Off topic: Exorbitant costs - EU translation costs vs. cost of expansion
Thread poster: Jacek Krankowski
We all know that EU spends a lot of money on translations because of its 11 official languages. How much is \"a lot\"? The answer is: 2 (two) euros per each EU citizen a year, including interpreting.
The current EU enlargement is set to cost each EU citizen almost 25 euros a year for the next 3 years. That\'s 12 times more than the current cost of all the translations! Some say they already cannot afford to hire all those 2-euro-a-year translators/interpreters. Can they afford the 25-euro-a-year enlargement?
Over 12.4 billion dollars were transferred to Western Europe under the Economic Recovery Program known as the \"Marshall Plan.\"
| | anglista
Local time: 10:51
English to Polish
| Let 's go Esperanto then! || Dec 13, 2002 |
Why not make Esperanto an official language then? I mean, in the EU as well. This would let us cut the costs of translation enormously.
| Reply to anglista || Dec 13, 2002 |
I understand the patriotism (Esperanto was invented by a Polish Jewish eye doctor, Zamenhof, in 1887), but apparently the proposal is not quite new, although I do not know what to make of the following:
The European Parliament,
1. requests the Commission to realise an experiment within the whole of the countries of the Union, to accelerate the learning of foreign languages through the study of a planned language such as Esperanto;
2. requests the Commission to realise a study on the introduction of the teaching of a planned language such as Esperanto as second or third language, there where the regional or minority language is taught as first language and the national or official language as second language, in all the primary and secondary schools of the EU;
3. entrusts its general secretariat to realise a study on the feasibility and economic and financial implications of the introduction of a planned language, such as Esperanto, as bridge language and legal reference language in the translation and interpretation system, anticipating especially the experimental use of Esperanto as bridge language for interpretation;
[ This Message was edited by: on 2002-12-13 14:02 ]
| || || |
| One language to communicate || Dec 13, 2002 |
My personal opinion is that - as much as we value and are committed to preserve country indentities - we should have \'money matters\' in mind.
In a world with huge discrepancies which literally affect the life of people (i.e. differences in health policies, education...), couldn\'t we take a courageaus decision and decide that English can be the \'lingua franca\' used to communicate inside the EU while each country should translate each EU regulation, standard etc... into its own language? This way the economic weight of translation would be borne by each country (but for the specific language pair only).
I do not want to make anyone of you angry or whatever, I just abhor waste of money.
| All things considered, I prefer English to Esperanto || Dec 13, 2002 |
If you look at my language pairs, you will understand why. Second, with all due respect, I suspect that problems Esperanto may have with Eurospeak may be comparable to those we would have when trying to translate the following into Latin:
There exists some ambiguity in the lender-of-last-resort procedures in EMU, which the European Central Bank should resolve by instituting a hierarchy. The ECB would be a useful entity to constrain the use of lender-of-last-resort and bank rescue operations at the national level and to create a more level playing field for European banking and financial institutions in this domain....
No institution is currently in charge of aggregating and monitoring exposures in European financial markets on a systematic basis. The emerging market crisis suddenly revealed that the exposure of European banks to emerging markets was more than three times greater than that of North American banks. In response to stronger market integration and interdependence in EMU, the European Council should consider the creation of a European observatory for systemic risk. Its function would be to introduce common supervisory and transparency standards, to monitor market developments across Europe and to alert national and European authorities to exposures with a potentially systemic impact.
| || || |
| Re: 25 euros/yr. || Dec 20, 2002 |
I do not know where Agence France Press took that figure. After the Copenhagen summit, Polish press talked about less than a half of that, i.e. the Fifteen contributing to the enlargement during the years 2004-2006 approx. EUR 11.5 billion net. If we could call this a Marshall Plan bis, better 60 years late than never!
To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:
You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »
Exorbitant costs - EU translation costs vs. cost of expansion
|You’re a freelance translator? LSP.expert helps you manage your daily translation jobs. It’s easy, fast and secure.|
How about you start tracking translation jobs and sending invoices in minutes? You can also manage your clients and generate reports about your business activities. So you always keep a clear view on your planning, AND you get a free 30 day trial period!
More info »
|The words you want Anywhere, Anytime|
WordFinder is the market's fastest and easiest way of finding the right word, term, translation or synonym in one or more dictionaries. In our assortment you can choose among more than 120 dictionaries in 15 languages from leading publishers.
More info »