A WORD ABOUT SYNTHETIC vs.

ANALYTICAL LANGUAGES:
European languages are divided into these main groups: Slavic, Romanic and
Germanic. They are also divided into analytical (Germanic and Romanic) and synthetic
(Slavic) types. Strangely enough, Latin, from which the Romanic languages, and to a certain
degree, Germanic, have descended, is a quintessential synthetic language.
Synthetic languages are characterized by the usage of a large number of prefixes,
suffixes and endings, which are added to the root of the word in order to express the
nuances and subtleties of meanings, thus making the language rich and flexible. This is why
the words in Russian, and other synthetic languages, are generally longer. Because of this,
synthetic languages can afford to have a rather simple syntax and tense structure, as well
as flexible sentence structure. Gender distinctions (masculine, feminine and neutral) also
become very important. These are main characteristics of the Russian language as the most
prominent representative of the Slavic group of languages and of the synthetic type of
languages today.
Funny anecdote: The crucial importance of the correct prefix usage in Russian is
demonstrated by this hilarious and infamous moment in international relations. After being
elected, President Obama started his heavily advertised “reset” policy with Russia
(generally, a very good idea of course). To much fanfare, the US Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton arrived in Russia with a “reset button display,” which was especially constructed.
She was to symbolically press the button together with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei
Lavrov. The button was proudly shown to the cameras as the two dignitaries were about to
press it. At that moment, Lavrov’s eyes fell on the word written on the display in Russian.
The word read “peregruzka.” Lavrov raised his eyebrows, but being a quintessential
diplomat, he pressed the button and accepted the display as a memento without flinching.
However, he added that the word should have been “perezagruzka,” not “peregruzka.”
These two words sound pretty similar to an untrained foreign ear, but they have a distinctly
different meaning in Russian. The root here is the same: “gruz,” which means “load.” Alas,
as always, the devil is in the detail, as the subtlety here makes or breaks the word. “Pere-
gruz-ka” means “overload,” while “pere-za-gruz-ka” means “reset” or “reload.” How’s that
for an epic language fail! Honestly, Hillary should’ve consulted someone who really knows

Russian. I’m sure some heads have rolled as a result of this incident. 
On the other hand, analytical languages rely on a heavy usage of definite/indefinite
articles, various particles (eg. of, for, from) and added modifiers to express the nuances of
meanings. Example: “little” as in “little girl,” expressed in Russian with one single word
“devochka,” or “my little daughter,” expressed in Russian with one word “dochen’ka,” or
another variation with subtle difference: “dochurka.” Another example: “little kitty,”
expressed in Russian as “kotionok” – masculine & “koshechka” – feminine. The following
example illustrates the difference between Russian and English even better: in English you
have but one option if you want to say “little bunny,” meanwhile in Russian you have a
myriad of endearing options: “zaichik,” “zaichonok,” “zaika,” “zain’ka,” “zaichichka,” etc. All
these words, with subtle, but distinctive differences to a Russian ear, can only be expressed
in English in one way and with 2 words.
The word is generally rigid and unchangeable, although every analytical language will have
some synthetic characteristics – some more than others – and a certain amount of
prefix/suffix/endings usage. Example: Spanish “el gato” – “a male cat,” “el gatito” – “a little
male cat.” Notice again, how much more flexible and expressive Spanish is compared to
English. One word vs. 3 words! While Spanish is an analytical language, it has more
synthetic influence from its parent, Latin, and therefore is more flexible than typical
Germanic languages, like German and English. Because of this rigidity, analytical languages
rely very heavily on complex syntax and tense structure.

Again, not all analytical languages are born equal. Complexities vary. For example, English
tense structure is more convoluted than most. Italian, Spanish and German have more
streamlined and logical tense structures. Article usage: Italian, Spanish, German have
highly logical and predictable article usage. English is characterized with a highly illogical
and “frivolous” article usage. Sentence structure is again quite logical and easy to grasp in
Italian and Spanish. German has a more convoluted sentence structure, where words are
added seemingly ad infinitum, thus making German language sentences some of the longest
in the world. Gender usage also varies widely. It matters in Italian, Spanish (in words like
“el gato” and “la gata”  – male and female cat) and German. However in English grammar,
gender has zero importance, thus oftentimes creating confusion. To clarify, a writer or
speaker has to add words like “his/her” or “male/female”.
In some analytical languages, inflection plays an important role, for example, in Spanish.
This is one of the things I love about Spanish (specifically, Castellano – proper Spanish), as
the interesting inflection usage gives it a special singing and romantic quality. Same is true
for Italian. Just to mention: incidentally, Chinese language is a heavily analytical language,
where in addition to all the above, inflection plays a crucial role.
A note about English Language: All the above notwithstanding, English is still the
language of Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde and Jane Austen; it is the the most spoken
international language on our planet, and its popularity is not going anywhere.
I’m going to make a prediction here: since English is spoken by so many people around the
world, and not all of them “dig” the complexities of the English article and tense usage, we
are living in the period of simplification of many of the old English rules. All languages
change in time, adapting to the demands of the present day and its users. Within our
lifetime, English – which oftentimes doesn’t follow its own rules – will change, to become
more user friendly.

I love writing in English, undoubtedly because I’m a sucker for a challenge

system: a group of related parts that move or work together —system in ... a period or eraf :
a form of social, economic, or political organization or practice ...

A project team is more than a group of individuals assigned to work on one project.
A group of interdependent individuals working co-operatively to achieve project
objective helping these individuals develop and grow into a cohesive effective team.
The effectiveness of the project team can make the differences between the project
success and failure.

In medicine, it's easy to understand the difference

between treating the symptoms and curing the
condition. A broken wrist, for example, really
hurts! But painkillers will only take away the
symptoms; you'll need a different treatment to
help your bones heal properly.
But what do you do when you have a problem at work? Do you jump straight
in and treat the symptoms, or do you stop to consider whether there's actually
a deeper problem that needs your attention? If you only fix the symptoms –
what you see on the surface – the problem will almost certainly return, and
need fixing over, and over again.

However, if you look deeper to figure out what's causing the problem, you can
fix the underlying systems and processes so that it goes away for good.

Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is a popular and often-used technique that helps
people answer the question of why the problem occurred in the first place. It
seeks to identify the origin of a problem using a specific set of steps, with
associated tools, to find the primary cause of the problem, so that you can:

1. Determine what happened.

2. Determine why it happened.
3. Figure out what to do to reduce the likelihood that it will happen again.
RCA assumes that systems and events are interrelated. An action in one area
triggers an action in another, and another, and so on. By tracing back these
actions, you can discover where the problem started and how it grew into the
symptom you're now facing.

You'll usually find three basic types of causes:

1. Physical causes – Tangible, material items failed in some way (for example, a
car's brakes stopped working).
2. Human causes – People did something wrong, or did not do something that
was needed. Human causes typically lead to physical causes (for example, no one
filled the brake fluid, which led to the brakes failing).
3. Organizational causes – A system, process, or policy that people use to make
decisions or do their work is faulty (for example, no one person was responsible
for vehicle maintenance, and everyone assumed someone else had filled the brake
fluid).
RCA looks at all three types of causes. It involves investigating the patterns of
negative effects, finding hidden flaws in the system, and discovering specific
actions that contributed to the problem. This often means that RCA reveals
more than one root cause.

You can apply RCA to almost any situation. Determining how far to go in
your investigation requires good judgment and common sense.
Theoretically, you could continue to trace root causes back to the Stone
Age, but the effort would serve no useful purpose. Be careful to understand
when you've found a significant cause that can, in fact, be changed.

The Root Cause Analysis Process

RCA has five identifiable steps.

Step One: Define the Problem

 What do you see happening?
 What are the specific symptoms?
Step Two: Collect Data
 What proof do you have that the problem exists?
 How long has the problem existed?
 What is the impact of the problem?
You need to analyze a situation fully before you can move on to look at factors
that contributed to the problem. To maximize the effectiveness of your RCA,
get together everyone – experts and front line staff – who understands the
situation. People who are most familiar with the problem can help lead you to
a better understanding of the issues.