Language, Truth, and Logic: was Social Security, etc.

[Tom Watson]

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)

(website)

[loutent]

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

[Dave Balderstone]

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

[root]

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)

[Charlie Self]

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.

[Patrick Conroy]

"Charlie Self" wrote in news:1127383493.538442.292080 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

I think there will be... It'll be Spanish! :)

Glad I paid attention to those classes in School!

[Tom Watson]

It is my understanding that the referendum of 1995 missed passage by less than one percent.

Tom Watson - WoodDorker tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)

(website)

[fredfighter]

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.

[Michael Daly]

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

[Dave Balderstone]

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?

[Michael Daly]

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

[Duane Bozarth]

Where and when was that vote taken?

[Charlie Self]

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.

[Charlie Self]

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.

[Tim Daneliuk]

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.

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]

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]

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).

[Dave Balderstone]

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.

[Tim Daneliuk]

Well, there are now, anyway ;)

[Dave Balderstone]

Don't know your history?

Start with Batoche... then move in any direction.