# Official languages preferences



## aslan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages

The link I gave above shows the official languages in the world.
52 countries: English
31 countries: French
26 countries: Arabic
22 countries: Spanish 
10 countries: Portuguese 

Wikipedia says "There are an estimated 1800 languages spoken in Africa " But Almost in each African countries , one of the European languages was accepted as Official Language? ;

Is it something good?
Is it globalism? 
What do you think about the countries forcing another country to speak that country's language?
If you live in a country having two or more than two official languages, Could you talk about the reasons for that?

Thank you all

(I searched for the discussions about this subject.But I couldn't find I hope I am not open the thread for the second time).


----------



## whattheflock

I suppose sometimes the choice of an official language has to do more with politics than with the preference of the people. So the faction in power has more to say about it than the regular joe.
Then, you have places like India, that has, what? Seventeen? Eighteen? Okay, _many_ official languages.

And I have to mention that I like threads like this because they remind me how very little I know of international matters: I thought there were only two countries in the world that spoke Portuguese. But ten?


----------



## aslan

> sometimes the choice of an official language has to do more with politics than with the preference of the people.


Yes Thats What I want to mean...




> you have places like India, that has, what? Seventeen? Eighteen? Okay, _many_ official languages


 
I also want to learn the reasons while choosing the official languages in a country.I am sure There are many different reasons that I couldn t think of.


----------



## Outsider

The correct figure for Portuguese is 8, not 10.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


aslan said:


> If you live in a country having two or more than two official languages, Could you talk about the reasons for that?


In Belgium, there are three official languages: French (40-45%), Dutch (55-60%) and German (+/-100.000 speakers).
To simplify things a bit: the Dutch/French language border which happens to run (also) through Belgium goes back to the 5th century. At that time it was a border between Germanic languages and Romance (Latin and Post-Latin) languages. Let's say that Belgium (1830) is a rather random collection of (historical) counties, duchies, prince-bishropics, provinces, etc. etc. which situates itself north and south from that language border.

It is remarkable that that language border hardly changed over the centuries. It moved a bit up north in what is now French Flanders (let's say the little left upper corner of modern days France, though some people still speak Dutch/Flemish there) and a bit in Belgium (Brussels). All in all, microscopic changes.

Back to Belgium: It took some time for the French speaking government (and elite) in Belgium to recognise Dutch as an official language (1898).
The German-speaking part of Belgium (Oostkantons) is another story: though it's once again much more complicated, the "Oostkantons" basically form a kind of payment by the German government in 1920 (Treaty of Versailes after the First World War).

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## aslan

Outsider said:


> The correct figure for Portuguese is 8, not 10.


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_language (10)

Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, European Union, Guinea Bissau, Chinese S.A.R. of Macau, Mozambique, Portugal, São Tomé and Príncipe

http://www.middlebury.edu/academics/ls/portuguese/ and here It says, 8 

Portugal, Brazil, Angola, Cape-Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, São Tomé e Príncipe, and East Timor.

about Chinese S.A.R. of Macau;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macau

I always learn something new here


----------



## BlueWolf

aslan said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_language (10)
> 
> Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, European Union, Guinea Bissau, Chinese S.A.R. of Macau, Mozambique, Portugal, São Tomé and Príncipe



European Union isn't a country. Portugal is a country, which is part of the European Union (this is the reason Portuguese is one of the languages of the EU).
In China as well, it is a regional language, because it's not an official language for the whole China.


----------



## Outsider

aslan said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_language (10)
> 
> Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, European Union, Guinea Bissau, Chinese S.A.R. of Macau, Mozambique, Portugal, São Tomé and Príncipe
> 
> http://www.middlebury.edu/academics/ls/portuguese/ and here It says, 8


Wikipedia is right, in a sense. Portuguese is official in all those regions, but they are not all sovereign states.

Curiously, the other site has an error!



> It is also widely spoken in Goa and Macau, although not the official language there.


Portuguese _is_ official in Macau, even though only a small minority of the population speaks it.


----------



## Outsider

aslan said:


> Is it something good?
> Is it globalism?
> What do you think about the countries forcing another country to speak that country's language?
> If you live in a country having two or more than two official languages, Could you talk about the reasons for that?
> 
> Thank you all
> 
> (I searched for the discussions about this subject.But I couldn't find I hope I am not open the thread for the second time).


Can you read French, Aslan? There was a previous thread that touched on these issues, but it was mostly in French: Langue vue comme export impérialiste.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

In most cases there are not globalism, but colonialism. Furthermore, most of these countries were created by the colonial powers in an office (or running away from the battlefield).

BTW, there are a lot of mistakes in the list.


----------



## Etcetera

aslan said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languagesWikipedia says "There are an estimated 1800 languages spoken in Africa " But Almost in each African countries , one of the European languages was accepted as Official Language? ;
> 
> Is it something good?
> Is it globalism?


I suppose we all remember the history of African countries. Almost each of them used to be a colony of this or that great power. Of course, the colonial authorities prefer to use their own language, and if we're speaking about Africa, of course, it was far easier to bring a new language there and make it the official language, because there's so many languages in Africa. 

In Russia, there are many different nationalities, and many of them speak their own language. I remember that about a decade ago some people were wondering why such a multi-national country has only one official language, Russian. They were pointing to Belgium, Switzerland, other European countries which have more than one official language. But in Russia, Russian is indeed a language all people in the country know, and all the other languages, however many they can be in number, are spoken but by small communities of people.


----------



## aslan

Outsider said:


> Can you read French, Aslan? There was a previous thread that touched on these issues, but it was mostly in French: Langue vue comme export impérialiste.


 
Unfourtnately I don t speak French, Anyway Thank you


----------



## aslan

Etcetera said:


> I suppose we all remember the history of African countries. Almost each of them used to be a colony of this or that great power. Of course, the colonial authorities prefer to use their own language, and if we're speaking about Africa, of course, it was far easier to bring a new language there and make it the official language, because there's so many languages in Africa.
> 
> In Russia, there are many different nationalities, and many of them speak their own language. I remember that about a decade ago some people were wondering why such a multi-national country has only one official language, Russian. They were pointing to Belgium, Switzerland, other European countries which have more than one official language. But in Russia, Russian is indeed a language all people in the country know, and all the other languages, however many they can be in number, are spoken but by small communities of people.


 
Forcing one nation not to use their own languages is (was,  will be) always cruel. Actually The problem is not about the offical language.There can be one official language that is used in everyday life.But What I hate,As I said above, is forcing one nation not to use their own language.This is a kind of destroying or maybe killing one culture.

We have the same problem especially with kurdish here in my country.Despite many of them who doesn t share the same opinion with me, I think All the languages spoken in my country should be that free.Fourtanately Recently somethings has changed in Turkey and still in progress.Altough There are many Kurdish citizens of Turkey, Until 1980,1990 Kurdish couldn t be spoken freely.We are about loose another language named lazca (generally spoken in the east-north of turkey.

In Turkey the situation may be a bit different.We have also really big problems with a terrorist group named ,PKK which is fighting against Turkish Goverment with the  aim of establishing a new Kurdish country in southeast of turkey.In fact the problem is too much complicated.It is something different than What we talk about here.


----------



## Etcetera

aslan said:


> Forcing one nation not to use their own languages is (was,  will be) always cruel. Actually The problem is not about the offical language.There can be one official language that is used in everyday life.But What I hate,As I said above, is forcing one nation not to use their own language.This is a kind of destroying or maybe killing one culture.


I totally agree with you.
And that's what happened in the Soviet Union in the 1930s-1950s, when a lot of nations who were unlucky to live in its territory were forced to use only Russian in their daily life. As a result, many languages disappeared completely. It was a real crime!


----------



## ps139

aslan said:


> Forcing one nation not to use their own languages is (was,  will be) always cruel. Actually The problem is not about the offical language.There can be one official language that is used in everyday life.But What I hate,As I said above, is forcing one nation not to use their own language.This is a kind of destroying or maybe killing one culture.


Welcome to colonialism.


----------



## Thomas F. O'Gara

While I wounld never condone a language disappearing, it's only fair to point out that this is hardly a new phenomenon. In every major culture around the world, one language came to be the dominant one for learned discourse. In the Western European Middle Ages it was Latin; in the Middle East it was Arabic.  In India it was Sanskrit until the rise of the medieval Islamic states, at which point it was partly replaced by Farsi; indeed, Sanskrit took on a new life when it ceased to be a spoken language, and a lot of the best Sanskrit literature was produced in the medieval period.  As for Farsi, it was never a natively spoken language in India, but that didn't stop it from becoming the language of administration and literature under the Moghuls.  In China, it was literary Chinese, which although it always interacted with the spoken language to some extent became almost exclusively a literary medium by the time of the Ming Dynasty, if not earlier.  All of these languages virtually ceased to resemble their related spoken languages, but some medium was needed as a language of universal discourse.

In one sense, Russian, French, Spanish and particularly English have simply done the same thing.  Where these languages were imposed by colonialism, they have become universalized by the exigencies of modern global culture, and the continued use of English as the language of universal discourse in India is symptomatic of this trend.  It takes a combination of unique factors to make a language an adequate tool for any and all forms of learned use, and while some less widespread languages can raise themselves to that level (witness the massive coinage of new vocabulary in Meiji Japan to accomodate western scientific and technical terms) this is the exception rather than the rule.

To boot, very often the death of minority languages is a form of self censorship; the Irish language largely disappeared because the Irish themselves saw a greater advantage in learning English, regardless of how they felt about the English as a race, and this is not an isolated situation.

On the other side of the coin, educating an elite in a foreign language can create a cruel form of schitzophrenia, as anybody who has read Franz Fanon can understand (does anybody read Franz Fanon any more?).


----------



## Anatoli

I am a nasty guy who supports linguistic globalism - the less languages used, the better. People speaking the same language talk less about their differences or at least they are able to reconcile them. Dialects and diglossia are a problem too.

It's good to know your roots but you get more benefits by knowing the offcial language, which is widely used and gives you access to a lot of resources and communication.

Brazil keeps the formal Portuguese as the language of education, so they are still connected to Portugal linguistically but Brazilian Portuguese is used for informal communication. The Arab world has something in common while they have the standard Arabic as their language of formal communication. Chinese Mandarin has not replaced dialects but more Chinese choose to speak (either following the official propaganda or out of their personal choice). In Taiwan, nobody forces people to speak Mandarin, rather than the dialect but it's gradually replacing it.

In many countries, you're considered to be uneducated if you speak a strong dialect - Germany, Russia.

Many Indians I know have different views to their mother tongue, depending on their education but every educated Indian will agree that they must speak English, same applies to big number of countries in Asia and Africa.

Very isolated languages and dialects are good for research by linguists but that's about it.

Just my opinion. Don't call me chauvinist or imperialist or whatever. I enjoy foreign languages but I think eventually only a few will survive.


----------



## Frank06

Anatoli said:


> I am a nasty guy who supports linguistic globalism - the less languages used, the better. People speaking the same language talk less about their differences or at least they are able to reconcile them. Dialects and diglossia are a problem too.



That's a very pragmatic attitude. The world isn't a better or worse place since Elamite disappeared. So, yes, I kind of understand you.
I only wonder if you would think the same if your native tongue wasn't Russian (a top 10 language) and if you didn't speak English (another top 10 language). 



> Very isolated languages and dialects are good for research by linguists but that's about it.


And good for the people who speak them, no?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Etcetera

Frank06 said:


> And good for the people who speak them, no?


That's what I was going to say.


----------



## Anatoli

Frank06 said:


> That's a very pragmatic attitude. The world isn't a better or worse place since Elamite disappeared. So, yes, I kind of understand you.


I only wonder if you would think the same if your native tongue wasn't Russian (a top 10 language) and if you didn't speak English (another top 10 language). 

I may sound unpatriotic but my answer is yes, in the sense that a small language is learned and used but its speakers should learn another as well for practical purposes. I am not suggested to force anything, it's just a natural process in many cases. If a language/dialect dies/is dying, I don't feel sorry for it, if its speakers choose it (like Irish or Taiwanese, etc.).

Many Russians will not support my opinion but I think Russia is somewhat disadvantaged because general English knowledge is somewhat behind Western Europe, especially in regional areas, outside Moscow and St. Petersburg. By no means, I mean drop Russian, but English knowledge should be improved.



> And good for the people who speak them, no?


Yes, didn't I say I am nasty? 

I'll give you some example of what I mean, so that I appear less nasty  . In the Chinese province of Jiangsu there is a big variety of mutually unintelligible Chinese dialects (which some linguists define as languages), so that it is prescribed to speak Mandarin in certain cases and also people choose to speak when want to be understood by a larger group. Many Chinese parents choose to educate their kids in standard Chinese (Mandarin or Putonghua) to make sure their kids know the language known to all of China.

Although, the trend is often reversed - empires and unions break up and regional languages get their status upgraded, in many industrial places people are bilingual and trilingual, especially when English is involved. Many companies in Europe, Middle East, even Japan are affected by globalisation and use a lot of English.

In Australia there are a lot of communities whose knowledge of English is low and it's worse for them, although they have the benefit of knowing their own language, they sometimes suffer from not knowing the offcial language. There was a quite recent tragic event when an African child died because his father who just arrived in Australia didn't know English and didn't know how to use the phone (it's true).

What I am saying the benefit of knowledge of an offical or more common or more widely used language outweighs the benefits of isolated, regional and small-numbered language. Language is not only tradition and history and culture but first of means of communication and we require a lot of efficient communication these days.


----------



## Outsider

Anatoli said:


> Brazil keeps the formal Portuguese as the language of education, so they are still connected to Portugal linguistically but Brazilian Portuguese is used for informal communication.


You could say that's a price they're willing to pay for linguistic internationalism. In a world of linguistic globalism, you should expect more, not fewer, cases like that.


----------



## zaigucis

aslan said:


> Forcing one nation not to use their own languages is (was, will be) always cruel. Actually The problem is not about the offical language.There can be one official language that is used in everyday life. But What I hate,As I said above, is forcing one nation not to use their own language.This is a kind of destroying or maybe killing one culture.


 
They were trying so many times to do it with the Latvian language. But they have no success! We still speak Latvian


----------



## Anatoli

Outsider said:


> You could say that's a price they're willing to pay for linguistic internationalism. In a world of linguistic globalism, you should expect more, not fewer, cases like that.


The current usage of English in the world is one big case covering a lot of countries/situations with different levels of globalisation


----------



## Anatoli

zaigucis said:


> They were trying so many times to do it with the Latvian language. But they have no success! We still speak Latvian


Hello Zaigucis. You're welcome to speak Latvian or any other language but you do speak English and that's why we can talk .


----------



## zaigucis

Anatoli said:


> Hello Zaigucis. You're welcome to speak Latvian or any other language but you do speak English and that's why we can talk .


 
конечно  
​


----------



## elpoderoso

Thomas F. O'Gara said:


> the Irish language largely disappeared because the Irish themselves saw a greater advantage in learning English, regardless of how they felt about the English as a race, and this is not an isolated situation.


you make it seem as if the loss of the Irish language occurred on a voluntary basis, the language declined because the English at the time made the people see the disadvantages of speaking their native tongue, they didn't think one day ''oh Irish is a bit boring, let's give English a try''


----------



## karuna

Anatoli said:


> Many Indians I know have different views to their mother tongue, depending on their education but every educated Indian will agree that they must speak English, same applies to big number of countries in Asia and Africa.



I think that people in India, Africa and Latin America should actively increase the usage of their native languages, especially in educational institutions. It is a noble goal to learn English or Spanish but it takes time. I for one, would never be able to attend University unless the language of instruction were in Latvian. Even though Russian was de facto official language in the USSR I failed my Russian and English language studies at school. 

I have met many intelligent people in India who did speak only rudimentary English and I am thinking that their Universities must be missing many bright people just because their linguistic skills are not adequate. Many people could become good doctors, engineers, etc., if they were able to study in their native languages. Translating textbooks and training teachers is relatively cheap considering the results.

At first I couldn't believe that many nations with 10 times more native speakers than Latvians do not provide higher education or secondary education in their native languages. Especially for Indian languages with ancient literary traditions and rich vocabularies. But I think it also applies to many African nations and Amerindians in Latin American countries where many people speak their own languages like Quechua or Nahuatl. 

Although it would be beneficial for all those people to learn a global language in reality they have lost this opportunity before it can happen thus it is no wonder that such native speakers often are the poorest people even in their own countries. 

Japan is actually a very good example that the education in their native language is very beneficial even though they study English for global contacts as well. But individual Japanese students may not be speaking fluent English and yet they have full oportunities. 



> Just my opinion. Don't call me chauvinist or imperialist or whatever. I enjoy foreign languages but I think eventually only a few will survive.


While many languages indeed will disappear I also envision the rebirth of various languages. The native spears are there but the usage of their languages is limited only for political reasons. If Latvian can coexist in the global word why not others. We can use English internationally and speak our own languages locally.


----------



## Thomas F. O'Gara

elpoderoso:

Regarding the adoption of English in Ireland, it was in fact a matter of choice for a lot of families in the nineteenth century, since it was perceived that the educational opportunities were better in English.

To some extent the Catholic Church participated in a passive way by generally offering education only in English in their better institutions; some say that they had their own agenda in doing this.  But to the best of my knowledge the English never actively attempted to coerce the Irish into learning English, whatever else they may have done, although I may be wrong.


----------



## maxiogee

Thomas F. O'Gara said:


> But to the best of my knowledge the English never actively attempted to coerce the Irish into learning English, whatever else they may have done, although I may be wrong.



Well, I find it a bit strange that you choose not to consider as coercion the Penal Laws — just one of which was:


> 7 Will III c.4 (1695):
> An Act to Restrain foreign Education
> Sec. 9. Whereas it has been found by experience that tolerating at papists keeping schools or instructing youth in literature is one great reason of many of the natives continuing ignorant of the principles of the true religion, and strangers to the scriptures, and of their neglecting to conform themselves to the laws of this realm, *and of their not using the English habit and language*, no person of the popish religion shall publicly teach school or instruct youth, or in private houses teach youth, except only the children of the master or mistress of the private house, upon pain of twenty pounds, and prison for three months for every such offence.


(my highlighting)

You might also do a web-search for "tally-stick", used in schools to record pupils "offences" in speaking Irish, and which merited punishments.


----------



## JamesM

Just as a side note (since I haven't seen it mentioned yet), English is _not_ the official language of the U.S.  We have no official language.

I just thought I'd throw that in here since it is often overlooked in discussions about "official" languages.

If someone did mention this and I missed it, I apologize.


----------



## Poetic Device

This is a very interesting topic. As JamesM stated, the United States does not have an official language.  This does not bother me too much however to a degree I am not happy about it.

What upsets me is that (from my experiences and from what I have wittnessed) when an individual comes to this country to live and whatnot they don't really bother to use and excercise English. They instead insist on using either offensively broken English that no one can understand or their native language. Either way they expect you to 100% understand them. 

This country was founded by English-speaking people, and that is how it stayed for the longest time. I know that this is "the land of the free", but if you want to live here at least make an attempt to learn and use the language that is spoken here. I would do the same if I was to move to your country. You want to live here then you go by our rules just as we would be obligated to do so if the roles were reversed.


----------



## Outsider

As far as I can tell, the decline of Irish is due to the fact that:

- It was already a minority language in Ireland when the Republic regained its independence.
- English is, undeniably, a very useful language in today's world.

So, maybe many Irish did decide it was more advantageous to invest (quite literally) in English.

But to write off the whole affair as "a choice of the Irish" is disingenuous. That's tip-toeing around the question of _what made Irish a minority language in Ireland in the first place_.


----------



## Outsider

Poetic Device said:


> What upsets me is that (from my experiences and from what I have wittnessed) when an individual comes to this country to live and whatnot they don't really bother to use and excercise English. They instead insist on using either offensively broken English that no one can understand or their native language. Either way they expect you to 100% understand them.
> 
> This country was founded by English-speaking people, and that is how it stayed for the longest time. I know that this is "the land of the free", but if you want to live here at least make an attempt to learn and use the language that is spoken here. I would do the same if I was to move to your country. You want to live here then you go by our rules just as we would be obligated to do so if the roles were reversed.


Since the U.S. does not have an official language -- as many Americans like to boast -- what "rules", exactly, are immigrants breaking when they use other languages?


----------



## Anatoli

zaigucis said:


> конечно


And though it may be thought uncool to speak Russian in Latvia, you can use it when travelling to neighbouring Russia, Belarus, Estonia and Lithuania.


----------



## JamesM

Outsider said:


> Since the U.S. does not have an official language -- as many Americans like to boast -- what "rules", exactly, are immigrants breaking when they use other languages?


 
Actually, I don't think anyone "boasts" of us not having an official language.  "Boasts" is definitely not the word I'd use.

Personally, I think it would save us a great deal of trouble if we would declare English as our official language. As it is, our government publications are available in different languages depending on region and population make-up, sometimes in dozens of languages.

For example, the California driver's license written test is offered in the following languages:  Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Cambodian, Chinese, Croatian, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Hmong, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Persian/Farsi, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Samoan, Spanish, Tagalog/Filipino, Thai, Tongan, Turkish, and Vietnamese.

As for "rules", there are none, actually, but there is a history of associating identification with our culture by speaking English, and there are practical issues as well. Surely it's the same in Portugal, isn't it, Outsider? From Wikipedia, it appears that you have a fairly large Ukrainian immigrant population in Portugal. How well does it work if those immigrants speak Ukrainian or Russian in the businessplace to your citizenry rather than speaking Portuguese (or even Spanish)?

I don't think Poetic Device put it very tactfully, but I don't think it's unique to the U.S. to expect people to speak the predominant language of the country.


----------



## Outsider

JamesM said:


> Surely it's the same in Portugal, isn't it, Outsider? From Wikipedia, it appears that you have a fairly large Ukrainian immigrant population in Portugal. How well does it work if those immigrants speak Ukrainian or Russian in the businessplace to your citizenry rather than speaking Portuguese (or even Spanish)?


I think the market decides those matters. If the immigrant community is large enough for some shops to survive without going bankrupt while having staff members that only speak a foreign language, then it seems to me that the capitalist thing to say is "Good for them". 



JamesM said:


> I don't think Poetic Device put it very tactfully, but I don't think it's unique to the U.S. to expect people to speak the predominant language of the country.


I did not mean to imply that it was unique. I just disagree with the attitude.


----------



## JamesM

Outsider said:


> I did not mean to imply that it was unique. I just disagree with the attitude.


 
Ah, I misunderstood.  I thought you just disagreed with the attitude in Americans.


----------



## ps139

Anatoli said:


> Just my opinion. Don't call me chauvinist or imperialist or whatever. I enjoy foreign languages but I think eventually only a few will survive.


I believe that we will always have a lot of languages, some "elite" ones and other marginal ones. Basically, while many languages die out, the bigger languages are gradually splitting into dialects, which then will become their own languages. 

Think back to Europe, at one time, basically everyone in the Roman Empire spoke Latin. Then it split into dialects. Now, we have 5 or 6 Romance languages. Of them, there is already a distinction between European and Brazilian Portuguese. In Italy there are many regional dialects, the split goes on and on.

So, let's say that with globalization, English becomes spoken everywhere. Well, it will not take too long before you have dialects, and then grandchildren separate languages of English. Now, I do think that with mass media speaking "standard variety," this phenomenon will be slowed down a lot, but it will never stop, it is inherent in the nature of languages.


----------



## zaigucis

Anatoli said:


> And though it may be thought uncool to speak Russian in Latvia, you can use it when travelling to neighbouring Russia, Belarus, Estonia and Lithuania.


 
Maybe for somebody it is uncool, but I use it when it is necessary. For exapmle - when some old Russian woman ask me the way, i dont pretend that i dont understand Russian, but answer her in russian  Although I am in that age when I could know it bad, and many little bit younger people know it bad.


----------



## Thomas F. O'Gara

Maxi:

Your point is taken about the English imposing their language in Ireland.  I stand corrected.


----------



## Poetic Device

Outsider said:


> Since the U.S. does not have an official language -- as many Americans like to boast -- what "rules", exactly, are immigrants breaking when they use other languages?


 
This fact has only recently taken effect, and up until I think about twenty years or so ago we were a prodominantly English speaking nation.  It wasn't until we let the sluggish in and allowed them to push English out of the picture.  Now (and this is in no offense to anyone) we have people that come in and work for example at a gas station, who think they are hoyty toyty and decide that they are going to speak their language and if you can't understand them then (in their own language, of course) they will tell you where to go.  Basically, the way that I see it is this:  this country was founded on English speaking individuals, ergo this country's native and national tongue should be English.

As far as not having a national language being something to boast about is concerned, I think it's the complete opposite.  It is yet another example of how the United States has virtually no identity.


----------



## Outsider

Dear Poetic Device, I found your latest reply a little ambivalent.

In the first place, you did not exactly address my objection -- which "rules" are immigrants breaking, by using foreign languages. Even in countries that do have an official language, people are allowed to use any language they choose in their daily life, and I'm not sure that there are any linguistic restrictions concerning the languages that may be used in businesses. I have never heard of such restrictions, and I live in a country that has an official language. Now, if we talk about public schools, or courtrooms, or government publications, I'm sure that the official language does matter (in the sense that it's the only language guaranteed by law, not in the sense that the others are prohibited). But not in the aptly named private sector.

You say that up until twenty years ago the U.S. was a predominantly English speaking nation, but there were significant German-speaking communities in the U.S. in the 19th century, to give just one example. And the Southwestern states of the U.S. -- those where it seems that people complain the most about the "invasion" of Spanish -- were originally Spanish-speaking (not counting native American languages, of course).

Your characterization of immigrants is very stereotyped. "The sluggish,"  "who think they are hoyty toyty", etc. I wonder how much you actually know about immigrants, and about what being an immigrant is like.

Most of all, that idea that people simply "decide" to use a language you don't understand just to annoy you... well, I don't even know what to say about that, except that I don't believe in it. How about this: many immigrants do not speak English well, and they never have much of a chance to learn it; they use Spanish (or whatever) because that's all they know. Doesn't this make more sense?

You argue also that your country was founded on English speaking individuals, ergo the country's native and national tongue should be English, but again that's simply not the case. English-speakers may have been the elites and even the majority of the colonists in the U.S., but there have always been significant minorities that spoke other languages, from the very beginning. In Pennsylvania, in the late 18th century, one third of the population was German-speaking. 

Multilinguism is not novel in the United States; it has always been with you. It just happens to be overlooked in the officially sanctioned version of the country's history.That may be what gives you the wrong impression that the U.S. has "no identity". But your country does not lack an identity; it has many identities, and it has always been that way.

I think you would benefit from reading this page.


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:


> This fact has only recently taken effect, and up until I think about twenty years or so ago we were a prodominantly English speaking nation.


 
We are still a predominantly English-speaking nation. 



> Now (and this is in no offense to anyone) we have people that come in and work for example at a gas station, who think they are hoyty toyty and decide that they are going to speak their language and if you can't understand them then (in their own language, of course) they will tell you where to go.


 
As Outsider said, market forces will pretty quickly decide if that guy's attitude is going to sink his business or not.


----------



## karuna

Poetic Device, I can understand your sentiments about English non-speakers in the USA. Yet, I don't think that these Spanish speaking immigrants are not speaking English by choice. Most probably they regret their poor English skills because they understand very well how English could improve their lives. It is an unfortunate fact that many immigrants find very hard to learn a new language. Right now I won't discuss the reasons (psychological and little formal education) as it is belongs to a completely different topic. However, the second generation of such immigrants have no problems whatsoever with the language.

The situation in Latvia is even more dramatic. About 20% of residents in Latvia are stateless persons. Basically they are unfortunate victims of the USSR policy; people who after the breakup of the Soviet Union have been refused the citizenship of the countries they are coming from and denied the Latvian citizenship because they are immigrants. Naturally there is a strong political tension about this issue, however, they all are allowed to become Latvian citizens at any time, provided they learn Latvian and pass a written test at an intermediate level. For many it is an insurmountable obstacle and I personally don't blame them. I know from experience how difficult it is to learn a new language and I consider myself very lucky to be able to write ramblings slightly resembling English at my age.


----------



## Poetic Device

Dear Fellow cyber citzens:

Since The United States is such a liberal country, there are no "set" or "written" rules that they are breaking--or at least to my knowlege.  I was never a lawyer, therefore I do not ever claim th know all of this country's laws.

When I say my views on speaking their native tongue or what have you, I am not talking about the immigrants speaking to a family member or a friend on a daily basis.  I am speaking of them talking to someone and not giving effort to speak the language of native citizens.  In business, I think that it is self evident that one should speak the language that the majority of their customers or co-workers are spreaking.  You mentioned about the courts and other legal places and doings.l  As a matter of fact if one was to go to a legal establishment one would find interpretors on staff 24/7.  If we were dealing with people that were not of this country, meaning those who do not have citizenship, then it would be copasthetic.  However, when it is a legal citizen, concidering the fact that they must know how to speak, read and write in English before obtaining citizenship, it is very frustrating.  When this happens I feel that we are basically saying, "Hey, you're different, and because you're different we will cater to you instead of insisting you speak our language."

You say that up until twenty years ago the U.S. was a predominantly English speaking nation...  No.  If you read my previous post I said that I think that is the case.  I say that because up until then, as far as I know, people that came to this country actually cared about wanting to absorb things such as the language in order to assist them in their "new life".  Also, it is not so much the southwestern states that i am talking about.  In all fairness, you cannot count them because anytime thatyou are near a border you are going to get different languages.  In Texas, that language would be Spanish and over by Canada I would tend to think French (Please correct me if I am mistaken).

I am not stereotyping anyone.  If you read my last post you will see that i clearly said that my statements were *examples*.  As far as understanding immigrants is concerned, to answer your question, yes, I do.  Before I went on Maternity leave I was working in one of the most diverse hospitals in New Jersey, and if you do not wish to consider that then how about the fact that my grandfather is from Coruna, Spain.  I believe that would give me a bit of an insighton what the typical every day immigrant thinks and how they feel.  However, my grandfather as far as that topic is concerned is to a degree abnormal.  I say this because he is the only immigrant that I know (and I know and converse with quite a bit of them) that when asked to teach a person Spanish will say, "No, you live in America you speak English."  As far as not totally knowing the language and wanting to know it is concerned, you cannot tell me that it is impossible for them to learn, not when there are so many resources that are FREE that they can obtain (i.e. special programs and libraries).  I am not saying they must have perfect English.  No one in this country has that.  What I am saying is that I expect them to try to at least converse the best that they can and actually learn enough to say somewhat clearly "How are you?" or "Can I help you?"  They can at least curse at me in English. 
Do you know what being an immigrant is like?

Most of all, that idea that people simply "decide" to use a language you don't understand just to annoy you... Let's get one thing straight.  I am not so pompus to think that the world revolves around me and that pwople only do things to get to me.  I am also not the only one that thinks this.  I am just one of the few that does not know when to keep thier mouth shut.  DOes any of this make any sense?  Am I clearing up the confusion?

But your country does not lack an identity; it has many identities, and it has always been that way.  Does this mean that we are the schitzophrenic red headed step-child of the world? 

I also want to say this:  *the Spanish-speaking people was just an example.*  There are many other languages that I could list, but I do not want to tire my fingers or you.

Karuna,
Your English is fantastic, and it is the perfect example of what I wish here.  Don't ever put your abilities down.  You are very smart and very wise (especially for the age of 29).

By the way, that article was interesting, and thank you for sharing.


----------



## Outsider

Poetic Device said:


> You mentioned about the courts and other legal places and doings.l  As a matter of fact if one was to go to a legal establishment one would find interpretors on staff 24/7.


I think that's wonderful, and it would be a shame if the U.S. moved away from that kind of inclusiveness.



Poetic Device said:


> However, when it is a legal citizen, concidering the fact that they must know how to speak, read and write in English before obtaining citizenship, it is very frustrating.


I'm interested in this remark you made. Are immigrants to the U.S. really required by law to read and write English, before they can obtain citizenship?



Poetic Device said:


> I say that because up until then, as far as I know, people that came to this country actually cared about wanting to absorb things such as the language in order to assist them in their "new life".


What makes you think that today's immigrants are different from the immigrants of other decades, as far as their desire to assimilate is concerned?



Poetic Device said:


> As far as understanding immigrants is concerned, to answer your question, yes, I do.  Before I went on Maternity leave I was working in one of the most diverse hospitals in New Jersey, and if you do not wish to consider that then how about the fact that my grandfather is from Coruna, Spain.  I believe that would give me a bit of an insighton what the typical every day immigrant thinks and how they feel.  However, my grandfather as far as that topic is concerned is to a degree abnormal.  I say this because he is the only immigrant that I know (and I know and converse with quite a bit of them) that when asked to teach a person Spanish will say, "No, you live in America you speak English."


I do not think that any one imigrant can be safely taken as a representative of the whole immigrant community.



Poetic Device said:


> As far as not totally knowing the language and wanting to know it is concerned, you cannot tell me that it is impossible for them to learn, not when there are so many resources that are FREE that they can obtain (i.e. special programs and libraries).  I am not saying they must have perfect English.  No one in this country has that.  What I am saying is that I expect them to try to at least converse the best that they can and actually learn enough to say somewhat clearly "How are you?" or "Can I help you?"


Do they have the time to learn a second language, after they spend the whole day working?



Poetic Device said:


> Do you know what being an immigrant is like?


I have several immigrants in my family; about half a dozen uncles or aunts (some did not stay abroad), and considerably more if I count their children, or a more extended portion of my family. Even so, I'm sure there's a lot I don't know about an immigrant's life, a lot of sacrifices I never heard about, because I never had to go through it myself.



Poetic Device said:


> I am also not the only one that thinks this.  I am just one of the few that does not know when to keep thier mouth shut.  DOes any of this make any sense?  Am I clearing up the confusion?


Sure, I'm one of those people who aren't clever enough to keep their opinions to themselves, too. I mean, just look at me here. 



Poetic Device said:


> Does this mean that we are the schitzophrenic red headed step-child of the world?


No, it just means that Americans get more identities to choose from than the rest of us. In Europe, you're entitled to one stereotype, and that's it. 
Anyway, I've just noticed, at the Wikipedia that there are plenty of other countries without an official language, besides the U.S. Australia doesn't have one, either. You're not going to stand there and tell me that Australians have no identity of their own, are you? 



Poetic Device said:


> I also want to say this:  *the Spanish-speaking people was just an example.*  There are many other languages that I could list, but I do not want to tire my fingers or you.


O.K., and this thread was about official languages in general, not just the U.S. Still, in the U.S., the language which is currently a hot topic is Spanish...


----------



## JamesM

Outsider said:


> I think that's wonderful, and it would be a shame if the U.S. moved away from that kind of inclusiveness.
> 
> I'm interested in this remark you made. Are immigrants to the U.S. really required by law to read and write English, before they can obtain citizenship?


 
Yes. It's a very basic English test. They are asked to read or write simple sentences, such as:

"America is the land of the free."

(This gives you an idea of how basic the sentences are.)

They must also pass a basic test on U.S. Government. I believe there are also a few history questions on it.


----------



## Poetic Device

Outsider said:


> What makes you think that today's immigrants are different from the immigrants of other decades, as far as their desire to assimilate is concerned? One word: Effort (or in this case lack thereof).
> 
> I do not think that any one imigrant can be safely taken as a representative of the whole immigrant community. This is true, and I apologize for that. However, my point is I know and talk to more than just a handful of immigrants (both legal and illegal) and none of them have/had the same attitude.
> 
> Do they have the time to learn a second language, after they spend the whole day working? This one is really hard for me to answer without getting personal and snappy, and because of that I greatly apologize, but let me just say that it is duable. Not easy, but duable.
> 
> I have several immigrants in my family; about half a dozen uncles or aunts (some did not stay abroad), and considerably more if I count their children, or a more extended portion of my family. Even so, I'm sure there's a lot I don't know about an immigrant's life, a lot of sacrifices I never heard about, because I never had to go through it myself. And for this I have great respect for you and your family. They are probably not anywhere near the examples that I gave that boil my blood.
> 
> Sure, I'm one of those people who aren't clever enough to keep their opinions to themselves, too. I mean, just look at me here.  Yay! Let's start a club!
> 
> No, it just means that Americans get more identities to choose from than the rest of us. In Europe, you're entitled to one stereotype, and that's it.  I still feel like a schitzo...
> Anyway, I've just noticed, at the Wikipedia that there are plenty of other countries without an official language, besides the U.S. Australia doesn't have one, either. You're not going to stand there and tell me that Australians have no identity of their own, are you?  If I was to tell you that, I would sit.  In any event, in my sick, twisted and cranky mind Australia is different, but that is another story. If you would like me to elaborate, PM me and I'll give you PMS.
> 
> O.K., and this thread was about official languages in general, not just the U.S. Still, in the U.S., the language which is currently a hot topic is Spanish... Touche.


 
I just want to say one other thing.  (I know what your thinking, and I will shut up soon.)  I know that not every person to come in this country is what I am griping about.  If anything, the typical law of "only the asses stick out" comes into play the best here.  However, this is an occurrance (sp) and I feel it is one that happens too often.  This is my opinion, and I know you all probably feel that it's like one's anus (to put it nicely)....


----------

