In UK the official language is English. It would not be better to speak only english, like I said it would be better to speak english plus anything else..............................
England, however, wasn't settled by immigrants. It was settled by conquering hordes of, alternately, Romans, Vikings, and French.
I listed all the reasons, bro. Many nationalities, one common language. ...............................
That's not a reason.
Really, the only impact an 'official' government language would have would be on the government published ephemera you keep talking about. I fail to see how that could justify a campaign to make the change. I also still fail to see what good that would do.
Really, the only impact an 'official' government language would have would be on the government published ephemera you keep talking about. I fail to see how that could justify a campaign to make the change. I also still fail to see what good that would do.
Its a great reason. It shouldnt even be an issue. You move to a country, you learn to speak the language of that country. It was always insinuated that english is the language of the US, unfortunately because of some strange political mumbo jumbo it has become an issue.
Move to the US, speak English. Don't expect anything less.............
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. All an 'official' language means is that it is the language of government operation. As I pointed out, the only thing your proposal would affect is government published ephemera. So again, what good does this do and how does it justify the process needed to make the change?
Just to add, it is argued that citizen knowledge of foreign language is crucial for overall national security and that the US is sorely lacking in this area. In fact, this issue received special prominence following the WTC attacks because shortage of arab speaking analysts was said to be a factor in intel lapses. As such, the money spent in language and multilingual education is seen to be a matter of importance.
So I ask, what good does it do to make English the offical language of the US government and how does it justify the process needed to make the change?
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. All an 'official' language means is that it is the language of government operation. As I pointed out, the only thing your proposal would affect is government published ephemera. So again, what good does this do and how does it justify the process needed to make the change?
it forces people to learn to speak english. If they want to vote, take a drivers license test they would have to know english. Right now its too easy to avoid it....................
Just to add, it is argued that citizen knowledge of foreign language is crucial for overall national security and that the US is sorely lacking in this area. In fact, this issue received special prominence following the WTC attacks because shortage of arab speaking analysts was said to be a factor in intel lapses. As such, the money spent in language and multilingual education is seen to be a matter of importance.
So I ask, what good does it do to make English the offical language of the US government and how does it justify the process needed to make the change?
Once again, I have never said that English should be the only language any American ever knows, but that every American should understand English-there is a difference.
I took spanish from jr. high on, and i think it would have been better to start in elementary school because its easier to learn another language the earlier you start. I am not talking about bi-lingual education which is a disaster, but a language course in addition to other studies such as math and science etc which would be in English of course........................
One thing we can say with certainty: Language diversity has always been with us. As early as 1664, when the island of Manhattan was ceded from the Dutch to the British, 18 different tongues were spoken there, not counting any of the hundreds of Native American languages spoken in North America at the time. In the 1790 census, German Americans accounted for 8.6 percent of the population ? a proportion comparable to that of Hispanic Americans, 9.0 percent, exactly two centuries later. Certainly, there are more languages spoken in the U.S.A. today than in 1790. (The 1990 census reported 323 ? surely an undercount.) But this is a quantitative, not a qualitative, change.
Proportionally speaking, the language-minority population was larger at the turn of the 20th century, when immigration reached its highest levels in U.S. history, than at the turn of the 21st. In the 1890 census, there were 4.5 times as many non-English speakers than in the 1990 census (with its superior capabilities for counting such groups). In 1910, 23 percent of foreign-born whites, 39 percent of Japanese, 41 percent of Chinese, and 66 percent of other immigrants spoke no English, as compared with less than 10 percent of foreign-born residents in 1990. A decade before New Mexico became a state in 1912, two-thirds of its residents remained monolingual speakers of Spanish or Native American languages. Meanwhile, significant enclaves of French speakers remained intact in Louisiana and northern New England. German still predominated in large areas of the upper Midwest. These groups gradually became Anglicized ? not through legislation, but through social changes due to industrialization, migration, road-building, electrification, mass media, and the passing of isolated rural life.
These assimilative forces are even more powerful today. There is no evidence that bilingual accommodations slow down English acquisition. Absolutely none has been marshalled by English Only advocates ? only unsupported claims about ethnic separatism and immigrants' disinclination to learn English unless forced to do so.
Demographic research shows that now, more than ever, language patterns in America are a case of "Babel in reverse." A massive shift to English continues. This trend has been somewhat masked by rising immigration levels over the past two decades, following half a century of restrictive quotas. So it is not suprising that many Americans have trouble grasping the paradox: While the number of minority language speakers is increasing, so is the rate of linguistic assimilation. All available evidence suggests that today's newcomers are learning English ? and losing their native tongues ? more rapidly than ever before. English was far more "threatened" in earlier times; yet it survived quite nicely without official status.
>These assimilative forces are even more powerful today. There is no evidence that bilingual accommodations slow down English acquisition. Absolutely none has been marshalled by English Only advocates ? only unsupported claims about ethnic separatism and immigrants' disinclination to learn English unless forced to do so.
Demographic research shows that now, more than ever, language patterns in America are a case of "Babel in reverse." A massive shift to English continues. This trend has been somewhat masked by rising immigration levels over the past two decades, following half a century of restrictive quotas. So it is not suprising that many Americans have trouble grasping the paradox: While the number of minority language speakers is increasing, so is the rate of linguistic assimilation. All available evidence suggests that today's newcomers are learning English ? and losing their native tongues ? more rapidly than ever before. English was far more "threatened" in earlier times; yet it survived quite nicely without official status.<
1. so why the need to print anything in other than english?
2. why are their entire towns where the vast majority of residents can only speak spanish?
You didn't prove your point, only attempted to disprove mine, which didn't work. There is no reason whatsoever to print any govmnt forms in any other language. it is only done to appease immigrants who have enough critical mass to influence an election. There is no logical reason for it. .................................................. .............................
There is no reason whatsoever to print any govmnt forms in any other language.
And so we go back to my original question: the main thing your proposal aims to affect is government published ephemera. So again, what good does this do and what is the justification for it?
Remember: There is no evidence that bilingual accommodations slow down English acquisition.
it forces people to learn to speak english. If they want to vote, take a drivers license test they would have to know english. Right now its too easy to avoid it....................
well, english only attitude seems pretty strong among many wasps.
i never complain when someone speaks spanglish or english with half spanish, because i understand it.
and i don't complain when other people talk in somali, bengali etc. when they speak english, i normally understand. of course their english isn't always correct, but it's understandable.
i don't understand the british. seriously. i felt like an idiot yesterday all day. working with some who are from w mdls, i can't understand w00t the f00k they are saying. half of time still laughing as i see screens of the young ones while hearing anyone too british, but they don't even bother to talk in non-dialectal english. not understanding them makes me feel extremely stupid, as i rarely have difficulties understanding the people in us speaking english. i know many there have dialects too, but they either speak more civilly when hearing non-local-origin ppl around, or i'm just more americanized. i took it as a compliment as some really badly english speaking french said they don't understand me because of MY american accent.
1. so why the need to print anything in other than english?
because you'll intimidate many people who aren't comfortable reading english (even though they may be able to get by in everyday life speaking it) and they'll do things like bribe driving instructors to give them licenses or just not bother with getting licensed at all.
but that's okay, while we're burying people killed by drivers that have no business driving, steve666 can lie in his bed at night rest assured that we have a "national language".
Thats right, call someone xenophobic in order to defame your opponent. Doesn't work, groverat, just makes you sound petty.
You want to put legal barriers in place against people who don't speak English and you call me "petty"?
Quote:
The point is that many recent immigrants aren't bothering to learn to speak English and our policies are making it easier for them not to have to speak English-thats the problem!
1) Are immigrants in any significant number not "bothering to learn" English?
2) What is wrong with Spanish?
Quote:
I've mentioned before my Grandparents came from Poland and had to learn to speak English, and I agree that they had to.
Ok... so?
I am in college, should college be mandatory? After all, it increases my chances for economic and social success like learning English. Right?
I didn't say it was racism, it's xenophobia. They are different things. There is no reason to not print things in the language that the people speak.
If we all decide to start speaking Pig Latin then the government should print documents in Pig Latin. France can keep government-controlled culture to itself, thanks.
And so we go back to my original question: the main thing your proposal aims to affect is government published ephemera. So again, what good does this do and what is the justification for it?
Remember: There is no evidence that bilingual accommodations slow down English acquisition.
Sure there is. There wouldn't be entire towns where people speak only spanish if ballots and drivers license tests were english only unless they didn't plan to vote or drive, both of which are highly unlikely. The current situation is enabling.......................................... ...............
Comments
Originally posted by steve666
In UK the official language is English. It would not be better to speak only english, like I said it would be better to speak english plus anything else..............................
England, however, wasn't settled by immigrants. It was settled by conquering hordes of, alternately, Romans, Vikings, and French.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by giant
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what exactly you think it will accomplish, steve
I listed all the reasons, bro. Many nationalities, one common language. ...............................
Originally posted by steve666
I listed all the reasons, bro. Many nationalities, one common language. ...............................
That's not a reason.
Really, the only impact an 'official' government language would have would be on the government published ephemera you keep talking about. I fail to see how that could justify a campaign to make the change. I also still fail to see what good that would do.
Originally posted by giant
That's not a reason.
Really, the only impact an 'official' government language would have would be on the government published ephemera you keep talking about. I fail to see how that could justify a campaign to make the change. I also still fail to see what good that would do.
Its a great reason. It shouldnt even be an issue. You move to a country, you learn to speak the language of that country. It was always insinuated that english is the language of the US, unfortunately because of some strange political mumbo jumbo it has become an issue.
Move to the US, speak English. Don't expect anything less.............
So I ask, what good does it do to make English the offical language of the US government and how does it justify the process needed to make the change?
Originally posted by giant
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. All an 'official' language means is that it is the language of government operation. As I pointed out, the only thing your proposal would affect is government published ephemera. So again, what good does this do and how does it justify the process needed to make the change?
it forces people to learn to speak english. If they want to vote, take a drivers license test they would have to know english. Right now its too easy to avoid it....................
Originally posted by giant
Just to add, it is argued that citizen knowledge of foreign language is crucial for overall national security and that the US is sorely lacking in this area. In fact, this issue received special prominence following the WTC attacks because shortage of arab speaking analysts was said to be a factor in intel lapses. As such, the money spent in language and multilingual education is seen to be a matter of importance.
So I ask, what good does it do to make English the offical language of the US government and how does it justify the process needed to make the change?
Once again, I have never said that English should be the only language any American ever knows, but that every American should understand English-there is a difference.
I took spanish from jr. high on, and i think it would have been better to start in elementary school because its easier to learn another language the earlier you start. I am not talking about bi-lingual education which is a disaster, but a language course in addition to other studies such as math and science etc which would be in English of course........................
One thing we can say with certainty: Language diversity has always been with us. As early as 1664, when the island of Manhattan was ceded from the Dutch to the British, 18 different tongues were spoken there, not counting any of the hundreds of Native American languages spoken in North America at the time. In the 1790 census, German Americans accounted for 8.6 percent of the population ? a proportion comparable to that of Hispanic Americans, 9.0 percent, exactly two centuries later. Certainly, there are more languages spoken in the U.S.A. today than in 1790. (The 1990 census reported 323 ? surely an undercount.) But this is a quantitative, not a qualitative, change.
Proportionally speaking, the language-minority population was larger at the turn of the 20th century, when immigration reached its highest levels in U.S. history, than at the turn of the 21st. In the 1890 census, there were 4.5 times as many non-English speakers than in the 1990 census (with its superior capabilities for counting such groups). In 1910, 23 percent of foreign-born whites, 39 percent of Japanese, 41 percent of Chinese, and 66 percent of other immigrants spoke no English, as compared with less than 10 percent of foreign-born residents in 1990. A decade before New Mexico became a state in 1912, two-thirds of its residents remained monolingual speakers of Spanish or Native American languages. Meanwhile, significant enclaves of French speakers remained intact in Louisiana and northern New England. German still predominated in large areas of the upper Midwest. These groups gradually became Anglicized ? not through legislation, but through social changes due to industrialization, migration, road-building, electrification, mass media, and the passing of isolated rural life.
These assimilative forces are even more powerful today. There is no evidence that bilingual accommodations slow down English acquisition. Absolutely none has been marshalled by English Only advocates ? only unsupported claims about ethnic separatism and immigrants' disinclination to learn English unless forced to do so.
Demographic research shows that now, more than ever, language patterns in America are a case of "Babel in reverse." A massive shift to English continues. This trend has been somewhat masked by rising immigration levels over the past two decades, following half a century of restrictive quotas. So it is not suprising that many Americans have trouble grasping the paradox: While the number of minority language speakers is increasing, so is the rate of linguistic assimilation. All available evidence suggests that today's newcomers are learning English ? and losing their native tongues ? more rapidly than ever before. English was far more "threatened" in earlier times; yet it survived quite nicely without official status.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...D/question.htm
Demographic research shows that now, more than ever, language patterns in America are a case of "Babel in reverse." A massive shift to English continues. This trend has been somewhat masked by rising immigration levels over the past two decades, following half a century of restrictive quotas. So it is not suprising that many Americans have trouble grasping the paradox: While the number of minority language speakers is increasing, so is the rate of linguistic assimilation. All available evidence suggests that today's newcomers are learning English ? and losing their native tongues ? more rapidly than ever before. English was far more "threatened" in earlier times; yet it survived quite nicely without official status.<
1. so why the need to print anything in other than english?
2. why are their entire towns where the vast majority of residents can only speak spanish?
You didn't prove your point, only attempted to disprove mine, which didn't work. There is no reason whatsoever to print any govmnt forms in any other language. it is only done to appease immigrants who have enough critical mass to influence an election. There is no logical reason for it. .................................................. .............................
Originally posted by steve666
There is no reason whatsoever to print any govmnt forms in any other language.
And so we go back to my original question: the main thing your proposal aims to affect is government published ephemera. So again, what good does this do and what is the justification for it?
Remember: There is no evidence that bilingual accommodations slow down English acquisition.
Originally posted by steve666
it forces people to learn to speak english. If they want to vote, take a drivers license test they would have to know english. Right now its too easy to avoid it....................
Yes, but right now that's not a problem.
i never complain when someone speaks spanglish or english with half spanish, because i understand it.
and i don't complain when other people talk in somali, bengali etc. when they speak english, i normally understand. of course their english isn't always correct, but it's understandable.
i don't understand the british. seriously. i felt like an idiot yesterday all day. working with some who are from w mdls, i can't understand w00t the f00k they are saying. half of time still laughing as i see screens of the young ones while hearing anyone too british, but they don't even bother to talk in non-dialectal english. not understanding them makes me feel extremely stupid, as i rarely have difficulties understanding the people in us speaking english. i know many there have dialects too, but they either speak more civilly when hearing non-local-origin ppl around, or i'm just more americanized. i took it as a compliment as some really badly english speaking french said they don't understand me because of MY american accent.
Originally posted by steve666
so why the need to print anything in other than english?
To communicate effectively with people who may *speak* english but would understand their native language better for complex documents.
That is why we print these things isn't it? To communicate.
If we increase communication: good. If we reduce it: bad. (within cost costraints / bang per buck considerations obviously)
Originally posted by midwinter
England, however, wasn't settled by immigrants. It was settled by conquering hordes of, alternately, Romans, Vikings, and French.
Oops - you forgot the Angles, Saxons and other germanic tribes, a fairly major grouping...
Originally posted by Bygimis Turug VIII
Oops - you forgot the Angles, Saxons and other germanic tribes, a fairly major grouping...
Ack! I left out the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (oh my!)! Indeed they are a major grouping, since we wouldn't have much of a language without them!
Thanks for pointing that out!
Originally posted by steve666
1. so why the need to print anything in other than english?
because you'll intimidate many people who aren't comfortable reading english (even though they may be able to get by in everyday life speaking it) and they'll do things like bribe driving instructors to give them licenses or just not bother with getting licensed at all.
but that's okay, while we're burying people killed by drivers that have no business driving, steve666 can lie in his bed at night rest assured that we have a "national language".
Thats right, call someone xenophobic in order to defame your opponent. Doesn't work, groverat, just makes you sound petty.
You want to put legal barriers in place against people who don't speak English and you call me "petty"?
The point is that many recent immigrants aren't bothering to learn to speak English and our policies are making it easier for them not to have to speak English-thats the problem!
1) Are immigrants in any significant number not "bothering to learn" English?
2) What is wrong with Spanish?
I've mentioned before my Grandparents came from Poland and had to learn to speak English, and I agree that they had to.
Ok... so?
I am in college, should college be mandatory? After all, it increases my chances for economic and social success like learning English. Right?
I didn't say it was racism, it's xenophobia. They are different things. There is no reason to not print things in the language that the people speak.
If we all decide to start speaking Pig Latin then the government should print documents in Pig Latin. France can keep government-controlled culture to itself, thanks.
Originally posted by giant
And so we go back to my original question: the main thing your proposal aims to affect is government published ephemera. So again, what good does this do and what is the justification for it?
Remember: There is no evidence that bilingual accommodations slow down English acquisition.
Sure there is. There wouldn't be entire towns where people speak only spanish if ballots and drivers license tests were english only unless they didn't plan to vote or drive, both of which are highly unlikely. The current situation is enabling.......................................... ...............