Actually, "Language, Truth and Logic" is a fairly interesting book by
A.J. Ayer, who chose to discuss the elimination of Metaphysics from
certain levels of argumentation.
It may or may not have a true bearing on the argument which has been
going on in the referenced thread. I will leave that to you, after
you have carefully considered the merits of the book.
A cogent point, though, is that Nations do not survive the dissolution
of their language base.
Rome declined more so on the lack of common language than from the
assaults from the Goths.
China, prior to the unification under the Chin's was enfeebled by a
lack of common language; solved by the introduction of Mandarin as the
point of commonality which could be written, albeit not universally
spoken.
The use of language as a tool of either unification or subjugation is
written throughout history.
The Germans would not be called so, were it not for the forced
unification of language under the unification of the principalities.
England, under Cromwell, thought so highly of the concept of national
language as to forbid its use in Ireland; thus eliminating a State,
Nation, and Culture in one blow.
To introduce a current reference; Canada suffers, almost to the point
of dismemberment, from the existence of two strong language/culture
bases within her confines.
The United States of America, which I truly believe was intended, and
continues to intend, the assimilation of all cultures into its weave,
must not confuse inclusion with assimilation.
We must include with the intention to assimilate. We must maintain
our Nationhood, according to the accepted definition of same, as
involving a unity of Culture, Policy and Language.
The move to teach those whom we would seek to include, in a language
other than the core language of the culture, is misguided. It has the
potential to ghettoize those whom we would seek to help.
We speak English because it was the dominant language of the time of
the incorporation into what has become the United States of America.
It really is that simple.
English should not become the Mandarin of the USA.
It should not be only the cognoscenti who can speak the lingua franca
- it must be the general citizenry - or the whole experiment is
finished.
And, it is a grand experiment. And, I believe it is not finished.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
On 9/23/2005 5:19 AM Tim Daneliuk mumbled something about the following:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue is what the language of *government* ought to be. It is
>>>>> fundamentally absurd to envision government documents, websites, and
>>>>> offices arrayed in every language spoken in this land of immigrants.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're missing the point. One has to consider cost vs consequence.
>>>> Consider, for example, if it would be preferable to adopt an
>>>> English-only approach to educate the Vietnamese immigrant community
>>>> about asian bird flue. The short term consequences of such an
>>>> approach might be limited to a few dead immigrants, a cost
>>>> I daresay most English-only advocates would find acceptable
>>>> since neither they nor anyone they know, or at rate care about
>>>> would be paying it. The long term cost could easily be tens
>>>> of millions of dead Americans without regard to what language
>>>> they spoke.
>>>>
>>>> It is easy to say , "Well of course we'll make exceptions when
>>>> it's THAT important." But the fact is that the fewer exceptions
>>>> one makes, the harder it becomes to make any at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This is usual Collectivist dreck of "the good of the group demands it"
>>> and it is bogus. It presumes some natural right of citizens or
>>> immigrants to travel anywhere they wish without any thought to the risk
>>> they bring to other citizens. As a general matter, people *ought* to be
>>> free to do pretty much anything they like so long as they do not harm
>>> others thereby. But the limit to this freedom is reached when a person's
>>> action harms others or places them at risk. The more direct solution has
>>> nothing to do with language at all. When faced with the treat of, say,
>>> Asian bird flu, disallow travel to and from the countries in question.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Crimony, that doesn't seem to relate at all to what I wrote.
>>
>
> What I was trying say (apparently not well) is that "emergency
> situations" don't necessarily call for a change of language to be
> remedied. You can often fix such problems with a change of policy - say,
> restricting travel to places that pose a health threat to our country.
> There may well be cases where the government needs to operate in other
> languages - for example when collecting intelligence about Islamterrorism.
> But the day-to-day operation of government for the most part can (and
> should) be conducted in English.
>
> Moreover, it is a perfectly reasonable expectation that, if you want to
> live here, you're going to have to deal with an English-speaking/writing
> government. I have lived in 3 countries and traveled to a dozen more on
> business and holidays. I never once found another non-English speaking
> country where their *government* went out of their way to accomodate my
> native tongue (though private businesses did so regularly in the
> interest of improving commerce). For instance, I have a friend
> here in the US who inherited property in Germany upon the death
> of a spouse. The German authorities mailed notification about
> the legal matters surrounding the transfer of title ... in *German*
> (as they properly should). My friend had to get it translated.
> This is the norm in the overwhelming majority of non-English speaking
> nations, but we somehow seem to think it's a Bad Thing.
>
> The sole exception to this is that many street and highway signs around
> the world are signed in both the local language AND ... *English* in
> recognition of the fact that English has become the de fact standard for
> conducting international business. (Saints Be Praised for that. You
> oughtta try reading a blueprint written in German. It is a study in word
> concatentation that dazzles the mind. ;) If the whole rest of the
> developed (and some of the less developed) world has figured out that
> English is the way to do business, why should we - the English speaking
> nations of the world - do anything less?
>
>
>
You still danced around what he wrote and didn't address it at all.
Please go back and read his post and reply based on what you read, not
what you THINK he wrote.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <1127346594.97dd2eae071f4503d76fefb860dd4e42@teranews>, Tom
> Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > To introduce a current reference; Canada suffers, almost to the point
> > of dismemberment, from the existence of two strong language/culture
> > bases within her confines.
>
> As a Canadian I take issue with this statement. It shows a severe lack
> of understanding of what we sometimes call our "two solitudes" and is
> apparently used only as a literary device in your post.
>
> You know not of what you speak, sir. Canada doesn't suffer from the
> existence of French and English languages. Canada suffers only from the
> perfidy of her politicians and academics who use the language issue for
> personal gain.
>
> Much as the USA suffers from the perfidy of her politicians who play
> race issues for the same goals.
>
> As for the USA speaking English, you don't travel much, do you? Perhaps
> in your houses of government, and your courts, but the people of the
> USA speak many, many more languages than English.
>
I think Tom may have over-stated the Canadian dismemberment case, but
as one who spent many vacations in Quebec, mid to llate 60s, while the
mailbox bombings were going on, I believe that at least at that point
cultural differences (including language) came very close to creating
what the Separatists wanted.
Sure, people throughout the U.S. speak many languages. That isn't the
point. The point is that a single language is needed for coherence in
everything from a file clerk's life to an understanding of legal terms
(as hard as the lawyers try to twist those). I don't believe I've ever
heard anyone deny the existence of other languages in the U.S., nor the
importance of the speakers to this country, but the fact remains,
efficiency and comfort are both improved if all 285 million people
speak, or at least understand and can make themselves understood in, a
primary language. Obviously, that goal is never 100% met for a variety
of reasons, but it's an important aim, and one that preceding
generations of immigrants accepted. The neighborhood social clubs
provided the overall cultural protection, the protected heritage if you
wish, such immigrants needed, while the people themselves worked to
better their understanding of the language and culture they had
recently entered.
Immigrants of all kinds are essential to the U.S. They always have
been. Immigrants shift cultural emphasis, while providing a driving (or
driven) work ethic that sometimes seems to have died out in groups that
have been here a few generations. They tend to be willing to take jobs
that are not pleasing to longer term residents, and to work especially
hard at those jobs so that they can advance to something better as
quickly as possible. Learning a new language is part of that work. Not
much is really handed out to most immigrants, as they work very hard
for what they get, but what they get is dozens or even scores of times
better than what they could possibly have got had they not become
immigrants.
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:20:41 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>As a Canadian I take issue with this statement. It shows a severe lack
>of understanding of what we sometimes call our "two solitudes" and is
>apparently used only as a literary device in your post.
>
It is my understanding that the referendum of 1995 missed passage by
less than one percent.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
Charlie Self wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> >...
> > You know not of what you speak, sir. Canada doesn't suffer from the
> > existence of French and English languages. Canada suffers only from the
> > perfidy of her politicians and academics who use the language issue for
> > personal gain.
> >
> > Much as the USA suffers from the perfidy of her politicians who play
> > race issues for the same goals.
> >
> > ...
> >
>
> I think Tom may have over-stated the Canadian dismemberment case, but
> as one who spent many vacations in Quebec, mid to llate 60s, while the
> mailbox bombings were going on, I believe that at least at that point
> cultural differences (including language) came very close to creating
> what the Separatists wanted.
>
> Sure, people throughout the U.S. speak many languages. That isn't the
> point. The point is that a single language is needed for coherence in
> everything from a file clerk's life to an understanding of legal terms
> (as hard as the lawyers try to twist those).
An interesting example given that many, legal terms of art are
Latin, not English, and aren't several others, like _cease and
desist_ bilingual, combining Anglo-Saxon and Norman French words?
Seems to be the case that the language of law, like most tech-speak,
is mulitlingual.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > >...
> > > You know not of what you speak, sir. Canada doesn't suffer from the
> > > existence of French and English languages. Canada suffers only from the
> > > perfidy of her politicians and academics who use the language issue for
> > > personal gain.
> > >
> > > Much as the USA suffers from the perfidy of her politicians who play
> > > race issues for the same goals.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> >
> > I think Tom may have over-stated the Canadian dismemberment case, but
> > as one who spent many vacations in Quebec, mid to llate 60s, while the
> > mailbox bombings were going on, I believe that at least at that point
> > cultural differences (including language) came very close to creating
> > what the Separatists wanted.
> >
> > Sure, people throughout the U.S. speak many languages. That isn't the
> > point. The point is that a single language is needed for coherence in
> > everything from a file clerk's life to an understanding of legal terms
> > (as hard as the lawyers try to twist those).
>
> An interesting example given that many, legal terms of art are
> Latin, not English, and aren't several others, like _cease and
> desist_ bilingual, combining Anglo-Saxon and Norman French words?
> Seems to be the case that the language of law, like most tech-speak,
> is mulitlingual.
>
Seems that the roots of English are Latin, plus Germanic languages.
Much base on the Romance languages, which are all based on Latin.
English is a polyglot language, as odd as that sounds. No one has gone
to the goofy extremes the French tried to use for years to keep their
language pure. Of course, that led to such wonders as Ebonics,
but...that doesn't mean we should abandon what we've got as if a boat
were sinking under us, simply to ease the life of a few intellectually
lazy newcomers. Or oldtimers.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Michael Daly wrote:
> >
> > On 21-Sep-2005, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > We speak English because it was the dominant language of the time of
> > > the incorporation into what has become the United States of America.
> >
> > The choice of English over German in the US was apparently decided
> > by a majority of one vote. Dominant? - barely. I believe that more
> > americans have German ancestry than that from any other single
> > language - that was the case a few decades ago.
>
> Where and when was that vote taken?
I'd also be curious about a cite on the number of Americans with German
ancestors being a majority, or at least more numerous than any other
single cultural group. Hell, I used to think Italians dominated U.S.
culture, but I lived a lot of my younger life in and around NYC, where
Italians settled heavily 100 or so years ago. Right next to the Irish
quite often.
The vote, or lack of a vote, and the ancestry of much of the U.S. is
probably irrelevant now, as English is the dominant business language,
and, regardless of Latinisms, legal language. Changing it is going to
be a expensive chore, and an invitation to massive confusion. And what
do we change it to? Spanish? Maybe, in 30 or 40 or 50 years. Or some
dialect of Chinese in 60 years. At the moment, it seems to me to make
sense to go with what we've got and make the best of it.
Charlie Self wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Charlie Self wrote:
> > > Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > > >...
> > > > You know not of what you speak, sir. Canada doesn't suffer from the
> > > > existence of French and English languages. Canada suffers only from the
> > > > perfidy of her politicians and academics who use the language issue for
> > > > personal gain.
> > > >
> > > > Much as the USA suffers from the perfidy of her politicians who play
> > > > race issues for the same goals.
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think Tom may have over-stated the Canadian dismemberment case, but
> > > as one who spent many vacations in Quebec, mid to llate 60s, while the
> > > mailbox bombings were going on, I believe that at least at that point
> > > cultural differences (including language) came very close to creating
> > > what the Separatists wanted.
> > >
> > > Sure, people throughout the U.S. speak many languages. That isn't the
> > > point. The point is that a single language is needed for coherence in
> > > everything from a file clerk's life to an understanding of legal terms
> > > (as hard as the lawyers try to twist those).
> >
> > An interesting example given that many, legal terms of art are
> > Latin, not English, and aren't several others, like _cease and
> > desist_ bilingual, combining Anglo-Saxon and Norman French words?
> > Seems to be the case that the language of law, like most tech-speak,
> > is mulitlingual.
> >
>
> Seems that the roots of English are Latin, plus Germanic languages.
> Much base on the Romance languages, which are all based on Latin.
When I was in school we were taught that English had its roots in
the Germanic languages of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who
displaced the earlier Celtic populations pushing them (and
their languages) back into Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.
The English words with Latin origins almost all came in with
the Norman French.
English is not a Romance Language. It is a Germanic language
with Romance influences.
--
FF
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <1127420223.e0435f538f6abfc4906081416b372ee4@teranews>, Tom
> Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It is my understanding that the referendum of 1995 missed passage by
> > less than one percent.
>
> And the result of the election in the US which elected GWB for the
> first time passed was decided by what percentage?
>
By a single vote. GWB won 5 to 4.
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
>
>
> The issue is what the language of *government* ought to be. It is
> fundamentally absurd to envision government documents, websites, and
> offices arrayed in every language spoken in this land of immigrants.
You're missing the point. One has to consider cost vs consequence.
Consider, for example, if it would be preferable to adopt an
English-only approach to educate the Vietnamese immigrant community
about asian bird flue. The short term consequences of such an
approach might be limited to a few dead immigrants, a cost
I daresay most English-only advocates would find acceptable
since neither they nor anyone they know, or at rate care about
would be paying it. The long term cost could easily be tens
of millions of dead Americans without regard to what language
they spoke.
It is easy to say , "Well of course we'll make exceptions when
it's THAT important." But the fact is that the fewer exceptions
one makes, the harder it becomes to make any at all.
> ....
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >>...
> >>
> >>
> >>The issue is what the language of *government* ought to be. It is
> >>fundamentally absurd to envision government documents, websites, and
> >>offices arrayed in every language spoken in this land of immigrants.
> >
> >
> > You're missing the point. One has to consider cost vs consequence.
> > Consider, for example, if it would be preferable to adopt an
> > English-only approach to educate the Vietnamese immigrant community
> > about asian bird flue. The short term consequences of such an
> > approach might be limited to a few dead immigrants, a cost
> > I daresay most English-only advocates would find acceptable
> > since neither they nor anyone they know, or at rate care about
> > would be paying it. The long term cost could easily be tens
> > of millions of dead Americans without regard to what language
> > they spoke.
> >
> > It is easy to say , "Well of course we'll make exceptions when
> > it's THAT important." But the fact is that the fewer exceptions
> > one makes, the harder it becomes to make any at all.
> >
> >
> >>....
> >
> >
>
> This is usual Collectivist dreck of "the good of the group demands it"
> and it is bogus. It presumes some natural right of citizens or
> immigrants to travel anywhere they wish without any thought to the risk
> they bring to other citizens. As a general matter, people *ought* to be
> free to do pretty much anything they like so long as they do not harm
> others thereby. But the limit to this freedom is reached when a person's
> action harms others or places them at risk. The more direct solution has
> nothing to do with language at all. When faced with the treat of, say,
> Asian bird flu, disallow travel to and from the countries in question.
>
Crimony, that doesn't seem to relate at all to what I wrote.
--
FF
Michael Daly wrote:
> On 22-Sep-2005, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'd also be curious about a cite on the number of Americans with German
> > ancestors being a majority
>
> I never claimed they were a majority - they are the largest group.
>
> http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762137.html
Read my whole sentence: "I'd also be curious about a cite on the number
of Americans with German
ancestors being a majority, or at least more numerous than any other
single cultural group."
You provided the cite. 15.2% is the largest percentage.
>
> Two hundred years ago, they were a larger percentage.
>
Can't find any 200 year old figures, but that was just after the great
Scots-Irish migration, so I'm doubtful. Possible, though, because
you're working with much smaller figures overall.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Odinn wrote:
> >
> ...
> > You still danced around what he wrote and didn't address it at all.
> > Please go back and read his post and reply based on what you read, not
> > what you THINK he wrote.
>
> Well, I think it did address what was written--the point all along has
> <not> been to prohibit <any> use of any language other than English.
> Fred took the normal route of creating a false diversion to justify
> another reaction.
Replace 'justify' with 'provoke' and I think you have your answer.
Mr Daneliuk took that opportunity to make it clear that his
preference was for English-only regardless of the cost.
--
FF
Michael Daly wrote:
>
> ...
>
> In July, China displaced Canada as USA's largest trading partner. First
> time that Canada has not been the first in a long time. Brush up on your
> Chinese. And keep on beating up on the Cubans - communism must be stopped!
>
>
ITYM Cuban tobacco and sugar must be kept off the US market.
The embargo, like economic sanctions in general, hurts only
those people in Cuba who don't give a damn about Communism
because they have the least power to do anything about it.
Free trade with Cuba would put Cuban communism in direct
competition with American capitalism. Whom do you think
would win then?
--
FF
On 22 Sep 2005 14:33:25 -0700, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I'd also be curious about a cite on the number of Americans with German
>ancestors being a majority, or at least more numerous than any other
>single cultural group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries.jpg
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Michael Daly wrote:
> >
> > On 23-Sep-2005, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I tried to find something similar for the Colonial period but a quick
> > > search didn't find it. I would think otherwise, but I might be wrong.
> >
> > ISTR reading an article in the '70s that said that Germanic tongues
> > accounted for something like one third of the US population back then.
> > Look at all the place names in the colonial states that have names
> > that derive from German and plattdeutch words and names.
>
> I ken, just didn't think the percentages would have been that high.
>
> Of course, the reason for English as the "official" language wasn't
> owing to popularity as much as the fact they were English colonies.
New York and much of the surrounding area was originally colonized by
the Dutch. I guess you have to call them Germanic speaking, although
the Hollanders I've known don't like to be listed too tightly as
"Germanic" peoples. Travel up the Hudson River, up to Schenectady's
Stockade area where many, maybe most, of the houses were built in the
late 1600s. It's all Dutch, as is Fort Orange, AKA as Albany, NY. The
Dutch names dominate.
But, as noted, that was in the seventeenth century. I hadn't realized
the Germanic migration had been as extensive as it obviously has been,
though I did know the German-American Bund was a big group and a minor
problem during WWII. The Yorkville area of Manhattan back in the '60s
was heavily Germanic, as were areas of both Schenectady and
Albany...some of the best restaurants in the area were German back
then. Probably all Arby's or the golden arches now, like too much of
the rest of the country.
Put it all together, though, and it's still spread out a lot and not
convincing until you realize that "Germanic" applies to several other
languages, such as Dutch, which was the language of the original
colonizers of much of the New World.
Poor Peter Minuet. He really got screwed, getting taken for 24 bucks
for Manhattan, when the sellers didn't even own the joint.
> It really is that simple.
>
> English should not become the Mandarin of the USA.
>
> It should not be only the cognoscenti who can speak the lingua franca
> - it must be the general citizenry - or the whole experiment is
> finished.
>
> And, it is a grand experiment. And, I believe it is not finished.
>
Hi Tom,
Love your woodworking, but disagree here.
My grandparents came over in a boat around 1910.
Their assimilation was based on language. They
did it and passed it along - I think that the common
language determines the general path of the country.
If, for example, 50+% were speaking Mandarin (to use
your example) would we still be "American?"
Personally, I don't think it's an experiment - more like
common sense (road signs, airports, newspapers...)
Hope you are still enjoying your "retirement".
Go Eagles!
Lou
In article <1127346594.97dd2eae071f4503d76fefb860dd4e42@teranews>, Tom
Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> To introduce a current reference; Canada suffers, almost to the point
> of dismemberment, from the existence of two strong language/culture
> bases within her confines.
As a Canadian I take issue with this statement. It shows a severe lack
of understanding of what we sometimes call our "two solitudes" and is
apparently used only as a literary device in your post.
You know not of what you speak, sir. Canada doesn't suffer from the
existence of French and English languages. Canada suffers only from the
perfidy of her politicians and academics who use the language issue for
personal gain.
Much as the USA suffers from the perfidy of her politicians who play
race issues for the same goals.
As for the USA speaking English, you don't travel much, do you? Perhaps
in your houses of government, and your courts, but the people of the
USA speak many, many more languages than English.
djb
--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
In article <1127420223.e0435f538f6abfc4906081416b372ee4@teranews>, Tom
Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is my understanding that the referendum of 1995 missed passage by
> less than one percent.
And the result of the election in the US which elected GWB for the
first time passed was decided by what percentage?
But that's irrelevant. The referendum you refer to was held *in Quebec*
and not *in Canada*. There were 9 provinces and three territories where
no votes were cast becuase it was a *PROVINCIAL* referendum.
Even if the referendum had passed in Quebec, it would have been the
same situation as if Rhode Island, Texas, or California voted to secede
from the union.
*Canada* was not split by less than one percent in the 1995 referendum,
Tom. One province of Canada was. Had it been a national referendum the
question on Quebec separation would been defeated by a massive
majority.
But don't let facts get in the way of a good story, right?
--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
> As a former Canadian, I'll take the other side of this one. It is
> certainly the case that language has been a politically convenient
> football in Canada. But it is also quite apparent that the
> jamming of French down the throats of Western Canadians (from whence
> I spring) was and is a point of real contention. It is hardly the
> case that bilingualism was embraced widely and without rancor - so
> much so it had to be *forced* by government upon the population as
> a whole to serve a fairly small minority of French speakers.
I think you're saying what I'm saying.
Language in Canada (and I grew up in Winnipeg, lived in Halifax,
Vancouver, Edmonton and currently reside in Saskatoon) is a political
issue, used by politicians.
There are French speaking people across western Canada, as well you
know.
--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, there are now, anyway ;)
Don't know your history?
Start with Batoche... then move in any direction.
--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
On 22-Sep-2005, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is my understanding that the referendum of 1995 missed passage by
> less than one percent.
Which says little out of the context of the referendum question and the
intended outcome. Support for separatism goes up and down with the
economy. Modern young Quebeckers are less separatist than their parents.
They are also more likely to be bi- or multilingual.
Only Americans have a serious obsession with monolingualism. In other
countries, speaking more than one language isn't such a big deal.
Mike
Michael Daly wrote:
>
> On 21-Sep-2005, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > We speak English because it was the dominant language of the time of
> > the incorporation into what has become the United States of America.
>
> The choice of English over German in the US was apparently decided
> by a majority of one vote. Dominant? - barely. I believe that more
> americans have German ancestry than that from any other single
> language - that was the case a few decades ago.
Where and when was that vote taken?
Charlie Self wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > Michael Daly wrote:
> > >
> > > On 21-Sep-2005, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > We speak English because it was the dominant language of the time of
> > > > the incorporation into what has become the United States of America.
> > >
> > > The choice of English over German in the US was apparently decided
> > > by a majority of one vote. Dominant? - barely. I believe that more
> > > americans have German ancestry than that from any other single
> > > language - that was the case a few decades ago.
> >
> > Where and when was that vote taken?
>
> I'd also be curious about a cite on the number of Americans with German
> ancestors being a majority, or at least more numerous than any other
> single cultural group. Hell, I used to think Italians dominated U.S.
> culture, but I lived a lot of my younger life in and around NYC, where
> Italians settled heavily 100 or so years ago. Right next to the Irish
> quite often.
Of course that was roughly 100 years or so after the founding when both
of those ethnic groups became large blocs...
> The vote, or lack of a vote, and the ancestry of much of the U.S. is
> probably irrelevant now, ...
Oh, certainly. I was just curious as to from whence the above claim
arose--I'm totally unaware of when any such a concensus decision would
have been made. Certainly by far the majority of the early colonists
were English so I have some difficulty in thinking when there would even
have been the discussion.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:21:02 -0500, Duane Bozarth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Charlie Self wrote:
> >>
> >> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> >> > Michael Daly wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On 21-Sep-2005, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > We speak English because it was the dominant language of the time of
> >> > > > the incorporation into what has become the United States of America.
> >> > >
> >> > > The choice of English over German in the US was apparently decided
> >> > > by a majority of one vote. Dominant? - barely. I believe that more
> >> > > americans have German ancestry than that from any other single
> >> > > language - that was the case a few decades ago.
> >> >
> >> > Where and when was that vote taken?
> >>
> >> I'd also be curious about a cite on the number of Americans with German
> >> ancestors being a majority, or at least more numerous than any other
> >> single cultural group. Hell, I used to think Italians dominated U.S.
> >> culture, but I lived a lot of my younger life in and around NYC, where
> >> Italians settled heavily 100 or so years ago. Right next to the Irish
> >> quite often.
> >
> >Of course that was roughly 100 years or so after the founding when both
> >of those ethnic groups became large blocs...
> >
> >> The vote, or lack of a vote, and the ancestry of much of the U.S. is
> >> probably irrelevant now, ...
> >
> >Oh, certainly. I was just curious as to from whence the above claim
> >arose--I'm totally unaware of when any such a concensus decision would
> >have been made. Certainly by far the majority of the early colonists
> >were English so I have some difficulty in thinking when there would even
> >have been the discussion.
>
> many of them were dutch- my ancestors included- and while the dutch do
> disagree, often very strenuously- they really are part of that
> demographic that we here today call "german"
But certainly not a majority (or even close) overall...
We's got a bunch of them (and Russians as well) around here, too...
Odinn wrote:
>
...
> You still danced around what he wrote and didn't address it at all.
> Please go back and read his post and reply based on what you read, not
> what you THINK he wrote.
Well, I think it did address what was written--the point all along has
<not> been to prohibit <any> use of any language other than English.
Fred took the normal route of creating a false diversion to justify
another reaction.
Michael Daly wrote:
>
> On 22-Sep-2005, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'd also be curious about a cite on the number of Americans with German
> > ancestors being a majority
>
> I never claimed they were a majority - they are the largest group.
>
> http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762137.html
>
> Two hundred years ago, they were a larger percentage.
I tried to find something similar for the Colonial period but a quick
search didn't find it. I would think otherwise, but I might be wrong.
> > English is the dominant business language,
>
> In July, China displaced Canada as USA's largest trading partner. First
> time that Canada has not been the first in a long time. Brush up on your
> Chinese. And keep on beating up on the Cubans - communism must be stopped!
Given the long border w/ Mexico and the proximity to the South American
continent, combined w/ the gross dissimilarity of Asiatic tongues to
English, I'd guess on Spanish as the prime candidate...
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > Odinn wrote:
> > >
> > ...
> > > You still danced around what he wrote and didn't address it at all.
> > > Please go back and read his post and reply based on what you read, not
> > > what you THINK he wrote.
> >
> > Well, I think it did address what was written--the point all along has
> > <not> been to prohibit <any> use of any language other than English.
> > Fred took the normal route of creating a false diversion to justify
> > another reaction.
>
> Replace 'justify' with 'provoke' and I think you have your answer.
>
> Mr Daneliuk took that opportunity to make it clear that his
> preference was for English-only regardless of the cost.
Not my reading...
Michael Daly wrote:
>
> On 23-Sep-2005, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I tried to find something similar for the Colonial period but a quick
> > search didn't find it. I would think otherwise, but I might be wrong.
>
> ISTR reading an article in the '70s that said that Germanic tongues
> accounted for something like one third of the US population back then.
> Look at all the place names in the colonial states that have names
> that derive from German and plattdeutch words and names.
I ken, just didn't think the percentages would have been that high.
Of course, the reason for English as the "official" language wasn't
owing to popularity as much as the fact they were English colonies.
Charlie Self wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > Michael Daly wrote:
> > >
> > > On 23-Sep-2005, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I tried to find something similar for the Colonial period but a quick
> > > > search didn't find it. I would think otherwise, but I might be wrong.
> > >
> > > ISTR reading an article in the '70s that said that Germanic tongues
> > > accounted for something like one third of the US population back then.
> > > Look at all the place names in the colonial states that have names
> > > that derive from German and plattdeutch words and names.
> >
> > I ken, just didn't think the percentages would have been that high.
> >
> > Of course, the reason for English as the "official" language wasn't
> > owing to popularity as much as the fact they were English colonies.
>
> New York and much of the surrounding area was originally colonized by
> the Dutch. I guess you have to call them Germanic speaking, although
> the Hollanders I've known don't like to be listed too tightly as
> "Germanic" peoples. Travel up the Hudson River, up to Schenectady's
> Stockade area where many, maybe most, of the houses were built in the
> late 1600s. It's all Dutch, as is Fort Orange, AKA as Albany, NY. The
> Dutch names dominate.
>
> But, as noted, that was in the seventeenth century. I hadn't realized
> the Germanic migration had been as extensive as it obviously has been,
> though I did know the German-American Bund was a big group and a minor
> problem during WWII. The Yorkville area of Manhattan back in the '60s
> was heavily Germanic, as were areas of both Schenectady and
> Albany...some of the best restaurants in the area were German back
> then. Probably all Arby's or the golden arches now, like too much of
> the rest of the country.
>
> Put it all together, though, and it's still spread out a lot and not
> convincing until you realize that "Germanic" applies to several other
> languages, such as Dutch, which was the language of the original
> colonizers of much of the New World.
>
> Poor Peter Minuet. He really got screwed, getting taken for 24 bucks
> for Manhattan, when the sellers didn't even own the joint.
I suppose a lot of my perception comes from all my experience in "the
East" is from Virginia south where what wasn't English was heavily
Scotch or Irish w/ some "Eyetalian".
Charlie Self wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>>
>>>>...
>>>>You know not of what you speak, sir. Canada doesn't suffer from the
>>>>existence of French and English languages. Canada suffers only from the
>>>>perfidy of her politicians and academics who use the language issue for
>>>>personal gain.
>>>>
>>>>Much as the USA suffers from the perfidy of her politicians who play
>>>>race issues for the same goals.
>>>>
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think Tom may have over-stated the Canadian dismemberment case, but
>>>as one who spent many vacations in Quebec, mid to llate 60s, while the
>>>mailbox bombings were going on, I believe that at least at that point
>>>cultural differences (including language) came very close to creating
>>>what the Separatists wanted.
>>>
>>>Sure, people throughout the U.S. speak many languages. That isn't the
>>>point. The point is that a single language is needed for coherence in
>>>everything from a file clerk's life to an understanding of legal terms
>>>(as hard as the lawyers try to twist those).
>>
>>An interesting example given that many, legal terms of art are
>>Latin, not English, and aren't several others, like _cease and
>>desist_ bilingual, combining Anglo-Saxon and Norman French words?
>>Seems to be the case that the language of law, like most tech-speak,
>>is mulitlingual.
>>
>
>
> Seems that the roots of English are Latin, plus Germanic languages.
> Much base on the Romance languages, which are all based on Latin.
> English is a polyglot language, as odd as that sounds. No one has gone
That's all true, but it's still *English* - a distinct language in its own
right. One of the standard tactics of the Multiculturalists is to engage
in linguistic deconstruction and argue that since the parts of English
come from all over the planet, we should embrace all the root languages
as well. This is nonsense (as is all deconstructionist theory).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Michael Daly wrote:
> On 21-Sep-2005, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>We speak English because it was the dominant language of the time of
>>the incorporation into what has become the United States of America.
>
>
> The choice of English over German in the US was apparently decided
> by a majority of one vote. Dominant? - barely. I believe that more
> americans have German ancestry than that from any other single
> language - that was the case a few decades ago.
>
> Mike
Let me acquaint you with elemental US history:
1) The first colonizing settlers to what would become the US spoke English.
2) The Founding Fathers spoke English.
3) Every single US law from the Articles Of Confederation, through the
Constitution to the latest Congressional babbling was codified in English.
4) The debate concerning the passage of those laws was conducted in English.
5) Judicial proceedings up to and including SCOTUS reviews are conducted in
English. (Some exceptions have appeared lately as the Diversity Nannies
have polluted local courts.)
IOW - German was never a close second as the primary language of government.
Neither was Italian, Spanish, Greek, Polish, Urdu, or Hindi.
What people speak/write in their private lives and businesses is no
one's concern. What is of concern is the Blithering Bloviating
Multi-Cultural Munchkins who wish to instantiate other languages into
our government institutions.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 2005/9/23 7:34 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:39:43 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries.jpg
>
>
> hey, according to that graph, 224.3% of americans have ancestors!
I think you are adding up the numbers in millions that are on the right, not
the percentages that are on the left side. Actually, adding up the
percentages shows that 24% don't have ancestors. (:-)
On 22-Sep-2005, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd also be curious about a cite on the number of Americans with German
> ancestors being a majority
I never claimed they were a majority - they are the largest group.
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0762137.html
Two hundred years ago, they were a larger percentage.
> English is the dominant business language,
In July, China displaced Canada as USA's largest trading partner. First
time that Canada has not been the first in a long time. Brush up on your
Chinese. And keep on beating up on the Cubans - communism must be stopped!
Mike
On 22-Sep-2005, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Where and when was that vote taken?
Well, I checked. It turns out what I had read last year was
an urban legend of sorts. The confusion was over a proposal to
translate laws into German for German-speaking Americans. It
was overturned by the speaker. The "official language" vote
never happened.
Interesting that this legend was repeated in the "get out the
vote" stuff that preceded the last US federal election. That's
when I saw it. I stand corrected.
Mike
On 23-Sep-2005, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> I tried to find something similar for the Colonial period but a quick
> search didn't find it. I would think otherwise, but I might be wrong.
ISTR reading an article in the '70s that said that Germanic tongues
accounted for something like one third of the US population back then.
Look at all the place names in the colonial states that have names
that derive from German and plattdeutch words and names.
Mike
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1127346594.97dd2eae071f4503d76fefb860dd4e42@teranews...
> Actually, "Language, Truth and Logic" is a fairly interesting book by
> A.J. Ayer, who chose to discuss the elimination of Metaphysics from
> certain levels of argumentation.
>
> It may or may not have a true bearing on the argument which has been
> going on in the referenced thread. I will leave that to you, after
> you have carefully considered the merits of the book.
>
> A cogent point, though, is that Nations do not survive the dissolution
> of their language base.
>
> Rome declined more so on the lack of common language than from the
> assaults from the Goths.
>
> China, prior to the unification under the Chin's was enfeebled by a
> lack of common language; solved by the introduction of Mandarin as the
> point of commonality which could be written, albeit not universally
> spoken.
>
> The use of language as a tool of either unification or subjugation is
> written throughout history.
>
> The Germans would not be called so, were it not for the forced
> unification of language under the unification of the principalities.
>
> England, under Cromwell, thought so highly of the concept of national
> language as to forbid its use in Ireland; thus eliminating a State,
> Nation, and Culture in one blow.
>
> To introduce a current reference; Canada suffers, almost to the point
> of dismemberment, from the existence of two strong language/culture
> bases within her confines.
>
> The United States of America, which I truly believe was intended, and
> continues to intend, the assimilation of all cultures into its weave,
> must not confuse inclusion with assimilation.
>
> We must include with the intention to assimilate. We must maintain
> our Nationhood, according to the accepted definition of same, as
> involving a unity of Culture, Policy and Language.
>
> The move to teach those whom we would seek to include, in a language
> other than the core language of the culture, is misguided. It has the
> potential to ghettoize those whom we would seek to help.
>
> We speak English because it was the dominant language of the time of
> the incorporation into what has become the United States of America.
>
> It really is that simple.
>
> English should not become the Mandarin of the USA.
>
> It should not be only the cognoscenti who can speak the lingua franca
> - it must be the general citizenry - or the whole experiment is
> finished.
>
> And, it is a grand experiment. And, I believe it is not finished.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
As a matter of fact Tom I have noticed people in general in America do talk
a little funny..........mjh
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:39:43 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries.jpg
hey, according to that graph, 224.3% of americans have ancestors!
: )
On 9/23/2005 7:34 PM [email protected] mumbled something about the
following:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:39:43 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries.jpg
>
>
>
> hey, according to that graph, 224.3% of americans have ancestors!
>
> : )
Where'd you learn to add? The numbers on the left are percentages, the
numbers on the right are millions of people (224.3 million people sounds
about right).
--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
[email protected] wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The issue is what the language of *government* ought to be. It is
>>>>fundamentally absurd to envision government documents, websites, and
>>>>offices arrayed in every language spoken in this land of immigrants.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're missing the point. One has to consider cost vs consequence.
>>>Consider, for example, if it would be preferable to adopt an
>>>English-only approach to educate the Vietnamese immigrant community
>>>about asian bird flue. The short term consequences of such an
>>>approach might be limited to a few dead immigrants, a cost
>>>I daresay most English-only advocates would find acceptable
>>>since neither they nor anyone they know, or at rate care about
>>>would be paying it. The long term cost could easily be tens
>>>of millions of dead Americans without regard to what language
>>>they spoke.
>>>
>>>It is easy to say , "Well of course we'll make exceptions when
>>>it's THAT important." But the fact is that the fewer exceptions
>>>one makes, the harder it becomes to make any at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>....
>>>
>>>
>>This is usual Collectivist dreck of "the good of the group demands it"
>>and it is bogus. It presumes some natural right of citizens or
>>immigrants to travel anywhere they wish without any thought to the risk
>>they bring to other citizens. As a general matter, people *ought* to be
>>free to do pretty much anything they like so long as they do not harm
>>others thereby. But the limit to this freedom is reached when a person's
>>action harms others or places them at risk. The more direct solution has
>>nothing to do with language at all. When faced with the treat of, say,
>>Asian bird flu, disallow travel to and from the countries in question.
>>
>
>
> Crimony, that doesn't seem to relate at all to what I wrote.
>
What I was trying say (apparently not well) is that "emergency
situations" don't necessarily call for a change of language to be
remedied. You can often fix such problems with a change of policy - say,
restricting travel to places that pose a health threat to our country.
There may well be cases where the government needs to operate in other
languages - for example when collecting intelligence about Islamterrorism.
But the day-to-day operation of government for the most part can (and
should) be conducted in English.
Moreover, it is a perfectly reasonable expectation that, if you want to
live here, you're going to have to deal with an English-speaking/writing
government. I have lived in 3 countries and traveled to a dozen more on
business and holidays. I never once found another non-English speaking
country where their *government* went out of their way to accomodate my
native tongue (though private businesses did so regularly in the
interest of improving commerce). For instance, I have a friend
here in the US who inherited property in Germany upon the death
of a spouse. The German authorities mailed notification about
the legal matters surrounding the transfer of title ... in *German*
(as they properly should). My friend had to get it translated.
This is the norm in the overwhelming majority of non-English speaking
nations, but we somehow seem to think it's a Bad Thing.
The sole exception to this is that many street and highway signs around
the world are signed in both the local language AND ... *English* in
recognition of the fact that English has become the de fact standard for
conducting international business. (Saints Be Praised for that. You
oughtta try reading a blueprint written in German. It is a study in word
concatentation that dazzles the mind. ;) If the whole rest of the
developed (and some of the less developed) world has figured out that
English is the way to do business, why should we - the English speaking
nations of the world - do anything less?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <1127346594.97dd2eae071f4503d76fefb860dd4e42@teranews>, Tom
> Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>To introduce a current reference; Canada suffers, almost to the point
>>of dismemberment, from the existence of two strong language/culture
>>bases within her confines.
>
>
> As a Canadian I take issue with this statement. It shows a severe lack
> of understanding of what we sometimes call our "two solitudes" and is
> apparently used only as a literary device in your post.
>
> You know not of what you speak, sir. Canada doesn't suffer from the
> existence of French and English languages. Canada suffers only from the
> perfidy of her politicians and academics who use the language issue for
> personal gain.
As a former Canadian, I'll take the other side of this one. It is
certainly the case that language has been a politically convenient
football in Canada. But it is also quite apparent that the
jamming of French down the throats of Western Canadians (from whence
I spring) was and is a point of real contention. It is hardly the
case that bilingualism was embraced widely and without rancor - so
much so it had to be *forced* by government upon the population as
a whole to serve a fairly small minority of French speakers.
>
> Much as the USA suffers from the perfidy of her politicians who play
> race issues for the same goals.
>
> As for the USA speaking English, you don't travel much, do you? Perhaps
> in your houses of government, and your courts, but the people of the
> USA speak many, many more languages than English.
And you miss the point entirely. Those of us who support English
as the "official" language of the land have no desire to enforce
this at the point of the government gun in the *private* sector.
Individuals and business should remain free to speak and work in
as many or few languages as they wish. No one is going to try and
make Kanye West to rap in standard English, for instance.
The issue is what the language of *government* ought to be. It is
fundamentally absurd to envision government documents, websites, and
offices arrayed in every language spoken in this land of immigrants.
Enforcing a common language across the land would simplify the
already-bloated government, encourage immigrants to assimilate, and
generally make for more efficient disposition of government business. To
Tom's original point, our "language base" is English - it doesn't matter
how politically incorrect this seems to some - it was the language of
our founders, the language of subsequent law, the language with which
immigrants for most of our history assimilated and so forth.
The Diversity Police (aka "The Looney Left") confuse "open arms"
with "arms tied behinds our backs" and they are dead wrong. The
multi-culturalism hogwash that eminates from these people has done
no end of harm both to the existing population and the newly
emmigrated. I don't care even slightly what languages are spoken or
used in private discourse, but it offends me deeply that the government
I pay for wastes time and money on this issue.
P.S. When I became a US citizen, even though I was a Canadian by birth,
I had to demonstrate English fluency. I heartily endorse this
for all future immigrants regardless of their nation of origin.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> English should not become the Mandarin of the USA.
>
Don't worry, it won't.
If you look at the numbers, Mandarin will become the new English of
the USA in the new "global village" second only to Hindi (which, due
to the acceleration of growth, will be the only other contender)
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>As a former Canadian, I'll take the other side of this one. It is
>>certainly the case that language has been a politically convenient
>>football in Canada. But it is also quite apparent that the
>>jamming of French down the throats of Western Canadians (from whence
>>I spring) was and is a point of real contention. It is hardly the
>>case that bilingualism was embraced widely and without rancor - so
>>much so it had to be *forced* by government upon the population as
>>a whole to serve a fairly small minority of French speakers.
>
>
> I think you're saying what I'm saying.
>
> Language in Canada (and I grew up in Winnipeg, lived in Halifax,
> Vancouver, Edmonton and currently reside in Saskatoon) is a political
> issue, used by politicians.
>
> There are French speaking people across western Canada, as well you
> know.
>
Well, there are now, anyway ;)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:50:05 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
Patrick Conroy <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1127383493.538442.292080
>@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> The point is that a single language is needed for coherence in
>> everything from a file clerk's life to an understanding of legal terms
>> (as hard as the lawyers try to twist those).
>
>I think there will be... It'll be Spanish! :)
>
>Glad I paid attention to those classes in School!
Spanish or Chinese (probably Mandarin). Hold on, folks. we're due
for a large change RSN. Gotcher BOB? (Bug-out bag, a thing which
would have saved most of the folks in the evacuations lately but
which nobody had, 'cept the Survivalists in the group.)
Google it and MAKE ONE TOMORROW if you don't already have one.
One per person. Just Do It!
----------------------------------------------------------------
* Blessed are those who can * Humorous T-shirts Online
* laugh at themselves, for they * Comprehensive Website Dev.
* shall never cease to be amused * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:21:02 -0500, Duane Bozarth
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>> > Michael Daly wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On 21-Sep-2005, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > We speak English because it was the dominant language of the time of
>> > > > the incorporation into what has become the United States of America.
>> > >
>> > > The choice of English over German in the US was apparently decided
>> > > by a majority of one vote. Dominant? - barely. I believe that more
>> > > americans have German ancestry than that from any other single
>> > > language - that was the case a few decades ago.
>> >
>> > Where and when was that vote taken?
>>
>> I'd also be curious about a cite on the number of Americans with German
>> ancestors being a majority, or at least more numerous than any other
>> single cultural group. Hell, I used to think Italians dominated U.S.
>> culture, but I lived a lot of my younger life in and around NYC, where
>> Italians settled heavily 100 or so years ago. Right next to the Irish
>> quite often.
>
>Of course that was roughly 100 years or so after the founding when both
>of those ethnic groups became large blocs...
>
>> The vote, or lack of a vote, and the ancestry of much of the U.S. is
>> probably irrelevant now, ...
>
>Oh, certainly. I was just curious as to from whence the above claim
>arose--I'm totally unaware of when any such a concensus decision would
>have been made. Certainly by far the majority of the early colonists
>were English so I have some difficulty in thinking when there would even
>have been the discussion.
many of them were dutch- my ancestors included- and while the dutch do
disagree, often very strenuously- they really are part of that
demographic that we here today call "german"
On 21-Sep-2005, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> We speak English because it was the dominant language of the time of
> the incorporation into what has become the United States of America.
The choice of English over German in the US was apparently decided
by a majority of one vote. Dominant? - barely. I believe that more
americans have German ancestry than that from any other single
language - that was the case a few decades ago.
Mike
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1127383493.538442.292080
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> The point is that a single language is needed for coherence in
> everything from a file clerk's life to an understanding of legal terms
> (as hard as the lawyers try to twist those).
I think there will be... It'll be Spanish! :)
Glad I paid attention to those classes in School!
[email protected] wrote:
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
>>Odinn wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>>You still danced around what he wrote and didn't address it at all.
>>>Please go back and read his post and reply based on what you read, not
>>>what you THINK he wrote.
>>
>>Well, I think it did address what was written--the point all along has
>><not> been to prohibit <any> use of any language other than English.
>>Fred took the normal route of creating a false diversion to justify
>>another reaction.
>
>
> Replace 'justify' with 'provoke' and I think you have your answer.
>
> Mr Daneliuk took that opportunity to make it clear that his
> preference was for English-only regardless of the cost.
>
No - I took the opportunity to proclaim that "it will cost more
if you don't embrace multilingualism" is false in its premises
and thus false in conclusion.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
[email protected] wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>...
>>
>>
>>The issue is what the language of *government* ought to be. It is
>>fundamentally absurd to envision government documents, websites, and
>>offices arrayed in every language spoken in this land of immigrants.
>
>
> You're missing the point. One has to consider cost vs consequence.
> Consider, for example, if it would be preferable to adopt an
> English-only approach to educate the Vietnamese immigrant community
> about asian bird flue. The short term consequences of such an
> approach might be limited to a few dead immigrants, a cost
> I daresay most English-only advocates would find acceptable
> since neither they nor anyone they know, or at rate care about
> would be paying it. The long term cost could easily be tens
> of millions of dead Americans without regard to what language
> they spoke.
>
> It is easy to say , "Well of course we'll make exceptions when
> it's THAT important." But the fact is that the fewer exceptions
> one makes, the harder it becomes to make any at all.
>
>
>>....
>
>
This is usual Collectivist dreck of "the good of the group demands it"
and it is bogus. It presumes some natural right of citizens or
immigrants to travel anywhere they wish without any thought to the risk
they bring to other citizens. As a general matter, people *ought* to be
free to do pretty much anything they like so long as they do not harm
others thereby. But the limit to this freedom is reached when a person's
action harms others or places them at risk. The more direct solution has
nothing to do with language at all. When faced with the treat of, say,
Asian bird flu, disallow travel to and from the countries in question.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/