French Laws and Delilah

This morning I came across an interesting (to me) story of the French language laws in Quebec.  As most people in Canada probably know, businesses in Quebec, by law, must cater to French speaking customers.  In other words, signage must be in French, promotional materials etc. must be in French.  Other languages are optional.

I do not consider myself an expert on this law, as I live in Ontario, but I know many English speaking Canadians view it as an infringement on their rights, and they do love to come up with stories of the evil Language Police hunting down innocent store owners and driving them out of business with onerous requirements to change their signage.

This is the story I saw this morning.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/quebec-store-owner-ordered-to-translate-facebook-page-to-french-1.2553262

A sweet charming woman, being harassed over her Facebook page that advertised the store in English, but not French.

Whether or not this case has merits remains to be settled, but let's just use some critical thinking for a moment.  Eva Cooper, the store owners says

“It’s not like I’ve ever not followed the law with my businesses on the Quebec side.”

I assume it is a very easy thing to change the Facebook page (well, anyway my Facebook page is easy to change, but then I don't know if she needs to hire a consultant to make the change for her).  So there should be no problem.  But I noticed the name of the store is "Delilah", and Delilah is famous in the bible as being one of the most deceptive women in a book with many stories of deceptive women.  So I did a little fact checking myself.  On Google, I could not find any record of Eva Cooper having a previous run-in with the Language Police.  Then I had the idea of checking Google Maps street view, to see if the signage on the store was bilingual before the CBC story was filmed.  On street view, I saw a photo of the store just before it opened, with two large signs on each side of the door announcing that Delilah was coming soon.  Both signs were in English.  Is Eva Cooper being deceptive, or did she simply forget, or maybe nobody complained, so it does not count. Or maybe the law only comes into effect the moment the store opens, I just don't know. But I didn't see any French language signs, and two English-only signs.

Anyway, I am not arguing or explaining the language laws in this particular blog, but it's more about honesty in reporting and story telling.  CBC made this woman look like she was not only in complete compliance with the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law.  Yet she was being asked to change her Facebook page.  Google street view says different. What is the real truth?

Lower picture off Google Maps (9 chemin scott, chelsea qc)

Don't Tell Me What it Feels Like

I can tell that winter has returned, because now instead of giving the real temperature on TV, they start telling us what it "Feels Like".  And "feels like" is actually just an easy to understand replacement phrase for "Wind chill factor".

According to Wikipedia,

"Wind chill (popularly wind chill factor) is the perceived decrease in air temperature felt by the body on exposed skin due to the flow of cold air."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_chill

Scientists have worked out the wind chill factor temperature for each degree of real temperature, and at each increase of wind speed.  Wind chill temperature tells you how quickly you will get frostbite if your bare skin is exposed to that wind.  The wind chill calculation is helpful for people who are at risk of frostbite.

But, in my opinion, the wind chill readings are not well understood by ordinary mortals such as meteorologists and weather announcers on TV.  "Wind chill factor of -30c" does not mean "Feels like -30c".

When I was a kid up north walking to school in the middle of winter, my mother used to always tell me the temperature before I left the house.  She would say "It's 30 below zero!!"  as I walked out the door without either hat or gloves.  Thanks to her constant reminders, I have a pretty good idea what it "Feels Like" at all the different temperatures and wind speeds, while walking without a hat or gloves and my ears in the early stages of frostbite.  It is not what the weatherman says it "Feels Like".  A real -35c feels a lot colder than a wind chill factor of -35c.  Why?  If you have a wind chill reading of -35, the "real temperature (i.e. the one showing on the "real" thermometer) is only -19 when the wind is 50 kph.  That means if you can get out of the wind, you will be much warmer (or less cold).  But if the real temperature is -35, you have no place to go, it is -35 everywhere.  If it is only a wind chill of -35, there are lots of ways to get out of the wind.  Walk behind a bigger person, change sides of the street. walk backwards, etc.  Additionally, if the wind happens to be coming from behind, you only need to walk a little faster, and you avoid the wind chill.  And I have not yet even put on my hat and gloves, which happen to be wind proof anyway.

Lately I have noticed a new trend on TV, which is to substitute "Feels like" for the more meaningful term "Wind chill factor".  Don't tell me what it "feels like".  I know what it feels like, or given the real temperature and wind, I can figure it out.  Your job should be to tell me the real temperature, and the wind speed and direction.  Different people have different tolerances to cold.  Different people wear different clothes.  Cold does not feel the same to everybody.

On a motorcycle, the weather presenter's "Feels like" temperature is even less meaningful.  Partly because I have no exposed skin while riding my motorcycle on a cold day.  And partly because, even if there was some exposed skin, it is not exposed to the wind at the normal ground speed they measure.

So unless someone with a perfectly average human body is outside in the nude, standing still on top of a treeless hill, don't tell them what the temperature "feels like"  You don't know what it feels like.  Just give the real temperature, and the wind speed and direction, and let them work it out for themselves.

Picture: from http://www.examiner.com/article/wind-chill-brings-life-threatening-dangers-of-frostbite-and-hypothermia

Logic. Made Simple

I have read more than once, that Atheism is a religion, but this is not what Atheists actually think.  I am almost sure that atheists believe that atheism is not a religion.

I read one long explanation, using some logic, of why atheism is not a religion.  But you have to remember that logic is not just "common sense", there are rules to it that must be understood or it does not work.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

In this web page, some of the ideas presented as logic in the original argument are illogical. Here is one example:

"Religion is a philosophy of life.  Atheism is a philosophy of life.  Therefore Atheism is a religion."

The type of logic is called deductive reasoning. http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/logic.htm

From the Columbia Encyclopedia 1946

"Deductive thinking is largely reducible to a form such as: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal (all S is P, M is S, therefore M is P); or more exactly: If all men are mortal, and if Socrates is a man, Socrates must then be mortal. Such a form is known as a syllogism."

The many problems with the author's statement begin with the faulty logical construction. This is wrong: A is B, X is B, therefore A is X.  If this logic were valid, you could easily prove a dog was a cat.  (A Dog is a pet, a cat is a pet, therefore a dog is a cat.)

The correct form of this logic is actually "if all S is P, and M is S, therefore M is P".  The argument would have to be constructed as:

"If all philosophies of life are religions, and atheism is a philosophy of life, therefore atheism is a religion."

If the first two statements (called the major premise and the minor premise) are correct, the third part (the conclusion) must be correct. However, if either of the first two premises are incorrect, then the conclusion is also incorrect.  And in this particular example, both the premises happen to be incorrect.

OK Now lets have fun playing with "logic". This time I will use my own example, with a negative twist. In order to prove that M is NOT S, you have to juggle a few things around.  Let's try this: If all S is P, and M is not P, therefore M is not S.

If you substitute  S=religion P=tax exempt M=atheism

All religions are tax exempt.  Atheism is not tax exempt.  Therefore Atheism is not a religion.

So, does the logic hold up here?

I think we should go back to teaching logic in schools, unless logic contradicts religious teaching.

How Is Oil Sand Sludge "Essentially Like Yogurt"?

Here is a story that combines propaganda (or PR) and English/French cultural differences in Canada.

In the Globe and Mail

"The Alberta oil patch has avoided potential embarrassment after Advertising Standards Canada ruled that an advertisement that compared toxic oil sands effluent to yogurt did not mislead viewers."

The advertisement was put out in English and French. The English advertisement stated that the oil sands tailings effluent was "essentially like yogurt". The French version said it "had the consistency of yogurt". The English version was protested by the Sierra Club of Canada as misleading, and the English version ad was pulled. The French version is still up.

We learn from this story that the Advertising Standards of Canada does not have a problem with an ad that states toxic oil effluent is like yogurt. According to the ASC, this level of distortion is normal, and well understood by society. They said it is a way to explain the consistency of the effluent, not a statement about it's toxicity.

It is a mistake to think that advertising and PR is a communication like a normal email or conversation. In advertising, PR, and propaganda, every word is studied and every sentence crafted carefully to manipulate the audience's responses, both conscious and subconscious. Every word is carefully considered for its impact, and for whether it has crossed the line from exaggeration into outright lying. The message of the ad is that oil effluent is not so bad. Some marketing person must have had the idea that they could compare the sludge's consistency to yogurt, and furthermore they could leave out the word "consistency". Probably some other people said "I like it, but wouldn't we get slapped by the Advertising Standards Council for lying?". The marketing person replies "Nawwww! we do it in advertising all the time. We can say it's like yogurt, and then argue later that we meant consistency, and only a fool would actually try to eat it. "

Then, they got the ad translated into French. I was not there to hear the conversation, but I can imagine the French interpreter saying. "We're going to need that word "consistency" in the French version." English marketing person says. "Why?". French translator replies "Unlike the English Canadians, French Canadians who hear the ad will react negatively if we try to tell them the sludge is essentially like yogurt." English marketer: "Those French people are such liberal bleeding hearts. Well, we have to go with your recommendations, because you know the French audience better than we do."

Apparently, the English marketer was right in one way, the ASC let the statement stand uncorrected. But when the Sierra Club complained, it was the sponsors of the ad who backed down in embarrassment, and pulled the ad.

It proves that despite the American influence, some English speaking Canadians have some ability to detect bulls**t in advertising.

By the way, in case it was not obvious: When all the propaganda is stripped away, nobody cares about the "consistency" of the toxic sludge. I am quite sure that the word consistency is being misused anyway. (Do they really mean "viscosity"?) What people actually care about is that birds coated with this sludge die, and that it is very hard to clean off without help. I have not tried this at home, but I'm betting that if you dunked a bird in a vat of yogurt, it would have a much better chance of surviving on its own than if you dunked it in a vat of toxic tar sand runoff. That's what people really care about, and this issue of "consistency" is nothing but a standard advertising ploy. The only similarity between yogurt and oil sludge is that they are both semi-liquid, and whether the ASC permits it or not, it is ridiculous to mention both in the same sentence.

Picture: from this web page

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jmogerman/the_crude_in_syncrude_ugliness.html

Dealing with Language Barriers

Language barriers are really not that bad when travelling. Maybe for me it is second nature, as I grew up with language barriers, and after that, I also spent three years in Africa. Many North Americans have almost no experience dealing with language barriers, as this part of the world has adopted unilingual English to a remarkable degree. But there are strategies to help get through language barriers, just as there are some approaches that seem to make things worse.

It is useful to be aware that some languages are relatively similar. Many Americans and English Canadians tend to lump all foreign languages together, as if it was just as difficult for us to understand French as Chinese. No, that is not true, and with experience, you would find that some languages are really different, others are closer to English and therefore easier to figure out. Also some places are more touristy, and therefore you will have less trouble with a foreign language. As my African high school students remarked to me, (who spoke about 4 languages minimum) they did not really consider French and English different enough to count as two languages. There were 14 native languages in Sierra Leone, a country the size of Southern Ontario, and most of them were not from the same linguistic origin.

I am not trying to suggest you need to be fluent in a language to travel. There are several tips and techniques that work very well, especially in relatively close languages, where tourism is normal.

At the very least, try to learn a few words. Language instructors may not like me letting you in on this secret, but "Hello", and "thank you" are the top two words to know. Probably followed by "Excuse me", "sorry" and "where is the bathroom". If I'm in a language course where I'm being taught "Bellboy, take my bags up to the room, and hurry" then I'm in the wrong course.

Think. All too often, people take their brain offline because they are not confident they will ever figure it out. Consider it like a game, a mystery, a puzzle to solve. Look at all the clues, pay attention to gestures, facial expressions, if possible try to recognize words. Even in Pashtun, I'll bet you hear the occasional English expression. In Timne, the local tribal language in Sierra Leone, one phrase that popped up often enough at school was "Waste time". Anyway, you do need to think more clearly then usual when you are faced with a language barrier.

Try to talk to the right people. With some experience, you will eventually know how to find people who can answer questions, and who it may be best to stay away from. I'm not sure I can help specifically, but I know choosing the right person can make or break the communications. Here is an example. An Internet Cafe in Baja, California. There is no @ sign on your keyboard, because it is a Spanish keyboard. You need help, who to ask, and what do you say? Well don't do what I did and go up to the guy at the front desk and say "Hoy!" thinking it means the same as "Hi!". Hoy actually means "Right now!". "Ola" is hello. A mental lapse on my part. But at least the guy at the desk is going to be a little more understanding than if you blurt this out to someone hard at work typing on another computer somewhere across the room.

Even with a skeleton vocabulary, try to be mindful of what you are saying. If you don't understand the language, it works better to say "Ola" rather than "Como esta", because although both are basically a greeting, "como esta?" is a question (How are you?) that kind of asks for a response, and since you may not be able to understand the response, why ask it in the first place. Of course in real life the interchange usually works itself out, as the other person can usually figure out that you are just a tourist, and you really don't want to know the details of his latest hernia operation. It also might be nice to know the ritual response to "Como esta", which (I think) "Muy bien", because sometimes people may greet you this way.

At any rate, it is obviously not always possible to learn an entire language from scratch for a two-week vacation.

Now here in Canada, the main language "problem" is English and French. Neither the English nor the French see any compelling reason why they must learn the other language, unless they are forced to to get a job (like Prime Minister of the country). But because of our history, a large number of Canadians can speak or understand to some degree the other official language. And, typically, people who are not perfectly bilingual, can understand the other language much better than they speak it. I don't have a full physiological explanation of why this might be, but it is easy to temporarily lose your speaking ability within a year, while your comprehension will last dozens of years without practice.

Up to now I have been considering mainly someone who truly does not understand the language, like me and Spanish.
How are things different when you can understand, but are a bit shy or too tongue tied to speak the other language? Well obviously one problem might be that the other people may think you are just being rude by not speaking when you can obviously understand. I know for sure many English Canadians think this way about French Canadians. I'm sure it is also true in reverse. And in either case, it seems quite easy for, say a French person to be offended when and English person who understands French will not speak in French, and yet at the same time this same French person may have a perfectly good reason why he himself does not need to speak speak English, even though he may understand it pretty well. This double standard is exhibited frequently with both English and French speakers.

When you actually understand the other language, you really must make an extra effort to speak at least the basic words. Again, you don't have to be perfect, but use common sense at all times, pay attention, and keep thinking.

Try to be brief. Reduce what you are saying to what is needed, and no more. Don't bother to launch into an explanation of why you do not speak the language so well, or how slowly they must speak for you to understand them. It wastes time, it causes more misunderstandings. Just say what you need to say, in the other language if you can, if not switch to plain English. I assure you, they will figure out that you do not speak the language, and eventually they will also figure out how slowly they need to speak to you.

Communicate with the aid of hand gestures, or props. For example, buying a fuse for the motorcycle, take the burnt out fuse with you. If your gear shift lever is broken off, take the broken bit with you if at all possible. Pointing helps if you are asking or giving directions. Hand signs are pretty universal, for example, pretending to write on your palm is the international hand sign for "give me the check, please".

Be aware of what emotions are showing on your face. Smile. It works in all languages. Sometimes other facial expressions are called for. This may be important when you are unable to say things like "I am sorry that I'm dripping water all over your new hardwood floor". And even more important when you obviously understand the language, and yet for some reason cannot articulate the word "sorry".

Try to not harbour any negative stereotypes. For example, when a policeman in Mexico asks you how expensive your motorcycle was, don't immediately jump to the conclusion that he is fishing for a bribe. Maybe it is just a natural thing to be fascinated by expensive stuff that would cost them five years salary to buy.

Do not use shouting as a way to overcome a language barrier. And, of course no fist shaking or gun waving.

Do not bother to tell people that you are Canadian. It is irrelevant information, for one thing. I memorized the phrase "Soy Canadense" for when I went to Mexico, and used it on the first waitress I encountered at a restaurant. She gave me a blank stare, so I assumed she could not understand either Spanish or English. Actually, it turned out she understood both, but apparently didn't have a good response to this statement, although maybe she was thinking up some. And in another vein, do not say "Me Canadian, you ????" in a typical Tarzan and Jane movie dialogue.

Get your brain in gear, think of the context, predict what is going to happen. For example, you and two friends walk into a restaurant, a waitress meets you at the door, she probably will ask you "table for three?", it does not matter what the language is. Just nod and follow her to the table, or hold up three fingers. Much better than asking her if she speaks English, or asking her to get an English speaking person for you. Same thing at a military checkpoint. They usually ask the same question, "where are you coming from and where are you heading?" I give them the name of the place I stayed last night, and where I think I may stay tonight. I don't get into anything more complicated, I don't worry too much about exactly what they are saying. One time I got "going to" and "coming from" backwards, and the soldier at the gate looked puzzled and motioned to his commanding officer. He just called back "Inglese?" the soldier nodded, and the officer waved me on. Yes, they can figure stuff out pretty fast. Much much better (and less waiting) than asking people to either speak English or find someone else who can speak English.

Learn the road signs! In Mexico "Curva Peligroso" (hey I still remember that after four years!) means dangerous curve. So then logically, pretty much anything followed by peligroso means "stop text messaging right now!". While it would be helpful to really know what that other peligroso thing might be, don't be looking it up in the phrase book while driving. I might as well mention Vado Peligroso, because it officially means a "dip" in the road, but in Mexico it really means you are crossing a dry river bed. The first five times, you may not even know what the danger is supposed to be, but here are some you will eventually see: Donkey/Cow in the road, hidden in the dip. Road completely under water. Road recently under water, and masses of melon sized rocks are strewn right over the pavement.

http://www.ontheroadin.com/mexican_road_sign_translations_f.htm

And just as importantly, learn that there are no signs at all for some really horrendous stuff, such as half the road was washed way three days ago, or a truck is lying upside down across the entire road (that would probably be in the last five minutes, just judging from how fast the tires are still spinning.)

Sometimes a considerable language barrier exists even in English. Both these incidents happened at the same McDonald's breakfast stop during a motorcycle trip through rural Kentucky (i.e. off the interstate). I went to the counter to order the big breakfast. I really could not understand a word the girl at the cash register said. But she understood "big breakfast and coffee" just fine. When it came out she said "That'll be three thousand dollars". Those were the first words I actually understood! And they were not good. I must have gone blank. Then she laughed and said "I'm joking!" and told me the right price. Actually quite funny, if I had not just got off my motorcycle, and my brain had been given its first coffee yet. Then, sitting down to eat my breakfast a young man came over to my table and launched into a monologue, of which I did not understand one single word. He paused for a bit, while I looked at him. He said "You're not from around here are you?" Finally something I understood. I said "No." He went away, seemingly satisfied with the answer.

In the end, the thing I miss most when there is no language barrier is all the fun you can have when both speak the same language, like I can in Southern Ontario. My two favourites, one when a person is walking a dog, I ask "does your dog bite?" They say "No she's real friendly etc. etc." Then just as I reach down, I stop and say "Is this your dog?" Cracks me up every time. Next, when ordering a "foot long hot dog", (Canada has been a metric country since the early seventies), I ask "how big is is it?". The younger cashiers really struggle with that. I bet some of them don't even know how long a "foot" is, or that it used to be a unit of measure, and not something at the end of your leg

Picture: a military checkpoint. What can you figure out without knowing the words?

Belt Drive Betty Visits Quebec

I have just read a blog entry from Belt Dive Betty, where she writes about getting a rude reception upon entering Quebec. Hopefully, Betty is exaggerating a bit, but I can imagine how it could happen.

I live in Ontario, a mostly English speaking province. But I grew up in Quebec, where the language is mostly French. I am aware that there is a certain tension caused by the language differences, and in the past I have tried to explain that traveling in Quebec is not all that bad, for English speaking people.

To give an idea of some of the prejudices I sometimes see, here is a blog entry by a Canadian explaining his feelings, called "French are Classified world's rudest tourists", and of course drawing a conclusion that the French in Quebec or France are all alike.

I feel that I have to give two explanations before returning to Betty's problem. French Canadians are included as Canadians for purposes of this survey, where Canadian tourists rank third. That means an average of English Canadians and French Canadians, so you decide who is pulling up the average. Also, one of the key categories in the "rudeness" poll was generous tipping. In France, unlike most Western countries, tips are included in the bill. So there may be a reason that French people are called bad tippers. Maybe it's not as much rudeness as it is a cultural difference. The French (in France, not Quebec, there's actually a big difference in tipping) expect the waitresses to be paid a decent wage, not to have to depend on tips for her living.

Now back to Betty's encounter. While I am sorry that this happened, the reason why tourism is dropping off in Quebec, is not because of widespread rudeness, it is actually because of the increasing value of the Canadian dollar compared to the US. Not to say everything has always been nice. But in my experience, travelling in Quebec is far more friendly now than it used to be 40 years ago, and most people I have spoken to agree.

I see Betty's situation as a "worst case scenario". Betty was looking for the tourist information office, where she could have expected a better reception, but accidentally barged into the local office of the "Bloc Quebecois", which is a political party that wants to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada, and set up a French-only independent country. But I don't think this was the main issue that may have led to rudeness. The fact is that lately, separatist feelings have cooled quite bit, so in spite of the original mission of this political party, not all the supporters are actively in the separatist movement. However, just a week ago on a TV discussion (The Michael Coren Show), I heard calls for all Bloc Quebecois members to be hanged for treason, so rudeness goes both ways. Hopefully, nobody got as rude as Michael Coren in the Bloc office, though.

(Read an article "Traitors in our Midst" by Michael Coren to get an idea of what he thinks of Bloc Quebecois)

If Betty had gone into the Tourist Information place first, none of my comments below would matter. The Quebec Tourist Info people speak English, and are friendly and used to dealing with tourists, even dripping wet bikers. I have never deliberately tested the staff to see their breaking point, and I'm sure it is quite high. But even in the "Bloc Quebecois" office, the encounter could have gone much better.

Betty understood French, but I am not sure she tried speaking it. Sometimes French people get annoyed when an English speaking person who happens to understand French, will not speak French. English people feel the same. I have often said that an attempt to speak a language goes a long way. Learning how to say "hello", "thank you" in any language is a good start. But for people who actually understand the local language, refusal to speak the language is actually kind of insulting. I will give an innocent example. I understand French, and can speak it to some extent. When we were in a restaurant in a non-touristy area of Quebec, I let Mary Ann do the ordering even though she struggles in French. She just wanted to practice her French on the waitress, who did not understand English much. But when there were complications, and the waitress was not able to communicate, Mary Ann asked me for help, proudly announcing to the waitress that I knew French all along. Mary Ann did not get it that this was not the most diplomatic thing to do.

And I did notice that the first time Betty mentioned using her "broken French", the exchange went much better.

Adding to the impatience at the Bloc Quebecois office, it was raining outside, and she and her husband were dripping water all over the floor while the conversation took place. I am always kind of aware, when I am dripping wet in motorcycle gear, that I may not be greeted joyously everywhere I go. Especially if I am not a paying customer, or in a normal tourist hangout.

I wish I had the exact dialogue to comment on, but even without it, I can say that this type of thing can be avoided with a little care.

Picture: I grabbed a random picture off the internet of a Quebec Tourist Information place.

Explaining America to the Rest of the World: "Koran Burning"

Sometimes, a story in the media is lost in translation as it goes from one country to another, where language, history and culture are different. This headline is an example:

"Pastor Terry Jones, of the Dove World Outreach Center will Burn Korans on 9/11"

Let me explain each point of this story for non-Americans. (Actually I'm not an American myself, but it is becoming clear that one of the main uses of Canadians is to translate from "Americanisms" to "Rest of the world language" and vise versa.

Let's start with "Dove World Outreach". In America, the second word, "world", does not mean the same as what foreigners think it means. "World" simply means whatever Americans want it to mean. For example, the "World Series" of baseball does not mean the rest of the world participates. In football (soccer), "World Cup" means the rest of the world does participate. So "World" to Americans sometimes means only the USA, or occasionally, the USA plus some foreigners.

The first word "Dove" may also be a little confusing. A Dove is a universal peace symbol. But Americans do not see "peace" the way other people do. To Americans, peace is more or less synonymous with "Superior firepower". This of course explains why all the members of the "Dove World Outreach" carry loaded pistols.

The last word is also a bit different. To most people, "outreach" implies to reach out and help other people. To Americans, it also can mean if help is not accepted to at least "send a message" that if they do not accept help, their behaviour will not be tolerated.

So now we have taken care of the first three words. Hopefully, things are beginning to make sense.

Now the most important word, "Pastor". In America, a Pastor can be anyone with ten dollars and an internet connection. You do not need to be "hired" by a Bishop or Pope or Imam. You also do not need followers, although it's a nice to have, and adds a little credibility. But the followers can be your wife and kids for example. You can also have followers by getting a TV or radio station or a website. Anyone who can hold a sign or sing or make comments on a blog or shoot a gun, can be a useful follower.

Second thing about American Pastors. Everywhere else in the world, a religious figure has a boss to answer to. Not in America, where people and religions are free. In most countries there are at most a handful of religions. In the USA, there are over 40,000 more-or-less independent religions often referred to as "churches".

The last aspect of being an American Pastor, that needs further explanation. Pastors do not need an education either. I really don't know what the minimum requirement for a pastor is, and not to insult my friends and relatives who are pastors, but I don't think there is a minimum requirement (except maybe for having a pulse). That is not to say there are no really good, educated, brilliant pastors. It's just that in America, unlike the rest of the world, there is no minimum requirement.

Finally, the phrase "book burning". Everyone must understand that to Americans, burning stuff is not as horrifying as it is in other parts of the world. Americans do not feel strongly about waste, like many other countries do. Americans regularly burn garbage in their back yards without a permit. Garden waste, brush, and household garbage including small T.V.s, disposable diapers, and Dixie Chick CD's have been burned . It is my belief (I have no proof) that even bibles may have been burned along with other books in the trash. The only thing no American is allowed to burn is the US flag. But since US flags are burned frequently in the rest of the world, then some Americans don't see why there is a problem burning the Koran in the USA. (except that for some reason the rest of the world thinks it is a problem). At any rate, Korans have already been burned and flushed down toilets, so why would anyone would care about a few more.

On the other hand, some Americans associate book burning with the Nazis. So they are conflicted about the symbolism. But then it's also important to remember that not all Americans are alike. You have the entire range from insane redneck racists, to liberal pinko fag pacifists, and everything in between, even including many well educated world travellers who can even speak French or other foreign languages.

So now everyone can understand the context of the headline "Pastor Terry Jones, of the Dove World Outreach Center will Burn Korans on 9/11". Apparently he decided not to in the end, but there are plenty of other crazy pastors out there, so don't be surprised.

Picture: One of my photoshop efforts. It is Terry Jones' head on the body of a girl with a handgun and a crazy T-shirt. I crossed out MOON and substituted KORAN, and I put the words at the top of the picture.

Potato, Potahto

My shortest blog so far. I watched "When Harry Met Sally" on TV tonight, and the song "Let's Call The Whole Thing Off" was playing in the background. Well, the famous line is "I say potato and you say potahto", which gives rise to the expression "Potato, potahto", that I've heard recently. This expression means "It sounds different, but really it's the same". Used in a sentence, it might go like this. "You say it's a bailout, I say it's a rescue. Potato, potahto."

But the weird thing is this, I have known the lyrics to that song for at least 50 years. And for at least the same amount of time I have heard my mother say "have some potatoes" or "eat your potatoes", and she never, ever says "potahto". She speaks with an English accent, (I don't) and yes, she does say "tomahto".

Tonight, for the first time ever, while watching "When Harry Met Sally" it suddenly occurred to me that my mother does not say potahto. I quickly Googled it and found out that no country says potahto. How could it have taken me 50 years to figure that out? So the song really should be "I say potato and you say potato."

Picture, taken from http://cheezburger.com/TemplateView.aspx?ciid=6439151

The joke is that Sarah Palin thinks that North Korea and South Korea are basically the the same thing with different pronunciation. (or did my explaining it spoil the joke?)

What is "Language of Appearance"

"Language of appearance" is a concept developed by fundamentalist Christians to explain some of the language in the bible.

For example, if the Bible says "The sun rose in the east" that should not be taken as literally that the sun was rising while the earth stood still. It simply "appears" to the average onlooker that the sun is rising, while we should know (assuming we went to school) that the earth is rotating and that the sun has simply come into view over the horizon from our moving spherical platform.

Obviously, nobody wants to get rid of "Language of appearance", as it would be clumsy to refer to every sunrise as a "sunstandingstillwhilewearespinninginacircleanditcomesintoview".

But how many other examples of "Language of appearance" do we have in our common speech? In checking Google, I cannot find any. Also, there is no entry in Wikipedia to explain "Language of appearance", which is why I decided to write this blog to fill in the knowledge gap.

For example, why would the comment "Up in heaven" not be "language of appearance"? After all, we know the Earth is spinning and that Heaven cannot be up any more than down. The reason it is not "language of appearance" is that there is no appearance of heaven being up. We only think heaven is up because the Bible tells us so.

Let's try another example. Why is the phrase "Snowflakes falling" not an example of "language of appearance", because we can really see that happening. The answer is simple, if something works pretty much as we describe it, then we are describing what we see is happening. To be proper "language of appearance", the appearance would have to be radically different in some way from what really is happening.

Here are a some real of examples of "language of appearance" that I didn't see on any Christian website. "Centrifugal force", is the force that appears to be pulling at us off a merry-go-round, while the reality is that there is no force pulling us off, it is only by hanging on that we are forcing ourselves to go around in a circle. Another example of language of appearanceis saying an apple falls from a tree. The reality is that the apple and the planet Earth are attracted to each other, and each one is moving towards the other, in proportion to their mass. But it's easier to say "the apple is falling". We say the astronauts are weightless in low orbit. In fact, if they stopped circling the Earth, they would drop like a stone. Because there is almost as much gravity in low orbit as there is on the surface of the Earth, but they appear to be weightless, or in zero gravity.

"Columbus discovered America" is another case of language of appearance, if you are a European. Actually, humans had discovered America long before Columbus. Columbus was not even the first European to find America. But it's easier to say than "Columbus ran into an America that other people discovered by mistake as he was trying to find a route to India".

Now what about Revelation 7:1, which refers to angels standing at the “four corners” of the earth, as if we were to believe the Earth is flat (and square).

This could be "language of appearance", as argued on the website Christiananswers.net, only if people have actually seen these angels standing on the corners of the Earth. I would call it "verbal imagery" rather than "language of appearance". On a spherical Earth, there is no place four angels could stand to represent the four corners. You could maybe put one at the north pole, and one at the south, but there is no East or West angel standing place.

Language of appearance would apply also to the time that God "made the sun stand still". But in fact, God would have had to make the Earth stand still, not the sun. It is not the motion of the sun that makes it rise and set and helps tell time, it is the rotational movement of the Earth.

http://www.baptistlink.com/creationists/languageofappearance.htm

This Baptist website has a lot of other examples, some of which are flat wrong.

"Relative humidity is 95 percent" is claimed by this website to be another case of "language of appearance". Actually, no, it is not. We cannot see humidity, and we are not breathing water. It simply means that the air is carrying 95% of the water vapour it is able to, and if it takes 5% more, you will start to see drops of water forming into dew, or fog.

"Airspeed" is not a really good example of language of appearance either, because everybody knows the air is not moving at that speed, it is the plane that is moving. The word was originally coined to mean "the relative speed of wing through the air". But if you close your eyes and stick your head out the window of the plane, it will feel like fast moving air. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed

When we refer to an airplane's Head or nose, it is not an example of "language of appearance". It is "verbal imagery", because nobody thinks there is a real head or nose on a plane. An example of my own might be "The foot of the mountain" where we know mountains do not have feet. This is a simple form of anthropomorphism, which means human qualities, thoughts and emotions to inanimate objects or animals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

Furthermore, "wind shear" is simply a description of something that has nothing to do with shears, and "pushing the envelope" is verbal imagery.

"Moon rise", and "Star rise" again are valid "language of appearance". But it is the same example as sunrise, all about looking at the sky from the rotating platform of the Earth, so I would hardly call this "pure emotional bias against the Creator."

It seems to me that the main reason that Fundamentalists promote the concept of "Language of appearance" is to selectively choose which bits of the Bible are literal truth and which they can ignore. The most famous examples are the denial of evolution, and the acceptance of the round Earth. I would call both of those "Language of appearance" but Evangelists call one the literal truth, and the other "Language of appearance". Creation is just as much "Language of appearance" as "sunrise", because it appears to us that animals do not evolve, as it happens too slowly for us to observe.

Most modern religions use the concept of "verbal imagery" rather than "language of appearance" to understand the Bible, and I think it makes a lot more sense. Especially when you consider how their concept of "language of appearance" seems to be misunderstood by the fundamentalists who invented the term and put together these websites.

Sven Kramer, Dutch Gold Medal Speedskater vs. NBC

I must start with a disclaimer, that although I am Canadian, and theoretically should not care whether Sven Kramer is an A-hole or not, I am married to a woman who, though born in Canada, is of Dutch descent. So I am going to be using my personal insight into the Dutch character, along with my background in dealing with two languages, and the problems that arise from translations to help me.

The videos of the interview have all been taken down from youtube, which is really too bad as I never saw them and I am relying strictly on second hand accounts. So briefly, Sven Kramer won a gold medal for the Netherlands in the Olympics, and following the win, was interviewed by an American reporter from NBC. The actual wording of the start of the interview went something like this.

NBC reporter: "If you can say your name and your country and what you just won here."

Kramer: "Are you stupid? Hell no I'm not going to do that."

Speaking later in a Dutch interview, Kramer explains: "Come on, this is ridiculous. You've just become Olympic gold medal winner. She was there when it happened and then you have to sum up your whole biography, etc. She's crazy."

Predictable Outcome: Sven Kramer is now better known in the USA as "the guy who says 'are you stupid'", than the speedskater who won a gold medal. And by a strange twist of fate a week later during another event, one of Sven's skating coaches, gave him an incorrect lane change signal that cost Sven the gold medal. Whether that was deliberate or not I'll leave for another day.

My in-depth analysis of the "stupid" comment.

I am fully aware that I do not know what speedskating event Sven was in, or even who he won against. But to be fair, I have a greater interest in the subject of "insulting people in foreign languages" than I do in speed skating.

Let me start with one of my other specialties, "The Dutch National Character". And for starters, here would be a typical Dutch reaction to that statement: "Are you stupid?".

And that may in fact be all you need to know about the Dutch character. Number one they speak directly, and this is true whether they are speaking their own language or one of several others in which they are probably also fluent. Secondly, they are well known for not embellishing the truth with flowery phrases.

Now getting back to to Sven with the "Are you stupid?" comment. Sven was actually being very polite by putting the word "Are" in front of the word "you". By doing so, Sven is probably aware that his comment does not make a statement about the reporter, it is simply asking a question. The reporter is free to answer "Yes" or "No" or "I don't know". If Sven was trying to be obnoxious, he could have simply turned the words around and said "You are stupid" and end the interview right there. And that would probably have been more to the liking of the NBC reporter and the American public.

I think the Canadians could learn a lot from the Dutch in this area. For example, when an American reporter came to the dressing room of the Canadian Women's hockey team after they won the gold medal, and asked them to come back on to the ice for a few more pictures, the correct response would have been "Are you stupid?". Instead, the women emerged from the dressing room, posed for some pictures, and then one of the American reporters ran off to the IOC committee to report a breach of etiquette and morals, as apparently it was indecent to bring the celebration out to the sacred Olympic ice. And so, the Canadian team was required to make an apology for their bad behaviour, while the US press had a field day with a great story that was far more interesting to Americans than the story of their team losing to Canada.

Now to tell a different story, one that helps once again to understand the Dutch character. This time Mary Ann and I took her Dutch niece to Niagara Falls. She was visiting Canada for the first time. Typical of of younger Dutch people, she spoke very good English. So we went down the ramp for a cruise on the "Maid of the Mist" which is Niagara Fall's most popular tourist attraction (not counting the actual Falls). On the way down, we were stopped by the staff and told to pose for a picture. I told them we were not interested in buying pictures. They responded "The pictures are included in the price of the ticket". I'm sure Katrein understood what they said perfectly, just as I did. We had just been told that our boat tickets included a complimentary picture. So at the end of the cruise, we actually paused at the photo booth and Katrein picked out our free picture, and she was told "That'll be $35". She immediately dropped the picture back on the counter, said "I'm Dutch", turned and walked away.

Now you could substitute many, many phrases in there. First, in case it is not obvious, we were simply lied to when they asked us to pose. Although this may be acceptable behaviour in North America, it would not be acceptable in Holland, apparently. Instead of "I'm Dutch", she could possibly have used the alternate phrase "Are you stupid?". Because in Holland, only stupid people would lie in such a blatant way.

In North America, however, it is not nice to ask people if they are stupid. It is about like asking a blind person "Are you blind?" when they run into a post. Or asking a deaf person "Are you deaf?" when they don't hear you say get out of the way.

So Katrein had a better answer, which wasted no words in stating that although the Maid of the Mist staffers may have tried a stupid trick on us, she, being Dutch, was certainly not stupid enough to fall for it. And my advice for Sven Kramer: You could have answered the NBC reporter the same way, and she probably would not think it was an insult.

Canadian Women Win Hockey Gold, Apologise to US for Celebration Gone Wrong

Last night I enjoyed the gold medal hockey game where the Canadian women won against the USA. And when I woke up this morning, the fun still seems to be going on, at least in the media.

ABC News has picked up on a post game slip-up by the Canadian team, that needed to be investigated by the IOC, and as a result of the investigation, Team Canada apologized. At the heart of the matter was Canadian player Marie-Philip Poulin, who scored both goals in this game, and was caught drinking a beer after the game. Be patient, I'm coming to the scandal as soon as I can, I'm almost there. Marie-Philip is only 18 years old, and as everyone in Canada knows, it is illegal to have a beer in British Columbia unless you are 19 years of age. Unfortunately for Marie Philip, British Columbia is the actual province that was hosting the Olympics. Not Alberta, not Quebec, where it would have been OK. To make matters worse, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police neglected their law-keeping duties, and did not tase Marie Philip, or drag her away in handcuffs, which, of course what should have happened according to the laws of our land.

This story could be interpreted as the end of rule of law in Canada, if we ever had it. Or it could be interpreted as a slip-up by someone who was not exactly sure what was allowed in BC. Here is to the way this story appeared on the ABC news web site. Titled BOOZING OLYMPIC HOCKEY TEAM IN HOT WATER

"The players stormed back onto the ice half an hour after beating the United States 2-0 on Thursday and staged a raucous celebration — smoking cigars and swigging beer and bubbly.

Haley Irwin poured champagne into the mouth of Tessa Bonhomme, gold medals swinging from both their necks. Meghan Agosta and Marie-Philip Poulin posed with goofy grins.

Goalies Charline Labonte and Kim St-Pierre posed at center ice for Poulin, lying on their stomachs with a giant bottle of champagne resting just above the Olympic rings.

Rebecca Johnston actually tried to commandeer the ice-resurfacing machine.

Poulin, who scored both goals for Canada, doesn't turn 19 — legal drinking age in British Columbia — until next month. The drinking age in Alberta, where the Canadian team trains, is 18. Photos showed Poulin on the ice with a beer in her hand.

Gilbert Felli, the IOC's executive director of the Olympic Games, said the antics were "not what we want to see."

"If they celebrate in the changing room, that's one thing," he said, "but not in public."

In a statement released late Thursday, Hockey Canada apologized.

Let me translate from American to Canadian

"Stormed back on to the ice"="were asked to return to the ice from their dressing room by the press to get some pictures"

"Staged a raucous celebration"="did not stop celebrating for the picture session"

"Smoking cigars"="They were smoking something that was not marijuana, a first for BC actually"

"Swigging beer"="drinking beer" (Canadian beer is something we drink, American beer is something you swig, if you can get it down at all.)

"poured champagne into the mouth"="did not pour it over her head" (In Canada we don't waste champagne)

"gold medals swinging"=??? I'm not sure about this, in the USA it could mean swinging the medals completely around their necks. In Canada it could mean swinging back and forth a little on their ribbon.

"posed with goofy grins"="posed with grins" Canadians do not think our grins look goofy.

"lying on their stomachs with a giant bottle of champagne resting just above the Olympic rings"="were lying down fully clothed with a normal celebration-sized bottle of champagne sitting on the ice near them and also somewhere near an Olympic symbol embedded under the ice surface." (i.e. no Olympic rings were desecrated in this celebration)

"actually tried to commandeer the ice-resurfacing machine"="was given the seat in the Zamboni" and furthermore, for our American cousins, a clarification is probably needed: no guns were involved. That's just how we "commandeer" things in Canada. The Zamboni was never involved in a high speed freeway chase either.

"the antics were "not what we want to see""=""If that's the case, that is not good. It is not what we want to see," (is what he actually said when an American reporter went running to tell him what was happening, and before he had a chance to investigate. The actual words used by the reporter are not known. But they may have been as overwrought as in the ABC story above.

"Not celebrating in public"="Not celebrating where US reporters can see them"

So this story if nothing else is a great lesson in how use of words can completely slant something quite innocent into a sleazy insult to the purity of the Olympics. And, in the spirit of the Olympics I am going to refrain from making any counter-allegations against the American hockey team, either the men or the women.

The Canadian team apologised for coming out of the dressing room again after the gold medal.

We should not need to apologise for living in a free country, and no apology was needed for a Canadian hockey team "celebrating in public".

Photo (used without permission!): Star-Ledger photographer Andy Mills captured 18-year-old Marie-Philip Poulin, who scored both goals in the gold-medal game, drinking Molson Canadian beer. Star-Ledger is a US newspaper website from New Jersey.

Tin Tin Speaks Quebecois

I have not written about language for a while, so as a change of pace, I will go into a story I heard on the CBC tonight. The Belgian comic book "Tin Tin" has come out with a Quebecois version. Just to fill in some background, Tin Tin is a world wide comic book that is originally in French, one of the official languages of Belgium. These books have been coming out as long as I remember, and I used to read them in the library when I was a kid, as I could not afford to buy them. They were hard cover books, not the 10 cent paper cover English comics like Superman and Bugs Bunny. Tin Tin is now translated into a wide variety of languages. And recently they have embarked on profitable marketing technique of "translating" Tin Tin into various local French dialects such as Tahitian.

The CBC report was about the Quebecois translation, which has apparently received a frosty reception in Quebec. While most of these local versions have been so successful as to sell out almost immediately, the Quebec version sold only 10,000 copies so far, and has actually turned off more people than it has charmed. The publisher admits that it might have been a mistake, as it not only has resulted in lower than expected sales, but it has somewhat diluted the brand image of Tin Tin in Quebec. Or at least that's what I could pick up between the lines from what I read.

So what's the turn off? Why wouldn't Quebecers be thrilled to read a book in their own special dialect? Well there are several reasons. First off, Quebec French is not a regional dialect, as Quebec is large enough to actually have several regional dialects. Now if the publishers had recognized that fact, and put out several versions, one for each region of Quebec, they might have had the sales success they were looking for. Instead they put out a mishmash of Quebec slang that really does not appeal to anyone. Furthermore, the language of Tin Tin, and the special mannerisms and words of each of the characters are so well known to French Canadians that it would be a travesty to change them.

For English speaking people who have some trouble imagining the effect, would you like to read "Yabba Dabba Doo" done in Canadian? How about Fred Flintstone saying "Take off, eh?". That may appeal to you enough that you would like to buy it and read it to your kids, or you may be tempted to just buy the real Flinstone cartoon after the shuddering subsides. If you're not convinced, how about William Shakespeare "To be or not to be, eh?". No, I don't think that would sell well in English Canada.

Why do English Canadians care whether or not French Canadians want to buy this "Quebecois" version of a Belgian comic book? When I looked it up on Google (in French), the first news article I came across was in the National Post! Of course, the National Post never fails to pick up a story that pokes fun at Quebec. OK they might occasionally miss story where democracy in Canada gets dumped, but a story about Quebec French will never fail to excite some of its readers.

All the comments, when I looked, were along the lines of Quebecers are always whining about something.

My response to all the National Post commenters would be, if you want to stop thinking that Quebecers are always whining, then stop reading the National Post. The Globe and Mail has better news and well informed opinions.

But there was one comment in particular from someone claiming to be a proud French Canadian, whose parents moved from Quebec to Ontario to "mercifully, drop the sycophantic habit of licking the french boot". I was puzzled at first whether this might be an attempt at parody. The weirdest claim made was that "In fact, linguist know full well that "joual" is closer to the Scottish Gaelic than it is to Parisian (oh, sorry!) International French."

That was a claim that I have never heard before, so I decided to look up a little "Scottish Gaelic" to see if I could find a bit of a resemblance.

"Ciamar a tha sibh?" is Gaelic for how are you? International French is "Comment ca va?" Quebec French is "Comment ca va?" Acadian French (from Louisiana) is "Comment ca va?". With a good ear, you can pick out the origin of each speaker, but I do not have a good enough ear to do that.

The Gaelic phrase is actually pronounced starting with a "K" sound, just like the French expression, and so I might be tempted to think that French itself evolved from Latin being mixed with a little Gaelic, which was a common language of the Celtic people who lived in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and France many years ago. So yes, there is something to the claim that Quebec Joual sounds a bit like Scottish Gaelic, but certainly no more than Parisian French.

There was also a claim made in the article itself, by Yves Laberge, a Quebec City sociologist who adapted the text of the Tintin book, who said "Some people want to believe that we speak exactly like in Europe, and others realize that it's not quite the same"

I actually do not know of anyone who believes that Quebecers speak exactly like in Europe. That may be hard to prove, but if almost all Quebecers have at least heard a French (from France) movie once in their lives, they should know that it is not exactly the same. Some of the words such as words for car parts, differ from France much the way car parts in English Canada differ from our mother country. Do you lift the "hood" or the "Bonnet" Do you have a spare tire in the boot or the trunk? And even greater differences when it comes to swearing (I mean foul language).

Show Some Respect When Travelling Abroad

Last night, I was looking through many pictures and snapshots that you can find on the internet. I was looking in particular for pictures of Sierra Leone, wondering what it looks like today. I came across a comment that struck me as being kind of insensitive. A young university student from Tennessee was in Sierra Leone working, and had taken some pictures of billboards in Freetown. One billboard was partly in "Krio" which is the word used for Creole, or the language that the freed slaves used. Her comment about the billboard was that it was written in Krio which is "Basically, bad English."

Before I go on, I'm going to just address that comment with my own take. Of course, it is rude to insult the way other people speak. But this comment also displays a lack of knowledge in both language and history. All languages started out as "bad" something else. French, Spanish and Italian are all bad Latin. English started out as bad French mixed with bad Germanic/Scandinavian. American English is bad British English. Same for Canadian English (but not quite as bad of course!). And Southern American English, for y'alls information, is bad Yankee English.

Now some history. The reason the Freetown Colony spoke Krio, is that they were freed slaves. But they were not freed in their own country, they were freed together with other people from different tribes that could not understand each other languages. The only way they could communicate with each other was with a new common language they made up for themselves, and this language was Krio, and based heavily (but not entirely) on English.

They also had not been given the benefit of formal English classes by their slave masters, although possibly the first ones that came from Canada may have been able to read and write. That's because Canada didn't make writing and reading a punishable offense for black people, like the southern USA did at the time.

Now to get back to language. Krio is actually not just "bad English" because it is now a written language. Meaning it has a defined syntax, spelling, and there are books published in Krio.

Now that I have dealt with that one innocent comment from a young woman visiting Sierra Leone, I want to continue with my feelings toward some people who travel and do not have respect for local people and cultures. I'm sure it's unintentional in most cases. But it seems to me when I was a CUSO volunteer we had a very strong sense of respecting the country we worked in. We were taught something of their history and culture and we were expected to learn it. The original motto of CUSO was "To serve and learn".

I went to the CUSO website to see if they had any guidelines on how volunteers from Canada should behave in foreign countries, but there was nothing. I guess it was just assumed that if you have to teach somebody how to respect a foreign culture, this person is not suitable for CUSO. I want to add that CUSO was completely unlike religious missionaries in that we did not go to eliminate local religion or cultures, we were a secular organization whose goal was more in eliminating poverty through education and infrastructure.

Some tourists are incredibly disrespectful of countries they visit whether intentional or not. They shout at people who do not understand their English (not even realizing that their English is actually non-standard), and look down on local people as lazy, ignorant, and dishonest.

I'm just going to wrap up with an anecdote from my trip to Mexico. I was talking to an American at the next campsite about travelling, he said he had never been out of the United States. Even though he was sitting in Mexico, a good 500 kilometers past the southern US border. Is this a common American attitude? I sometimes wonder from all the US flags I see flying on flagpoles in front of cottages in Canada. The only place you will not see this is on the St Claire river between Michigan and Ontario. There is not one single US flag flying on the Canadian side. I assume this not allowed because the Customs Agents don't want to confuse the boaters as to which side of the river is USA and which is Canada.

Making Sense of Canada: Quebec French

The French language spoken in Quebec is not exactly the same as the French spoken in France. That fact never ceased to shock and surprise English Canadians, in spite of the fact that they themselves do not speak the same English as their mother country. My mother, who emigrated from England to Canada as a War Bride, found this out when she arrived. The War Department had even provided them with a list of things not to say when in Canada, which included the phrase "knocked up". In England that meant a wake-up call, in Canada it was having a bun in your oven.

My first contact with a "real" French speaker was a stewardess on an Air France flight in 1969. I wanted some chewing gum, and asked for it in French, which I had no reason to believe at the time was different from French French. In Quebec it was called "Gomme a macher" which literally means gum for chewing. Apparently this phrase had about the same meaning in France as "Knocked up" and the stewardess seemed totally taken aback by my request. It didn't help at all when I pointed at my mouth. Finally, just before she called security, the penny dropped and she cried out "Le Shwing Gum!" Apparently that was the word I was looking for. After that I stuck with English in speaking to her, to her great relief.

Before the mid seventies, Quebec French had no respect or even recognition in France. Unlike Canadian English, which was so much like American English that an Englishmen would recognize it right away. After all, they have American movies and listen to American songs in England. But not so in France. Before Robert Charlebois, anyway, Quebec French was considered something of a mistake. A bastardised version of their sacred tongue. Even though in Quebec a weekend was called "fin de semaine", and in France it was called "le weekend". Actually in some ways, Quebec had retained the old Louis XIV French, while France had modernized a bit.

But just as with English Canadians, the Quebec accent varies from place to place within the province. And it varies with time, as young kids add slang words. Now that I've been out of Quebec for 29 years, I'm having a harder time to understand Quebec movies, or French movies for that matter. Until the sixties, movies tried to use a generic language, but in recent years, using slang and local accents has become more prevalent. This is true in French and English. I know the French word for email, but don't ask me to translate "Twitter".

It would be helpful if all English Canadians could understand that Quebec French is as close to French in France, as Canadian English is to English in England.

When French became an official language of the Canadian Federal bureaucracy in the sixties, English Canadians were required to take French classes in order to qualify for many federal jobs. You would think that this would be easy, as Quebec is full of French Canadians who could teach such courses. But no, the English Canadians found out that Quebec French was not "proper" French, and refused to have their minds sullied with such a corrupted language. So they looked about for the closest place where people could speak "real" French. This happened to be the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, just off the Coast of Newfoundland. Since it was still a colony of France, English Canadians concluded that it was the best place to go to learn French, so English Canadians flew to these remote islands in great numbers to learn Real French. I wondered, what were they going to do with this "real" French if they did learn it? Teach it to the French Canadians so that everybody could understand each other, I guess. That's often how things roll in Canada.

Language Problems

The fact that language problems can cause wars, is very hard to explain to people who speak only one language. So for another public service announcement, in the interest of world peace, I am going to give it my best shot.

When I was younger, growing up in Quebec, there was an almost constant state of negotiation going on between the province of Quebec and the federal government in Ottawa. Quebec had seemingly endless "demands", and English Canadians were always wondering "What does Quebec want?". A little known fact is that in French, the word "ask" translates to the French word "demand". Which unfortunately also happens to be an English word but with a slightly different meaning.

Ask (English word) means: To request; to seek to obtain by words; to petition; to solicit. Also may mean to ask more forcefully, depending on context.

Ask (French word): does not exist

Demand (English word) means: request urgently and forcefully; "The victim's family is demanding compensation"; "The boss demanded that he be fired immediately"; "She demanded to see the manager"

Demand (French word) means in English: To request; to seek to obtain by words; to petition; to solicit. Also may mean to ask more forcefully, depending on context.

The history of "ask" and "demand" go back to England in the time after the Battle of Hastings, when the French were the nobility in England, and the Anglo-Saxons were serfs and vassals. The French word was "demand", the Anglo-Saxon word was "ask", and since the French were the upper class, the word "demand" naturally assumed a more forceful tone meaning when it was absorbed into the combined language that English is today. And even today "demand" has a tone of upper class abruptness, rudeness, insistence to it, while "Ask" has a tone of subservience and meekness suitable to a serf.

You may wonder why that subtle difference didn't get translated correctly. In other words if the French say they "demand something" it should be translated as "ask something". Yes, it should, but even in English to English conversations, words get somehow changed, altered taken out of context and otherwise massacred. A different language adds layers of go-betweens to that plus the complication of same word but different meaning.

The next examples are more up to date, but they are from Persian, a language I do not understand, so bear with me.

The famous phrases "death to America" and "wipe Israel off the map" are often repeated in the American media. I would assume the odds are quite good that there is something lost in translation. For example, if you were a driver in rush hour in Tehran and a taxi cut you off, you would normally yell in Persian "Death to all taxi drivers!". You are not pleased, but you do not mean you will not rest until all taxi drivers are dead.

Next phrase that is possibly going to trigger a thermonuclear war is "Wipe Israel off the map." The literal meaning of the phrase in English: to use some means to get the Israel off a map, whether that be a dry eraser, some white-out, or a Mapquest delete function. For some inexplicable reason (to me anyway) the phrase "wipe x country off the map" has a figurative meaning in English, which is to kill everyone and reducing the entire country to rubble. I wonder if that doesn't tell you a lot more about the English speaking world than it does about the Iranians.

If you would like to look into this further go here.