Before I designed this system, I had spotty recall on maybe just a few tenses. I’m now able to write out the entire 18-tense conjugation chart purely from memory, and I also have a better understanding of what the tenses actually are. (If you’re counting, that chart has upwards of 200 or more facts, and those facts are not conveniently packaged.)
Flawless Recall: Universal Memorization Method For Conjugating Regular Spanish Verbs is better than ever in its 8th edition. I highly recommend it – there’s never been a better book for reliably learning this aspect of the Spanish language!
One could characterize it as the “language of resistance” inside China, and abroad by older generations of the Chinese diaspora.
If the glass is half empty, it makes me wonder if Cantonese might soon be one of those “extremely valuable” languages, in terms of government recruitment efforts.
Weighing in its favor, it’s more of a greenfield language right now. If you’re applying for a relevant government job, you’re less likely to be competing against an entire room full of Cantonese experts for that job (as compared to Arabic).
Weighing against it is the fact that many Cantonese speakers tend to also know English (technically, the same can be said of Mandarin). Thus, the necessity isn’t quite as high.
But also weighing in its favor is the fact that the severity of the potential conflicts between the USA and China is quite high – probably a lot higher than conflicts where Arabic was relevant. This fact alone sort of promotes the value of the language up several notches.
I know next to nothing about Cantonese, but several things in that article fascinated me. One of them is that Cantonese can be expressed very similarly to Mandarin, while retaining a completely different meaning. This almost suggests a degree of steganographical potential. Furthermore, it suggests that automated censors will not be able to handle this.
The importance of ensuring clarity in written work isn’t all that controversial. The general reason is simple: the total amount of time everyone spends reading something is typically much greater than the amount of time it took one person or one team to write it.
The controversy alluded to is in the bucking of several bad habits that have very large followings. These bad habits fly in the face of clarity, and unfortunately they don’t receive the appropriate level of scrutiny.
The first bad habit is a bizarre programming style where curly braces are placed on lines occupied by other text. This is a holdover from antiquity when screen monitors were tiny and every pixel was highly coveted. In that age, you could have made a case for sacrificing clarity in order to have a few more rows of code on the screen at once. These days it is inexcusable, and when you have to read this stuff, sometimes it can seem almost unforgivable. With the prevalence of huge monitors, multiple-monitor setups, and futuristic code editing tools, why would you make your code harder to read in order to save a few pixels? Screen space is cheap.
The main difference between the left and the right example above is symmetry. Things that are symmetrical are easier to read. They’re easier on the eyes. Also, on the right, things are more structured and orderly in that the curly braces are on their own lines and so you don’t have to read around them as if they’re clutter. And so, all of that is simply to say, the style on the right is objectively better. Now, if you don’t program and don’t know whether to believe me, try reading the next two fragments and decide for yourself which is better.
I’m not aware of any other engineering discipline which creates documents or artifacts that regularly sacrifice clarity in this manner.
Two other questionable habits involve constructs in the English language: the Oxford comma, and sentence spacing. In both cases, the method that promotes the most clarity ought to be chosen, but yet many people opt for the alternative. I claim we ought to put two spaces between sentences,and we ought to use that final comma when listing things (except in rare cases where it actually introduces ambiguity).
I really believe the Oxford comma speaks for itself.
And if there’s any doubt about leaving two spaces between sentences, just consider how many spaces we put between paragraphs, and then think about the reason behind that. If an author merely wanted to express a change in something, such as a new speaker, this could theoretically be done without jumping to a brand new line. For example, a hyphen prefixing the next sentence could indicate this change, and that would be much more economical in terms of space. Of course, we all know which method is used to indicate a new paragraph, and I believe the reason it’s been around for so long is because readers perceive change more easily with the help of additional white space. This type of visual aid is as applicable to sentences as it is to paragraphs.
Although the two English language examples sacrifice much less clarity than the programming example, all three are valid subjects for inspection. In general, why not adopt the approach which promotes the most clarity, especially if the cost is negligible? The cost of not doing so for any one piece of work is nominal, but in the aggregate, the cost is much larger.