Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On 5/31/12 02:05 , Klaas Wierenga wrote: On 5/31/12 10:58 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need to change here. And I do think we might lose something if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers did say yes, I found that made the document less useful then I'd be more convinced that all these changes were worth it. As a non-native speaker I agree. I think colloquial is fine. The one thing causes me some trouble is all the references that Americans make to sports that nobody in the civilized world cares about ;-) (left field, Hail Mary passes If the Congregatio a Sancta Cruce hadn't come to North America from Le Mans France and specifically to South Bend Indiana there would be no Hail Mary.
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call:draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice'sGuide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
Original Message - From: Ben Niven-Jenkins b...@niven-jenkins.co.uk To: Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 11:36 PM On 31 May 2012, at 09:16, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Sounds like a difficult thing to do with any kind of predictable or measurable outcome, although it might be fun to ask the Brits if they understand everything the Americans are saying and vice versa :-) I don't really have any issues understanding American English but I'm regularly gobsmacked by how many North Americans struggle to understand some things that I say :-) tp It's called irony; it got left behind on the beach, when the Pilgrim Fathers crossed the pond. On the other hand, it could just be that what you say is cricket. Which would also be perfectly comprehensible to the Indian audience, alluded to earlier (and to the remainder of the English speaking world:-) Tom Petch /tp Ben
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call:draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice'sGuide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
if i have to delete through much more about this bikeshed, i will give you some colloquial american to read. randy
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call:draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice'sGuide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On Jun 1, 2012, at 11:13 AM, Randy Bush wrote: if i have to delete through much more about this bikeshed, i will give you some colloquial american to read. bikeshed ? :-) Yoav
Re: Colloquial language
Peter Saint-Andre wrote: So the way we introduce some people to the IETF is to expect that they will look up fifty unfamiliar words and phrases? Having taught English as a second language, I can attest that some of the idioms and colloquialisms included in this document would have caused puzzlement in my students. How about an appendix for draft-hoffman-tao4677bis describing the terms you find exceedingly colloquial? (to support offline consumption of the document)? -Martin
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On May 31, 2012:6:36 PM, at 6:36 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: On 31 May 2012, at 09:16, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Sounds like a difficult thing to do with any kind of predictable or measurable outcome, although it might be fun to ask the Brits if they understand everything the Americans are saying and vice versa :-) I don't really have any issues understanding American English but I'm regularly gobsmacked by how many North Americans struggle to understand some things that I say :-) I can personally attest to that. *) --Tom
Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On 2012-05-31 02:49, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Overall I continue to think that this is a helpful document, as were its predecessors. That said, I would assume that many potential readers of this document are not native English speakers. Thus I suggest that the more colloquial words and phrases might best be changed to more standard English. Have we any evidence that this is a problem for the community? The informal style is one of the virtues of the Tao. I'd be sorry to lose it. Maybe we can ask some of the people concerned, such as recent presenters of the Newcomers tutorial in languages other than English. Brian
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On 5/31/2012 8:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Have we any evidence that this is a problem for the community? The informal style is one of the virtues of the Tao. I'd be sorry to lose it. Let's separate use of colloquial language from overall writing style. It is possible to write in an informal style without using colloquialisms. I could, for example, insert some side comment here that would be informal and lack colloquialisms. By some measures, the preceding sentence is an example of exactly that... Colloquialisms are well known to impede understanding by non-native English speakers. So, do you have any evidence that this is /not/ a problem for that part of our community? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On 2012-05-31 07:59, Dave Crocker wrote: On 5/31/2012 8:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Have we any evidence that this is a problem for the community? The informal style is one of the virtues of the Tao. I'd be sorry to lose it. Let's separate use of colloquial language from overall writing style. It is possible to write in an informal style without using colloquialisms. I could, for example, insert some side comment here that would be informal and lack colloquialisms. By some measures, the preceding sentence is an example of exactly that... Colloquialisms are well known to impede understanding by non-native English speakers. So, do you have any evidence that this is /not/ a problem for that part of our community? I actually have no evidence either way; that's why I suggested asking some of them ;-) Brian
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On 5/31/2012 9:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I actually have no evidence either way; that's why I suggested asking some of them;-) 1. Reliance on self-reporting for such things is methodologically problematic. It presumes a degree of self-awareness that is often missing. For example a native speaker of a language that uses noun doubling -- saying the noun twice -- to indicate plurals was quite insistent with me that that wasn't the rule. 2. To claim a lack of evidence presumes some previous effort to acquire it. However a quick search discloses: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=054711CCAB4AFB348F7E70C9079E7305.journals?fromPage=onlineaid=2546012 http://dc.library.okstate.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/theses/id/1031/rec/9 http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=3ved=0CF0QFjACurl=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1255%26context%3Detdei=iyDHT4eBB874sgaa-rGQDwusg=AFQjCNFnYm2MzlDnknB6AzfB0Oi4tUVyVg among others. The mere existence of these ought to make clear that there is a significant issue in the use of colloquialisms with non-native listeners. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2012-05-31 02:49, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: That said, I would assume that many potential readers of this document are not native English speakers. Thus I suggest that the more colloquial words and phrases might best be changed to more standard English. Have we any evidence that this is a problem for the community? The informal style is one of the virtues of the Tao. I'd be sorry to lose it. Informal style does not equal heavy use of (localized) colloquialisms. My copy editor always reminds me that I have an international readership and thus should avoid such phrases as the ones listed by Peter. Maybe we can ask some of the people concerned, such as recent presenters of the Newcomers tutorial in languages other than English. Sounds like a difficult thing to do with any kind of predictable or measurable outcome, although it might be fun to ask the Brits if they understand everything the Americans are saying and vice versa :-) Having evindence that someone did not understand a particular phrase gets into the weeds of cultural differences which go way beyond a group of engineers who don't understand the meaning of approximately. I suggest we NOT conduct that particular line of questioning, really. Brian Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj Skype: organdemo
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need to change here. And I do think we might lose something if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers did say yes, I found that made the document less useful then I'd be more convinced that all these changes were worth it. On 05/31/2012 08:47 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 5/31/2012 9:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I actually have no evidence either way; that's why I suggested asking some of them;-) 1. Reliance on self-reporting for such things is methodologically problematic. It presumes a degree of self-awareness that is often missing. For example a native speaker of a language that uses noun doubling -- saying the noun twice -- to indicate plurals was quite insistent with me that that wasn't the rule. 2. To claim a lack of evidence presumes some previous effort to acquire it. However a quick search discloses: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=054711CCAB4AFB348F7E70C9079E7305.journals?fromPage=onlineaid=2546012 Paywalled. Abstract says comprehen-sibility of the non-native's interlanguage so is a worse sinner IMO:-) http://dc.library.okstate.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/theses/id/1031/rec/9 Drives NoScript bonkers and needs some kind of FF plug in. http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=3ved=0CF0QFjACurl=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1255%26context%3Detdei=iyDHT4eBB874sgaa-rGQDwusg=AFQjCNFnYm2MzlDnknB6AzfB0Oi4tUVyVg 289 pages, so only read abstract. That's about adolescents. My experience at IETF meetings is that more native English speakers seem to behave like adolescents, but maybe that's just me:-) It does make the point that there's a (presumably positive) correlation between understanding of idiom and academic achievement, I guess the argument could also be made that the Tao should be about as difficult to read as a typical IETF mailing list. S. among others. The mere existence of these ought to make clear that there is a significant issue in the use of colloquialisms with non-native listeners. d/
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On 5/31/12 10:58 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need to change here. And I do think we might lose something if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers did say yes, I found that made the document less useful then I'd be more convinced that all these changes were worth it. As a non-native speaker I agree. I think colloquial is fine. The one thing causes me some trouble is all the references that Americans make to sports that nobody in the civilized world cares about ;-) (left field, Hail Mary passes etc.) But I think the Tao pretty much avoids those (perhaps Home base is the exception). Klaas On 05/31/2012 08:47 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 5/31/2012 9:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I actually have no evidence either way; that's why I suggested asking some of them;-) 1. Reliance on self-reporting for such things is methodologically problematic. It presumes a degree of self-awareness that is often missing. For example a native speaker of a language that uses noun doubling -- saying the noun twice -- to indicate plurals was quite insistent with me that that wasn't the rule. 2. To claim a lack of evidence presumes some previous effort to acquire it. However a quick search discloses: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=054711CCAB4AFB348F7E70C9079E7305.journals?fromPage=onlineaid=2546012 Paywalled. Abstract says comprehen-sibility of the non-native's interlanguage so is a worse sinner IMO:-) http://dc.library.okstate.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/theses/id/1031/rec/9 Drives NoScript bonkers and needs some kind of FF plug in. http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=3ved=0CF0QFjACurl=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1255%26context%3Detdei=iyDHT4eBB874sgaa-rGQDwusg=AFQjCNFnYm2MzlDnknB6AzfB0Oi4tUVyVg 289 pages, so only read abstract. That's about adolescents. My experience at IETF meetings is that more native English speakers seem to behave like adolescents, but maybe that's just me:-) It does make the point that there's a (presumably positive) correlation between understanding of idiom and academic achievement, I guess the argument could also be made that the Tao should be about as difficult to read as a typical IETF mailing list. S. among others. The mere existence of these ought to make clear that there is a significant issue in the use of colloquialisms with non-native listeners. d/
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On 2012-05-31 04:58, Stephen Farrell wrote: I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need to change here. And I do think we might lose something if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers did say yes, I found that made the document less useful then I'd be more convinced that all these changes were worth it. Another non-native English speaker here. Didn't have any problem understanding the Tao. Its level of language made me more interested in the IETF. Although my level of English is better than other non-native speakers'. Non-native != bad at English. I think colloquialisms may often be as hard to understand as excellent but seldom-used vocabulary. Should we also dumb down our level of language? Such as this: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Wikipedia I don't think so. Thanks, Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart -- http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source-- http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server -- http://numb.viagenie.ca
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
From: Simon Perreault simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca I think colloquialisms may often be as hard to understand as excellent but seldom-used vocabulary. Indeed - and now that we have this really cool Internet thingy (it's odd to think that young people have no memory of what the world was like before a large fraction of its information was instantly at one's fingertips - and in 80 years or so, _nobody_ will remember that age personally), one can very easily look up either a recondite word, or an obscure colloquialism, in moments... Noel
Re: Colloquial language
On 5/31/12 7:46 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Simon Perreault simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca I think colloquialisms may often be as hard to understand as excellent but seldom-used vocabulary. Indeed - and now that we have this really cool Internet thingy (it's odd to think that young people have no memory of what the world was like before a large fraction of its information was instantly at one's fingertips - and in 80 years or so, _nobody_ will remember that age personally), one can very easily look up either a recondite word, or an obscure colloquialism, in moments... So the way we introduce some people to the IETF is to expect that they will look up fifty unfamiliar words and phrases? Having taught English as a second language, I can attest that some of the idioms and colloquialisms included in this document would have caused puzzlement in my students. It's bad enough that many IETFers speak in a highly colloquial fashion at our meetings. I think it would be a shame if we do not avoid such confusion in our written (and supposedly user-friendly) introduction to the IETF. Showing up at your first IETF meeting is quite enough of taking the plunge [1] for most people. Why make it even more difficult? Peter [1] http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+the+plunge
Re: Colloquial language
From: Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im It's bad enough that many IETFers speak in a highly colloquial fashion at our meetings. ... Showing up at your first IETF meeting is quite enough of taking the plunge [1] for most people. If it's meeting attendees one is worried about, I'd have thought that having common colloquialisms in the document would be a feature, not a bug - people would meet them while facing a computer upon which they could look them up at their leisure, not in a live (and likely fast-moving) conversation. Having said that, I think both sides have decent points, and personally don't have any strong preference. Noel
Re: Colloquial language
I fully agree. One could (perhaps) argue that this document would be a suitable place to INTRODUCE non-native speakers to such language, but then the document really needs to do that rather than have the reader infer meaning based on context. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj Skype: organdemo On Thu, 31 May 2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 5/31/12 7:46 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Simon Perreault simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca I think colloquialisms may often be as hard to understand as excellent but seldom-used vocabulary. Indeed - and now that we have this really cool Internet thingy (it's odd to think that young people have no memory of what the world was like before a large fraction of its information was instantly at one's fingertips - and in 80 years or so, _nobody_ will remember that age personally), one can very easily look up either a recondite word, or an obscure colloquialism, in moments... So the way we introduce some people to the IETF is to expect that they will look up fifty unfamiliar words and phrases? Having taught English as a second language, I can attest that some of the idioms and colloquialisms included in this document would have caused puzzlement in my students. It's bad enough that many IETFers speak in a highly colloquial fashion at our meetings. I think it would be a shame if we do not avoid such confusion in our written (and supposedly user-friendly) introduction to the IETF. Showing up at your first IETF meeting is quite enough of taking the plunge [1] for most people. Why make it even more difficult? Peter [1] http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+the+plunge
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On 5/31/12 1:05 AM, Klaas Wierenga wrote: As a non-native speaker I agree. I think colloquial is fine. The one thing causes me some trouble is all the references that Americans make to sports that nobody in the civilized world cares about ;-) (left field, Hail Mary passes etc.) But I think the Tao pretty much avoids those (perhaps Home base is the exception). A previous employer's HR team put together training material for those of us who were helping with university recruiting and it was one extended American football metaphor. Since nearly all the engineers who were volunteering were Indian or Chinese it turned out to be more confusing than effective (and not necessarily understandable by North American nerds, either). I tend to use a lot of idiomatic language when I write but I do understand the issues around use of regional idioms, and I note that so far of the non-native speakers who've commented, all are either European or Israeli. I'm wondering if regional idioms are as clear to people from east, southeast, and south Asian countries. Also, for whatever it's worth, the English idioms under discussion all seem to be American. Melinda
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
Stephen Farrell wrote: I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need to change here. And I do think we might lose something if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers did say yes, I found that made the document less useful then I'd be more convinced that all these changes were worth it. +1 I do not believe that *over*simplyfying the language is beneficial for a clearly non-technical document. Using a language that is similar to discussion on mailing lists should be perfectly OK, as long as the colloquial expressions can still be googled easily, for those not familiar with them. I have to google Dilberts and xkcd every once in a while, an those sometimes contain very local expressions that are really difficult to find -- and still I'm OK with this. -Martin
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On May 31, 2012, at 10:39 PM, Martin Rex wrote: Stephen Farrell wrote: I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need to change here. And I do think we might lose something if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers did say yes, I found that made the document less useful then I'd be more convinced that all these changes were worth it. +1 I do not believe that *over*simplyfying the language is beneficial for a clearly non-technical document. Using a language that is similar to discussion on mailing lists should be perfectly OK, as long as the colloquial expressions can still be googled easily, for those not familiar with them. I have to google Dilberts and xkcd every once in a while, an those sometimes contain very local expressions that are really difficult to find -- and still I'm OK with this. -Martin I had to look up some things when I ready The Adventures of ACTION ITEM for the first time[1], but the TAO draft is nowhere near that level. Besides, it's essential vocabulary for anyone seeking a career in project management. Yoav [1] http://professionalsuperhero.com/
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On 31 May 2012, at 09:16, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Sounds like a difficult thing to do with any kind of predictable or measurable outcome, although it might be fun to ask the Brits if they understand everything the Americans are saying and vice versa :-) I don't really have any issues understanding American English but I'm regularly gobsmacked by how many North Americans struggle to understand some things that I say :-) Ben
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
On 5/31/12 15:36 , Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: On 31 May 2012, at 09:16, Ole Jacobsen wrote: Sounds like a difficult thing to do with any kind of predictable or measurable outcome, although it might be fun to ask the Brits if they understand everything the Americans are saying and vice versa :-) I don't really have any issues understanding American English but I'm regularly gobsmacked by how many North Americans struggle to understand some things that I say :-) Do we spell Standardization with and s or a z? Ben
Re: Colloquial language [Re: Last Call: draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC]
Do we spell Standardization with and s or a z? Yez. R's, John
