Press 1 For English

[MinisterofDOOM]

First, language has evolved naturally pretty well - there's only one truly successful manufactured language, to my knowledge, that didn't arise out of "free market" principles: Modern Hebrew, the national language of the State of Israel.

How a language got where it is today is of no practical importance. Sure, it's fascinating to study, but that's entirely beside the point. What IS of practical importance is where we go from here. If we did everything "the way it was" simply because "that's how things work" we wouldn't be having this electronic discussion right now. We have the opportunity to take charge of our communication tools and make them what we need them to be. That is SUPERIOR to "free market" evolution.

Should we set national standards for those, too? Those are forms of communication that are arguably just as important as spoken language.

For road and information signs? ABSOLUTELY! Yes. Of course. And we DO, in large part.
As for hand-waving and international social customs, that's another topic entirely. We're not discussing global standards here. We're discussion a US-specific national standard for SPOKEN language.

but would you suggest that we should conduct regular polling to determine what is the most widely spoken first-language? Should we change our official language whenever that changes?

No. That goes completely against the purpose of having a standard. The purpose of a stnadard is to make sure everyone's on the same page, to be dependable, and to PREVENT frequent rotation. Once a standard is established, it will remain the most used language because it will be impossible to operate without it. Which is the goal.

But really, if our measuring stick is what's commonly used, why do we need to establish anything?

Because people are stupid, and people are stubborn. If we continue catering to ever-increasing numbers of increasingly little-used languages, REAL communication between humans breaks down. People are idiots. If you give them an easy way out, they'll take it. Unless we give people a reason to learn the same language, it isn't going to happen. We'll continue to have people trying to conduct business in their own country in a language that few others can understand. That's crap. It DOES NOT WORK.

Free market principles apply, despite your objections, to the evolution of language.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with the evolution of anything. This has to do with the functional capabilities of humans in a single country to communicate with each other. Where the language came from is a non-issue. Where the language is GOING is what's at hand. I would like to take charge and make sure we get the most out of it. I see no benefit in allowing things to "just happen how they happen." It's NOT A BUSINESS. There is nothing to be gained from looking at it like a business. EVERYONE SUFFERS WHEN NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER. There needs to be a common basis for communication. It is a REQUIREMENT for the future of civilization. Hell, it's a requirement for NOW.

[stebo0728]

Minister, if I were to give a label to your thinking process, I can imagine it would be "Linguistic Socialism".

To break it down, really there are 2 different areas we are dealing with, one being the private sector, and the other being the public sector. These two sectors can and should be treated differently. The private sector should be treated as a self sufficient entity, and left alone. Let it govern itself in all matters, language included, and it will remain functional. Begin to intervene, in any area, and the system begins to break down. Now the public sector is quite different. The public sector policies should be designed and mandated by the representative whom the public have elected, and the wants and desires of the public need be conveyed to those representative. This applies, again, to language just the same. If the public desires 1 main stream language, then that is what the public sector needs to strive for. Equally if this is the desire of the people, a private sector left to function for itself will undoubedly establish these policies as well. What is scary is that government mandates on the private sector usually begin to sneak in on issues that SEEM benign, or issues that may even SEEM necessary, but once that lever is pulled, the cascading loss of liberty begins.

[IBCoupe]

It has everything to do with the evolution of language. The only reason there's a push for the establishment of a national language is because there's a popular notion that the most popular language in the country is changing, or at least becoming far less popular. And my big question is: so what? Learn to communicate with others, or you're going to run into impediments in your life. It's not like you're going to have any great trouble doing this - you've been learning how to do it since birth. It may just be that in 100 years, English may not be the same English we speak today, and the Spanish that many are afraid of won't be the same Spanish. The American language is changing because it's evolving, and the only reason to regulate how "America" speaks is to attempt to control that. For heck's sake, we're still using Latin phrases in law. Why? There's literally no need to do it.

And I wasn't talking about global standards either. I bet there are a great many people in the US, being that the US remains a nation of people of other nations, who interpret body language differently from others. Why shouldn't we have a national body language, too, if our primary goal is to establish how people in this country will communicate with one another?

Why should our goal be to tell people how to speak? You have this odd understanding of "free market principles" that make it apply only to business, when in reality, there's no reason to restrict it that way. It's the notion that individuals, if left to their own devices, will sort things out for themselves. If left in a room together, they'll find the best way to communicate. They don't need a government to tell them how.

You say that without government intervention, people won't be able to understand each other, and I say you're the biggest nanny-statist I've ever met. You say that "it doesn't work," and I'm seeing a whole country of people who work just fine with one another.

And one other problem: just how in the world do we enforce a national language? If your concern is that people can't communicate with each other, what the heck do we do? Do we go ahead and make all our documents in one language, and hope that nobody goes and translates them into others? Do we outlaw translation as a profession? Shut down Babelfish? Arrest people for speaking Portuguese? Should the government be responsible for publishing a dictionary? What you're proposing as the solution to our communication ills is just a gesture, and an infuriatingly big-government one, at that.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Minister, if I were to give a label to your thinking process, I can imagine it would be "Linguistic Socialism".

That might be accurate, if I was trying to tell people what languages they were allowed to speak without exception. But I'm not. All I'm trying to do is establish a reliable, consistent standard across the board for official use. So that citizens of this country, regardless of place of birth or race, can count on being able to communicate when they need to, where they need to.

What is scary is that government mandates on the private sector usually begin to sneak in on issues that SEEM benign, or issues that may even SEEM necessary, but once that lever is pulled, the cascading loss of liberty begins.

I agree. But the problem is the world is not really that simple. I'm no idealist, in either direction.
Which brings me to my next point:

It's the notion that individuals, if left to their own devices, will sort things out for themselves. If left in a room together, they'll find the best way to communicate. They don't need a government to tell them how.

I don't agree. My emphatic disagreement with this statement is the entire basis for my argument. Individuals will NOT find the best way to communicate. They will SETTLE on the least effective means they can get by with. They absolutely DO need someone to tell them how. NEED is exactly the word. If they didn't NEED to be told how THIS WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE. They REQUIRE someone to tell them "this is how we communicate effectively, and we will not accept anything else in official settings" or they'll NEVER get it right. People in general are TERRIBLE problem-solvers, gullible, easily confused, and terrible decision-makers. Even if they know how to do something well, they generally won't unless there's the potential for personal benefit or some other incentive.

It has everything to do with the evolution of language. The only reason there's a push for the establishment of a national language is because there's a popular notion that the most popular language in the country is changing, or at least becoming far less popular.

Feel free to make assumptions, but I'll clarify that this is not my own reasoning behind my argument. By extension, perhaps. But the real reason I'm arguing in favor of a national language is that it would solve a major problem I have observed.

You say that without government intervention, people won't be able to understand each other, and I say you're the biggest nanny-statist I've ever met.

Classify me however you please. It does not change reality. There ARE situations where people don't understand each other. All the time. There's been plenty of time to fix this. It isn't fixed. Because people are too stupid, stubborn, naiive, or unwilling to fix it. The problem isn't going away. I'm proposing a solution.

You say that "it doesn't work," and I'm seeing a whole country of people who work just fine with one another.

Then you're walking around with blinders on. Because I'm not seeing that AT ALL.
Let me give you some basis for my viewpoint. I work in the security industry. And every night I try and have conversations with managers of companies who cannot effectively communicate with me about security issues because they don't speak the same language as me. It's entirely plausible that someone's life could be at stake during any of these situations and I'm unable to get the facts straight. I can't exactly make bodily gestures over the phone and hope we can find some common ground on which to operate. No, that's not exactly the right time for that kind of thing.
That's absolutely not "just fine". It's unacceptable. It's broken. And it's harmful.
The real world is not as self-repairing as you like to think.
Which is why we need to establish a standard that can be relied upon by anyone, anywhere, anywhen, in this nation.

And one other problem: just how in the world do we enforce a national language? If your concern is that people can't communicate with each other, what the heck do we do? Do we go ahead and make all our documents in one language, and hope that nobody goes and translates them into others? Do we outlaw translation as a profession? Shut down Babelfish? Arrest people for speaking Portuguese? Should the government be responsible for publishing a dictionary? What you're proposing as the solution to our communication ills is just a gesture, and an infuriatingly big-government one, at that.

This (along with your "body langauge" comments) are what is referred to as reductio ad absurdum. You're taking my more sensible argument to a completely unrealistic extreme in an effort to make it look ridiculous. I've never suggested any of this. This is all your inferral. Stop inferring.
I have answers for these questions, though.
I'm not suggesting some sort of "ban" on other languages. I'm suggesting something much less invasive. I simply want to put an end to the catering to those who refuse to learn the common language of the country. I want to see an end to everything being printed in 2 and 3 and 4 and more languages. I want to see a practical standard set for use of language.
Of course, feel free to re-print whatever you want in whatever language you want. Translate it by whatever format into whatever language you like. None of that gets in the way of what I'm suggesting. I just want to break the bad habit we've created under which people assume that someone is going to hold their hand. There will be no hand-holding. There will be no catering to people who refuse to learn the language of commerce. I am sick of this nation catering to the foolish, the lazy, and the inept.

I absolutely understand your fear (and hatred) of the "nanny-state" (and I promise, if you met me, or we were discussing nearly any other topic, you'd see that this is more true than this discussion alone suggests). But I think we might have gone too far in our fear. Our government exists for a reason: it is a tool to be wielded by us, as citizens, to correct problems with the nation. And I'm suggesting using it to correct a problem of communication. I just want to get everyone on the same page.
The problem is that everyone's so busy having "rights" these days, they've forgotten they also have RESPONSIBILITIES. We have a responsibility to each other as individuals and to ourselves as a nation of free citizens to make sure we are able to function on an effective level. From where I stand, this is does not seem to be happening. I would LOVE for the problem to correct itself, as you suggest. But it isn't. So I'm suggesting being proactive. I want to actually DO something, rather than sitting back and letting failure take its course while deluding myself that most people are anything but fools content to wallow in their own mediocrity.

It may just be that in 100 years, English may not be the same English we speak today, and the Spanish that many are afraid of won't be the same Spanish. The American language is changing because it's evolving, and the only reason to regulate how "America" speaks is to attempt to control that. For heck's sake, we're still using Latin phrases in law. Why? There's literally no need to do it.

But that's not what we're discussing here. This isn't about fear of the English language becoming something it isn't today. This is about DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. Spanish might contribute to English, but the Spanish that is printed beside English on so many things is NOT English, it's Spanish. This discussion is about whole, separate languages and the need to hand-pick one of them to be the one we can count on. For the sake of argument, I don't even care which one. I'm not discussing where the English language is evolving. I'm discussing the need a society has for one language it can depend on. You might be inferring more than that, but I'm certainly not implying it.
As for Latin in Law...that's a great example of what I'm going for. The use of Latin in law is a LONG established STANDARD. Latin is used because it can be DEPENDED UPON in the world of law.

Learn to communicate with others, or you're going to run into impediments in your life.

This is EXACTLY the argument I'm making. We're just approaching it from completely different sides. I want people who don't speak English to learn to communicate with people who do speak English by learning to speak English. You want people who speak English to learn to communicate with people who don't. But to me, my approach makes more sense because English is one language, where other languages are many. Which makes more sense? Everyone in the country making sure they know one language, or everyone in the country having to learn every language of every other person in the country? It's just not realistic to expect people to be able to communicate effectively in multiple languages all the time. But it is very realistic to expect everyone to communicate effectively if they're all using the same single language. Learn one or learn many? I'm NOT against the use of other languages. I'm just against the DEPENDENCE on them.
And actually, I'm not even necessarily suggesting a LAW here. If you can think of another way to put such a standard into effect, I'm all ears.

The American language is changing because it's evolving, and the only reason to regulate how "America" speaks is to attempt to control that.

Just a quick reminder that I'm not talking about where English is going at all before I embark on this side-track:
What's wrong with wanting to control it? We have a wider understanding of the mechanics (both operational and effective) of language than ever. In the past, sure, languages has guided its own evolution. But imagine where English could go if we allow bright minds to guide it? I'm certainly not suggesting a clean-room engineering of the future of the language, but we have the capacity to see success and failing in the language, so why not take advantage of that? The thing Humans do best is to take good ideas and make them better. Why should we exclude language from that just because that's not how things were done before?

I think the big misunderstanding here is that you think I'm pushing for laws to throw anyone who even thinks about speaking something other than English in jail. That's not what I want at all. All I want is an established, recognized, official standard that can be used as a basis for better communication going forward. I'm not looking for criminally enforceable laws, I'm not looking for fines or meddling or interference. I just want to stop the bad trend of printing 23 languages on everything. That's not "learning to communicate with other people"; it's exactly the opposite. We're not going to go anywhere beneficial by determinedly speaking our own languages and refusing to understand anything else. And giving people a common lingual ground on which to stand on is the best way to avoid further muddling.

[IBCoupe]

We have a fundamental disagreement on what an individual will do if confronted by a problem, and I don't think there's anywhere to go from there on that point. I have no doubt that you are anything but a nanny-statist (I was just being provocative, there) when all your views are considered, but on this issue, you're way more authoritarian than even I, the perpetual devil's advocate, could ever hope to be.

I was employing reductio ad absurdum, you're right, and I don't employ it often. I only used it here because I feel that the notion that language would be controlled by prohibiting the government from publishing anything in a language other than English is absurd in its own right, and sometimes it takes a few absurd examples to make that clearer.

Your problem is the popular use of other languages; you may not want to phrase it that way, but by ways of what you've described to me as what introduced the problem to you (your dealings in the Security Industry), that's your problem. There's no logic that gets you from "Government won't print ballots in Spanish" to "My coworkers won't speak Spanish." I understand and I sympathize with your plight, but if there is a solution to be found to that problem, it most certainly does not involve the establishment of a national language that only is applied to government.

What happens when we establish a national language (and theoretically, it doesn't have to be English), with the intent to create a common language? The impression I get from your posts is that you anticipate the eventual adoption of that national language through a desire to interact with the government and public services.

What I see as more likely is that people will just stop interacting with those public services. Say we make the census an English only document. Households that speak something else simply won't participate. And then what happens? They still live there, but they're not accounted for. County doesn't get as much funding, but the costs on its systems (its schools, its police, its fire department - the interaction with the government that doesn't really require you to fill out a form prior to service) stay the same, and so budget problems develop. Say we make ballots an English only document. I think people who don't speak English simply won't vote. Say we make driving tests English-only. I think people will just drive illegally, and perhaps ignorantly. Are there any problems that might develop there?

If you want the Reader's Digest version: Establishing a national language won't solve the problem, and it might create new problems.

You and I agree that people need to learn to communicate with one another; we just have drastically different approaches. Note that I'm not trying to cast aspersions: on this particular issue, you're in favor of a centralized, authoritarian approach. I'm more keen on a decentralized, individual and incidental approach. You'd say, "They should learn to communicate with me and the majority of Americans," and I'd say, "Maybe you should both try to communicate with each other."

[MinisterofDOOM]

Well said.

You're right that my assumption (or rather hope) is that by being "required" to know English (or whatever the national language happened to be) more people would put forth the effort to learn it. Which might be more a more idealist hope than I cared to admit.

And you're spot on about the potential for new problems...that's one of the big criticisms I threw at the auto industry bail outs and most other government-interventionist ideologies. Most of the time, the people making those decisions don't really understand much about the pond they're casting ripples in.

"Maybe you should both try to communicate with each other."

Honestly, this is where my real frustration comes from, and is probably the reason I'm fine with "making" people do things the right way in this case. I have put forth the effort to communicate with others. I've learned other languages. And it's frustrating, not to mention insulting, when people come from other countries to my country and expect me to adjust FOR them. I HAVE adjusted. And they STILL refuse to adjust. I feel like "we" (English-speaking Americans) are making ALL the concessions and "they" (non-english-speaking immigrants) are getting all the benefits. All I ask is that non-English-speakers put forth as much effort as I have.
I don't have the opportunity to use Spanish very often, so I'm far from fluent in it. But I can at least understand it well enough to get the gist, and try and reply. Which is more than I get from many people I interact with in my job.

There are probably measures we could take to make learning English easier for those who are too busy working to support families to really go to school (or afford it). And we could also go a long way toward giving our English-speaking students more of a foundation in other languages. I guess those are probably the two best first-steps toward the resolution of the problem.

[IBCoupe]

Your frustration is completely understandable, and I sympathize. I wrote "both" for a reason. By trying to learn other languages, you're certainly doing your part, but if there's no reciprocation, it can be infuriating.

And I don't know how best to motivate people to get out there and do their part. I wish I got paid to think about things like that, because I'd be happy to try and come up with solutions. And I do believe that for every person like you and I, who are willing to go out and learn how to communicate with our peers, there are certain people who are either too lazy, too bigoted, or just plain too old and set-in-their-ways to manage that sort of effort.

But, if there's one thing I'm pretty sure of: I don't like the government telling me how I should speak, whether their direction regard content or medium. I think the internet is going to prove to be the best "natural" motivator to learning other languages. Not for this generation, perhaps, and maybe not even the next.

[stebo0728]

All you really need to do to control the flow of information is to set up a system in which information filters through in order to check its "linguistics". What information actually makes it through that filter is anybody's guess. I would say there is just a complete fundamental disagreement here at play. In my estimation, you either stop trying to control people, or you just go ahead and decide to control them in every regard. People are stupid, lazy, and ignorant today because of these very controls. As soon as the government began mandating certain areas of their lives, the war for individual liberty was lost. We need to get back to individual liberty, and individual responsibility, and stop looking for what appears to be perfectly logical areas to impose more control. If this sounds completely wack, maybe its the meds ...