English official language of US? Yes / No?
Charles
official language of the United States?
State your position whether yes or no or undecided.
Robert Lieblich
How about "Don't give a damn"?
Petibacsi
>official language of the United States?
First can we hear the advantage/disadvantage of the proposition? After that
we can vote.
Peti
P&DSchultz
>
> Should Congress change the Constitution to include English as the
> official language of the United States?
>
How about, "refuse to participate, and think the question is stupid"?
//P. Schultz
the jungle kitty
>
> Should Congress change the Constitution to include English as the
> official language of the United States?
>
> State your position whether yes or no or undecided.
http://members.home.net/jkitty/inkhorn/pro
However, this newsgroup deals with the dynamics and history of the
English language - not its political status.
Charles Riggs
REMOVETHISFI...@students.wisc.edu (Charles) wrote:
>Should Congress change the Constitution to include English as the
>official language of the United States?
>
>State your position whether yes or no or undecided.
>
Yes.
And they should do it soon and cease the nonsense of teaching children
to learn or retain a foreign language in their new native land.
Charles
P.S. It takes though the voters of a majority of the states (or is it
all of them?) to decide on amendments to the Constitution. At least
that's the usual way. It should be done anyway.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Charles wrote:
>>
>> Should Congress change the Constitution to include English as the
>> official language of the United States?
>>
>> State your position whether yes or no or undecided.
>
>How about, "refuse to participate, and think the question is stupid"?
>//P. Schultz
I don't know why several posters have attributed this question to me -
I didn't write it, even though it sounds like the sort of question I
might.
BTW, the proper answer is yes.
Charles
Eddy
Charles wrote:
> Should Congress change the Constitution to include English as the
> official language of the United States?
>
> State your position whether yes or no or undecided.
>
This is a hasty reply, but unless you want to give rule of yourselves
over to the Spanish speaking Americans you should make English your
official language. In Canada, where official bilingualism has been the
public policy for several years now, there is a bilingual French prime
minister year in and year out. Promotions in the civil service go to the
bilingual French person not the English person -- even the English
person who has learned to be relatively fluent in French. The people of
the majority language tend to be forgiving of the minority language
person's mistakes in his second language. The reverse is not true. My
cousin, who's mother tongue is English, does not get promotions in the
public service sector because she fails the French tests. She was
schooled in French since grade one, but her French "just isn't good
enough". The panels that do the judging of the English people's skills
invariably demand native fluency which basically is impossible to
achieve for a non-native. What they do is throw her questions why out of
her field and expect her to know the French terminology off the top of
her head. Many French people could not come up with the correct
terminology! And if you do not have French just forget it all together.
And that goes for many university positions too.
See what happens is this: the minority group is surrounded by the
majorities language and culture and pick up the second language more
readily that the majority would be able to pick up the minority
language. The minority develop a whole bunch of 'bilingual' people. If
America decides to include a second official language, who are the
bilingual people going to be who will fill the ever increasing number of
bilingual positions? Not your English American. The Spanish would
literally fill any new position available. It sounds impossible but what
else could happen? Some but very few native English speakers in the
United States can speak Spanish, while many Spanish are already quite
capable in English. Start hiring Spanish on a regular basis to fill the
more and more positions in government that are declared necessarily
bilingual, give it some time, ten or so years, and you will have a large
group of people who can say what they will behind the back of an English
speaker and who are in positions of power and decision making.
This is my opinion, an assessment of watching years of official
bilingualism. Years of living in a predominantly English country ruled
for decades predominantly by people from the French province. I'm not
saying if it is a good or a evil, I'm just saying that if you want a
government where an English speaking person has no real future, and
policy and decision and promotion go to Spanish speakers then by all
means follow a course of official bilingualism. If you want your
government to remain basically English speaking then don't.
vfra...@fea.net
to have some official capacity, but I don't know what
this official designation entailed, but I do remember
reading that English beat German in this decision by a
single vote. Thus, we could be writing all these posts
in German if that vote had been different. As it is,
I guess Americans decided they wanted to piss off the
Brits more than they wanted to piss off the Germans.
Anyone know what this Congressional decision entailed?
-Vince Francis
-----------------------------------------------------
NO ADS!!! (You email marketers are obnoxious as hell)
-----------------------------------------------------
In article <35f8fffa...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
REMOVETHISFI...@students.wisc.edu (Charles) wrote:
> Should Congress change the Constitution to include English as the
> official language of the United States?
>
> State your position whether yes or no or undecided.
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Writer S
this is a belief not borne out by any facts. He meticulously details
his findings in his writings, so that's where I'd look to discover the
origins of this tale.
Sorry to intrude...
Sasq...@my-dejanews.com
pri...@not.given (Writer S) wrote:
> According to Bill Bryson (The Mother Tongue, Made In America, et al.)
> this is a belief not borne out by any facts. He meticulously details
> his findings in his writings, so that's where I'd look to discover the
> origins of this tale.
>
> Sorry to intrude...
No intrusion at all. That's good info, and is better documentation than
I had.
-V. Francis
JR Pelland
>
> Charles wrote:
>
> > Should Congress change the Constitution to include English as the
> > official language of the United States?
> >
> > State your position whether yes or no or undecided.
> >
>
> over to the Spanish speaking Americans you should make English your
> official language.
I believe the question was whether or not to make ENGLISH an official
language, not Spanish.
In Canada, where official bilingualism has been the
> public policy for several years now, there is a bilingual French prime
> minister year in and year out.
In the 131 years since Canadian Confederation, there have been but four
French-Canadian prime ministers: Jean Chrétien, Pierre Trudeau, Louis
St-Laurent and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That is not in my opinion, an
over-representation of our group. In fact, until recent times we have
been direly under-represented.
Promotions in the civil service go to the
> bilingual French person not the English person -- even the English
> person who has learned to be relatively fluent in French.
Only in a certain number of positions in designated areas is
bilingualism considered obligatory. Bilingual anglophones are as
qualified for these positions as bilingual francophones.
The people of
> the majority language tend to be forgiving of the minority language
> person's mistakes in his second language.
I think this is poppycock. People are quite often judged by their
language proficiency and accent. How many English speaking Canadians
criticise and mock Mr. Chrétien solely because of his accent?
>The reverse is not true.
The resverse is more apt to be true because while the majority group
expects and often demands that the minority speak the majority language,
the minority group is more likley to be appreciative of the fact that an
outsider is making the effort to speak the language of the minority.
My
> cousin, who's mother tongue is English, does not get promotions in the
> public service sector because she fails the French tests. She was
> schooled in French since grade one, but her French "just isn't good
> enough". The panels that do the judging of the English people's skills
> invariably demand native fluency which basically is impossible to
> achieve for a non-native. What they do is throw her questions why out of
> her field and expect her to know the French terminology off the top of
> her head. Many French people could not come up with the correct
> terminology! And if you do not have French just forget it all together.
Sounds like a lot of gossip and story-telling to me.
> And that goes for many university positions too.
>
While most Canadian universities are unilingual, there are a few
bilingual ones.(Laurentian and Ottawa come to mind.) The professors are
only required to be proficient in the languages in which they teach.
Obviously, some administrative and secretarial positions do require
bilingualism for positions which deal with both language groups.
Locally, the president of the university is bilingual, but his
predecessor was not.
> See what happens is this: the minority group is surrounded by the
> majorities language and culture and pick up the second language more
> readily that the majority would be able to pick up the minority
> language.
Interesting that you used the phrase "picks up", while those who undergo
the process would say that they were forced by necessity. While most
francophones outside Quebec are by necessity fluent in both languages,
there are many unilingual francophones in Quebec. Becoming bilingual for
the jobs you mention is just as much a challenge for them as it is for
unilingual anglos. If francophones are presently over-represented in the
civil service, it is because they were forced to learn English, while
many anglos held French in low esteem and could not be bothered to learn
our language. Hence, the paucity of bilingual anglos.
>The minority develop a whole bunch of 'bilingual' people.
Many English speaking children across the country are currently enrolled
in French immersion programmes. Any advantages currently being enjoyed
by bilingual francophones will disappear in time as the number of
bilingual anglophones increases. The anglos are not learning French out
of a sense of patriotism or goodwill, but rather for financial gain,
whereas the French learned English to survive.
Jean-Richard Pelland
P&DSchultz
>
> >Charles wrote:
> >>
> >> Should Congress change the Constitution to include English as the
> >> official language of the United States?
> >>
> >> State your position whether yes or no or undecided.
> >
> >//P. Schultz
>
> I don't know why several posters have attributed this question to me -
> I didn't write it, even though it sounds like the sort of question I
> might.
> BTW, the proper answer is yes.
I would be in favor of such an amendment, on the condition that
the amendment itself be written in Spanish and added to the
Constitution like that. Otherwise, the monoglots should keep
their hammy hands off my Constitution.
//P. Schultz
//P. Schultz
P&DSchultz
> ...
> And they should do it soon and cease the nonsense of teaching children
> to learn or retain a foreign language in their new native land.
Their *new* native land? You mean they had an *old* native land?
//P. Schultz
bush...@sympatico.ca
Eddy <ed...@canada.com> wrote:
> In Canada, where official bilingualism has been the
> public policy for several years now, there is a bilingual French prime
> minister year in and year out.
Sorry, you're wrong about the Prime Minister. Historically, there is a strong
tendency to alternate between anglophone and francophone. The current Prime
Minister, Jean Chretien, is francophone but he was preceded by Brian Mulroney,
an anglophone.
Cheers,
Jack Bush
JUST AN H
>official language of the United States?
>
>State your position whether yes or no or undecided.
>
>
Absolutely not. Such a measure is "feel good" at best, and has no place in the
Constitution. Besides, if such a measure were to pass, then Americans would go
on speaking whatever language they chose ... just as they've done since the
Pilgrims landed. However, I have no problem with local laws which dictate that
education of our children shall be conducted in English.
Charles Riggs
>At some time in the 1800s, Congress voted for English
>to have some official capacity, but I don't know what
>this official designation entailed, but I do remember
>reading that English beat German in this decision by a
>single vote.
A little earlier in U.S. history, a debate raged over what should be
the national bird. The eagle won out, but good old Ben Franklin argued
for the much kinder turkey; not to mention the bird's significance in
feeding the Pilgrims. So perhaps when they're changing the
Constitution to disallow Spanish from replacing English in grade
schools (a more practical version of the solution, I think), they
should make the beautiful, good-to-eat, less aggressive turkey the
national bird.
Charles
Charles Riggs
wrote:
All right. Hows about their "adopted country"?
Charles
janelaw
>
> On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 22:25:21 GMT,
> REMOVETHISFI...@students.wisc.edu (Charles) wrote:
>
> >official language of the United States?
> >
> >State your position whether yes or no or undecided.
> >
> And they should do it soon and cease the nonsense of teaching children
> to learn or retain a foreign language in their new native land.
>
Charles couldn't have posed the question. If the children are
in the United States and speaking a particular language, how can
it be "foreign?" You try learning geography in Hungarian.
janelaw
>
> Charles wrote:
>
> > Should Congress change the Constitution to include English as the
> > official language of the United States?
> >
> > State your position whether yes or no or undecided.
> >
>
> over to the Spanish speaking Americans you should make English your
> public policy for several years now, there is a bilingual French prime
> bilingual French person not the English person -- even the English
> person who has learned to be relatively fluent in French.
This makes absolutely no sense. Why would Canada have enough
English and French civil servants for this to be an issue?
These people are Canadians; some of them are more proficient in
language than others. Tell your cousin to go back to school.
No Email Ads!!!
(yuk, yuk)
In article <35fbc9f8...@news.anu.ie>,
--
-------------------------------------------------
No Email Ads! You email marketers are obnoxious!
Eddy
bush...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> In article <35F7D130...@canada.com>,
> Eddy <ed...@canada.com> wrote:
> > In Canada, where official bilingualism has been the
> > public policy for several years now, there is a bilingual French prime
> > minister year in and year out.
>
> Sorry, you're wrong about the Prime Minister. Historically, there is a strong
> tendency to alternate between anglophone and francophone. The current Prime
> Minister, Jean Chretien, is francophone but he was preceded by Brian Mulroney,
> an anglophone.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jack Bush
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
Mulroney is very much a Quebecer, and presently lives in Montreal. If you want to
cite the few months of Kim Cambell, Turner and Clark as the alternates to the
years and years of Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien (all from Quebec) then be my
guest.
Eddy
janelaw wrote:
> Eddy wrote:
> >
> > Charles wrote:
> >
> > > Should Congress change the Constitution to include English as the
> > > official language of the United States?
> > >
> > > State your position whether yes or no or undecided.
> > >
> >
> > This is a hasty reply, but unless you want to give rule of yourselves
> > over to the Spanish speaking Americans you should make English your
> > official language. In Canada, where official bilingualism has been the
> > public policy for several years now, there is a bilingual French prime
> > minister year in and year out. Promotions in the civil service go to the
> > bilingual French person not the English person -- even the English
> > person who has learned to be relatively fluent in French.
>
> This makes absolutely no sense. Why would Canada have enough
> English and French civil servants for this to be an issue?
> These people are Canadians; some of them are more proficient in
> language than others. Tell your cousin to go back to school.
>
I was waitng for someone to question her ability in French. She is esentially
fluent and was schooled in French for many years. Not just lessons of French
but her lessons were in French. She is articulate and intelligent. She
attended a bilingual university and is esentially a bilingual, but she wasn't
born in Quebec and her native tongue is English. The panels that she must face
to evaluate her French demand some sort of hyper fluency from the English
bilinguals.
Eddy
JR Pelland wrote:
> Eddy wrote:
> >
> > Charles wrote:
> >
> > > Should Congress change the Constitution to include English as the
> > > official language of the United States?
> > >
> > > State your position whether yes or no or undecided.
> > >
> >
> > This is a hasty reply, but unless you want to give rule of yourselves
> > over to the Spanish speaking Americans you should make English your
> > official language.
>
> I believe the question was whether or not to make ENGLISH an official
> language, not Spanish.
>
> In Canada, where official bilingualism has been the
> > public policy for several years now, there is a bilingual French prime
> > minister year in and year out.
>
> In the 131 years since Canadian Confederation, there have been but four
> French-Canadian prime ministers: Jean Chrétien, Pierre Trudeau, Louis
> St-Laurent and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That is not in my opinion, an
> over-representation of our group. In fact, until recent times we have
> been direly under-represented.
>
> Promotions in the civil service go to the
> > bilingual French person not the English person -- even the English
> > person who has learned to be relatively fluent in French.
>
Your point about Prime Ministers:
Who's over represented, who's under-represented? There are ten provinces and
three territories. Trudeau was in office 21 years, Mulroney at least 8, and
Chretien will be in for that long as well too. Since 1968 Canada has basically
been governed by French speaking Quebecers. Mulroney is very much a Quebecer
and French speaking and was in power a decade, give or take a year or two.
Now get me right, although I'm not fluent in French I can pass for French in
simple situations like ordering coffee at a donut shop and so on, can
understand clearly read news reports and so on (but by no means am I fluent).
I'm pro-French. I just think that the bilingualism policies (if they are to
continiue) should be fair all round and that a person should be considered for
bilingual positions if they are bilingual not just if they are Quebecers or
"pur lain" or whatever the term is. And the level of bilingual ability should
be go both ways equally. This business of my cousin not being bilingual
enough shouldn't happen when you get French people who can't even pronounce
"th" while performing their duties in officially bilingual positions.
- - -
Your point about Mr. Chretien's English:
The reverse is not true. The minority person tends to not tolerate the
majority person's attempt to speak the minority language. The conversation
tends to switch to the majority person's language. The majority person's
skills in the minority language are not developed. I'm not including
girlfriends and boyfriends in this equation, because there is often a transfer
of skills (among other things) in such a situation! Note that while Chretien's
English skill are quite ah, colourful, he was voted in as Prime Minister. It
is unlikely Quebecers would vote for an English person who's skills in French
seemed about the same as Chretien's skills in English -- and you know it.
Although, in my humble opinion such an English person could make a great Prime
Minister with that much French.
- - -
Your point about French immersion of English kids:
Yes many English children are enrolled in schools that provide a French
schooling environment. My cousins was. But many many English civil servants
report that although they have fluency in French they feel excluded
nevertheless.
- - -
Your point about bilingual positions, this is just a comment:
The number of positions designated "bilingual" just grows and grows.
- - -
Back to the question at hand, the U. S. of A. and official languages:
I have a theory that all this is unimportant, though, that part of what makes
Canada work is that English people do well in business and French people do
well in government. I'm just stating observations, reporting some gossip
(some very very close to home, I live in Ottawa and many people in my family
have worked for the federal government), and drawing on years of reading
newspaper reports. It's not because I have a particular love of French people
or English people, I'm just reporting how it seems to me.
But as to whether the US should make English an official language well, if
they don't then other languages will be introduced into the governing system
and the native speakers of those languages (say Spanish) will be the ones who
will fill the open positions in the bureaucracies even if the positons are
called "bilingual". Meanwhile, if any State becomes predominantly Spanish
speaking it will start mumbling "separation" and a circle of appeasements and
threats will start. I read how English Califonians feel threatened in some
parts of their own State and get..er .. well, not blessed at -- something
else, in Spanish. It's really up to Americans to decide whether to make any
language official, I'm just musing on possible outcomes.
- - -
Your point about survival:
Do you think Ontario voted Liberal the way it did (there was a virtual lockout
of any other party, there were electorates where in every polling station the
Liberals won a majority) in the last election because they like the Liberal
party? No way. It's because of the threat of civil war that separation
embodies. Chretien made sure he wore a tie that was red and white at every
major public occasion and that the Ontario public got the message i.e that the
Liberals stood for a united Canada. During the Quebec referendum Ottawans were
scared sh*tless. People openly wondered about an economic crash, loss of
homes or civil war. So don't talk about Quebecers motivated by survival, it's
the English speakers who are so motivated, my friend.
Economics is about survival, my friend. Either there is money coming in, one
already owns a farm, or one doesn't eat
- - -
p.s. while the English speakers were no angels (downright snoots, actually),
don't believe everything you read in those Quebec history books. I started
reading one and had to put it down because it 'vilified' the English and made
'innocent' Quebecers so much so that it, well anyway I stopped reading it but
got the idea Quebecers were taught a different history.
p.p.s. It is extraordinarily interesting that you exclude Mulroney as a
"French" Prime Minister. Born and raised in Quebec and decidedly French
speaking, nevertheless he was not on your list. He is English speaking and
Irish in his lineage but he was born and breed in Quebec not far from Quebec
City and grew up in a French community. Excluded, just like my cousin .. not
"French" enough. He got into power because he was a member of the PC party
(not exactly Quebec's most popular political party), not because he was
supported by Quebec voters (but his riding voted for him natch!). Your
excluding him basically proves my point.
What I would like to see is my cousin declared "bilingual" and her French
skills as good as they are, not come into question again, especially as a
means to her exclusion because of her mother tongue and place of birth. Can
you imagine if French people were excluded if the couldn't pronounce an
English "TH". Three quarters of the officially bilingual positions would be
emptied. But hey, if an English bilingual does know some technical term in
French it's "You .. out! Close de door behind you, and don't foorget to close
da light". "Close the light" !??!?
- - -
I said my piece and will not refute anything more. I like French and I like
French people. It's just that I think if there is to be official bilingualism
it needs to apply to people who are bilingual not just people who are
bilingual and are from Quebec. And I can't really recommend it to Americans
unless we here in Canada can make it perfectly fair. . And I think will soon
be time for a non-Quebec Prime Minister for a spell longer than a few months.
Square head signing off.
bye for now,
salut, eh?
JR Pelland
While I think this is somewhat off topic for alt.english.usage, I am
compelled to reply.
> >
> >
>
> Your point about Prime Ministers:
>
> Who's over represented, who's under-represented? There are ten provinces and
> three territories.
While Confederation took place in 1867, the first French-Canadian prime
minister, Wilfrid Laurier, was not elected until 1896. The second, Louis
St-Laurent, was not elected until 1948.(Of course, if you live in
Ottawa, you would call him St.Laurent, as they do on the street signs).
Trudeau was in office 21 years,
Mr. Trudeau was in office from 1968 to 1979, then served another term
from 1980 to 1984. Perhaps those disliked him thought he was there for
21 years but to me it adds up to fifteen years.
Mulroney at least 8,
Sept 1984 to June 1993.
and
> Chretien will be in for that long as well too. Since 1968 Canada has basically
> been governed by French speaking Quebecers.
During the 131 years since Confederation, a French-Canadian has been
prime minister for less than 44 of those years. Granted,
French-Canadians seem to have been more popular than most English
Canadian PMs.
Mulroney is very much a Quebecer
> and French speaking and was in power a decade, give or take a year or two.
I never said he was not a Quebecker. He was a bilingual anglophone from
Baie Comeau. Just because he was from Quebec does not make him French
anymore than being from New Brunswick makes our governor general, Roméo
LeBlanc, English.
>
> Now get me right, although I'm not fluent in French I can pass for French in
> simple situations like ordering coffee at a donut shop and so on, can
> understand clearly read news reports and so on (but by no means am I fluent).
> I'm pro-French. I just think that the bilingualism policies (if they are to
> continiue) should be fair all round and that a person should be considered for
> bilingual positions if they are bilingual not just if they are Quebecers or
> "pur lain" or whatever the term is.
The term is "pure laine", and it has nothing to do with quallifying for
bilingual positions. The fact is, that there are many more bilingual
francophones than there are bilingual anglophones. That is why
francophones take the lion's share of bilingual positions.
And the level of bilingual ability should
> be go both ways equally. This business of my cousin not being bilingual
> enough shouldn't happen when you get French people who can't even pronounce
> "th" while performing their duties in officially bilingual positions.
> - - -
Many people who are fluent in English(second language speakers) are
unable to correctly pronounce the "th" sounds. Offhand, European Spanish
is the only other language I can think of that has such sounds. Such a
speach defect is hardly a handicap to good communication. Many bilingual
anglos cannot properly pronounce the "u" in "voulu", but that does not
make them any less intelligible.
>
> Your point about Mr. Chretien's English:
> The reverse is not true. The minority person tends to not tolerate the
> majority person's attempt to speak the minority language.
Agian, I disagree people are GRATEFUL that someone would make such an
attempt.
The conversation
> tends to switch to the majority person's language.
That is because the francophones are likely to be more proficient in
English than the anglo is in French. Also, francophones have been
conditioned not to expect anglos to make any attemp at speaking French
so that speaking English with an anglo is almost a reflex.
The majority person's
> skills in the minority language are not developed.
Any anglo in Canada can learn the language with reasonable ease if he
choses to do so. It is a matter of choice, the resources are there for
the using.
I'm not including
> girlfriends and boyfriends in this equation, because there is often a transfer
> of skills (among other things) in such a situation! Note that while Chretien's
> English skill are quite ah, colourful, he was voted in as Prime Minister.
I have always maintained, that his English skills, while impaired by
his thick accent, are better than many English speaking Canadians.
It
> is unlikely Quebecers would vote for an English person who's skills in French
> seemed about the same as Chretien's skills in English -- and you know it.
We have had a myriad of prime ministers who did not speak French,
Mackenzie-king, Dieffenbaker and Pearson come to mind. But you are
right, why should French-Canadians accept a prime minister who does not
speak their language? God knows English Canadians have never been
governed by someone who does not speak theirs.
> Although, in my humble opinion such an English person could make a great Prime
> Minister with that much French.
> - - -
> Your point about French immersion of English kids:
>
> Yes many English children are enrolled in schools that provide a French
> schooling environment. My cousins was. But many many English civil servants
> report that although they have fluency in French they feel excluded
> nevertheless.
They may well feel excluded from the francophones, because while both
groups may speak French, they have different cultures and values. As is
the case with Mulroney, speaking the language does automatically make
you a French-Canadian.
> - - -
>
> Your point about bilingual positions, this is just a comment:
> The number of positions designated "bilingual" just grows and grows.
> - - -
I'm glad to hear it since it so damn hard to get French service in so
many areas. Frankly, I don't care who fills the positions, as long as
they can speak my language.
>
> Back to the question at hand, the U. S. of A. and official languages:
>
>
> But as to whether the US should make English an official language well, if
> they don't then other languages will be introduced into the governing system
> and the native speakers of those languages (say Spanish) will be the ones who
> will fill the open positions in the bureaucracies even if the positons are
> called "bilingual". Meanwhile, if any State becomes predominantly Spanish
> speaking it will start mumbling "separation" and a circle of appeasements and
> threats will start.
I disagree. While Quebec separatists view Canada as a colonial state,
and therefore revile its citizenship, hispanics are queueing up all over
the place to gain the benefits of American citizenship. Whether they
speak English or not, I doubt that they would be willing to forego the
economic advantages of US citizenship.
I read how English Califonians feel threatened in some
> parts of their own State and get..er .. well, not blessed at -- something
> else, in Spanish.
Do you feel threatened by the French in Canada?
It's really up to Americans to decide whether to make any
> language official, I'm just musing on possible outcomes.
>
> - - -
>
> Your point about survival:
>
> Do you think Ontario voted Liberal the way it did (there was a virtual lockout
> of any other party, there were electorates where in every polling station the
> Liberals won a majority) in the last election because they like the Liberal
> party? No way. It's because of the threat of civil war that separation
> embodies.
I think the threat of civil war is somewhere between negligible and
non-existant.
While I do not think Quebec will separate, I would respect a clear
majority vote in favour of separation. I think most Canadians would do
likewise.
Chretien made sure he wore a tie that was red and white at every
> major public occasion and that the Ontario public got the message i.e that the
> Liberals stood for a united Canada.
At present, the Liberals are the only viable national party, so it is
small wonder that they get elected. The last two opposition parties are
largely viewed as being regional parties; one for Quebec, the other for
the West.
During the Quebec referendum Ottawans were
> scared sh*tless. People openly wondered about an economic crash, loss of
> homes or civil war. So don't talk about Quebecers motivated by survival, it's
> the English speakers who are so motivated, my friend.
Ottawa has always had a surreal aura about it.
>
> Economics is about survival, my friend. Either there is money coming in, one
> already owns a farm, or one doesn't eat
> - - -
Economics are what is going to prevent separation from becoming reality.
>
> p.s. while the English speakers were no angels (downright snoots, actually),
> don't believe everything you read in those Quebec history books.
I have long wished that education were a federal juristiction so that
all Canadians would learn a shared common history, not different
versions in every province.
I started
> reading one and had to put it down because it 'vilified' the English and made
> 'innocent' Quebecers so much so that it, well anyway I stopped reading it but
> got the idea Quebecers were taught a different history.
>
> p.p.s. It is extraordinarily interesting that you exclude Mulroney as a
> "French" Prime Minister. Born and raised in Quebec and decidedly French
> speaking, nevertheless he was not on your list. He is English speaking and
> Irish in his lineage but he was born and breed in Quebec not far from Quebec
> City and grew up in a French community. Excluded, just like my cousin .. not
> "French" enough.
Again, I find it extraodinary that so many anglos want to pawn him off
on us. Can't say that I blame you though. I was really miffed to see him
get named for the Order of Canada.
> What I would like to see is my cousin declared "bilingual" and her
French
> skills as good as they are, not come into question again, especially as a
> means to her exclusion because of her mother tongue and place of birth. Can
> you imagine if French people were excluded if the couldn't pronounce an
> English "TH". Three quarters of the officially bilingual positions would be
> emptied. But hey, if an English bilingual does know some technical term in
> French it's "You .. out! Close de door behind you, and don't foorget to close
> da light". "Close the light" !??!?
Geez its a good thing you're pro-French, I'd hate to run into someone
who doesn't like us!
>
> - - -
>
> I said my piece and will not refute anything more. I like French and I like
> French people.
Someone very close to me once said the same thing, and then added, "but
you shouldn't speak French in public".
It's just that I think if there is to be official bilingualism
> it needs to apply to people who are bilingual not just people who are
> bilingual and are from Quebec.
Look, I don't fully understand your resentment. It is exceedingly rare
for an anglophone not to get adaquate service; for many francophones it
is almost a daily occurence. I would be very happy if I could get
adequately served in the official language of my choice.
And I can't really recommend it to Americans
> unless we here in Canada can make it perfectly fair. . And I think will soon
> be time for a non-Quebec Prime Minister for a spell longer than a few months.
Seems the rest of Canada has little to offer in the way of leadership.
Manning sure is not PM material, and I doubt that Joe Who? can do much
either.
JR
Charles Riggs
>Eddy wrote:
>>
>> Charles wrote:
>>
>> > Should Congress change the Constitution to include English as the
>> > official language of the United States?
>> >
>> > State your position whether yes or no or undecided.
>> >
>>
>> This is a hasty reply, but unless you want to give rule of yourselves
>> over to the Spanish speaking Americans you should make English your
>> official language. In Canada, where official bilingualism has been the
>> public policy for several years now, there is a bilingual French prime
>> minister year in and year out. Promotions in the civil service go to the
>> bilingual French person not the English person -- even the English
>> person who has learned to be relatively fluent in French.
>
>This makes absolutely no sense. Why would Canada have enough
>English and French civil servants for this to be an issue?
>These people are Canadians; some of them are more proficient in
>language than others. Tell your cousin to go back to school.
No Jane. Have you been to Canada? This is more a national and a
cultural issue than a language one. In fact, it is not really a
language issue at all. The French verses English, or should I say
France verses England, question is a serious problem in the great land
of Canada and could lead to revolution yet.
Charles
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>It is not for Congress to engage in "fowl" discussions.
>(yuk, yuk)
Since when?!
(Ho, ho)
Looks as if they'll be doing so again soon.
Charles Riggs
>If it were the language of "their new native land," (sic) then
>Charles couldn't have posed the question. If the children are
>in the United States and speaking a particular language, how can
>it be "foreign?" You try learning geography in Hungarian.
Usually I find your posts logical and very often true but, except for
the "native" part where I admit to having made a tiny faux pas, the
part about "how can a particular language be foreign?" went right over
my clean shaven head! Isn't Spanish a foreign language in the United
States? It's not a Spanish immigrant I'm speaking of, rather what is
the definition of a foreign language? Now I've confused myself: is a
Mexican, say, who has settled into the U.S. and not yet learned
English or gained citizenship a foreigner? Aren't I called an Alien
in Ireland? That sounds even worse to me!
Charles
Serenleono
>It is not for Congress to engage in "fowl" discussions.
>(yuk, yuk)
The whole legislative branch is part of a vast chicken-wing
conspiracy.
Seren
P&DSchultz
> ... Isn't Spanish a foreign language in the United
> States? ...
Since large areas of what is now the United States have been Spanish
speaking since before the Mayflower passengers were born, by what logic
could Spanish be considered a foreign Language? When you conquer a
territory, the language spoken there doesn't suddenly become foreign.
Do you consider Navajo a foreign language?
//P. Schultz
janelaw
Charles,
Sorry I sicced you.
No, Spanish is not a foreign language in this country. It has
been spoken here since Spain invaded the North and South
American continents. Spanish-speaking people have been born,
and have lived and died here for hundreds of years.
The United States has no official language. Unlike Europe, this
continent was populated by immigrants from other countries
within the last 400 years. People brought their native
languages with them and continued to use them here. I imagine
they did this because 1) they still considered themselves
citizens of the colonizing country and 2) the native languages
like Micmac were totally different from their own. Then there
is the basic rule of historical linguistics: whoever has the
bigger guns keeps their language.
In Canada, French has become the predominant language in part of
the country, while English is most common elsewhere. The
geographical distribution is more scattered in the United
States. Puerto Ricans' native language is Spanish. Many people
along the Canadian border speak French. Near the Mexican
border, many speak Spanish. Portuguese is the most common
native language in an area that comprises all of southeastern
Massachusetts and eastern Rhode Island. Since the war in
Vietnam, there have been large Vietnamese communities in most
major cities here. Native Americans continue to speak the
languages they spoke half a millennium ago. I list these only
as examples; almost every language of the world is spoken
somewhere in the United States.
Some English speakers would like all the native Spanish,
Portuguese, Italian, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Russian, French,
Micmac, etc. speakers to change their language to English. How
arrogant! IMHO, those who wants a single language enough to
change the Constitution, should be willing to give up their
own. I believe that this push to make English the official
language reflects the deeper problems of bigotry, ethnocentrism,
and xenophobia within our society.
Jane
(handing soapbox to you)
the jungle kitty
>
> Charles Riggs wrote:
>
> Charles Riggs wrote:
"America" is a geographical concept. "The United States of America" is
a political entity. Neither existed before Europeans came to the "New
World." Navajo can be considered "foreign" in that it is not the
everyday language of Americans.
I do not mean to denigrate indigenous peoples. The tired argument that
they are "native" Americans is moot because there was no America before
European colonization.
janelaw
Navajo is the everyday language of some Americans.
Serenleono
>"America" is a geographical concept. "The United States of America" is
>a political entity. Neither existed before Europeans came to the "New
>World." Navajo can be considered "foreign" in that it is not the
>everyday language of Americans.
No, that won't work, because the Navajo are Americans too, both in the
sense of being indigenous to the North American continent and as
citizens of the United States of America. Their language isn't,
therefore, "foreign" in the sense of its belonging to a country
outside of one's own. However . . .
Since the Navajo also remain members of their own separate nation (at
least I believe; many other tribes do, I'm certain), that *does* make
their language foreign to those citizens of the United States who
aren't also citizens of the Navajo nation.
But none of this makes English any more or less foreign itself. As
has been mentioned, there is no statutory national language for the
USA, nor is there a single language which all USans write and speak.
Therefore, English can be called the *majority language* of the United
States, but not the national language.
>I do not mean to denigrate indigenous peoples. The tired argument that
>they are "native" Americans is moot because there was no America before
>European colonization.
That's playing word games, though. The land existed, whatever it was
called. Or are you suggesting that the indigenous peoples were
treading water until Columbus came and raised the land/lowered the sea
level? ;-)
Seren
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>P&DSchultz wrote:
>>
>> Charles Riggs wrote:
>> > ... Isn't Spanish a foreign language in the United
>> > States? ...
>>
>> Since large areas of what is now the United States have been Spanish
>> speaking since before the Mayflower passengers were born, by what logic
>> could Spanish be considered a foreign Language? When you conquer a
>> territory, the language spoken there doesn't suddenly become foreign.
>> Do you consider Navajo a foreign language?
>> //P. Schultz
>P&DSchultz wrote:
>>
>> Charles Riggs wrote:
>> > ... Isn't Spanish a foreign language in the United
>> > States? ...
>>
>> Since large areas of what is now the United States have been Spanish
>> speaking since before the Mayflower passengers were born, by what logic
>> could Spanish be considered a foreign Language? When you conquer a
>> territory, the language spoken there doesn't suddenly become foreign.
>> Do you consider Navajo a foreign language?
>> //P. Schultz
>
>"America" is a geographical concept. "The United States of America" is
>a political entity. Neither existed before Europeans came to the "New
>World." Navajo can be considered "foreign" in that it is not the
>everyday language of Americans.
>
>I do not mean to denigrate indigenous peoples. The tired argument that
>they are "native" Americans is moot because there was no America before
>European colonization.
Bull.
Charles
Charles Riggs
Jane,
>Charles,
>
>Sorry I sicced you.
I had to look that one up to see what you did to me and the nearest I
could find was siccative. You dried me? No, that can't be it. Please
forward definition of sicced. :-)
>... almost every language of the world is spoken
>somewhere in the United States.
That's true and I think it is there that you ruined your argument. If
we are not to have a Tower of Babel, we must agree on a language. What
you said earlier, however, isn't quite correct. Although it is not in
the U.S. Constitution, English was early-on decided by the founding
fathers of the country to the standard, if not the official, language.
German was strongly considered and rejected. Spanish was never even
considered nor were the myriad other languages on the face of this
green earth. English, thank God, won out. English is the language of
the United States of America. No other language can make that claim.
>Some English speakers would like all the native Spanish,
>Portuguese, Italian, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Russian, French,
>Micmac, etc. speakers to change their language to English. How
>arrogant!
Not at all, my fine fluent friend. I'd like all of them to LEARN
English, not reject their native language. That's not too much to ask.
The French speak French, Italians speak Italian, Germans speak German,
und so weider.
Charles
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>> ... Isn't Spanish a foreign language in the United
>> States? ...
>
>Since large areas of what is now the United States have been Spanish
>speaking since before the Mayflower passengers were born, by what logic
>could Spanish be considered a foreign Language? When you conquer a
>territory, the language spoken there doesn't suddenly become foreign.
>Do you consider Navajo a foreign language?
>//P. Schultz
No, but that's being a bit unfair. The Indians were in the region now
called The United States around 30,000 years before the white man, and
can rightly be called natives. The Spanish were relatively recent
invaders who, along with their language, were usurped by the English
speaking invaders. I think if you check the foreign language
department of nearly any university in the U.S. you will find courses
in German, French and so forth and SPANISH.
Charles
janelaw
> Jane,
>
> On 12 Sep 1998 15:09:32 GMT, janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >Charles,
> >Sorry I sicced you.
>
> I had to look that one up to see what you did to me and the nearest I
> could find was siccative. You dried me? No, that can't be it. Please
> forward definition of sicced. :-)
Sic (sic) v. 1) to attack an earlier poster in a public news
group by placing (sic) after an error in that person's post -
Cf. dis.
>
> >... almost every language of the world is spoken
> >somewhere in the United States.
>
> That's true and I think it is there that you ruined your argument. If
> we are not to have a Tower of Babel, we must agree on a language.
I just don't buy this. I enjoy the diversity. If you (3rd
person) choose any one language in a society where many citizens
speak another, you automatically make them second class
citizens. When you give up your language, you lose your
culture. IMHO, just about the only thing that this country can
brag about is its diversity.
This attempt to make English the national language is just a
knee-jerk reaction to the frustrations of living in a world
society. Even if the proposal were adopted, the problem would
not be solved. No matter how much a person wants everyone to
speak English, it is not going to happen. We still need to
communicate with the French-, Spanish-, Japanese-, and
Farsi-speaking people of the world on a daily basis. It is
cruel as well as futile to take this frustration out on
Americans who do not speak English. One would do far better to
promote development of better and smaller babelfish, so that we
can carry the key to world communication in the palms of our
hands.
> What
> you said earlier, however, isn't quite correct. Although it is not in
> the U.S. Constitution, English was early-on decided by the founding
> fathers of the country to the standard, if not the official, language.
>
> German was strongly considered and rejected. Spanish was never even
> considered nor were the myriad other languages on the face of this
> green earth. English, thank God, won out. English is the language of
> the United States of America. No other language can make that claim.
So what? Things have changed. If we stuck will all the
Founding Fathers' decisions, then we would still have slavery
and only white men would be allowed to vote. The United States
is no longer a tiny little area full of English and German
colonists. You may have noticed that the country has expanded
substantially in the last 200 years and now includes many areas
in which other languages are spoken. Spanish is so prevalent in
many parts of the country that proficiency is de rigueur for
anyone in frequent contact with the public. IMO, many English
speakers in these areas push for your proposal because they
would rather make everyone else learn English than bother to
learn Spanish themselves.
>
> >Some English speakers would like all the native Spanish,
> >Portuguese, Italian, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Russian, French,
> >Micmac, etc. speakers to change their language to English. How
> >arrogant!
>
> Not at all, my fine fluent friend. I'd like all of them to LEARN
> English, not reject their native language. That's not too much to ask.
> The French speak French, Italians speak Italian, Germans speak German,
> und so weider.
>
> Charles
But you must see the trap you have led yourself into, Charles.
Americans cannot speak "American." Your saying that English is
the American language doesn't make it so.
I agree that it is often helpful for Americans to learn English,
as it increases their range of motion within our society. I
would encourage any American to do so. Of course, I think a
minimal education requires proficiency in at least two
languages. Personally, I think that all Americans should know
either English or Spanish, but that's just my opinion. I
certainly would not vote for such a law.
Jane
Charles Riggs
>I agree that it is often helpful for Americans to learn English,
Jane, you are too much.
Your friend,
Charles
Stephen Pike
> would encourage any American to do so. Of course, I think a
> minimal education requires proficiency in at least two
> languages. Personally, I think that all Americans should know
> either English or Spanish, but that's just my opinion. I
> certainly would not vote for such a law.
>
> Jane
The american constitution 'guarantees' freedom of speech, not just
english speech. freedom is freedom i suppose whether one is german or
english. i guess essentially it is the government's right to publish
any law in any language whether it is understood by any particular
person OR it is any person's right to obtain government service and to
read government made laws in the language of their choice.
Furthermore laws such as labeling laws cannot specify any particular
language as that would be discriminatory OR companies must have a
label for their product available in every language. ???
Pk2222
> laws such as labeling laws cannot specify any particular
>language as that would be discriminatory OR companies must have a
>label for their product available in every language. ???
>
>
Actually, lots of countries and provinces specify or legislate label language.
Lots of companies respond both here and abroad. I think it's more of a
marketing choice on the part of industry and an economic and legislative
choice on the part of governments.
Quebec, par example, comes immediately to mind as a place where French
labeling is *required*, even though Canada generally labels both in English
*and* in French. When I worked for a couple of manufacturing companies, we were
required to label machines in the language of the customer. When we produced
product overviews, sales materials, technical documentation, etc., we produced
it in a number of languages - high on the list were always German, Italian,
French, Spanish, Dutch, Mandarin Chinese, Farsi, Tamil and Vietnamese. We
produced those same labels for use in America - knowing that we would cover
some native speakers.
What I do believe is that it is our right, as participants in a somewhat
centralized government, to publish laws in a common language and to expect
persons to at least attempt to understand that language. While it is lovely
that we offer things like driver's license exams in languages such as Spanish
and Polish (as a *convenience* for Illinois drivers whose native language is
not English), I would sure hate, as a taxpayer, to be *required* to pay for
that same exam to be provided in the native language of whatever person
demanded to receive it.
There is no question that we have the right to speak. It seems to me, however,
that there is no intrinsic right to be understood. Rather it is our
responsiblity as citizens to speak so that we are understood. Just mho.
pk
P&DSchultz
> ... If
> we are not to have a Tower of Babel, we must agree on a language....
What utter nonsense. No we must not. Switzerland does fine. People
naturally want to be able to use the majority language, and there is
no reason to enlist the government to "fix" the nonexistent "problem."
If the people who whine about the need for official English would go
to evening school and learn Spanish and French, they would have less
time to complain.
//P. Schultz
Charles Riggs
wrote:
Well, thank you for your condescension. I went to school and I speak
several languages, but not everyone has had the opportunities I have
had. I suspect you are one of them.
Charles
JUST AN H
>No, we don't have to "agree on a
>language." Switzerland does fine. If you want to interact with more of
>your countrymen, go study Spanish. It's not hard.
>//P. Schultz
Amen, P. SCHULTZ!
MarkenAdms
Congress does not have the power to change the Constitution.
---- The world insists on being exactly the way it really is,---
--- no matter how little *sense* that makes. ---
Robert Lieblich
>
> Congress does not have the power to change the Constitution.
But Congress and only Congress can initiate a change (as long as you
disregard the never-used provision about a convention to propose
constitutional amenments).
> ---- The world insists on being exactly the way it really is,---
> --- no matter how little *sense* that makes. ---
Well, the statement makes no sense at all. The world "insists" on
nothing, and what it is good at is changing, all the time, everywhere.
Yes, things are as they are -- until they change. What do we learn from
such a statement that we didn't know before?
The answer to the question in the "subject" line is and should continue
to be No.
Bob Lieblich
SDRodrian
The Spanish and the French Academies (of language)
very early on engaged in the meddling task of codifying
and establishing the 'proper' usage of their respective
languages... with the result that today French and Spanish
have an oddly quaint Elizabethan flavor to them.
Language (and this has always been most true of English)
has flowered to its present strength and glory strictly
through unrestrained evolution. So I am of the opinion that
we should not now make any attempts to stifle its growth
by trying to prevent English from acquiring an even broader
and richer vocabulary.
Those 'foreign' words which win out over less adequate ones
and become part of the English family (like rodeo, salsa, patio,
macho, etc.) only serve to expand and enrich it. And it is
this freedom to take over and make ours those words we find
indispensable--from whatever source--which has made English,
from the one language amongst all the languages in this world, the
most prominent language of progress (the most modern of them all).
It would therefor be an absolute mistake to permit a small paranoid
group of individuals to chain down the English Language at this
point in history, as if it had achieved its ultimate evolution: This
can only serve to diminish a language which has heretofore
emerged triumphant in its confrontations with all other tongues;
and a language which ought to be permitted to continue to
grown into the future.
S D Rodrian
SDRodrian
grow into the future.
S D Rodrian
George F. Hardy
>But Congress and only Congress can initiate a change (as long as you
>disregard the never-used provision about a convention to propose
>constitutional amenments).
And why disregard it? Never used is wrong. The threat of its use has
caused Congress to act on several occassions in my lifetime. Is it
your theory that failure to use a gun in an armed robbery means that
the robbery was not really an "armed robbery"?
GFH
Robert Lieblich
There has never been a convention to propose amendments to the
constitution. So the provision authorizing such a convention has never
been used for its intended purpose -- the convening of a convention to
propose amendments. If the purpose of a gun is to shoot, a gun not used
in an armed robbery has not been used. As our beloved president has so
carefully instructed us, it's all in what you mean when you use the word
-- whatever that word happens to be.
Now, brandishing a gun in an armed robbery tends to have an effect
beneficial to the robber (in the short run), so in that sense the gun
was "used" in that context. And one could argue, as you do by analogy,
that brandishing the threat of an amending convention could suffice to
get Congress to act on a potential amendment. I just happen to think
it's a lousy analogy. The situations are very different.
When a convention actually convenes to propose amendments, then, as I
used "used" in my original posting, the provision will have been "used."
And not until then. If you want to define "used" to mean something
else, go ahead. I don't think I was all that obscure in what I
originally said.
BTW, what amendments has Congress passed under threat of an amending
convention?
Bob Lieblich
CaseyKCKC
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: English official language of US? Yes / No?
>From: jus...@aol.com (JUST AN H)
>Date: Thu, Sep 17, 1998 20:22 EDT
>Message-id: <19980917202201...@ng39.aol.com>
Yes! I've been doing just that and find it most rewarding. And I want to add
that the influx of Spanish-speaking immigrants in the US is not a problem for
us native-born English-speaking Americans but an opportunity.
Karen
JUST AN H
>Yes! I've been doing just that and find it most rewarding. And I want to
>add
>that the influx of Spanish-speaking immigrants in the US is not a problem for
>us native-born English-speaking Americans but an opportunity.
>
>Karen
I agree wholeheartedly, KAREN. At the law firm where I work in downtown
Denver, there are 62 employees ... most of whom speak English only. However,
three of us speak not only English, but fluent Spanish, German, French, Italian
and Russian. That's been very good for our firm, since a lot of our clients
either live in other countries, or invest in them. (For example, one of our
clients is investing in a German energy firm building 16 power plants in Latvia
and so I spent a lot of hours this summer translating German engineering
contracts and agreements into English for my boss. I made a lot of money doing
that, and am proud that my English translations now rest beside their German &
Latvian counterparts in Berlin & Riga.)
Now if I could only speak Spanish!