I have been listening to quite a lot of programming from the BBC World Service recently, and I have come to the conclusion that the British Empire is not completely dead — only transformed by means of a new connection though radio waves and the internet into a more collaborative and culturally inclusive community.
On the BBC webpage, “A Short History of the BBC”, the name of this particular service has changed from Empire Service to the External Service to the World Service. Whatever the name, the content is still quite a bit the same as what I heard broadcast on CBE radio out of Windsor, Ontario, Canada — a well-researched, well-reported summary of world events followed by extended reports and intelligent commentary. The style of delivery by the various presenters has changed, but the integrity is still there.
Television has certainly had an impact on the BBC’s reputation throughout the world. Entertainment programs (Faulty Towers, Monty Python’s Flying Circus, and As Time Goes By come to mind) and news programs and documentaries (seen almost exclusively on PBS here in the U.S.A.) have had an impact on societies and cultures throughout the world, probably particularly in the Commonwealth countries.
The internet is a relatively new and exciting place for the BBC to be experienced. It’s web pages, though the print is a bit small, are well thought out and contain a wealth of information and entertainment that could keep a person busy for quite a while! What I like most about the pages (some still under development) is that, at least as far as the news goes, one can find out more about a particular event or subject. Like the PBS and NPR websites, there are numerous links to other sites and resources.
So, what about the Empire? From personal experience, growing up 20 miles from the border of Canada, listening to the BBC through Canadian Broadcasting Company stations, and visiting family in Brantford, Ontario (my mother is Canadian), I can say that the BBC has influenced its British subjects. The formerly United-Kingdom-
colonized nations that comprise the Commonwealth of Nations still experience a unique connection to their former ruler through the ability to keep up with current and historic events in the U.K. and the world through a British perspective. In addition, the World Service, especially, reciprocates with regular reports about
Commonwealth nations’ news and events. My mom always looked forward to hearing the 6 o’clock summary of world news and certain entertainment programs from BBC radio. Of course, a few Canadian news items always made it into the news summary and extended reports.
Could it be that the BBC in all of its manifestations has eased the transition of former British colonies to effective self-rule? The various Commonwealth nations all have different levels of connection to the British government, sometimes very slim ones. But communication can bring greater understanding and, in the case of the former British Empire, maybe has eased the transition to self-rule. Communication through the BBC could also form a bond among all of the Commonwealth countries, and
even if this bond is weak it could influence events toward a more positive outcome in a country that is experiencing troubles.
The new British Empire is connected by electricity through the efforts of the BBC. It is no longer completely controlled by a central government (although it is fairly well supported financially by the government) but instead involves its listeners from various parts of the planet, whether they be British subjects or not. I have heard, on World Have Your Say (BBC Radio World Service) opinions expressed from many different English speakers in many different countries. The BBC not only reports events from various countries but also involves its peoples in opinion making.
One interesting twist is that since 9/11 the BBC seems to have become more interested in reporting events in the U.S. Through the BBC, I have occasionally been finding things out about events and happenings in the current Presidential campaign that weren’t reported on American networks! Hearing intelligent analysis of the campaign presented in the British way can be quite ear opening. I personally hope that this interest on the part of the BBC continues; it provides another perspective to the news that is truly more “fair and balanced” than that provided by some U.S. networks.
I don’t really have a lot of hard evidence to back up my thoughts, but hope that my musings will encourage you to go to http://bbc.co.uk and surf a bit. Try connecting to a live audio or video stream. Read the many articles presented on its pages. And think about how radio, television, and the internet can continue to unify our world in peace through intelligent programming that has integrity.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Talk Among Yourselves — Here's some topics:
- Bubble gum pop vs. classic rock vs. Gregorian chant — what ever happened to the generation gap? Does your grandson listen to Led Zeppelin?
- Half-ass or compromise decision? The Democratic National Committee is back at it again, trying to please everyone. Wait 'till we get to the convention...
- Barak Obama is Soooo handsome! Hillary Clinton is not that cute.
- I wouldn't want to be in Hillary Clinton's shoes right now. But when she finally sings her swan song, I hope she's wearing the right designer style. Why not wear Yves Saint Laurent?
- An Yves St. Laurent trouser suit (the British way of doing things, courtesy of the BBC) sounds so much more sophisticated than an Yves St. Laurent pant suit. Sorry, Hillary, but you will have to wear a YSL trouser suit on Saturday!
- Speaking of the candidates... Found voice, lost voice, old voice, new voice...
- And last but not least: Should he or shouldn't he? Michael Bloomberg as (Vice) President, New York Governor, or third-term Mayor of New York City?
That's all, folks... for now!
Do You Know How to Pronounce Katie "Couric"??
Could the name “Couric” have originated from a foreign land? Should it be pronounced more like the language from which it comes? And what is that language?
I’ve always been intrigued by English transformation of proper names. We have tried to impose our “native” English language on foreign-born names of foreign-born people who speak a foreign language, especially during the great immigration influx of the 19th century. Down through the generations, the result is that we lose a sense of origin of the original name of a person and thus lose a bit of history.
English-American spelling does not duplicate the original because English doesn’t contain characters like ç (Couriç?) or ř (Couřić?). Without the diacritical markings, it is less likely that one would know the true pronunciation of the name. Of course, one of the benefits of spelling English is that it uses 26 letters without diacriticals. But pronouncing English is a whole different matter, especially trying to pronounce foreign-born names, even if an attempt is made to spell them more phonetically.
Changes in names are sometimes a matter of perception, like Ellis Island “round peg in square hole” inventions. Sometimes changes are deliberately made to make the name more saleable or palatable to English speakers of the U.S. and Canada. Israel Isidore Beillin becomes I. Berlin and eventually Irving Berlin, one of the more prolific American song writers. (Would the average American in the early 1900s have bought music written by Isidore Beillin??). Of course in his case, there are those who think that his name was changed at Ellis Island by some foreign-language-challenged clerk or that some music typesetter, trying to save space, just did his job without regard to the composer’s intent.
The word “foreign” is problematic in its own right. This word, I would guess, encouraged many an orator or politician to justify assimilation, a process in the U.S. that encourages immigrants to conform to what was perceived at a particular time to be the American norm. Public school teachers (just like the ones I had when I was growing up!) probably mispronounced quite a few “foreign” names, instantly “Americanizing” them — and it stuck! Those poor children lost the heritage contained in the pronunciation of their names, and the became a little more “American.”
Today, we are starting to pull away from Anglicizing or Americanizing “foreign” names. We are encouraged to embrace “different” or “unfamiliar” cultures and languages. The new political and social correctness calls on us to acknowledge and preserve linguistic history and heritage.
Pronunciation seems to be less of a problem these days because there are standard transliterations being used to help the English speaker properly pronounce foreign words or names. For example, the German ö becomes oe as in the name Boellman, making pronouncing it a little easier for a person who knows nothing about the German language. Of course sometimes there can be two or three spelling standards; The New York Times may spell Quatar and The Daily News may spell it Qatar. Maybe not the best (or most accurate) example, but you get the drift. However, the pronunciation remains the same.
So... are Katie’s precursors from the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, or the former Yugoslavia? (Did I miss any possibilities?) And should we change the pronunciation of her name for her benefit and to restore her linguistic heritage? Bet she — and CBS — would love that!
If you would, please leave me a comment, especially if you suspect how her name could be pronounced.
I’ve always been intrigued by English transformation of proper names. We have tried to impose our “native” English language on foreign-born names of foreign-born people who speak a foreign language, especially during the great immigration influx of the 19th century. Down through the generations, the result is that we lose a sense of origin of the original name of a person and thus lose a bit of history.
English-American spelling does not duplicate the original because English doesn’t contain characters like ç (Couriç?) or ř (Couřić?). Without the diacritical markings, it is less likely that one would know the true pronunciation of the name. Of course, one of the benefits of spelling English is that it uses 26 letters without diacriticals. But pronouncing English is a whole different matter, especially trying to pronounce foreign-born names, even if an attempt is made to spell them more phonetically.
Changes in names are sometimes a matter of perception, like Ellis Island “round peg in square hole” inventions. Sometimes changes are deliberately made to make the name more saleable or palatable to English speakers of the U.S. and Canada. Israel Isidore Beillin becomes I. Berlin and eventually Irving Berlin, one of the more prolific American song writers. (Would the average American in the early 1900s have bought music written by Isidore Beillin??). Of course in his case, there are those who think that his name was changed at Ellis Island by some foreign-language-challenged clerk or that some music typesetter, trying to save space, just did his job without regard to the composer’s intent.
The word “foreign” is problematic in its own right. This word, I would guess, encouraged many an orator or politician to justify assimilation, a process in the U.S. that encourages immigrants to conform to what was perceived at a particular time to be the American norm. Public school teachers (just like the ones I had when I was growing up!) probably mispronounced quite a few “foreign” names, instantly “Americanizing” them — and it stuck! Those poor children lost the heritage contained in the pronunciation of their names, and the became a little more “American.”
Today, we are starting to pull away from Anglicizing or Americanizing “foreign” names. We are encouraged to embrace “different” or “unfamiliar” cultures and languages. The new political and social correctness calls on us to acknowledge and preserve linguistic history and heritage.
Pronunciation seems to be less of a problem these days because there are standard transliterations being used to help the English speaker properly pronounce foreign words or names. For example, the German ö becomes oe as in the name Boellman, making pronouncing it a little easier for a person who knows nothing about the German language. Of course sometimes there can be two or three spelling standards; The New York Times may spell Quatar and The Daily News may spell it Qatar. Maybe not the best (or most accurate) example, but you get the drift. However, the pronunciation remains the same.
So... are Katie’s precursors from the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, or the former Yugoslavia? (Did I miss any possibilities?) And should we change the pronunciation of her name for her benefit and to restore her linguistic heritage? Bet she — and CBS — would love that!
If you would, please leave me a comment, especially if you suspect how her name could be pronounced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)