who owns the language?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| mbaehrlxer Nov 24, 2006 2:01 PM EDT |
this article does raise a few interesting questions that do relate to linux: would the mapuche protest a translation of gnu/linux as well? or are they maybe already happy gnu users and want to stop microsoft from dominating them? more seriously, i'd like to know the following: did microsoft work with native speakers while making the translation, or 'only' with linguists? (some linguists appear to have an odd relationship to the languages they studied[*]) does the translation create new words? (and i am almost sure it does). if yes, then it can be argued that the translation changes the language, which then indeed affects the cultural heritage of the mapuche, and if the words have not been created in consultation with the speakers of the language then this may be a good reason to dismiss the translation and reject these new words. at least it is good to see that some people do actively oppose the western cultural colonization. i hope we will be hearing more from them and others like them in the future. [*]during my study of linguistics i heared a story about some people (i think american indians) who asked a linguist who was studying their language to help them document their language for themselves. the linguist refused and told them to do their own research, as he did not want to share his. greetings, eMBee. |
| jdixon Nov 24, 2006 6:17 PM EDT |
> who owns the language? Well, under US law, derived from British common law, no one "owns" a language. However, Chile's law would probably be derived from Spanish law, and whos know what the native Indian law might be, so I honestly have no idea. :( In any case, not consulting with the tribes in question was a very stupid thing to do (but typical for Microsoft, who always think they know best). |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!