as formal and notional agreement of collective nouns, as I agree that the two languages are extremely similar.

I would agree entirely with your statement that the beauty of English lies in its complexity - it is this which draws me also to Latin and Greek.

Although I have experience of French, Spanish, and Farsi (Note the use of the Oxford Comma there - do you use that in America?), my 'favourite' language would have to be Classical Greek because its structure is so logical, yet still so complex, and its influences in almost all Western languages is very apparent.

@ Rael

Is that supposed to be an Englishman? Good joke.

I'm hopefully coming to Calgary next year on a rugby tour.

Well, Schofio, if you read some of the earlier posts, I was criticised for using the "oxford comma."  Haha, and I am certainly an American!  In truth, it is optional, but I find it useful when seperating subordinate clauses, as "and" is not always a sufficient tool.

Regarding Latin, WOW is it complicated.  Each part of speech is modified depending on the other parts that it modifies, and the gender, plurality, tense, and subject all cooperate to form distinct endings; to write, read, or speak latin is truly a full-time job in my opinion!

@ Bowens

Sorry, the five pages were a little intimidating.

Latin is a fabulous subject to take at school - I love it. Historians speculate that one of the reasons that the Romans always read aloud was to allow them to understand the sense of the piece as no punctuation was used and, of course, the word order was highly flexible.

Greek, although it lacks an ablative, more than makes up for it with remarkable complexity elsewhere.