52 Most Important Sentences of Survival English

/

A friend in Ireland asked for some help. Her daughter's class has some new students who are refugees from Ukraine, so she wants to make them flashcards to help them learn English. I thought this would be a great activity for my classes. Many of my students are second language learners, so they are experts. My freshman English classes tapped into this expertise and learned about Maslow's hierarchy of needs so we could identify the sentences these students would need to learn first. It was also a good practice for my students in what makes a complete sentence. We also tried to come up with sentences that would provide the refugee students with a variety of vocabulary so they could form their own phrases as they learn to mix and match. The exercise even gave us a chance to have a discussion about phrases that will be different in Ireland than in the United States. Bathroom? Restroom? Loo? WC? And certainly not, "I like your pants."  I thought it would be cool if my friend got 52 because then she could put them on playing cards along with their translations, and that way the new students would have something they could play games with while they practice. I'm hesitant to trust Google Translate (it's better, but still far from perfect), so if you write in Ukrainian or know someone who does, please let us all know how these would be translated. Thanks! 

  1. May I please use the bathroom?

  2. How do you say _____?

  3. What is this called?

  4. I don't understand.

  5. Excuse me.

  6. I need help.

  7. May I go get a drink of water?

  8. I'm thirsty. 

  9. When is lunchtime?

  10. I'm hungry.

  11. May I have some of that?

  12. May I have a snack?

  13. Yes.

  14. No.

  15. Please.

  16. Thank you.

  17.  I like that. 

  18. I do not like that. 

  19. I'm hot. 

  20. I'm cold.

  21. I need a jacket.

  22. I'm tired.

  23. Goodnight.

  24. Hello.

  25. Good morning.

  26. Goodbye.

  27. What is your name?

  28. My name is ________.

  29. I like your ______.

  30. It's nice to meet you.

  31. I'm from Ukraine.

  32. She is a girl.

  33. He is a boy.

  34. I have one mother.

  35. I have two sisters.

  36. I have three brothers.

  37. I have a cat.

  38. I have a dog.

  39. How much does this cost?

  40. I need space.

  41. I feel happy.

  42. I feel sad. 

  43. I feel scared.

  44. I feel lonely.

  45. I want to go home.

  46. I miss my family.

  47. I love you.

  48. I like you.

  49. Where is the ______?

  50. Can you show me the way to the______?

  51. Can I play, too?

  52. I cannot do that.

I got a translation into Ukrainian! Thanks to Sveltana Thomas, and thanks to Molly K. Martin for sending it to me!

1. Можу я піти до туалету? Мені потрібно вийти.

2. Як сказати____?

3. Як це називається?

4. Я не розумію.

5. Вибачте.

6. Мені потрібна допомога.

7. Чи можу я піти попити води?

8. Я хочу пити.

9. Коли буде обід?

10. Я голодний/голодна. — it depends upon whether it’s a boy or a girl answering.

11. Чи можу я взяти це?

12. Чи можу я перекусити?

13. Так.

14. Ні.

15. Будь ласка.

16. Дякую.

17. Мені це довподоби.

18. Мені це не подобається.

19. Мені жарко.

20. Мені холодно.

21. Мені потрібна куртка.

22. Я втомился/втомилася. — it depends upon whether it’s a boy or a girl answering.

23. На добраніч.

24. Привіт.

25. Доброго ранку.

26. До побачення.

27. Як тебе звати? Як твоє ім’я ?

28. Мене звати____.

29. Мені подобається твій/твоя.

30. Приємно познайомитися з тобою.

31. Я з України. Please don’t use “The Ukraine”, only use the correct way “Ukraine”. Like I’m from Ukraine (“The Ukraine” is how russians say it. Also after 24 Feb Ukrainians do not capitalize russia, etc.)

32. Вона дівчинка.

33. Він хлопчик.

34. У мене є тільки мама.

35. В мене є дві сестри.

36. У мене є три брати.

37. В мене є котик.

38. В мене є собака.

39. Скільки це коштує?

40. Мені потрібен простір.

41. Я відчуваю себе щасливим/щасливою. Я щасливий/щаслива.

42. Мені сумно.

43. Я відчуваю страх. Мені страшно.

44. Мені самотно.

45. Я хочу додому.

46. Я сумую за своєю родиною.

47. Я тебе кохаю.

48. Ти мені подобаєшся.

49. Де є _?

50. Як пройти до __?

51. Чи можу я теж грати?

52. Я не можу це зробити.

Poverty Beats His Children

/

After coming across this great article which blows up some of the insidious lies that cripple our debate about our country's social safety-net, I remembered a piece I wrote back in June for my previous blog, and I thought it would be worth republishing here.  

Poverty Beats His Children

The other day, a friend of mine voiced the opinion on Facebook that America is the ultimate land of opportunity, and that people who are in poverty are at fault for blaming others for their plight. It was, he argued, a question of perspective. If people are poor, he argued, they should take more responsibility for their circumstances.

My friend isn’t a greedy or hurtful person. Though we haven’t seen each other in almost two decades, based on the pictures of his beautiful, happy family, he strikes me as somebody who has his priorities in order. But this statement got under my skin and has been itching. I’ve been scratching at this for a little over a week now, and I’m not quite sure how to express why this irritates me so much.

Should I begin on purely factual grounds? He states, without evidence, that the United States is one of the foremost countries which provides its people with the ability to raise themselves out of poverty.  “Unlike nearly any other country, you can start in poverty and move into the middle or upper income bracket within a few short years...definitely into a generation.” What he’s describing is something economists call "social mobility." It’s measurable. And he’s simply wrong.  At best, we rank 4th. When other factors are included, like unemployment, inflation, and respondents’ satisfaction to standard-of-living and employment opportunities, the U.S. comes in 18th. Of the 195 countries our government recognizes, that means we’re not even in the top 5%. That hardly sounds like “unlike nearly any other country” to me.

Or should I challenge his notion that income inequality is irrelevant? He claims that we don’t have “haves” and “have nots”, but “has” and “has more.”  This sounds like merely bit of optimistic semantics. It’s all in one’s perspective, he claims. But that’s wrong, too. The distance between the “have nots” and the “has mores” produces real world consequences. According to economists, it impedes growth in a number of ways. It doesn’t take a lot of economics training to imagine why this would be. People who are far down the economic ladder can’t demand higher salaries. Beggars don’t haggle. When they have lower salaries, they can’t buy as many goods. The ultra-wealthy still live very well, thank you, but they store their money in accounts rather than investing in businesses which sell goods to people on the bottom of the income spectrum because that’s a better investment. If you reduce the buying power of the poor, you reduce the selling opportunities for the rich. This leads to less sales, less employment, less of what economists call “churning”: money growing because it’s changing hands in exchange for real goods and services. Widening income inequality makes some people much richer, and creates the illusion of economic growth when the total GDP is divided to become the Per Capita GDP, but in truth the standard of living of the vast majority of people decreases.

But this kind of sunny optimism is worse than just bad economics. In my friend’s defense of his position, he cites Christian scripture, pointing out that people have an obligation to use the talents they’ve been given to achieve success. He cites the parable in Matthew about the bags of gold entrusted to servants, Matthew 25:14-30. This is what an English teacher would call “bad reading.” The passage is clearly not about money, it’s about faith. The master says, quite clearly, “You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!” If the parable were about money, one would have to imagine that the “things” Jesus is teaching his disciples to take care of are quantities of money. This from a man who told people that they should take all they have and give it to the poor? This from a man who told people to give Caesar his coins back? This from a man who told people that wealth would make it more difficult to get into heaven? This from a man who told people not to store up their treasures on earth? This from a man who, at least according to scripture, was aware that his death was imminent and yet spent more time talking about concern for the poor than any other single topic during the limited time of his ministry? It’s certainly a convenient interpretation to use when one is trying to justify an investment strategy, but it cannot be justified by the text as a whole.

That’s not what bothers me, either, though. I’m not a Christian. If Christians want to pick apart their scripture to justify widening income inequality and callous disregard for the plight of the poor, that’s their business. They can write a new translation which actually includes the phrase “pull yourselves up by your bootstraps,” stick it into the Sermon on the Mount, and shove those words into Jesus’ mouth, and if that’s what they all decide they believe, who am I to argue? I could point out that it’s a very different interpretation of scripture than other Christians have had before, tantamount to a different religion, something earlier Christians would have called a heresy, but they could quite correctly retort that Christianity has changed a lot over the years. Some have learned to read around the misogyny. Most have learned to stop using scripture as a justification for racism and slavery. A growing number are even learning to get around the bigotry towards homosexuals that’s clearly in the text. So if they want to decide that all the commands to care for the poor, to suffer with those who suffer, and to recognize worldy wealth as a threat to their salvation are just cultural relics of a time gone by and scold the poor for having bad attitudes, it is absolutely within their 1st amendment rights to do so, and they can take that up with their god when they get to the end of the road. That’s no longer my business.

Except…

Except I have to live with these people. And not just this particularly venal and callous kind of Christian, but with a greedy and self-defeating kind of American. This kind of attitude has real-world policy implications which harm my country, my community, my family.

No, that’s not it, either. I can abide people I disagree with, even when their beliefs harm me and mine. I can live with people who deny evolution even though their beliefs hurt our country’s international reputation and our scientific competitiveness. I can live with people who have regressive beliefs about immigration even though their selective notions of law enforcement will split up families, hurt our own economy, and ultimately fail to do anything but align them with racists. I can live with people who deny the reality of global climate change even though their intransigence will have dramatic and disastrous effects on the economic, political, and even physical health of their fellow citizens. I can live with people I find to be wrong. Why? Because I am sure I’m wrong about some things, too, and I’m sure the ways I’m wrong will injure others. Of course, I don’t know how I’m wrong. As Wittgenstien pointed out, “If there were a verb meaning ‘to believe falsely,’ it would not have any significant first person, present indicative.” If I’m wrong about something, I can’t know it at the time. But I can assume I am wrong because I know I’ve been wrong before, and because I know that being wrong about some things has always appeared to be an essential characteristic of every other human being with whom I’ve come into contact, including those people who are far smarter and far wiser than I am. I try to surround myself with the kind of people who can tell me how I am wrong, and I’ll bet this post may motivate a few of them.  I may not know what god to believe in, but I do believe in people, complete with all their absurdity and outright folly. Sartre said “Hell is other people,” but I think other people are the point of existence. Without them, including all their multifaceted wrong-ness, life would be meaningless. An un-observed tree falling in a forest may or may not make a sound, but a man in a crowd who doesn’t care about any of the people around him makes no difference.

And that, ultimately, is why my friend’s point bothers me so much. It’s the callous disregard for others that I cannot abide. I cannot claim to be an expert on poverty from personal experience. As the Everclear song says, I’ve “never had the joy of a welfare Christmas.” I wish I could explain poverty as eloquently as Sherman Alexie does early in his novel The Absolutely True Diary of a Part Time Indian. (If you haven't read it, do so forthwith.) I just don't have the skill.  But, in my experience, that kind of personal history doesn’t always give people a whole lot of insight into the nature of poverty anyway. I know too many people who raised themselves out of poverty, sometimes terrible, tragic poverty, and their response has been to look back over their shoulders with contempt and say, “I did it. Why can’t they?” I’m starting to recognize that I understand poverty better than some people who experienced it more acutely because, though I might be exactly as middle class as my parents (American social mobility, right?), like them, I’ve chosen to work for people who haven’t escaped poverty. That’s taught me about more than the path out. It’s taught me about the people who are stuck inside.

 

I came across a great illustration of this today. There's a powerful if unsurprising relationship between effects of dyslexia and the wealth of the dyslexic. Dyslexic children born to wealthy families are identified earlier and are able to get more interventions. As one would expect, they are far more likely to overcome their disability. Now, we could say to a dyslexic, as my friend does, “If you're working has[sic] hard as you can and not getting anywhere....change what you're working at. You need a new perspective or a new path.” But, in this case, we’d be saying, “If you are working hard to learn to read and it’s difficult, you really should have started working hard with a specialist when you were much younger, and in order to do that, you should have been born richer. Choose that path.”

 

I think my friend doesn’t understand poverty (and again, he is in the company of my middle class friends who climbed out of it themselves). Poverty is an abusive father who beats his children. He stands in the foyer of his house, punching them and kicking them, and they cower in the corner, curled up into tight little balls, trying to protect themselves. Every day his blows rain down on them, but while he beats them, he tells them to get out of his house. Behind him, the door is open. For some, it’s open wide. They are gifted with intelligence, athletic ability, good looks, resilience, perhaps an indomitable will. For others, the door is open just a tiny crack, smaller even than their little bodies. Maybe they are not exceptionally smart or brave or beautiful. Maybe they are afraid to leave the house that at least protects them from the weather. For whatever reason, some of these children remain cowering in the corner, while others make a break for it, scrambling for the door. Some of these escaping children run and don’t look back. “I made it out. Why can’t they? It’s their fault.” Others stay inside all their lives. But here’s the greatest atrocity: We are standing out on the sidewalk, and we can always see into the door, at least a little. We can see Poverty beating down the poor. And, to my amazement, many of us say, “It is their fault. Why don’t they take responsibility for their circumstances? Look at the way their choices keep them inside the house of Poverty?” But we stay out on the sidewalk. I want to ask my friend and anyone else talking about taking personal responsibility for poverty: "Who is supposed to take responsibility for where you stand while the poor suffer? Isn’t that up to you?"