e-Literate or illiterate?

Definitions for literacy are many. The ability to read and write is the conventional definition. Most countries measure their literacy levels based on this aspect. But, with the advent of an electronic era, the convergence of new media, etc, contemporary and somewhat multifaceted meanings prevail. This is not to debate over the traditional and modern contexts but to assess where we are or for that matter our future generation could be heading vis-à-vis literacy.

I still remember how I was denied of using a calculator by my parents when I was very young, although I knew all the multiplication tables (up to 15) by heart, and there were a couple available at home. This somehow improved my mind maths skills and I’m still good at it (not bragging). We weren’t even provided with pens until grade four or five unless our writing had minimal erasures. In a way it may seem ineffective given the number of times I had to type and delete words of this article, but it certainly had its say on the score of my essays during school and university examinations. Nowadays kids do insist on using calculators and pens at a very early stage and if you’d deprive them, they still know where to get it. After all every computer OS has its calculator! Wait, I’m not being conservative but am concerned of the consequences. Just ask a random kid in his/her early teens (except the bright ones) what is 12*11+7 and you’ll figure out what I’m trying to say.

Another mind related diminution is caused by e-organisers. You get them everywhere; on the web, as PC apps and even in your mobile phone. Every little piece of work to do could be saved in them, which eventually eliminates the need to remember any, but also effects long-term memory, ultimately ending up with a short-term version. Our hectic lifestyles will always welcome these electronic solutions, but if the gravity of use is frequent and the level of use extends to the minute then there is an issue in the lurking to be addressed. Remember, the law of evolution advocates depreciation of idle organs!

Ok, now enough of mind boggling stuff (no pun). Let’s get into things which are further aligned towards the topic. Once I remember reading an article in a daily newspaper, which stated how a report disclosed that the quality of writing at the O/L exams had deteriorated. Many teachers had revealed that the handwriting was below satisfactory and hard to read while grammar plus spelling mistakes were on the rise. Now this situation cannot solely be attributed towards typing and texting alone which explains youngster’s preference for keys over pens, but the SMS & chatting lexis has a serious role to play in erroneous spellings (especially english as singlish is not considered or taught as a language). Imagine a student writing a sentence in a formal letter for an exam paper in the following manner: “... I hv noticed the situ, and there4 am fwding this 4 ur perusal ...”. This could very well happen more frequently and cause many a problem in the future unless of course it’s not considered an issue if authorities decide to absorb the said defiled lexicon into the prevailing one! Please note that how a language evolves is a separate topic of discussion for those who might want to spring up an argument in favour of the hypothesis I mentioned at the end of the previous sentence.

As stated earlier, reading is the other main component of the customary definition of literacy. Reading (hardcopies) too has lessened to some extent although you may read more on the World Wide Web. However the experience is very different. Apart from physical constraints added by when reading a softcopy, it always fails to deliver the character and essence a physical book may offer. And because of these issues, extensive reading of an electronic edition is a definite discourager. Hence, there are now books that offer you the audio to listen. Instead of reading the book you could sit down and listen to the entire thing! All these mean that the skill of reading is possibly on its way to extinction.

On a final note, I must emphasise that the purpose of this article is not to condemn or discredit anything contemporary or electronic as I myself use them to great effect, but to make you think of something hitherto unthought-of, that is whether we are on a path of hampering literacy or improving it, in this modern era.

To translate or not?

Gaalla, Kaali, Galle, all three terms refer to the same location which is of course the city of Galle in its Sinhala, Tamil and English representations respectively. Hence it’s a proper noun. Now wonder if someone was to tell you; whatever the language may be, we should use only one of the above mentioned 3 terms! What would you think? Keep on thinking, but let me continue…

The origin of this scenario is due to a couple of view points which I’ve come across in the recent past while dealing with people who are engaged in content translation. The issue seems to be more aggravated when it comes to translating Technical terms such as ones used in the field of Computing or IT. Basically there are folks who say that we should translate each English term into Sinhala (or Tamil), while some others say that we need not do so and should continue using the English terms in our language which are now common. Examples are mouse, computer, bus or their subtle variations (in Sinhala) such as mavusaya, computer eka, bus eka, etc. There is a subgroup of this sect saying we should only translate the pronouns while the proper nouns aren’t to be touched!

I do agree with the latter to a certain extent, since a main objective of translating is to increase the normal person’s understanding and grasp of the term that is hindered by the unfamiliar language. Just imagine having to figure out what does mooshikaya (a term used for ‘mouse’) or daththa sanghithawa (a term used for ‘database’) really mean? But then the more sensitive arguments creep in. Isn’t this harmful to our language? Aren’t we compromising the unique identity of our language? (Consider Sinhala as an example) My answer is; yes, to a certain extent we do. The thing to remember here is that our language has evolved throughout centuries with many lexical additions to it; examples are sapaththu, kussiya, almaariya, etc. Note that I’m certainly not promoting something similar to the immature ‘FM channel vocabularies’ which are a garble beyond tolerance!

There are many practical problems when dealing with one-to-one translations where you need to invent certain new words, since the other language hasn’t got anything similar that could be used as an alternative. This situation itself is a bit tricky if you consider some inventions done so far. Two examples are Guwan Viduliya (Radio) and Roopavahiniya (Television). Neither is a radio similar to an airborne current nor does a TV let pictures flow of it, since it emits sounds as well. Let that be as it is since its common usage now which any person understands. This could also be referred to as a kind of ‘normalization’ where a term becomes common and comes into general use after some time, although resistance is to be expected when it’s introduced initially.

If this trend is to be followed in future, I suggest setting up a common entity or mechanism in order to regulate and/or moderate these newly invented terms, as otherwise it would add to more confusion with each inventor trying to promote their own as the correct term. For example, I can mention about a half-a-dozen Sinhala terms used for the word ‘Database’. I'd bet it wasn't the same at that time when the term 'Roopavahiniya' was introduced.

What I find to be most interesting out of these perspectives is that ‘proper nouns shouldn’t be translated’. Ok, so I’m alright with that theory yet again to a certain extent only. As I’ve mentioned at the start of this article, a name of a location is a proper noun as well, but many of them are already ‘translated’ (there exists representations in other languages).

The reformists suggest that only one name be used for such locations. How are we to find the most appropriate name in that case? As an example, Galle may be called Gaalla in all three languages since it’s used by the majority. But for instance, can the same be applied to Jaffna as Yaalpaanam. Wouldn’t history have to be traced in that case? One may argue that it should be called Dambakolapatuna or something since that’s the oldest known name, although it’s in Sinhala. It would be the same for places like Trincomalee, Mannar, etc. Aren’t we inviting more trouble if we had to adopt this strategy? This applies to any other language or place in the world, not only Sri Lanka and the Sinhala/Tamil languages. We may perceive names such as Colombo, Batticaloa, Negombo to be English whereas the origin of these date back to the colonial era and languages used at that time, which were not necessarily English.

Personally, I prefer accepting these names as they are, instead of referring to Germany as Deutschland compared to Germaniya in Sinhala! It also adds variety and uniqueness to a language, culture or society. Best is to strike a balance, with neither extreme reached.