OXFORD – Ah, I see Oxford University Press (OUP) rejected your author’s submissions and chose to instead start its own project: Oxford’s New Global Language Initiative. Fair enough. I expect nothing less from the entrepreneurial and resourceful British. It is always better to have your own boys running the show, and claiming the discoveries. But just when you steal other people’s ideas, you should carefully study the philosophy and the theories behind them; otherwise you’ll end up, as happened here, with a flawed and inferior British copy-product. While it seems noble and humanitarian of OUP to “curate the content of 100 languages” (they already exist, you just want to content-farm them under your own brand), people will get the ugly impression that you are supporting racism, segregation, and purity of languages. I have shown many times that most publications by Oxford University Press on foreign cultures in the past were largely deliberate misinformation and agenda-driven propaganda to further London’s foreign policies, ideologies, and to expand British imperialism. Your editors and writers treated the languages as separated, interchangeable, in order to justify language imperialism –e. g. replacing other people’s words with your own, convenient English translations and definitions. This attitude has got to change in the 21st Century.
Face the inconvenient truth: The vocabularies of the world’s languages do not overlap, they add up. Translation is something else. It is a form of cultural genocide. Oxford University Press must find the “untranslatables” of each culture, its names, brands, and originalities, and introduce them into the Future Global Language. Can you do that, Oxford University Press? And, can you next time quote your source?