daly@nybcb.UUCP (daly) (02/04/85)
I heard on the radio last week that two senators (one from California,
the other from a midwestern state, I believe) are trying to pass a law that
will make English the official language of the United States. All I can say
is "It's about time."
As I understand it, if passed, all public school classes would be taught
in English. This means no more bi-language programs where students are taught
in a language other than English.
Hopefully this will also end the printing of official signs in foreign
languages, as this is an expense taxpayers can do without. If the government
took the money that they spend on printing signs & teaching in foreign languages
& used the money to teach people English the problem would be solved at the
source. myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (02/05/85)
Q: What does bilingual mean? A: Someone who speaks two languages. Q: What does trilingual mean? A: Someone who speaks three languages. Q: What does monolingual mean? A: Someone from the United States.
colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (02/06/85)
> I heard on the radio last week that two senators (one from California, > the other from a midwestern state, I believe) are trying to pass a law that > will make English the official language of the United States. All I can say > is "It's about time." If that one goes through, I'm going to try to make silence the Official Language of the Senate. "Any news was good news ... " -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...decvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (02/07/85)
> > I heard on the radio last week that two senators (one from California, > the other from a midwestern state, I believe) are trying to pass a law that > will make English the official language of the United States. All I can say > is "It's about time." > As I understand it, if passed, all public school classes would be taught > in English. This means no more bi-language programs where students are taught > in a language other than English. > Hopefully this will also end the printing of official signs in foreign > languages, as this is an expense taxpayers can do without. If the government > took the money that they spend on printing signs & teaching in foreign > languages & used the money to teach people English the problem would be > solved at the source. What problem? Why are you so worried about having more than one "official" language in America? Switzerland has four (or three), and this is reasonable because the people there come from various cultural backgrounds. This seems to be the case in the US too, especially in the South, so why do you want to make things tough on Spanist-speaking people (for instance) ? Wayne
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (02/09/85)
> I heard on the radio last week that two senators ... are trying to pass a > law that will make English the official language of the United States. All > I can say is "It's about time." > > As I understand it, if passed, all public school classes would be taught > in English. This means no more bi-language programs where students are > taught in a language other than English. I've seen only one other response to this, so I guess I'll have to be the one to bite. You seem to be pretty confused as to the purpose of bilingual education. There may be a few school districts left in the country somewhere that really try to maintain a full curriculum in more than just English, but the vast majority of bilingual programs are aimed precisely at doing just what you claim to want, namely, to teach people English. You may find it surprising, but I don't, that if you take a bunch of kids from non-English- speaking backgrounds (and most likely the children of poorly educated parents to boot) and put them in an English-speaking classroom, they're not going to do very well at first. The idea behind bilingual education is that if you let them get used to the fundamentals -- like reading, writing, arithmetic, and the discipline and habits of going to school -- in their native tongues and then introduce them to English gradually, they'll have far more success at it. Personally, I'm enough of a pluralist at heart that I'd love to see *truly* bilingual education in the parts of the country where it is appropriate. In parts of the Rio Grande Valley, for instance, most people of all ethnic backgrounds speak both English and Spanish, and I think it would be great if the school system encouraged them to be literate in both languages. But the fact is, that's not what existing bilingual education programs are all about. As far as I can tell, this flap about "making" English the official language (it seems pretty official to me already) is just another bunch of traditional U.S. jingoism, and bilingual education is a convenient scapegoat. > Hopefully this will also end the printing of official signs in foreign > languages, as this is an expense taxpayers can do without. If the > government took the money that they spend on printing signs & teaching in > foreign languages & used the money to teach people English the problem > would be solved at the source. "The problem will be solved at the source?" What do you want to do, teach everybody in the whole world English? Boy, you're sure going to have to rip down an awful lot of bilingual signs to pay for that! :-) --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle --- riddle@ut-sally.UUCP, riddle@ut-sally.ARPA, riddle@zotz.ARPA
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/09/85)
> [...] You may find it > surprising, but I don't, that if you take a bunch of kids from non-English- > speaking backgrounds (and most likely the children of poorly educated > parents to boot) and put them in an English-speaking classroom, they're not > going to do very well at first. The idea behind bilingual education is that > if you let them get used to the fundamentals -- like reading, writing, > arithmetic, and the discipline and habits of going to school -- in their > native tongues and then introduce them to English gradually, they'll have > far more success at it. A method that is experimentally MUCH better than this is to give those of a non-English background a crash course in English (it's the only thing taught in their first year, for example) and then let them join the all- English curriculum on an equal basis. This works better, is cheaper (you don't have the expense of training teachers above first year in the problems of bilingual education), and it's less controversial. > Personally, I'm enough of a pluralist at heart that I'd love to see *truly* > bilingual education in the parts of the country where it is appropriate. In > parts of the Rio Grande Valley, for instance, most people of all ethnic > backgrounds speak both English and Spanish, and I think it would be great if > the school system encouraged them to be literate in both languages. I've never lived further than 30 miles from the Rio Grande and I don't know very many people of any local ethnic group that supports this idea. Even many of those adults whose own English skills are slight would prefer that their children be taught English ASAP. One problem is that until the overall literacy rates in at least ONE language is seen to go up, it seems unproductive to strive for two. The other problem is that a complete bilingual curriculum will allow non- English speaking students to go clear through without picking up fluent English skills. Even good students may be lazy in their efforts to learn English. This, of course, limits their employment and college opportunities to places where their native tongue is spoken (doesn't really make them equal citizens, does it?). The final point is that children of ages 4-7 learn languages with MUCH less effort and with MUCH greater fluency than if they wait until later. Bilingual education is a great idea if you have LOTS of money to spend on your school system. But many minority schools barely have operating costs as it is. I would prefer that any children I have receive a multi-lingual education (because, despite my residence in New Mexico, I find a need to read German or French in my work much more pressing than Spanish). But the primary issue here is to use the most cost effective way of getting education to everybody. J. Giles
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (02/10/85)
-- > I heard on the radio last week that two senators (one from > California, the other from a midwestern state, I believe) are trying > to pass a law that will make English the official language of the > United States. All I can say is "It's about time." ... What a horrible idea. The official language of the US should be French, the "official" official language through much of Western history. Not only is it very mellifluous to hear and very smart-looking to see, it would also put all of America's "me-first" minorities and special-interest groups at an equal disadvantage. Well, all except for the Haitians, but they've suffered enough already. But don't take my word for it--here's an example: "L'usage du cabinet est interdit pendant que le train est en gare." This translates to: " Don't use the toilet while the train is in the station." Now I ask you, which would you rather read? And if you're not yet convinced, listen to a French-speaker pronounce that, well, pronouncement. I'm sure you'll agree, never did such a mundane restriction sound like such a delightful suggestion. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 09 Feb 85 [21 Pluviose An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/12/85)
> > What problem? Why are you so worried about having more than one > "official" language in America? Switzerland has four (or three), and > this is reasonable because the people there come from various cultural > backgrounds. This seems to be the case in the US too, especially in the > South, so why do you want to make things tough on Spanist-speaking > people (for instance) ? > > Wayne This is one of those times when I must "cross-over" to support what is basically a right of center movement. Every person from every nation that has come to this country has had the choice of learning English or getting along as best they could in their native tounge. Only recently have we tailored American residency to accomodate those who won't or can't learn English. I do not see any reason why we are allowing this to happen. If you don't think there will be very great monetary and social expenses in trying to create a bilingual America, I suggest you look into the Canadian situation. I, for one, strongly support the move to return this country to a single official language. P.S. Most non-Spanish speaking people in the U.S. have found it to their advantage to learn enough Spanish to be able to hold a conversation, if they are in a situation that warrants it. BTW, I seem to remember hearing that English beat German by one vote to be the official language of the U.S when the country was formed. Does that mean that English already is the official language of the U.S.? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
esco@ssc-vax.UUCP (Michael Esco) (02/13/85)
> > I heard on the radio last week that two senators (one from California, > the other from a midwestern state, I believe) are trying to pass a law that > will make English the official language of the United States. All I can say > is "It's about time." What ever happened to states' rights? This is an example of an issue that should be left up to individual states to decide. In case you haven't noticed lately, Puerto Rico is a US territory with a population greater than 50,000 which (if I remember the Constitution correctly) gives them the right to petition for statehood. If PR did become a state, they might prefer Spanish as the state language. My feeling is that the federal government should be involved in as few things as possible. If the state of Washington decided to make Serbo-Croatian the state language, Washington DC should have nothing to say in the matter. Michael Esco Boeing Aerospace
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/18/85)
> > What ever happened to states' rights? This is an example of an issue that should > be left up to individual states to decide. In case you haven't noticed lately, > Puerto Rico is a US territory with a population greater than 50,000 which > (if I remember the Constitution correctly) gives them the right to petition > for statehood. If PR did become a state, they might prefer Spanish as the state > language. > > My feeling is that the federal government should be involved in as few things > as possible. If the state of Washington decided to make Serbo-Croatian the > state language, Washington DC should have nothing to say in the matter. > > Michael Esco > Boeing Aerospace And just how would you expect such things as interstate commerce, travel, etc. to continue? Better yet, how would you take an army into battle when the troops speak 50+ different languages? I have sympathy for the people of Puerto Rico being owned by a nation that has a different native tounge. But if they want to be a state, they better be able to deal with all the other states. And if that necessitates learning English, so be it. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (02/19/85)
> > And just how would you expect such things as interstate commerce, travel, > etc. to continue? > Oh, different languages preclude trade and travel!? That explains the terrible shape of the world economy. > > Better yet, how would you take an army into battle when > the troops speak 50+ different languages? > Look, we need Spanish speaking units for our incursions in Latin America. Anyway, things go better with Coke, the true international language. > > I have sympathy for the people > of Puerto Rico being owned by a nation that has a different native tounge. > But if they want to be a state, they better be able to deal with all the > other states. And if that necessitates learning English, so be it. > Who says they want to be a state? At the moment, the status quo party is in power. Interesting choice of words, "people...owned", which strikes very close to home. I'm sure that they appreciate your sympathy. -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.arpa uucp: ..!{ucbvax,allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/20/85)
> > Oh, different languages preclude trade and travel!? That explains the > terrible shape of the world economy. > I was envisioning a situation where you have a group that all speaks the same language being turned into a group that now speaks 50 different languages. (sort of a modern Tower of Babal scenario). BTW, was there supposed to be a :-) after the second sentence? > > Look, we need Spanish speaking units for our incursions in Latin America. > Anyway, things go better with Coke, the true international language. > I assume the :-) symbol goes after both of these statements. If not, would you please explain what you are talking about in the second? (honest question on my part). > > Who says they want to be a state? At the moment, the status quo party is > in power. Interesting choice of words, "people...owned", which strikes > very close to home. I'm sure that they appreciate your sympathy. > In answer to your question, it was propsed as an example by the original poster. Point taken on you third sentence. I should have used Territory. Sorry! But as for your fourth sentence, are we assuming a missing :-) again? The sympathy was genuine, even if it failed to seem so in print. > -- > Jeff Myers The views above may or may not > University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other > Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
dwd@ccice6.UUCP (David W. Donald) (02/21/85)
> > And just how would you expect such things as interstate commerce, travel, > etc. to continue? Better yet, how would you take an army into battle when > the troops speak 50+ different languages? I have sympathy for the people > of Puerto Rico being owned by a nation that has a different native tounge. > But if they want to be a state, they better be able to deal with all the > other states. And if that necessitates learning English, so be it. > If language is such a barrier to commerce and travel, how does Quebec survive as a part of Canada? How do the many members of the Common Market successfully communicate? How did I get my Toyota? About the army. Several C130s should do. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if an army spoke 50+ languages. :-)
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/21/85)
> > If language is such a barrier to commerce and travel, how does Quebec > survive as a part of Canada? How do the many members of the Common Market > successfully communicate? How did I get my Toyota? > > About the army. Several C130s should do. > > Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if an army spoke 50+ languages. :-) In answer to your three questions: 1. Not very well [:-/-)] 2. In a COMMON language 3. Bought it? [:-)] In reply to your last two statements, I almost agree! [:-/-)] *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (02/25/85)
In article <360@ccice6.UUCP> dwd@ccice6.UUCP (David W. Donald) writes: >How do the many members of the Common Market successfully communicate? I have been working with one of the EEC technical working groups in Ada. The people one the working group (from 5 different countries) all communicate in English. Even the French :-) --Mike Williams
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/25/85)
> > > > If language is such a barrier to commerce and travel, how does Quebec > > survive as a part of Canada? > > In answer .... > > 1. Not very well [:-/-)] BACK IT UP WITH SOMETHING! I LIVE UP HERE. BELIEVE ME IT WORKS. DAVE BROWN
john@bmcg.UUCP (John Wallner) (03/04/85)
Can someone clear this up for me? A lot of the discussion on this subject is of the form: "If the national language is not English, everything will be fouled up." To the best of my knowledge, the US does not have an official national language. Am I wrong? John Wallner bmcg!john
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (03/04/85)
> > BACK IT UP WITH SOMETHING! I LIVE UP HERE. BELIEVE ME IT WORKS. > > DAVE BROWN Easy, Dave, no offense intended! I make the statement based on Canadian friends (Ontarions and ex-Quebecois), your press (Toronto and Hamilton) and our media. The general feeling among these diverse sources is that the bi-lingual system has caused many economic, administrative, social, etc. problems. I'm not saying it DOESN'T work, I'm just saying it doesn't work WELL, at least not as well as if you all spoke one language. And to reassert my original argument, I don't see any need for us to do it here. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (03/05/85)
John Wallner,
You are correct. There is presently no official language in
the US of A. However, I think Senator Denton and few others
are getting a Constitutional Amendment together to make English
our official language. If you have an interest, please dig
deeper.
"It is a racist plot or a wonderful idea"
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (03/08/85)
In article <692@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >> If language is such a barrier to commerce and travel, how does Quebec >> survive as a part of Canada? How do the many members of the Common Market >> successfully communicate? How did I get my Toyota? >In answer to your three questions: > >1. Not very well [:-/-)] >2. In a COMMON language >3. Bought it? [:-)] About the second question/answer: The Common Market doesn't have a common language, and communication is one of its hardest problems. During a debate 7*6=42 simultaneous trans- lations have to take place, and imagine what happens if Spain and Portugal enter... -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep Hi, NSA, you read this, since I say KGB, El Salvador, DES decryption and CIA.