Less than two of every three Inuit in Canada — about 37,615 people — are able to conduct a conversation in the Inuit language, Statistics Canada reports.
That number is contained in a big release of data May 8 that Statistics Canada gathered during its 2011 household survey.
StatsCan number-crunchers estimate Canada’s Inuit population at 59,445 for 2011.
Of those, 43,460 Inuit, about 73 per cent of the total, live in Inuit Nunangat, defined as the Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, Nunavut and the Inuvialuit regions.
The other 27 per cent — 15,980 Inuit — live outside traditional Inuit homelands, StatsCan reported.
On language use, StatsCan found 63.3 per cent of the Inuit population is able to converse in an Inuit language. That’s down from 68.8 per cent in 2006.
And though the Inuit population in Canada grew 18.1 per cent between 2006 and 2011, the raw number of Inuit able to speak an Inuit language grew by only 8.6 per cent.
A small number of Inuit, about 250, report the ability to speak Cree or Innu-Montagnais languages.
StatsCan’s numbers suggest the Inuit language is healthiest in Nunavik, where 99.1 per cent of the region’s Inuit population of 10,755 report the ability to speak an Inuit language.
See: Nunatsiaqonline
Subscribe to the translation news daily digest here. See more translation news.
Share an article »
ProZ.com blog »
France
Local time: 19:08
French to English
+ ...
Less than one foot of snow.
Less than ideal.
Am I anachronistically denying the natural development of English by my resistance to the increasingly common substitution of "less" for "fewer"?
The loss of the language, as the article makes clear, reflects the loss of the culture. However, people cannot be treated as museum exhibits and what is really important is whether this is the result of oppression by the dominant cul... See more
Less than one foot of snow.
Less than ideal.
Am I anachronistically denying the natural development of English by my resistance to the increasingly common substitution of "less" for "fewer"?
The loss of the language, as the article makes clear, reflects the loss of the culture. However, people cannot be treated as museum exhibits and what is really important is whether this is the result of oppression by the dominant culture, or whether it is the inevitable result of the exercise of free choice by Inuit people. The answer will, inevitably, involve a mix of the two, because choices are made in the context of social, political and economic constraints, rather than being absolutely free. ▲ Collapse
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:08
Swedish to English
+ ...
The writer of this piece probably went to an academy sponsored by Tesco...
(Note: this comment might not be understood by non-UK residents.)
China
Local time: 01:08
Chinese to English
Fewer than two of every three Inuit.
To me, this isn't even English. But I won't insist on that, because dialects vary.
You're welcome to speak whatever English you like. But "resisting" other people's English does seem a bit pointless.
But the real problem with being prescriptive about your language is that you look such a fool when you get the grammar wrong. And I'm pretty sure you're wrong here:
Less than one
Fewer than five
Less than half
Less than two in three
At least in my English, "two in three" is a fraction, and less is the correct collocation. For me, fewer is also acceptable because "two in three Inuit" describes a multiple number of people. But less is definitely not wrong.
...choices are made in the context of social, political and economic constraints, rather than being absolutely free.
Politically, you're spot on with this.
France
Local time: 19:08
French to English
+ ...
When one expresses a proportion of people as "two in three", this is effectively a metaphor. To show why it must be considered a metaphor, take the example posted for this topic, but assume (for the sake of statistical demonstration), that exactly two in three speak an Inuit language because the total Inuit population was surveyed. Thus, if th... See more
When one expresses a proportion of people as "two in three", this is effectively a metaphor. To show why it must be considered a metaphor, take the example posted for this topic, but assume (for the sake of statistical demonstration), that exactly two in three speak an Inuit language because the total Inuit population was surveyed. Thus, if there is a total population of 300,000 Inuit people, 200,000 of them have been found to speak an Inuit language. However, one could not predict that two members of a randomly selected sample of three Inuit people would speak an Inuit language, because the sample size is too small. When the finding applies to fewer than two in three people, given the impossibility of a fraction of a person speaking any language at all, replication of the results would clearly require a large enough sample to be able to avoid sawing anyone in half. Of course, in reality, you avoid problems of sampling error and the indivisibility of a person by using margins of error and levels of confidence. ▲ Collapse
To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:
You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »
This discussion can also be accessed via the ProZ.com forum pages.