NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear the word Assimilated thrown casually around immigration debates, and I can't help but wonder what exactly people mean by it, and how (besides requiring that immigrants learn the native language) they plan to actually carry it out.

When someone says, "Immigrants ought to be fully assimilated!", it usually means that said person feels that said immigrants should fully accept and embrace the resident countries cultural teachings.

For instance, the immigrants should learn and accept the countries language, basic history, political process, cultural festivals, food & drink etc.

It means we break out the nanoprobes and shove 'em into a tiny hot uncomfortable space.


Sort of like a cubical.

http://forums.alliedmods.net/images/smilies/borg-smiley.gif

When someone says, "Immigrants ought to be fully assimilated!", it usually means that said person feels that said immigrants should fully accept and embrace the resident countries cultural teachings.

For instance, the immigrants should learn and accept the countries language, basic history, political process, cultural festivals, food & drink etc.

I'd just leave it at language (a job skill), basic history (something every citizen should know), and political processes (to better participate). Anything else doesn't really seem all that important aside from the law.

I hear the word Assimilated thrown casually around immigration debates, and I can't help but wonder what exactly people mean by it, and how (besides requiring that immigrants learn the native language) they plan to actually carry it out.

It's not actually that harsh of a word, you just need to stop watching star trek.

I hear the word Assimilated thrown casually around immigration debates, and I can't help but wonder what exactly people mean by it, and how (besides requiring that immigrants learn the native language) they plan to actually carry it out.

For me, it means that US "culture" is the best and that people here feel that if you live here, that means you need to eat at McDonald's, you shouldn't speak any other language, you should celebrate Christmas, and vote Republican. Or else you're doing the high crime of "not assimilating." It's all very ridiculous, I never hear anyone talking about how the Jews don't assimilate, or the Amish. Arguably neither one does, but it seems it's a major crime when Hispanic immigrants don't "seem American-enough."

For me, it means that US "culture" is the best and that people here feel that if you live here, that means you need to eat at McDonald's, you shouldn't speak any other language, you should celebrate Christmas, and vote Republican. Or else you're doing the high crime of "not assimilating." It's all very ridiculous, I never hear anyone talking about how the Jews don't assimilate, or the Amish. Arguably neither one does, but it seems it's a major crime when Hispanic immigrants don't "seem American-enough."

US Jews speak the English language, as do the Amish. They know the basic etiquette to use in public in our culture. Some amount of patriotism is also expected. I think that's what most folks mean when they say they want immigrants to assimilate. They want the foreigners to learn English, don't act like Borat, and be grateful for the fact that they're here.

I hear the word Assimilated thrown casually around immigration debates, and I can't help but wonder what exactly people mean by it, and how (besides requiring that immigrants learn the native language) they plan to actually carry it out.

Well, set aside for the moment that the people most likely to be yelling that word have no fucking idea what they're talking about.

The overwhelming majority of immigrants assimilate within three generations, less if they're really motivated. If there's a language difference--and let's use Mexico as an example since that's who the xenophobes have their panties in a twist over--then the original immigrants, if they come as adults, often gain little more than a rudimentary grasp of the language. Their children, assuming they're not in their late teens, generally are bilingual, since they tend to use English in school and Spanish at home. Their children, the third generation, are generally fully assimilated, which means they're more American than Mexican. They identify fully as American, and they've often lost the native tongue.

Now here's why the xenophobes don't get that this happens regularly. Mexican immigration has been happening regularly since before there were Europeans in what is now the US, and doesn't figure to stop any time soon. So there's a constant flow of first generation immigrants who don't know the language coming into the country. Xenophobes, who are generally too stupid to find their asses with both hands and a road map, don't understand this phenomenon and assume that every person who speaks Spanish has been living here 20 years as an illegal and never bothered to learn the language.

Ive actually heard someone complain that Mexican immigrants have BBQs in their front lawn as an example of them not "assimilating."

Fuck that. BBQ in the front lawn is fine with me. Maybe it'd incourage people to be more open and less bigoted asshattish.

US Jews speak the English language, as do the Amish.

They also speak their own language.

Hence, not "assimilated." They are separate.

They know the basic etiquette to use in public in our culture.

You mean like giving someone the finger if they cut you off in traffic?

Some amount of patriotism is also expected.

I have it on good authority that all liberals hate America. If half the country is that unpatriotic, just what do you expect "some amount" to be for immigrants?

and be grateful for the fact that they're here.

Why does this seem to me like you're holding immigrants to higher standards than citizens? Are you gonna demand that *I* be "grateful" too? So whose boots should I and the immigrants lick?

It means learn the language and learn to function like a member of the society which has been so generous as to let you live with them.

Abide by the laws, do not expect your generous hosts to bend too much to accommodate you, and accept that it is incumbent upon you to bend some to accommodate them.

Yeah, assimilate usually means speaking the language enough to interact with the general population and accept the laws and such (so honor killings are not an example of assimilation.)

Ive actually heard someone complain that Mexican immigrants have BBQs in their front lawn as an example of them not "assimilating."

Fuck that. BBQ in the front lawn is fine with me. Maybe it'd incourage people to be more open and less bigoted asshattish.


Really? If that's true, then myself, and all my neighbors must be guilty of not assimilating. Seems a little ridiculous if you ask me.

Ive actually heard someone complain that Mexican immigrants have BBQs in their front lawn as an example of them not "assimilating."

Fuck that. BBQ in the front lawn is fine with me. Maybe it'd incourage people to be more open and less bigoted asshattish.



They also speak their own language.

Hence, not "assimilated." They are separate. Most folks don't care what other languages are spoken. They care that the immigrants take the time to learn English as well.



You mean like giving someone the finger if they cut you off in traffic? More like not organizing a cockfight in the basement or chewing Khat despite it's status as a controled substance.



I have it on good authority that all liberals hate America. If half the country is that unpatriotic, just what do you expect "some amount" to be for immigrants?



Why does this seem to me like you're holding immigrants to higher standards than citizens? Are you gonna demand that *I* be "grateful" too? So whose boots should I and the immigrants lick?I expect you to not hate America and to be grateful for living in this country, yeah. I just can't compel you to do so. Loving one's country doesn't require licking anyone's boots.

Here....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation

although the word assimilation brings this to mind for me....
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/lehrer/isaacsphotomed.jpg

massive conformity....

Most folks don't care what other languages are spoken. They care that the immigrants take the time to learn English as well. More like not organizing a cockfight in the basement or chewing Khat despite it's status as a controled substance.I expect you to not hate America and to be grateful for living in this country, yeah. I just can't compel you to do so. Loving one's country doesn't require licking anyone's boots.

Pretty much. Accepting local customs and language, general social rules, etc. Accepting the basic ideas that govern local culture. Not too much to ask, I shouldn't think. :)

US Jews speak the English language, as do the Amish. They know the basic etiquette to use in public in our culture. Some amount of patriotism is also expected. I think that's what most folks mean when they say they want immigrants to assimilate. They want the foreigners to learn English, don't act like Borat, and be grateful for the fact that they're here.

English is neither the native language of this country... nor the official one.

Out of English and Spanish, the Spanish language has actually been spoken on this continent longer than the English. It makes something of a mockery of the expectation that all foreign settlers here should learn English.

Assimilation? Well, here people talk a lot about integration, that that the same as assimilation?

The big problem for and with immigrants here is racial segregation. Immigrants can't afford to move to areas with mostly Swedes and Swedes don't want to move to areas with mostly immigrants. Swedes don't want to drink at the same bars as immigrants so the bars either ban immigrant customers (which is illegal but still common) or let the immigrants in and lose Swedish customers. As a result immigrants have mostly immigrant friends while Swedes have mostly Swedish friends. Being separate from the rest of society makes it considerably harder for them to live and work here.

I can't see any other way to mix immigrants with Swedes then to force purely Swedish areas to discriminate and let a couple immigrants in just because they are immigrants, spread them out evenly instead of lumping them together. But discrimination is (and should be) illegal both ways here.

When someone says, "Immigrants ought to be fully assimilated!", it usually means that said person feels that said immigrants should fully accept and embrace the resident countries cultural teachings.

For instance, the immigrants should learn and accept the countries language, basic history, political process, cultural festivals, food & drink etc.

As a UK resident, I should have expected what... that immigrants to England would partake of the chief English cuisine options? Like - curries (not native), pasta dishes (not native) and potatoes (not native)?

Diversified culture is not bad. Getting to a point where you think you are 'diversified enough' is ridiculous - cultures are never 'complete', they are always works in progress.

I'd just leave it at language (a job skill), basic history (something every citizen should know), and political processes (to better participate). Anything else doesn't really seem all that important aside from the law.

Why pick this criteria, though?

English is not a native tongue here. It is not the official language. The English were'nt the first people here.. not even the first Europeans.

Why does an immigrant require basic history? Most US citizens by birth, couldn't pass the tests required to get citizenship as a non-US native. Why hold the foreigner to a higher standard?

And - let's be serious... there is no choice in the political process sphere. Either you take part in the current model.. or you just don't take part. It isn't like immigrants have an alternative process. They just take part, or not - just like 'real' citizens.

English is neither the native language of this country... nor the official one.

Out of English and Spanish, the Spanish language has actually been spoken on this continent longer than the English. It makes something of a mockery of the expectation that all foreign settlers here should learn English.

The majority speak English. It's not the official language, but it's the unofficial official language.

The majority speak English. It's not the official language, but it's the unofficial official language.

Exactly. Our laws are written in English, all of our founding documents, all government records, etc. You can request any document in something like 9 languages in California, for example, as long as it's a standardized form, but there's no question that English works as the official language here. :)

Why pick this criteria, though?

English is not a native tongue here. It is not the official language. The English were'nt the first people here.. not even the first Europeans.

This matters how? The majority of the people an immigrant to the U.S. is going to interact with will speak English. I think a basic understanding of the language would be a necessity.


Why does an immigrant require basic history? Most US citizens by birth, couldn't pass the tests required to get citizenship as a non-US native. Why hold the foreigner to a higher standard?

I said that every citizen should know basic history, not every immigrant. I made no differentiation between immigrant and native.

And - let's be serious... there is no choice in the political process sphere. Either you take part in the current model.. or you just don't take part. It isn't like immigrants have an alternative process. They just take part, or not - just like 'real' citizens.

And I'd rather they be informed and knowledgeable about the process than blind and easily duped.

I'm all for intergration, heck I'm a third generation immigrant myself. The way I see it is that you don't lose your culture but you gain a new one as I feel me and my family have.

The majority speak English. It's not the official language, but it's the unofficial official language.

No such thing.

By your logic, if more people spoke Mandarin, we should change the language to Chinese. And - let's be honest... not everyone that speaks English here speaks it as a FIRST language... so we have to include second-language speech also.

We don't have an official language, with very good reason. This is a nation of immigrants, and it's current form was set up to specifically avoid this kind of bullshit.

No such thing.

By your logic, if more people spoke Mandarin, we should change the language to Chinese. And - let's be honest... not everyone that speaks English here speaks it as a FIRST language... so we have to include second-language speech also.

We don't have an official language, with very good reason. This is a nation of immigrants, and it's current form was set up to specifically avoid this kind of bullshit.

My street-signs and government-issue documents and ID are in English. Not sure about yours, but they are here. ;)

This matters how? The majority of the people an immigrant to the U.S. is going to interact with will speak English. I think a basic understanding of the language would be a necessity.


Not even true. America is so heavily split into ghettoes, in so many places, that it is entirely possible immigrants could work here a full life, and never have to speak English.

One wonders if you apply the same rules in all circumstances anyway... should every English speaker that wants to trade in Chinatown be forced to learn Chinese?


I said that every citizen should know basic history, not every immigrant. I made no differentiation between immigrant and native.


Actually, that's not how I read it. I see the 'every citizen' bit as a separate clause...because that is how you punctuated it.

The simple fact remains... there are a large proportion of american 'native' (hah!) citizens who know little or none of the history that an immigrant is required to know to get citizenship.

If anyone here should be playing catch-up, it's not the immigrants.


And I'd rather they be informed and knowledgeable about the process than blind and easily duped.

Because only an immigrant would be?

By your logic, if more people spoke Mandarin, we should change the language to Chinese. And - let's be honest... not everyone that speaks English here speaks it as a FIRST language... so we have to include second-language speech also.


Yes, if the majority of the people here spoke Mandarin, then knowing Mandarin would become a necessity for anyone that didn't. So?

No such thing.

By your logic, if more people spoke Mandarin, we should change the language to Chinese. And - let's be honest... not everyone that speaks English here speaks it as a FIRST language... so we have to include second-language speech also.

We don't have an official language, with very good reason. This is a nation of immigrants, and it's current form was set up to specifically avoid this kind of bullshit.

And inevitably all the immigrants learn English. It's part of assimilating into US culture. If when this nation was founded the thirteen original states had a majority Mandarin speaking population then I'm sure almost everyone living here today would speak mandarin and immigrants would pick it up.

My street-signs and government-issue documents and ID are in English. Not sure about yours, but they are here. ;)

And? I've seen streetsigns in this part of the US that are in Spanish... should we make that the 'official' language?

Linguistic convenience is not the same as 'official' sanction.

i dont see any problem with immigrants official or unoffical assimillating into the US "culture"

i see a problem with native born americans from other parts of the country going to miami and not understanding that miami-cuban culture IS american culture. same with the southwest and southern california.

we tend to think that white suburban eastern US is the only culture the us has. its quite wrong.

3 of 4 of my grandparents came from other countries as adults. their children all completely assimilated. if someone wants to do well in this country they do what is necessary to do well. there is no need to be mean about it. there are natural punishments for not speaking english and not conforming to US laws.

And? I've seen streetsigns in this part of the US that are in Spanish... should we make that the 'official' language?

Linguistic convenience is not the same as 'official' sanction.

If if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I like to think of it as a duck. ;)

There's never been any need to designate an 'official' language, that's true - but there's no doubt as to which language would be chosen if it were ever an issue. I don't think we'd be going with Swahili. :p

Yes, if the majority of the people here spoke Mandarin, then knowing Mandarin would become a necessity for anyone that didn't. So?

So - our 'official' language should be dictated by something as capricious as how many people take certain language courses in a given year?

What about if Mandarin is the most spoken language this year... but Swedish is the most spoken language the year after?

And inevitably all the immigrants learn English. It's part of assimilating into US culture. If when this nation was founded the thirteen original states had a majority Mandarin speaking population then I'm sure almost everyone living here today would speak mandarin and immigrants would pick it up.

I'm not sure if you really believe the things you say, or you just posture for perceived effect.

There is no 'US culture'. Get over it.

So - our 'official' language should be dictated by something as capricious as how many people take certain language courses in a given year?

What about if Mandarin is the most spoken language this year... but Swedish is the most spoken language the year after?

Show me a situation where that actually happens and a society has a massive lingustic change in just a year.

I'm not sure if you really believe the things you say, or you just posture for perceived effect.

There is no 'US culture'. Get over it.

I'm serious here.

There is an ever changing US culture shaped by the many immigrants who arrived here. The American experience also shapes them. It's a melting pot. Every new immigrant adds new flavor.

So - our 'official' language should be dictated by something as capricious as how many people take certain language courses in a given year?

What about if Mandarin is the most spoken language this year... but Swedish is the most spoken language the year after?

As already pointed out to you, and by you infact, there is no official language. The point people are trying to make is that English is the default language random american citizens will communicate with each other in, thus making it the unofficial language of America. I don't know what point you are trying to make here?

Show me a situation where that actually happens and a society has a massive lingustic change in just a year.

Why?

Your argument basically boils down to first past the post. I don't think this is honest... I think you pretend to believe in first past the post, but only because that is where English is currently.

The question addresses that.

I'm serious here.

There is an ever changing US culture shaped by the many immigrants who arrived here. The American experience also shapes them. It's a melting pot. Every new immigrant adds new flavor.

So - if this is serious, your 'argument' is the posturing?

You can't 'assimilate' people into a culture that is the culture it IS, because of their presence.

As already pointed out to you, and by you infact, there is no official language. The point people are trying to make is that English is the default language random american citizens will communicate with each other in, thus making it the unofficial language of America. I don't know what point you are trying to make here?

There is no official language. The argument as to who should be made to learn which language, should stop there.

There is no official language. The argument as to who should be made to learn which language, should stop there.

Why? Just because no legal document as declared english the official language doesn't stop the fact that not learning english whilst living in america is a stupid idea, and having a whole group of non english speaking people creates a whole lot of problems.

So - if this is serious, your 'argument' is the posturing?

You can't 'assimilate' people into a culture that is the culture it IS, because of their presence.

Sure you can, but the culture changes too. The culture is mainly what it is because of the many folks who got here before them. The culture changes slowly by integrating and absorbing the waves of immigrants. The immigrants change more rapidly.

Immigrants who show up here speaking only their native language settle in and have kids. Their kids end up speaking English as their primary language. The third generation often loses the grandparent's language. America gains some slang from immigrants, gains some foodways, and some music literature and art, but the immigrants adopt the bulk of America's culture.

English is almost universally accepted by the children and grandchildren of the immigrants who have come to the US in great numbers since the 1960s, which means these children have high levels of linguistic assimilation. Moreover, by the third generation (grandchildren of immigrants), only a minority in any group maintains bilingualism.
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=282

Why? Just because no legal document as declared english the official language doesn't stop the fact that not learning english whilst living in america is a stupid idea, and having a whole group of non english speaking people creates a whole lot of problems.

I think not learning French whilst living in America is a stupid idea. And... allowing Christians to vote creates a whole lot of problems.

That's the problem with opinions.

I think not learning French whilst living in America is a stupid idea.

What about not learning French while living in France?

I think not learning French whilst living in America is a stupid idea. And... allowing Christians to vote creates a whole lot of problems.

That's the problem with opinions.

No, that's the problem with irrational opinions. :p Learning English if you're going to live in the U.S. carries obvious benefits, economic and cultural. ;)

I think not learning French whilst living in America is a stupid idea. And... allowing Christians to vote creates a whole lot of problems.

That's the problem with opinions.

Since when were opinions dismissed for being opinions?

Sure you can, but the culture changes too. The culture is mainly what it is because of the many folks who got here before them. The culture changes slowly by integrating and absorbing the waves of immigrants. The immigrants change more rapidly.

Immigrants who show up here speaking only their native language settle in and have kids. Their kids end up speaking English as their primary language. The third generation often loses the grandparent's language. America gains some slang from immigrants, gains some foodways, and some music literature and art, but the immigrants adopt the bulk of America's culture.


Then you can't assimilate immigrants into the culture.... you begin the process of 'assimilation' into a culture which the receiving culture will be three generations down the line.

Since we are dealing with a potential culture many years down the line, why make decisions as arbitrary as 'English as an official (or unofficial official) language'?

What about not learning French while living in France?

And France's official language is....

Since when were opinions dismissed for being opinions?

When they were the basis for law?

What about not learning French while living in France?

Does France have an official language?

Is France an immigrant nation? (Didn't they send us lady liberty?)

You are comparing apples to oblong.

When they were the basis for law?

In the end, opinions are always the basis of law.

And France's official language is....

So the only difference is they've bothered to declare it and we haven't?

Then you can't assimilate immigrants into the culture.... you begin the process of 'assimilation' into a culture which the receiving culture will be three generations down the line.

Since we are dealing with a potential culture many years down the line, why make decisions as arbitrary as 'English as an official (or unofficial official) language'?

Nobody's made the decision that English is the unofficial language. It came about that way by default. Immigrants realize the benefits of learning the language of the majority. They encourage their kids to learn it. The kids embrace that language, and in most cases the grand kids lose their grandparent's language.

It wasn't a decision made by any organization, it's just that way by default and the majority will always expect that an immigrant minority will make the effort to learn to communicate with them. It's a lot easier to teach a few million immigrants to speak English than to teach several hundred million native born Americans to speak Spanish, Russian, Polish, Hmong, Mandarin, Swahili and all the others.

No, that's the problem with irrational opinions. :p Learning English if you're going to live in the U.S. carries obvious benefits, economic and cultural. ;)

Nothing irrational about it. If we all spoke French, it would be so much simpler, no? English is about the hardest language to learn as an outsider, and certainly among the most 'irregular' in it's construction... why not use something logical, if we ALL have to use it?

So the only difference is they've bothered to declare it and we haven't?

What's that got to do with your point?

Nothing irrational about it. If we all spoke French, it would be so much simpler, no? English is about the hardest language to learn as an outsider, and certainly among the most 'irregular' in it's construction... why not use something logical, if we ALL have to use it?

Because it would be a pain in the ass to teach 300 million people a new language all at once.

It wasn't a decision made by any organization, it's just that way by default and the majority will always expect that an immigrant minority will make the effort to learn to communicate with them. It's a lot easier to teach a few million immigrants to speak English than to teach several hundred million native born Americans to speak Spanish, Russian, Polish, Hmong, Mandarin, Swahili and all the others.

Uh-oh. Sounds like common sense again - that can't be tolerated here! :D No, no... let's keep pretending no one should learn English. That'll benefit everyone. :p

Nothing irrational about it. If we all spoke French, it would be so much simpler, no? English is about the hardest language to learn as an outsider, and certainly among the most 'irregular' in it's construction... why not use something logical, if we ALL have to use it?

English is already established as the global language of business. French is on the way out. And besides, English is much more concise and malleable than most other languages, even if some of the trickier rules trip some people up. In any case, an immigrant's U.S-born children are the ones who will be doing most of the assimilating, and they're at no disadvantage when they go to learn English, as long as the parents put forth reasonable efforts.

What's that got to do with your point?

I'm trying to discover why one should need to know French while living in France but not need to know English while living in America.

Somewhere you've made such a distinction and I'm asking what it is.

Nobody's made the decision that English is the unofficial language. It came about that way by default. Immigrants realize the benefits of learning the language of the majority. They encourage their kids to learn it. The kids embrace that language, and in most cases the grand kids lose their grandparent's language.

It wasn't a decision made by any organization, it's just that way by default and the majority will always expect that an immigrant minority will make the effort to learn to communicate with them. It's a lot easier to teach a few million immigrants to speak English than to teach several hundred million native born Americans to speak Spanish, Russian, Polish, Hmong, Mandarin, Swahili and all the others.

But - if you are going to claim it is a requirement, you are making it mandatory. If it is mandatory... why is it arbitrary?

Because it would be a pain in the ass to teach 300 million people a new language all at once.

So?

It is a problem to 'inconvenience' people, now?

It's a pain in the ass to pay taxes. It's a pain in the ass to collect taxes. Merely being a 'pain in the ass' doesn't stop things happening.

Why is it more important to just inconvenience the foreigners? Why not inconvenience everyone the same amount, and teach an entirely new language - something logical... like Lojban?

What you are asserting, is the right of the WASP to be convenienced at the expense of the darkies. It's not new.

But - if you are going to claim it is a requirement, you are making it mandatory. If it is mandatory... why is it arbitrary?
I never said it was mandatory to assimilate. I said most Americans want immigrants to assimilate to a certain extent. Also if I haven't said it I'm going to say it now. Immigrants inevitably do assimilate.

That's the beauty of the US. Assimilation isn't mandatory. It's done voluntarily by the immigrants because they want to fit in and share the bounty and the burdens of the US. You can come over from Mexico, not make any effort to speak English, hate the USA, insist on taking Mexican holidays off from work (If you can find work without some knowledge of English), and nobody's going to lock you up. I wouldn't reccomend it though. You won't be able to get by very well, and the locals would probably not have a high opinion of you.

American people expect immigrants to assimilate. That's been the pattern for a couple hundred years. American people also like to adopt some of the foods, art, and slang from the cultures that get folded into our own.

English is already established as the global language of business. French is on the way out. And besides, English is much more concise and malleable than most other languages, even if some of the trickier rules trip some people up. In any case, an immigrant's U.S-born children are the ones who will be doing most of the assimilating, and they're at no disadvantage when they go to learn English, as long as the parents put forth reasonable efforts.

English could easily be defunct within a decade, as China becomes ascendent. Any rules based on the idea of English as 'the global language of business' (for example) become nonsensical, when such is ephemeral.

As for the idea that English is more concise or malleable... it's simply not true. English is one of the more technical languages, true... but that isn't the same as concise... and our language is only 'malleable' in as much as it is half full of foreign words.

What you are asserting, is the right of the WASP to be convenienced at the expense of the darkies. It's not new.

It's not the "WASP" who speaks English in this country - immigrants of all stripes speak it, a growing number of diverse groups. Of course, it's much easier to imply racism than to make sense. That much has always been true! :D

English could easily be defunct within a decade, as China becomes ascendent. Any rules based on the idea of English as 'the global language of business' (for example) become nonsensical, when such is ephemeral.

As for the idea that English is more concise or malleable... it's simply not true. English is one of the more technical languages, true... but that isn't the same as concise... and our language is only 'malleable' in as much as it is half full of foreign words.

English could disappear tomorrow, if you allow for odds of billions to one. :p Of course, the monkey wrench in the works is the fact that the Chinese and Indians, soon to be half the world's population, are learning English at a rapid pace, and not just so they can work tech support. ;)

I'm trying to discover why one should need to know French while living in France but not need to know English while living in America.

Somewhere you've made such a distinction and I'm asking what it is.

You need to know French in France as its the official language and to expect to be a productive member of society, contributing to society as a whole and benefiting from its protections and laws, it would make sense, no?

Would you walk into a French police station requiring a lawyer but without an ounce of French and be outraged that they could not help you? The onus would be on you to fully equipe yourself with the tools needed to survive in the state - language included.

So?

It is a problem to 'inconvenience' people, now?

It's a pain in the ass to pay taxes. It's a pain in the ass to collect taxes. Merely being a 'pain in the ass' doesn't stop things happening.

Why is it more important to just inconvenience the foreigners? Why not inconvenience everyone the same amount, and teach an entirely new language - something logical... like Lojban?

What you are asserting, is the right of the WASP to be convenienced at the expense of the darkies. It's not new.


So making many people change their language, makes more sense than just making a few?

So?

It is a problem to 'inconvenience' people, now?

It's a pain in the ass to pay taxes. It's a pain in the ass to collect taxes. Merely being a 'pain in the ass' doesn't stop things happening.

Why is it more important to just inconvenience the foreigners? Why not inconvenience everyone the same amount, and teach an entirely new language - something logical... like Lojban?

What you are asserting, is the right of the WASP to be convenienced at the expense of the darkies. It's not new.

Yeah. Inconveniencing people is a problem. Especially when the people you are inconveniencing have no incentive to bother with learning a new language because they already own the businesses, hold the jobs, and weild the majority votes that run this country and it's economy.

By the way, that "darkies" comment is just dumb. I doubt that you could go into a black neighborhood and get any support for a plan to make French or Spanish the default language. We're not talking about the convenience or inconvenience of WASPS, we're talking about roughly 300 million Americans of every skin tone, religion, and ethnicity.

So making many people change their language, makes more sense than just making a few?

W3 must m4k3 p30pl3 EQAL!

You need to know French in France as its the official language and to expect to be a productive member of society, contributing to society as a whole and benefiting from its protections and laws, it would make sense, no?

Would you walk into a French police station requiring a lawyer but without an ounce of French and be outraged that they could not help you? The onuc would be on you to fully equipe yourself with the tools needed to survive in the state - language included.

And how is it different here? English is the dominant language, right? Simply because we haven't declared it to be the official language doesn't mean that it isn't the dominant one. Again it seems that the only real difference is that France has gone through the trouble of declaring an official language.

So making many people change their language, makes more sense than just making a few?
Nobody's asking anybody to change their language. If someone from, say, Cambodia wants to come to the UK or USA, nobody is saying thay will be forced to drop Khmer for the rest of their life. That would be unreasonable. What people are saying is that migrants should be able to speak the main language of the country that our television is in, their boss will speak, their bills will be posted in and the like. There has to be something we can all use to communicate, and in this case, it's English, even if people take courses after they arrive.

I never said it was mandatory to assimilate. I said most Americans want immigrants to assimilate to a certain extent. Also if I haven't said it I'm going to say it now. Immigrants inevitably do assimilate.

That's the beauty of the US. Assimilation isn't mandatory. It's done voluntarily by the immigrants because they want to fit in and share the bounty and the burdens of the US. You can come over from Mexico, not make any effort to speak English, hate the USA, insist on taking Mexican holidays off from work (If you can find work without some knowledge of English), and nobody's going to lock you up. I wouldn't reccomend it though. You won't be able to get by very well, and the locals would probably not have a high opinion of you.

American people expect immigrants to assimilate. That's been the pattern for a couple hundred years. American people also like to adopt some of the foods, art, and slang from the cultures that get folded into our own.

Two things - you are dodging the topic, which was about what it means to 'assimilate', and you are missing the apparent trend in this thread (as microcosm) to demand that such 'assimilation' should be mandatory.

It has to be said, also - there is a high Mexican immigrant population where I am... and you are chasing red herrings. Even if you speak English, love the US, and work your ass off, you are going to be treated as a second-class (if you are lucky) person. High opinions are not as high-minded as you might wish to pretend. I've even had personal face-to-face discussions with local governmental officials, who have told me things like "no mexican will ever get a city job, or county contract, while I'm in office".

Americans are like everyone else. Most of them are self-interested assholes. Forcing immigrants to learn 'our' language is to make US feel good, nothing to do with ease. convenience, or what is right.

It's not the "WASP" who speaks English in this country - immigrants of all stripes speak it, a growing number of diverse groups. Of course, it's much easier to imply racism than to make sense. That much has always been true! :D

If you don't find sense, it might not be it's absence that is the problem.

The 'WASPS' and 'darkies' rhetoric is to illustrate... this is the way the Englsih-speaking world has been dealing with 'savages' of all stripes, for centuries. If it isn't all 'literal' WASPs now, it is virtual WASPs.

And, while the WASPS might not be the only people speaking English - they are still the majority with the power to do anything about it.

Two things - you are dodging the topic, which was about what it means to 'assimilate', and you are missing the apparent trend in this thread (as microcosm) to demand that such 'assimilation' should be mandatory. I addressed what it means to assimilate in my first and second posts in the thread.

It has to be said, also - there is a high Mexican immigrant population where I am... and you are chasing red herrings. Even if you speak English, love the US, and work your ass off, you are going to be treated as a second-class (if you are lucky) person. High opinions are not as high-minded as you might wish to pretend. I've even had personal face-to-face discussions with local governmental officials, who have told me things like "no mexican will ever get a city job, or county contract, while I'm in office". Racism is a bitch. You're going to have way worse problems trying to fit in and make a living if you don't make some effort to assimilate. Still, nobody's holding a gun to their heads.

Americans are like everyone else. Most of them are self-interested assholes. Forcing immigrants to learn 'our' language is to make US feel good, nothing to do with ease. convenience, or what is right.For certain folks, sure. For the majority, however, ease and convenience will be the main factors. As for what's right, ask a dozen people and you'll get a dozen different answers.

English could disappear tomorrow, if you allow for odds of billions to one. :p Of course, the monkey wrench in the works is the fact that the Chinese and Indians, soon to be half the world's population, are learning English at a rapid pace, and not just so they can work tech support. ;)

They are also learning Chinese and Indian languages... Mandarin is already the dominant FIRST language.

We aren't talkng billion to one odds. We are talking about the fact that - while the current regime is fannying around with an old superpower, there are new players on the stage - and they are already becoming dominant.

If you don't find sense, it might not be it's absence that is the problem.

The 'WASPS' and 'darkies' rhetoric is to illustrate... this is the way the Englsih-speaking world has been dealing with 'savages' of all stripes, for centuries. If it isn't all 'literal' WASPs now, it is virtual WASPs.

And, while the WASPS might not be the only people speaking English - they are still the majority with the power to do anything about it.

Ah, yes. I must have forgotten the WASP conspiracy. My mistake. :p

I'm sure we'd be better off as a country if we had each of the hundreds of ethnic minorities off in their own corners, speaking their own languages, rather than participating in the wider society. It's all so clear to me now - thanks! :D

So making many people change their language, makes more sense than just making a few?

Of course.

If most houses are on fire, but a few are safe... should we set fire to them, just so all are alike? Or should we be making all the houses fire-proof, no matter the convenience?

Yeah. Inconveniencing people is a problem. Especially when the people you are inconveniencing have no incentive to bother with learning a new language because they already own the businesses, hold the jobs, and weild the majority votes that run this country and it's economy.

By the way, that "darkies" comment is just dumb. I doubt that you could go into a black neighborhood and get any support for a plan to make French or Spanish the default language. We're not talking about the convenience or inconvenience of WASPS, we're talking about roughly 300 million Americans of every skin tone, religion, and ethnicity.

No - the 'darkies' comment is not dumb - it is illustrative. I've said it elsewhere already, but it bears repeating... we are hearing the same words out of new mouths, that have been the hallmarks or Anglocentric 'relation' with 'natives' for centuries. The 'darkies' might be literal or figurative, but it's all stil lthe same thing - we are 'bringing civilisation to the savages'... regardless of whether it is good, constructive, or wanted.

So - our 'official' language should be dictated by something as capricious as how many people take certain language courses in a given year?

What about if Mandarin is the most spoken language this year... but Swedish is the most spoken language the year after?

A post this inane can't possibly be serious...

We aren't talking about a computer game or a fantasy book, mandarin is not going to be the most spoken language this year, and in any country where it is, Swedish is not going to be the most spoken language the year after.

We are trying to discuss the real world here, not a pointless muck-up of irrelevant and inane what-ifs.

I addressed what it means to assimilate in my first and second posts in the thread. Racism is a bitch. You're going to have way worse problems trying to fit in and make a living if you don't make some effort to assimilate. Still, nobody's holding a gun to their heads.For certain folks, sure. For the majority, however, ease and convenience will be the main factors. As for what's right, ask a dozen people and you'll get a dozen different answers.

If you aren't going to be accepted as equal anyway, why bother? Why - indeed - not be an iconoclast, and stick your middle finger up at the man?

As for ease and convenience... that's what I said... why should my white-moral-majority existence be even slightly perturbed, just for some uppity foreigners?

No - the 'darkies' comment is not dumb - it is illustrative. I've said it elsewhere already, but it bears repeating... we are hearing the same words out of new mouths, that have been the hallmarks or Anglocentric 'relation' with 'natives' for centuries. The 'darkies' might be literal or figurative, but it's all stil lthe same thing - we are 'bringing civilisation to the savages'... regardless of whether it is good, constructive, or wanted.

No, it's just dumb. Most people don't think of Mexicans as savages. People of every economic class and people of every race in the US expect that immigrants will learn English and learn American ways. It makes communication and commerce possible and helps us feel like one nation. It's good for the immigrants too because it affords them the opportunity to participate in the economic, cultural and civic institutions of the nation they've chosen to adopt.

Nothing irrational about it. If we all spoke French, it would be so much simpler, no? English is about the hardest language to learn as an outsider, and certainly among the most 'irregular' in it's construction... why not use something logical, if we ALL have to use it?

Because we aren't discussing a fantasy novel where we can just make things happen with magic, but instead the real world, where people are not going to "all learn French because it is logical."

If you aren't willing to accept the framework and constraints of the real world, why bother posting in a thread about immigrant assimilation?

A post this inane can't possibly be serious...

We aren't talking about a computer game or a fantasy book, mandarin is not going to be the most spoken language this year, and in any country where it is, Swedish is not going to be the most spoken language the year after.

We are trying to discuss the real world here, not a pointless muck-up of irrelevant and inane what-ifs.

In other words... you have no answer if the situation isn't the nice comfy 'white and english, please' scenario. At least - that's what I'm going to have to take from it.

Consider it a thought exercise... do you still apply the 'majority rules' rules in all circumstances?

Because we aren't discussing a fantasy novel where we can just make things happen with magic, but instead the real world, where people are not going to "all learn French because it is logical."

If you aren't willing to accept the framework and constraints of the real world, why bother posting in a thread about immigrant assimilation?

I'm sorry? There is a framework and constraint that says there can be no 'new' languages? That people can't learn a new language? That a government can't enforce caprice?

Esperanto is an example of just the sort of movement I suggest... however abortive that initial attempt transpired to be. Lojban, while still small, would be an example of taking that process a step further.

No, it's just dumb. Most people don't think of Mexicans as savages.


And, I think you are looking at the world through rose coloured spectacles.

I wish I didn't feel that way... but I don't think reality matches your suggested version.


People of every economic class and people of every race in the US expect that immigrants will learn English and learn American ways. It makes communication and commerce possible and helps us feel like one nation. It's good for the immigrants too because it affords them the opportunity to participate in the economic, cultural and civic institutions of the nation they've chosen to adopt.

I'm not sure I credit this... you honestly think that Mexicans are flooding across the border because they like a 5 day workweek, pepsi-cola and the inimitable US government bureaucracy?

If you aren't going to be accepted as equal anyway, why bother? Why - indeed - not be an iconoclast, and stick your middle finger up at the man?

As for ease and convenience... that's what I said... why should my white-moral-majority existence be even slightly perturbed, just for some uppity foreigners?

Because it does get you accepted by the vast majority.

White moral majority bullshit again? So Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Jews, and Arabs living in the US don't find it convenient to have a common language? The common language is only there to benefit WASPS. Right. Are you even being serious here?

In other words... you have no answer if the situation isn't the nice comfy 'white and english, please' scenario. At least - that's what I'm going to have to take from it.

Consider it a thought exercise... do you still apply the 'majority rules' rules in all circumstances?

What is your fixation on racism?

Immigrants to china should and do learn Chinese, immigrants to france should and do learn French, immigrants to Iran should learn Farsi, immigrants to African countries should and do learn the respective language.

What about this is so difficult to understand for you?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand the idea that in the real world, as opposed to fantasy-what-if-bitch-about-racism-or-whatever-land, countries have 'official' languages, either de facto or de jure, and it is incumbent upon immigrants to learn them, and immigrants benefit from learning them.

Have you ever been to a foreign country? You'll notice if you go, some day, that not knowing the language makes a lot of things tricky.

Of course, you might not get to see much the country, what arguing with the customs officials and cab drivers that they should speak whatever language you do, because tomorrow the country might speak Swedish, or whatever.

Get a grip.

I'm sorry? There is a framework and constraint that says there can be no 'new' languages? That people can't learn a new language? That a government can't enforce caprice?

Esperanto is an example of just the sort of movement I suggest... however abortive that initial attempt transpired to be. Lojban, while still small, would be an example of taking that process a step further.

Oh, the hope of esperanto, lojban, &c.

You must really be a trained linguist, what with these shocking insights. Where, pray tell, did you get your degree? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

In fantasy land, maybe esperanto will make all the little children dance together around the may pole, and maybe we can get some fairies to come and make it so that people don't need to eat, that way there is no starvation. That very same day, we can all sing a song that makes war stop. I can see it now. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure I credit this... you honestly think that Mexicans are flooding across the border because they like a 5 day workweek, pepsi-cola and the inimitable US government bureaucracy?

So what are they coming for?

and your comment about fire proof houses is strange. Houses being on fire is dangerous. having a minority learn a new language is not.

I'm actually in full support of a "Its a good idea to learn English, but you don't have to if you want" but if there was to be an official language, I'm all for common sense.

English could easily be defunct within a decade, as China becomes ascendent. Any rules based on the idea of English as 'the global language of business' (for example) become nonsensical, when such is ephemeral.

There are no rules saying you must speak English to do international business. It just happens to be rather beneficial to be able to speak it when doing so, as so many people understand it. Just the same as Greek used to be the predominant language of trade, undoubtably another language will replace it. Simply because something is transitory is no reason to not benefit from it in the present.

As for the idea that English is more concise or malleable... it's simply not true. English is one of the more technical languages, true... but that isn't the same as concise... and our language is only 'malleable' in as much as it is half full of foreign words.

English is pretty much all "foreign" words, being predominantly Germanic with heavy Latin, Greek and French influences. Not to mention all the various bits and pieces it's assimilated from other languages over the centuries, and what it continues to assimilate to this day. By definition, this does make the English language malleable. You seem to imply that this is a negative feature.

And, I think you are looking at the world through rose coloured spectacles.

I wish I didn't feel that way... but I don't think reality matches your suggested version. I think my reality comes closer to the truth.



I'm not sure I credit this... you honestly think that Mexicans are flooding across the border because they like a 5 day workweek, pepsi-cola and the inimitable US government bureaucracy?They, like all immigrants end up coming over for the money. The opportunity to earn and get ahead. In order to do that assimilation helps. A common language and understanding of ettiquete and customs helps you land a job. Being able to organize politically helps you secure your rights. Assimilation makes that possible for many reasons, but partly because it helps overcome the majority's perception of you as "other" and "foreign". Assimilation makes you less likely to be the target of racism. The side effect is that you start to embrace American culture. It's worked very well for a couple hundred years now.

Because it does get you accepted by the vast majority.


Again... I wish I thought you were right, but I just find it unrealistic.


White moral majority bullshit again? So Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Jews, and Arabs living in the US don't find it convenient to have a common language? The common language is only there to benefit WASPS. Right. Are you even being serious here?

I'm not sure Native Americans will thank you for the company you place them amongst... not because of racism, more because you toddle all the 'savages' together - it doesn't matter if they were here before 'us', they're still foreigners that need to learn our 'civilised' white ways.

You don't seem to be following me on this. You seem to be hooked up on the literal melanin index of the average american, and how it might relate. The 'white moral majority' is symbolic - it is the same establishment that enslaved the black, and refused to emancipate women. Now, even though a vagina and/or darker skintone aren't the same bar to joining 'the club' (although you'd be insane to argue such prejudice has gone away entirely), the 'white moral majority' is still in action.

We still embrace WASP politics, WASP society and WASP foreign policy. We are still WASPs, no matter the colour of our indiviual skins.

What is your fixation on racism?

Immigrants to china should and do learn Chinese, immigrants to france should and do learn French, immigrants to Iran should learn Farsi, immigrants to African countries should and do learn the respective language.

What about this is so difficult to understand for you?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand the idea that in the real world, as opposed to fantasy-what-if-bitch-about-racism-or-whatever-land, countries have 'official' languages, either de facto or de jure, and it is incumbent upon immigrants to learn them, and immigrants benefit from learning them.

Have you ever been to a foreign country? You'll notice if you go, some day, that not knowing the language makes a lot of things tricky.

Of course, you might not get to see much the country, what arguing with the customs officials and cab drivers that they should speak whatever language you do, because tomorrow the country might speak Swedish, or whatever.

Get a grip.

You seem to be able to better attack me than my argument. As you wish.

Have I been to a foreign country? Yes - I'm in one now. And you? Shall we compare 'expertise'? Your attempt to play the 'put-up-or-shut-up' card might not be as fruitful as you might have hoped.

You are also avoiding the issue that the US was founded as an immigrant society. There is some writing, near a chick with a torch. Go read it.

Again... I wish I thought you were right, but I just find it unrealistic.



I'm not sure Native Americans will thank you for the company you place them amongst... not because of racism, more because you toddle all the 'savages' together - it doesn't matter if they were here before 'us', they're still foreigners that need to learn our 'civilised' white ways.

You don't seem to be following me on this. You seem to be hooked up on the literal melanin index of the average american, and how it might relate. The 'white moral majority' is symbolic - it is the same establishment that enslaved the black, and refused to emancipate women. Now, even though a vagina and/or darker skintone aren't the same bar to joining 'the club' (although you'd be insane to argue such prejudice has gone away entirely), the 'white moral majority' is still in action.

We still embrace WASP politics, WASP society and WASP foreign policy. We are still WASPs, no matter the colour of our indiviual skins.

Whatever dude. I can't make heads or tails of this rant.

Oh, the hope of esperanto, lojban, &c.

You must really be a trained linguist, what with these shocking insights. Where, pray tell, did you get your degree? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

In fantasy land, maybe esperanto will make all the little children dance together around the may pole, and maybe we can get some fairies to come and make it so that people don't need to eat, that way there is no starvation. That very same day, we can all sing a song that makes war stop. I can see it now. :rolleyes:

Not a 'trained' linguist, no... but a linguist, nonetheless.

I doubt Esperanto is going to be making children dance much, unless it is favoured by an enormous resurgence. On the other hand - there does seem to be a general trend towards increased globalisation - so maybe the idea of a common language isn't so nonsensical. It needn't be Esperanto, or even Lojban but - if we are going to have a tongue that has facility in different spheres of communication - might it not be a good idea to engineer that language? I'm sure you've encountered Chinese translated into English, before - merely comparing words ignores the fact that different languages work differently... people even think differently... unless we are fortunate enough that all nations decide to embrace one legacy language, it is virtually inevitable that a globalised world will have (at least one) artifact language.

Not a 'trained' linguist, no... but a linguist, nonetheless.
I'm sure you've encountered Chinese translated into English, before - merely comparing words ignores the fact that different languages work differently... people even think differently... unless we are fortunate enough that all nations decide to embrace one legacy language, it is virtually inevitable that a globalised world will have (at least one) artifact language.

If people's languages function differently and people think differently, as you say, won't a universal language be impossible or at least very hard?



And an untrained linguist is a common person with interest in linguistics, not a linguist and it seems your claims can not be fully backed up because of your non-existent credentials.

English is pretty much all "foreign" words, being predominantly Germanic with heavy Latin, Greek and French influences. Not to mention all the various bits and pieces it's assimilated from other languages over the centuries, and what it continues to assimilate to this day. By definition, this does make the English language malleable. You seem to imply that this is a negative feature.

I didn't even suggest negativity. I merely suggested that 'English' isn't malleable - it gains it's malleability from absorbing other languages.

As it stands, modern English is less and less a 'pure' language, as we absorb words, concepts... even whole phrases... from other languages. I'm not saying this is negative - just that it's 'malleability' isn't a feature of the language, per se... but a feature of English speaking peoples doing a little plug-and-play to cover defecits in expression.

Does this mean that English is 'malleable'? No - it means that we borrow malleability, and very succesfully, I might add.

You seem to be able to better attack me than my argument. As you wish.

Have I been to a foreign country? Yes - I'm in one now. And you? Shall we compare 'expertise'? Your attempt to play the 'put-up-or-shut-up' card might not be as fruitful as you might have hoped.

You are also avoiding the issue that the US was founded as an immigrant society. There is some writing, near a chick with a torch. Go read it.

What does any of that have to do with the factual reality of de facto or de jure official languages?

Guess what all those immigrants who came here and made america did?

They, uh, you know, well, uh, Learned English.

How many days did you spend held up at the airport trying to explain to the people who worked there that they had to speak your language, because tomorrow their country might speak Swedish?

Not a 'trained' linguist, no... but a linguist, nonetheless.

I doubt Esperanto is going to be making children dance much, unless it is favoured by an enormous resurgence. On the other hand - there does seem to be a general trend towards increased globalisation - so maybe the idea of a common language isn't so nonsensical. It needn't be Esperanto, or even Lojban but - if we are going to have a tongue that has facility in different spheres of communication - might it not be a good idea to engineer that language? I'm sure you've encountered Chinese translated into English, before - merely comparing words ignores the fact that different languages work differently... people even think differently... unless we are fortunate enough that all nations decide to embrace one legacy language, it is virtually inevitable that a globalised world will have (at least one) artifact language.

It might be a good idea, head in the clouds, to engineer a language, but it is also a good idea to stop fighting wars.

"Good idea" doesn't have a whole lot to do with "realistic" or "going to happen" or "relevant to discussions of real things."

The closest thing that will likely ever exist to an "artifact" language is computer language, and the closest thing in human language are the creoles and pidgins which form naturally.

The language which will probably be the long-term language of commerce and government is English, because of its big head start in foisting itself upon the rest of the world.

Mandarin might give it a run for its money in some extreme long-term, but the seeds being sown today, in terms of the proportion of people who learn English as a second language versus mandarin put the odds significantly against it.

These are some of the things we learn in linguistics school ;)

I think my reality comes closer to the truth.


I don't.

A fundamental disparity, perhaps? Or maybe you just live in a cosy corner of the US, just jampacked full of sweetness and light?

They, like all immigrants end up coming over for the money. The opportunity to earn and get ahead. In order to do that assimilation helps. A common language and understanding of ettiquete and customs helps you land a job. Being able to organize politically helps you secure your rights. Assimilation makes that possible for many reasons, but partly because it helps overcome the majority's perception of you as "other" and "foreign". Assimilation makes you less likely to be the target of racism. The side effect is that you start to embrace American culture. It's worked very well for a couple hundred years now.

Immigrants aren't all coming over here for the money. It's important, no doubt... but part of the reason for it's importance is that living here is just so damned dependent on it. Money is incidental - immigrants are coming over here for other things that money might be needed for, or that money isn't even connected to. Like being able to feed a family (to which money is an incidental... a means to an end), or survive an illness.. or escape the cartels... or a hundred other reasons.

You seem to be arguing that immigrants should learn English so they don't get the shit kicked out of them... which, of course, makes racism against immigrants what - the fault of the immigrant?

Of course.

If most houses are on fire, but a few are safe... should we set fire to them, just so all are alike? Or should we be making all the houses fire-proof, no matter the convenience?

That was a poor analogy.

Comparing knowing the most spoken language in a country to a bunch of burning houses, and the minority languages to save havens... Is the minority automatically better? A language is a language. The most spoken and most commonly used language in an area would be the most beneficial to learn.

The 'convenience' is that of the immigrants. If they learn to speak English when living in the U.S.A, they will have an easier time.

Honestly, wth are you trying to prove?

What does any of that have to do with the factual reality of de facto or de jure official languages?


I'm not sure. Why should I care? We have no official language... the nation was founded on that principle... I see that as 'end of story'.


Guess what all those immigrants who came here and made america did?


Killed natives?

That's about the only thing they had in common... or are you under the impression this was born as an 'English' nation?


They, uh, you know, well, uh, Learned English.


No. No they didn't. Some spoke only German, or Norweigan, or Spanish, or French. To say 'they... Leaned English' is as nonsensical as saying that the Babylonians did.


How many days did you spend held up at the airport trying to explain to the people who worked there that they had to speak your language, because tomorrow their country might speak Swedish?

None. Why - would that matter? Interestingly, though - there were interpreters at the airport. Almost like they thought some people might *shocked* 'not speak English'! Aaah!

None. Why - would that matter? Interestingly, though - there were interpreters at the airport. Almost like they thought some people might *shocked* 'not speak English'! Aaah!

Obviously you shouldn't need to speak the language fluently to take a vacation somewhere. If you are going to live somewhere extensively, you should most definitely learn the language. Unless you can get an airport interpreter to follow you around...

It might be a good idea, head in the clouds, to engineer a language, but it is also a good idea to stop fighting wars.


What does war have to do with it? Are we now talking about enforcing English as the common language by force?


"Good idea" doesn't have a whole lot to do with "realistic" or "going to happen" or "relevant to discussions of real things."


This is very true. It would have been a 'good idea' for me to ignore your first rambling attacks.


The closest thing that will likely ever exist to an "artifact" language is computer language, and the closest thing in human language are the creoles and pidgins which form naturally.


What about Lojban? What about the myriad conlangs? What about - for want of a more perfect example - Esperanto?

Hell - what about Klingon? Silvan? Sindar?


The language which will probably be the long-term language of commerce and government is English, because of its big head start in foisting itself upon the rest of the world.


No - the language which is the biggest player now, is English, because of it's big headstart. But, that's back to the 'civilising the savages' thing.


Mandarin might give it a run for its money in some extreme long-term, but the seeds being sown today, in terms of the proportion of people who learn English as a second language versus mandarin put the odds significantly against it.


Mandarin might give English more than a little run for it's money, by sheer weight of native numbers. Or - maybe more likely - through formation of blocs.


These are some of the things we learn in linguistics school ;)

Err... okay. If you attended a 'linguistics school' that convinced you there were no (non-computer) artifact languages, I'd imagine they probably dispense their diploma's from little holders in the wall, near the 'facilities'.

That was a poor analogy.

Comparing knowing the most spoken language in a country to a bunch of burning houses, and the minority languages to save havens... Is the minority automatically better? A language is a language. The most spoken and most commonly used language in an area would be the most beneficial to learn.

The 'convenience' is that of the immigrants. If they learn to speak English when living in the U.S.A, they will have an easier time.

Honestly, wth are you trying to prove?

English is broken. Another language might not be.

Does it make sense to maintain the dominant 'broken' language, even in the possible presence of a superior alternative... no matter how minority it's current status?

I'm beginning to wonder if there are any English speakers on the forum who understand that English is still capable of symbolism...

Look. what about agreeing that it is a good idea for immigrants to learn the language of a country (since it might be akward not too), but not force them to. Also, and I'm not saying this makes America the best country or makes it okay, but racism does exist in most countries (French imperialism anyone?). Along with sexism, classism, etc. People love isms. I'm not saying we through people out of the country if they don't learn the language quickly, actually, I believe in loose regulations (accept the bad with the good and all). But all in all, I guess this kind of pointless, circling debate on a forum to make your opinion heard is what America is all about. ;) Not trying to be mean with that though.

English is broken. Another language might not be.

Does it make sense to maintain the dominant 'broken' language, even in the possible presence of a superior alternative... no matter how minority it's current status?

I'm beginning to wonder if there are any English speakers on the forum who understand that English is still capable of symbolism...

Broken you say. How so?

I speak English('Americanized') and seem to communicate effectively with other sentient individuals.

I am a bit of a poet, so I am glad that it is still capable of symbolism.

Immigrants! You will be assimilated! Resistance is futile! For we are borg!


Fixxed... All your base are belong to me!

Broken you say. How so?


It's non-functional. It is illogical and irregular. It may be a very technical language now... but it is only so, because it has almost no capacity other than technical interpretation... except what can be constructed by artifice, or that which is borrowed.

In terms of that technicality and lack of functionality - compare English to something like Biblical Hebrew, and you might see what i mean.


I speak English('Americanized') and seem to communicate effectively with other sentient individuals.


There are those that would argue that, if you speak 'Americanised' English, you ain't speaking English at all. Two nations divided by a common language, and all that.


I am a bit of a poet, so I am glad that it is still capable of symbolism.

Good to hear. Then my use of English in a sometimes-literal-sometimes-allusive manner, will have at least an audience of one.

It's non-functional. It is illogical and irregular. It may be a very technical language now... but it is only so, because it has almost no capacity other than technical interpretation... except what can be constructed by artifice, or that which is borrowed.

In terms of that technicality and lack of functionality - compare English to something like Biblical Hebrew, and you might see what i mean.



There are those that would argue that, if you speak 'Americanised' English, you ain't speaking English at all. Two nations divided by a common language, and all that.


You seem to be talking about some "Pure" form of english, which like pure water, doesn't really exist in the the real universe. English is a blatant vocabulary thief, and we like it that way.

What does war have to do with it? Are we now talking about enforcing English as the common language by force?

This is very true. It would have been a 'good idea' for me to ignore your first rambling attacks.

What about Lojban? What about the myriad conlangs? What about - for want of a more perfect example - Esperanto?

Hell - what about Klingon? Silvan? Sindar?

No - the language which is the biggest player now, is English, because of it's big headstart. But, that's back to the 'civilising the savages' thing.

Mandarin might give English more than a little run for it's money, by sheer weight of native numbers. Or - maybe more likely - through formation of blocs.

Err... okay. If you attended a 'linguistics school' that convinced you there were no (non-computer) artifact languages, I'd imagine they probably dispense their diploma's from little holders in the wall, near the 'facilities'.

1) Missed the point completely.

2) ?

3) How many native speakers are their of Esperanto? Lojban? How many "artifact" languages are spoken daily? By how many people? You missed the point again.

4) Why do you keep bringing up this racist "civilize the savages" garbage?

5) Possible, but not likely. The number of Chinese in china who speak mandarin doesn't really have much to do with Mandarin's role as an international language, it is the Chinese who interact with foreigners that matter in that regard.

6) An extension of the missed point #3. In a nutshell, and this won't be expanded upon - you can go to linguistics school if you're interested - "artifact" languages are a dead end, for a whole lot of reasons that you can learn about if you go to linguistics school.

Because we aren't discussing a fantasy novel where we can just make things happen with magic, but instead the real world, where people are not going to "all learn French because it is logical."

Would this be the same real world where people are not all going to learn English in order to "assimilate?"

Would this be the same real world where people are not all going to learn English in order to "assimilate?"

Not every immigrant to the US will learn English, I suppose. Only the successful ones.


A far cry still from the notion that immigrants needn't learn English (in the US, French in france, German in germany, &c), "because what if everyone spoke mandarin, and what if tomorrow everyone spoke swedish."

English is a blatant vocabulary thief, and we like it that way.
Just like the Saxons:)

It's non-functional. It is illogical and irregular. It may be a very technical language now... but it is only so, because it has almost no capacity other than technical interpretation... except what can be constructed by artifice, or that which is borrowed.

In terms of that technicality and lack of functionality - compare English to something like Biblical Hebrew, and you might see what i mean.


There are those that would argue that, if you speak 'Americanised' English, you ain't speaking English at all. Two nations divided by a common language, and all that.


Good to hear. Then my use of English in a sometimes-literal-sometimes-allusive manner, will have at least an audience of one.

You do have a point, since it tends to have strange grammatical rules and spellings for words which do not fit with the conventional use of sounds.
Such as, one could spell fish as "ghoti": 'gh' as in tough, 'o' as in women, and 'ti' as in nation.

People argue alot.:p

Possibly. Everything said is harder to interpret successfully when it is in text and posted by someone you don't know.

The real shame is that all of the post WWII immigrants assimilated without argument, legislation, etc...Why can't todays immigrants do the same?

US Jews speak the English language, as do the Amish. They know the basic etiquette to use in public in our culture. Some amount of patriotism is also expected. I think that's what most folks mean when they say they want immigrants to assimilate. They want the foreigners to learn English, don't act like Borat, and be grateful for the fact that they're here.

Why is speaking English a must for being an American?

Whole lot of people in India (including my own dad and mom) don't speak Hindi or English, but they are as Indian as they come. I am always puzzled by the "OMG they don't speak English...they speak something else" arguments.

The real shame is that all of the post WWII immigrants assimilated without argument, legislation, etc...Why can't todays immigrants do the same?

People only started arguing when rightists started claiming they were "invading" our nation...Mexicans have been immigrating into America for many many years.

Why is speaking English a must for being an American?

Whole lot of people in India (including my own dad and mom) don't speak Hindi or English, but they are as Indian as they come. I am always puzzled by the "OMG they don't speak English...they speak something else" arguments.

What do people predominantly speak in your area in India? Is it the same language as your mom and dad?

I hear the word Assimilated thrown casually around immigration debates, and I can't help but wonder what exactly people mean by it, and how (besides requiring that immigrants learn the native language) they plan to actually carry it out.

From buritos too burgers so sayeth the US congress.

What do people predominantly speak in your area in India? Is it the same language as your mom and dad?

Tamil, which is the predominant language of Tamil Nadu (my state in India). That's the language my mom and dad speak and what we speak at home. I learnt hindi at a much later age (after I was 20) when I had to work in Bihar (a north Indian state).

Most states in India has its own state language as the predominant language.

Tamil, which is the predominant language of Tamil Nadu (my state in India). That's the language my mom and dad speak and what we speak at home. I learnt hindi at a much later age (after I was 20) when I had to work in Bihar (a north Indian state).

Most states in India has its own state language as the predominant language.

So... Your parents and you grew up speaking the main/official (de facto or de jure)/predominant language of the part of India where you grew up, but then when you moved to another part, you had to learn a different language, which happened to be the main/official/predominant language of the new place?

And you're making noise claiming you "don't understand" why learning English should be expected of people in the US, where English is the main/official/predominant language?

Non sequitur.

So... Your parents and you grew up speaking the main/official (de facto or de jure)/predominant language of the part of India where you grew up, but then when you moved to another part, you had to learn a different language, which happened to be the main/official/predominant language of the new place?

And you're making noise claiming you "don't understand" why learning English should be expected of people in the US, where English is the main/official/predominant language?

Non sequitur.

Not quite.

Tamil Nadu is an integral part of India and Tamilians who don't speak Hindi are as Indian as any other Indian.

Try again.

Not quite.

Tamil Nadu is an integral part of India and Tamilians who don't speak Hindi are as Indian as any other Indian.

Try again.

What in God's name does that have to do with my post? My post specifically referenced:

"So... Your parents and you grew up speaking the main/official (de facto or de jure)/predominant language of the part of India where you grew up, but then when you moved to another part, you had to learn a different language, which happened to be the main/official/predominant language of the new place?"

Which, if you'd read it, you'd see discusses different languages in different *parts* of India. Where did I post anything that could reasonably be replied to with what you wrote?


Is it necessary or prudent in India to learn a region's language if you move there?

What in God's name does that have to do with my post? My post specifically referenced:


It is still the same fucking country, regardless of what language people speak.

In the same way, if Mexican immigrants speak Spanish in predominantly spanish areas of America, what is the problem for English speaking non-spanish people elsewhere in America?

Atleast some have a problem with that, hence my post and your counter post and all that nonsense.