“There is a fountain of youth: it is your mind, your
talents, the creativity you bring to your life and the lives of people you
love. When you learn to tap this source, you will truly have defeated age.” Sophia Loren
By Alex P. Vidal
Federalism and native
languages advocate Dr. Jose Palu-ay Dacudao is up in arms against the
Department of Education’s (DepEd) 2005 Basic Literacy Learning Material (BLLM).
He pointed out that
the crux of the problem is DepEd’s materials written in ‘Filipino’ (a
honey-coated term for the Tagalog language in order to make it psychologically
acceptable to non-Tagalogs) that are being taught to our children right here
right now.
“In my opinion, the
writers of most of these materials had acquired books in English, presently the
universal language of science, learning, and commerce (just as Latin was for
nearly 2000 years), and then endeavored to erase the Greco-Latin terms (which
they probably thought were indigenous English words), replacing them with
invented Tagalog terms,” explained Dacudao.
If you are a parent
concerned with your children’s education, Dacudao, a critique of the Tagalista
orientation of Department of Education materials, recommends this article for you.
Our modern society’s
current idea of higher education began in Greece. The two most notable schools
were the Academy founded in 387 BC by Plato and the Lyceum founded in 335 BC by
Aristotle. They offered advanced studies in Philosophy, which at that time
encompassed a very broad field which also delved into Mathematics, the Physical
Sciences, and the Biological Sciences. The language that was used in such Greek
schools was Greek.
ROMAN
The budding Roman
Republic had always admired Greek culture, and may have patterned the Roman
Senate from the democratic rule of the free classes in Greek city states. From
146 BC, when the Romans defeated Corinth, until 31 BC, when the Romans defeated
Cleopatra’s Hellenistic Egypt, Rome took over what remained of the Greek
territories. Instead of destroying Greek culture, the Romans enthusiastically
adopted it. It became common practice for the Roman aristocrats to acquire
highly favored Greek slaves in order to personally tutor their children in the
Greek language, classics, and philosophy. These Greek-loving aristocratic Roman
children would normally grow up to be the new leaders of Rome, and would
naturally continue patronizing Greek culture. Greek-type learning institutions
flourished in the ensuing Roman Empire, the most famous of which is the Library
of Alexandria in the 4th century. Instruction naturally was in Greek or in
Latin that borrowed many of its technical terms from Greek.
From the remains of
Greco-Roman civilization, modern Colleges and Universities arose in the 12th
century. Universities were founded in Italy, France, England, Germany, Poland,
and Bohemia. They started as groups of students, usually of the same ethnicity,
that would band together in the towns and cities were prominent learned men
taught. The resulting community would become known as a collegium (Latin
‘society’).
By the latter half of
the 12th century, the University of Paris in France had become the leading
institution of learning in Europe. Other Universities at that time became famous
for specializing in Law (University of Bologna in Italy), and Medicine (the
University of Salerno in Italy).
Liberal arts was the
common curriculum in most of these Universities, and consisted of the trivium
(grammar, rhetoric, and logic) and the quadrivium (music, astronomy, geometry,
and mathematics). After completing these, some students proceeded to study such
specialties as theology, law, or medicine.
HISTORY
Why are we reviewing
this history?
Because the medium of
instruction of these Universities was Latin (that borrowed heavily from Greek),
the universal language of science, learning, and commerce in Europe.
It took the Greeks and
the Romans hundreds of years to develop a technical vocabulary for Philosophy,
the stem subject of all our modern subjects. Just as the Romans adopted the
Greek vocabulary into their medium of instruction, so did the ensuing
civilizations that inherited the Greco-Roman culture adopt the Greco-Latin terms
in their own institutions of learning.
Note that the French,
Italians, Spanish, Germans, English, and Poles did not dare to change the
Greco-Latin terms of Natural Philosophy. They merely borrowed and added on to
this vocabulary, the additions also being in Latin as a matter of standard.
The idea of inventing
a non-existent German word for an idea that was already known by its Latin
name, in order to prove that one was a patriotic German for instance, was
totally ridiculous in the minds of these educators and the institutions that
they represented. The purpose of these institutions was not to transform a
student into a fanatical nationalistic German but into a learned person. The
Germanic languages at that time (including English) simply did not have the
terms for the intricate subjects that had directly arisen from the older
Greco-Roman learning institutions.
Modern English,
although a Germanic language, uses a scientific vocabulary that is practically
all Latin derived. Take away all the Latin terms of a typical textbook of
science in English and we would end up with nothing or nonsense.
And so we come to the
crux of the problem in the Department of Education materials written in
‘Filipino’ (a honey-coated term for the Tagalog language in order to make it
psychologically acceptable to non-Tagalogs) that are being taught to our
children right here right now. In my opinion, the writers of most of these
materials had acquired books in English, presently the universal language of
science, learning, and commerce (just as Latin was for nearly 2000 years), and
then endeavored to erase the Greco-Latin terms (which they probably thought
were indigenous English words), replacing them with invented Tagalog terms.
What comes out is
nonsense.
LITERACY
Just take this example
from the 2005 Basic Literacy Learning Material (BLLM) of the Department of
Education which tries to explain the nutrient cycles.
There are four basic
nutrient (Latin ‘nutrire’) cycles (Latin ‘cyclus’ from the Greek ‘kuklos’) in
the ecosystem (Greek ‘oikos’ plus Latin ‘systema’ from the Greek ‘sustēma’):
1.The carbon (Latin
‘carbon’) cycle
2.The nitrogen (Latin
‘nitrum’ from the Greek ‘nitron’) cycle
3.The oxygen (Greek
‘oxus’) cycle
4.The hydrological
(Greek ‘hudōr’) cycle
There is also an
energy (Greek ‘energeia’) flow, which was wrongly described as a cycle in the
BLLM. There is no such thing as an energy cycle in the ecosystem.
Among others, the BLLM
uses the following vocabulary in order to try to explain these fundamental
ecological concepts, to quote:
1.Ang Pag-ikot ng Tubig,
Hangin, at Enerhiya sa Kagubatan
2.Pag-ikot ng tubig
3.Pag-ikot ng Hangin
4.Sikat ng Araw
5.Ikot ng Sustansiya
6.Sustansya sa lupa
The above explanation
is nonsensical. How could one possibly describe the carbon, nitrogen, and
oxygen cycles in the ecosystem as ‘pag-ikot ng hangin’? In English, this would
translate as the nonsensical and misleading ‘air cycle,’ or worse as the ‘whirling
of the wind.’
As mentioned, not even
the French, Italians, Spanish, Germans, English, and Poles, who after all
started the first modern Universities, dared to replace the Greco-Latin terms
with non-existent words.
One could go on and on
with such ridiculous examples of what would happen if one were to erase the
Greco-Latin terms in a Science subject, but I would like to be brief.
RETAIN
The most reasonable
thing to do is to simply retain the original Greco-Latin terms for most of the
science-related vocabulary. The French, Italians, Spanish, Germans, English,
and Poles did it, and it worked; we now have our modern Colleges and
Universities.
For instance, one
could simply translate the Nitrogen Cycle into Siklo de Nitrogen, Siklo sg
Nitrogen (Hiligaynon Visayan), Siklo ka Nitrogen (Karay-a Visayan), Siklo sa
Nitrogen (Cebuano Visayan), or even just use the term Nitrogen Cycle as it is.
The Latin derived ‘Siklo’ is retained.
One could also simply
use the English language (which already has incorporated Greco-Latin terms) as
the medium for teaching the physical and social science subjects. The
Universities did use Latin for hundreds of years. The scientists of the 16th to
early 20th century who essentially gave us modern science and technology were
all educated in Latin, and mostly wrote in Latin. None of them insisted on
using say German or Italian in their works, even if they were German or
Italian. The proof of the efficaciousness of their education is all around us;
all our modern sciences and technologies are derived from their works. The
Tagalistas who insist that we have to teach our Sciences in Filipino-Tagalog in
order for us to develop good scientists are propagating an ideological lie that
is idiotizing our youth.
In my opinion, these
are the serious problems with the BLLM.
1.In some areas, the
tone to my mind is condescending, as though the recipient ethnic people are
‘primitives’ who need to be taught the proper things in life by their superiors
in the government.
2.The tone does not
respect the diversity of our ethnolinguistic peoples, or even places our
diversity in a bad light. This should be corrected. It must be remembered that
the Philippines is signatory to UN resolutions that say we should respect the
identities of our ethnolinguistic peoples.
3.As is clear in the
above example, there are serious errors in the contents itself of the learning
material.
In my opinion, the
fundamental problem of the above problems is the Tagalog Nationalism of
Tagalistas. Among others, this ideology presupposes that one has to be a good
Tagalog in order to be a good Filipino.
IDEOLOGICAL
Since the problem is
ideological, it becomes attitudinal. It creates an attitude that tries to erase
all words that are perceived to be English in origin and replace them with Tagalog.
This is quite silly if only because the English themselves probably thought it
was silly too, for they adopted Greco-Latin terms wholesale into the English
language; and so what deluded Tagalistas are really erasing are Greco-Latin
terms that have been accepted internationally by learned people for hundreds of
years.
I even suspect that
Tagalista educators are not really interested in making our youth learned, but
in transforming them into good Tagalogs. Consequently, there is a lack of
interest in the accuracy of the contents of learning materials. Why strive for
excellence in the contents if what we are really interested in is teaching all
Filipino children Tagalog? Learning is secondary; be a good ‘Filipino’ (AKA
Tagalog speaker) first. Thus, there is a propagation of teaching materials
whose contents are full of errors; that tend to intellectually bankrupt our
youth, or actually teach them outright errors.
