2 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Ah, Amin, you poor simplistic fool

Reader comment on item: Arabist Snobs
in response to reader comment: Another Dhimmi?

Submitted by Peter Hall (Australia), Dec 5, 2011 at 20:49

Again you are example that just keeps on giving, aren't you? Firstly Lazer is a word, and used by 1000s of companies ie Lazer Tags, Lazer Cutting. In English, I was using it as a proper noun, if I was using it as a adjective, then you are correct that the spelling would be laser. Do you really think I did not notice the wriggly little red line and what it means? LOL, you are an arrogant fool! The reason I used this example, is that any time you use Lazer, all search engines redirect you to laser. It does not redirect you to a food!!!! Now are you blaming English speakers for the failure of online translators to make sense of a backward language?

The online community is one of the least affected environments by politics. If Arabic speakers were translating books, or scientific journals or great works of literature, then these problems would not exist. Demand would of created a solution, but Arabic speakers have not placed this demand on Arabic. (which I have said 5 times so far) you said I think people who measure - countries like Iran, Syria, Egypt and Saudi are doing equally well and some better at education. That still does not answer - how is Arabic a weak language. Are you using Taqiyya again? By what measure, none of those countries rate by any measure I have found, my sources I have provided CIA FACTBOOK, NATIONBUILDER, THE UN.

Now you kept asking my sources and yet you do not provide yours, AGAIN? Beside you, who says these countries are doing well, and compared to who? I found an interesting article which partially confirms what I am saying from an eminent Muslim University Lecturer. Some relatively more plausible reasons for the slow scientific development of Muslim countries have been offered.

First, even though a handful of rich oil-producing Muslim countries have extravagant incomes, most are fairly poor and in the same boat as other developing countries. Indeed, the OIC average for per capita income is significantly less than the global average. Second, the inadequacy of traditional Islamic languages—Arabic, Persian, Urdu—is an important contributory reason. About 80% of the world's scientific literature appears first in English, and few traditional languages in the developing world have adequately adapted to new linguistic demands.

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_8/49_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1

So Amin, I have shown yet again the limitations of Arabic compared to more advanced languages. A weak language does not support its native speakers in sciences and literature and is not used by its native speakers for science and literature. Arabic does not rate highly in either area and my proof are the low number of books either translated to, or from Arabic each year compared to advanced languages. This you have not counted in any credible way. Your example of "Arabic Books all of Europe has read" was laughable, where do you get your jokes from. None of the books you quoted have print runs large enough to be recorded on an measure I can find.

Again your defence is sloppy. Your great works of popular Arabic work, do not rate according to print runs, the measure of demand of a book. Your great language does not have electronic translators that work, due to the lack of demand to translate things into and out of Arabic. You were too lazy to even check your own results that Microchip does not translate both ways. See you prove my point of Arabic not encouraging the mind in scientific method. I checked both ways to begin with to see if my conclusions were robust. You checked and got the results that you wanted, but in your smugness did not check in a rigorous manner. Now you are saying I was right but it is not the fault of Arabic; but the programs????? Is that going to be your excuse for everything? your said Then somehow fault of English translators is fault of Arabic? Why and how?

One has to be extremely ignorant not to see that those are machine translators that cannot pick out nuances of the language. English does not need to translate anything from Arabic, Arabic needs to translate huge amounts of material into Arabic, if it is to lift its standards. See who is the loser out of this problem? What you call nuances of the language, I say is symptoms of a weak language that has not had demands placed upon it by the people who use it. It is therefore language that inherently weak.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Ah, Amin, you poor simplistic fool by Peter Hall

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)