A guest post by Brass:
_____________________________________________________________
In an earlier post on Look To Windward Adriaan observed:
Take i.e. the silly word “protest” (even in the Oxford Dictionary you cannot find the meaning the rules book uses), has the inventor of that word ever thought what that people has in mind reading this word in different countries?
Firstly, all rules, in whatever language need to make common words in the language have special meanings by using definitions. I don't see how that is a problem, or how any problem there is, is a result of the rules being drafted in English.
The rules define 'protest' as 'an allegation made under rule 61.2 … that a boat has broken a rule'. The rules also use 'protest' in italics to mean:
- The written down form of the allegation; and
- All of the papers, other things, times, and processes which the rules require to be complied with for the protest committee to decide validity (rule 63.5), and
- The thing that a Protest Committee decides (rule 63.7)
The rules also use 'protest' in other than the defined way (without italics) with the following meanings:
- (verb) to make a protest (rule 43.1(c), 60.1,)
- (abstract noun) the making of a protest (rule 44.3(a))
- A word that must be hailed (rule 61.1(a))
- A label for a Committee involved with protests or requests for redress (rule 88.2(b), rule 90)
- A label for a hearing by a Protest Committee to consider a protest or request for redress (rule 63.1)
When I lay it out like this, it is obvious that the rules make the word 'protest' do a lot of different work, but does it cause any real problem?
Would the problem be solved by drafting the rule in any other language?
Protest is not a word that has ever caused me any problems. the French now prefer the verb "protester" rather than "reclamer".
ReplyDeleteAs a general rule, when, for instance writing SIs, I find that if an English text translates easily (in my case into French)this is a good test of clarity. There are some expressions that should be banished from our lexicon because they fail this test.
My particular bugbear is the use of the term "outer limit mark" to designate the pin end buoy, or start mark. I believe that the outer limit mark should only be used to describe a mark that indicates the extent of a line that is defined by a transit betwenn two fixed points.
Gordon
For a good understanding of my remarks the complete text of what I said: “… The wording of the rules is so British. And that is very wrong. The ISAF has 121 member nations, most of them not English speaking. So they have their own interpretations and translating. Take i.e. the silly word “protest” (even in the Oxford Dictionary you cannot find the meaning the rules book uses), has the inventor of that word ever thought what that people has in mind reading this word in different countries? …
ReplyDeleteYou write: “Firstly, all rules, in whatever language, need to make common words in the language have special meanings by using definitions. I don't see how that is a problem …” I do not see the ‘need’. It just my objection: one has to avoid making different meanings of common words. And the problem is it leads to misunderstanding. And where is the end?
You write: “… or how any problem there is, is a result of the rules being drafted in English.” That is just my point. The rules are drafted in English, but without sufficient bearing in mind that the rules have to translate in other languages. The majority of the 121 member nations of ISAF do not have English as the native language.
Coming to the word “protest” (it was just an example), in my language (Dutch) we have exactly the same word(s): “protest” (substantive) and “protesteren” (verb). But with the meanings: expression of resistance; criticism of the society (substantive); and express of resistance, stand up against (verb). As far as I know, in my language one cannot protest a person, not to speak of a boat can protest another boat. “Aanklagen” – charge, should be the first word to consider.
Adriaan Pels.