Swahili is used in East Africa and into the central part of the continent - not in West or Southern Africa. And it is very different from Arabic despite the many borrowings (which in any event have been transformed as loanwords tend to be after long periods), so I'm not sure it would be understood in North Africa.
"All Tanzanians and Kenyans speak English." raven7647 already refuted this but I wanted to offer broader comments concerning such remarks (likewise not for flame but because I think there are some vitally important issues and misconceptions behind the tendency to dismiss localization as unimportant or "silly").
MIT professor Kenneth Keniston (1999) made the following observation concerning localization in India: "It can be argued that, given the fusion of language, wealth and power in India, there is simply no market (and perhaps no need) for software in any language other than English. Asked about localization to Indian languages, international software firms sometimes reply, 'But everyone speaks English in India,' by which of course they mean that the present market consists of people who speak English."
Sadly the "(but) everyone in [country] speaks [language such as English]" rationalization is fairly widespread. I've encountered it in West Africa and heard about it in reference to indigenous American communities.
In the case of sub-Saharan Africa, the reality is that most people either do not speak the official languages of English, French, or Portuguese, or do not master them. Clinton Robinson (1996) mentioned an estimate of up to 90% in some countries. Of course most such people are poor, rural, female, and unschooled - definitely not likely to show up in market surveys or narrow bottom-line calculations.
Part of the calculation that says localization is important looks to development and educational objectives. These too have an economic cost-benefit, but that payoff is less immediate. Some will (and do) argue that poor people are unlikely to use computers and the internet so why bother. But such reasoning automatically excludes people or makes them completely dependent on intermediaries (with all the power and translation pitfalls that that can entail). And it ignores the potential for localized software to facilitate localized content production for development, literacy, etc. (which can be shared away from telecenters or whatever in printed form).
Another part of the justification for localization is a matter of linguistic rights. Why should people be artificially limited in their choice of language interfaces, especially when their first language is not available. Of course it would be hard to argue for OpenOffice (or whatever) in every one of the world's estimated 6000 languages (though if people want to translate the software in their maternal language, more power to them), but what's at issue right now are languages spoken by millions or even tens of millions, like Swahili. In reality it seems silly *not* to plan for localization in such tongues - many languages with less numbers of speakers in Europe are available in software, even though folks who prefer to use them probably could make do with software in more major European languages.
Keniston, Kenneth. 1999. "Language, Power, and Software." In Charles Ess, ed. Cultural Attitudes Towards Technology and Communication. New York: SUNY Press. http://web.mit.edu/~kken/Public/papers1/Language%2 0Power%20Software.htm
Robinson, Clinton. 1996. Language Use and Rural Development: An African Perspective. (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 70.) Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Slashdot Mirror
Swahili is used in East Africa and into the central part of the continent - not in West or Southern Africa. And it is very different from Arabic despite the many borrowings (which in any event have been transformed as loanwords tend to be after long periods), so I'm not sure it would be understood in North Africa.
Nevertheless, I agree that it is significant.
"All Tanzanians and Kenyans speak English." raven7647 already refuted this but I wanted to offer broader comments concerning such remarks (likewise not for flame but because I think there are some vitally important issues and misconceptions behind the tendency to dismiss localization as unimportant or "silly").
2 0Power%20Software.htm
MIT professor Kenneth Keniston (1999) made the following observation concerning localization in India:
"It can be argued that, given the fusion of language, wealth and power in India, there is simply no market (and perhaps no need) for software in any language other than English. Asked about localization to Indian languages, international software firms sometimes reply, 'But everyone speaks English in India,' by which of course they mean that the present market consists of people who speak English."
Sadly the "(but) everyone in [country] speaks [language such as English]" rationalization is fairly widespread. I've encountered it in West Africa and heard about it in reference to indigenous American communities.
In the case of sub-Saharan Africa, the reality is that most people either do not speak the official languages of English, French, or Portuguese, or do not master them. Clinton Robinson (1996) mentioned an estimate of up to 90% in some countries. Of course most such people are poor, rural, female, and unschooled - definitely not likely to show up in market surveys or narrow bottom-line calculations.
Part of the calculation that says localization is important looks to development and educational objectives. These too have an economic cost-benefit, but that payoff is less immediate. Some will (and do) argue that poor people are unlikely to use computers and the internet so why bother. But such reasoning automatically excludes people or makes them completely dependent on intermediaries (with all the power and translation pitfalls that that can entail). And it ignores the potential for localized software to facilitate localized content production for development, literacy, etc. (which can be shared away from telecenters or whatever in printed form).
Another part of the justification for localization is a matter of linguistic rights. Why should people be artificially limited in their choice of language interfaces, especially when their first language is not available. Of course it would be hard to argue for OpenOffice (or whatever) in every one of the world's estimated 6000 languages (though if people want to translate the software in their maternal language, more power to them), but what's at issue right now are languages spoken by millions or even tens of millions, like Swahili. In reality it seems silly *not* to plan for localization in such tongues - many languages with less numbers of speakers in Europe are available in software, even though folks who prefer to use them probably could make do with software in more major European languages.
Keniston, Kenneth. 1999. "Language, Power, and Software." In Charles Ess, ed. Cultural Attitudes Towards Technology and Communication. New York: SUNY Press. http://web.mit.edu/~kken/Public/papers1/Language%
Robinson, Clinton. 1996. Language Use and Rural Development: An African Perspective. (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 70.) Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.