[OT] RE: [ga] Aviation languages

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Language is important to the people that speak it.  It is part of their
cultural heritage.  Whilst English is recognised as a lingua franca around
the world it is important that policies are put into place to protect
"small" languages.  According to a well known linguist, 3000 of the recorded
6-7,000 languages (Ethnologue/ISO 639-3 lists 7,200) currently alive will
die within 100 years.
http://www.crystalreference.com/DC_articles/Langdeath19.pdf 

Who cares?  Not governments that's for sure because there are very little or
no funds for language documentation or language revival.  Not industry
because it doesn't make economic sense -
http://www.native-languages.org/linguistics.htm#tree.  I have tried for 6
years to get people interested enough to fund language documentation -it is
a thankless task (one of my many). The only people interested are linguists
and the speakers themselves.

Bringing the topic of conversation back in line with the objectives of this
forum, should we translate the NARALO MoU into Inuit/Inuktitut* and Cree**
and other native languages?  Answer, yes we should.  Does it make economic
sense?  Answer, sadly no.  Very often, and certainly in this case, the
translation of documents is about getting information to the most people
possible and this does not mean translating into languages that represent
the mother tongue of less than 1% of the population albeit 100% of the
indigenous population; especially where these people have knowledge of a
second language - in this case English and French.  Sad but true.  

Best

Debbie
PS Anyone interested in language documentation or language
protection/revival may make large donations to The World Language
Documentation Centre www.thewldc.org I happen to be CEO :-)

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_language
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cree_language


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
> Sent: 16 July 2007 22:37
> To: 'Jaap Akkerhuis'; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; martin.boyle@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ga] Aviation languages
> 
> Jaap,
> 
> >     
> >     As far as I know English is mandatory.
> > 
> > It is. And there is a protocol to switch to another 
> languages in case 
> > the parties desire.
> > 
> > For more details, google for "aviation languages" and similar terms.
> 
> 
> <maybe off topic, or just borderline...>
> 
> With all due respect, I made the statement about languages 
> not because I *thought*, but because I *know* from personal 
> experience that Italian can rightfully be used under certain 
> circumstances by pilots while flying over the italian air 
> space. Specifically, the use of italian is lawful for all VFR 
> flights, that are still the vast majority of the flights 
> where amateur pilots engage. And since it is the pilot who 
> initiates the conversation, for instance with the control 
> tower when still in parking position, there is no protocol 
> needed: he/she chooses the language.
> Please have a look at the document of the National (Italian) 
> Authority for Civil Aviation:
> http://www.enac-italia.it/documents/download/nor/Reg-Regole_Ar
> ia.pdf. This is updated as of 2006-10-03, and has clear text 
> on paragraph 3.10 (in italian).
> Incidentally, this text is similar to the one used in 
> different countries, simply because it is taken from the 
> Annex 10 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, 
> issued by ICAO.
> 
> I do acknowledge that English is, and will remain for the 
> foreseeable future, *the* language used in international 
> situations (like this list, for instance). But also that 
> there are local situations (that also are here to stay for a 
> while) where communication is done using local languages. I 
> know that opinions vary about to which extent an 
> international (common) language should be used vs. a national 
> (local) language. Dutch and French, to quote an example.... ;>)
> 
> Best regards,
> Roberto
> 
> 
> 
>