Should English be the official language of the U.S?

Whether Mr Swedish Guy speaks a Romance language (to any degree) - or not, he is obviously knowledgeable about linguistics in general - evinced by the fact that he does not generalise upon the subject, nor does he pontificate. His basis is obviously education, and educated people are much more circumspect in their comments than those who merely think they know everything to know about a given subject.

And a preference for soft or hard sounds is not the arbiter of expressive capability. For myself - I prefer the soft (Germanic) 'sch' sound, but many English words use both pronunciations - as in school (skool) and schedule (shedule). These are simply subjective evaluations.

I stated that I spoke some German, and that imperfectly - and despite the fact that I did Latin at school, I have made it clear that I enjoy no linguistic expertise. But yes, I find German grammar much more complicated than English grammar particularly in the area of cases. This is where English grammar is simpler than nearly all comparable European languages - it has but three cases. The Subjective, the Objective, and the Possessive.

But grammar is not defined by cases alone. According to the Oxford English Dictionaries, it consists of the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics.

To be proficient in the English language (something I am not yet, but hope to attain) one needs to understand more than grammatical cases. The understanding of morphology (how words are formed and change) and syntax make the difference between a well formed and easily comprehensible sentence, and one which is not, as does an understanding of logical and lexical semantics. These are all complexities within any language, and all need to be mastered before proficiency in that tongue may be attained. There is no such thing as a simple language.

I don't wish to be either impolite or disrespectful, my friend, but you are altogether too quick to pontificate about these matters (even where, as in the case of the origins of German grammar, you are incorrect) and to tell others that they do not know about what they are talking. This is not a personal attack, just a bit of friendly advice to the effect that, despite your expertise in the field, you will be taken less seriously with that approach.

 

The concept of the official language is stupid , the Byzantines had Latin as official for centuries while nobody was speaking it .

 

That would be a valid comparison is the question was wheter the US should have saxon as its official language.

 

Not really , Latin was not extinct back in 6th century.

What i am trying to say is that if the majority of the population one day speaks Nahuatl it would be unwise to have English as official and the current trends as far as i know are not at English's side .Look at the EU , documents are translated in all languages and all is good.

 

Language barriers are, well, barriers. I don't have to explain why those aren't a big bonus. Preferably, one should avoid working towards creating a situation which create a big language barrier. With the case of the US, they should try to make spanish speakers speak english, not strive to make the country officially bilingual.

 

This is a polite way to push the assimilation agenda .

 

You make it sound as if it was a bad thing.

 

Variation is wealth while monocultures move slow, i lived the first 20 years of my life in a country 99% Greek so i know.

 

I lived my first 18 years in Sweden and I came to a different conclusion.

 

Scandinavians like the rest of the westerners are trying to make up for their recent savage past by being utterly ridiculous in some matters like say tolerance of extremists and "political correctness" . I like and endorse difference and i respect everyone who tries to contribute or just live and let live among us but foreigners [and locals] who try to force their medieval ideas in my city will find my boot on their teeth and i am not a man of words.

 

"Parlez-vous français?" I think that french would be a great language to be considered as the national langauge; its a very descriptive, passionate language and easily learned. just my 2cents.

 

Hey, greeks have a three thousand year recorded history of killing tons of people, swedes only have like half that.

Anyways, diversity is good and all when it means people think of stuff from different angles and what not, but not when it puts up barriers.

 

Since, just for example, the Constitution is in English, and so are the highway and road warning signs, such as "Bridge Out", "Dead End", and "Reduce Speed - Construction Ahead", of freaking course English should be the national language.

 

You are correct in the sense that your nation was begun by Englishmen, your laws, and customs have English origins, and all official business is carried out in a dialect of the English language. As long as a form of English continues to be the medium of communication for the majority of Americans, it will remain the de facto official language of the USA. If and when there is a clear majority (say over 60%) of Americans who speak Spanish, or Mandarin, or Ebonics, then irrespective of history, or official status, another language may become the dominant form of communication.

 

Yes, but I have no issue with dual language policies in certain areas, particularly ones that already have a lengthy history within the US. The main concern for me on language policy is assimilation. We have a lot of immigrants, and should be helping them to assimilate. This isn't some self-centered and anglo-centric view, it's for the sake of the minorities. If their children lose their language and customs then part of their cultural heritage will be lost (that has happened to Germans, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Finns, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, French, Italians, Spanish etc. in the US). But, if they don't learn our language and customs and assimilate, their children will almost certainly advance no higher in the socio-economic strata than their parents. The English language is the most valuable 'skill' in the United States by far. It is for the sake of the country as a whole, but even moreso for the immigrants and their children, that they learn the language and customs.

There's also the concern about secession in the southwest, but that's extremely unlikely, even if Spanish becomes an even more dominant language in the Southwest. Of more concern, going back to the people (usually immigrants) themselves, there have been connections - direct and indirect - between people who haven't assimilated and crime. Helping these people learn the language and assimilate is important to controlling crime. I know some people will get upset by that, but it's really not that hard of a connection to make. The indirect is more obvious. As stated, English is the most valuable language, and those who don't learn it are much less likely to do well financially, and on the same hand more likely to live in poverty. The number one driver of crime is poverty - so I don't think that the claim I make is so extreme or whatever label you want to put on it. It's just factual.

 

I believe it's too late for such a change. America is like conglomerate of many different ethnic groups today. Not that I disagree, I also believe English should be official language over there, however, that idea comes decades if not centuries late. ;(

 

Have you seen a shrink?

 

I don't see the actual benefit from making such a proclamation. It should be obvious for immigrants, legal and illegal that they benefit by learning the language of government and the language the vast majority of people speak. My mother's parents came here from Italy, they had to learn English to move up in life, they still speak with an accent to this day, but their kids have completely adopted the language. I think the same will ring true for the children of Hispanic immigrants today.

The concern is that with the formation of large sectors of cities being entirely composed of Spanish language only immigrants that this disincentives them to learn English if they can get by in daily life speaking only Spanish. But I firmly believe that their kids and grand kids will want to be fully assimilated with the language, so it isn't a big concern at all for continuity purposes. These kids will want to watch an NFL game while being able to understand the announcers, they'll want to watch popular shows and movies in theaters that don't have Spanish language alternatives. So I really don't think we should be concerned with a significant language gap embedding itself into the country and causing confusion and division; it wasn't the case with German or Italian immigrants and it won't be the case with Hispanic immigrants.

 

Ambiguous people? Not even Hitler went to this extent. (He didn't force the Polish of Prussia to learn German.) HEHEHEHEHE

 

I voted yes, even though the US is not my country, though I will add that no other language should be removed or banned and all relevant documents etc should be available on request in the language required.

The fact is that most countries now have numerous languages spoken, in the interest of communication between the populace it is in the best interests of people to at least try to learn something of the other languages spoken.

 

Well, the only problem with that is in considering the MANY French speaking citizens who actually had control of certain areas that the US "acquired" over time and/or through the purchase of certain regions. It wasn't just the Spanish speaking lot who have had to 'adjust' you know. Lucky for us (US), they respected the law of the land or the sensible wisdom of their families to learn and USE English and speak French within their homes or to each other to keep their heritage. As it has been explained above by other good posters who have a level, logical head on their shoulders......it keeps confusion to a minimum and is better for our economy, taxes and happiness if everyone can communicate "equally" with one another without being a burden to others. I have an Italian/Scott/Cherokee background and WE respected OUR Nation enough to "fit in" the problem with many of our new "immigrants" is that they refuse to fit in and aim to take back what they think was/is theirs. The liberals are all for this multiculturalism because it further weakens our Nation. God forbid that we start issuing military orders in several different languages to where it breeds even more failures on the battle field. In closing, I can't think of ANY Italian, German, Mandarin, Spanish, French or "other" speaking citizen (who genuinely wishes to be AMERICAN) who would like to go on a trip and have to single out 'THEIR' language before missing their turn on the interstate. My God! I don't even like having to thumb through instructions at Christmas time cuz I think about all the wasted money and wasted trees for instructions that 90+% of Americans could read in ENGLISH. If you are a tree hugger, that alone should make you turn from your wicked ways of "multi-multiculturalism".

 

Goober, you quickly make the point Tecoya about the 'COSTS' in making laws but neglect to mention or realize the 'COSTS' in printed material, signs and interpreters. And for the record, I can't recall seeing signs in anything but English on major highways and such.....however, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that some of our bankrupt Blue States have such signs. I was in SF a couple of years ago and do believe there were such signs (within the China Town district) but not on the interstates. Good grief, CA has enough traffic problems without introducing that idiotic idea and add to the confusion.

 

The only people hurt by not speaking English are those that do not speak English. It's a non-issue.

 

I understand what you are saying but there is no longer a large French speaking population in the United States. We should only make laws which affect our current situation, not our past situation. If we made laws which addressed past situations, that wouldn't make much sense because we cannot go back and change the past.

 

An "official language" does not preclude speaking other languages. It simply means that any government business will be conducted in English only. There is a good, constitutional reason for this.

We are forbidden by law to discriminate aganst any national, cultural, racial or sexual group. Does anyone disagree with that?

OK, good. Now, by direct inferrence (according to th Supreme Court), we are forbidden to play "favorites" to any of those groups.

Are you still with me? Good.

Now, today, we have ballots and such in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese. Are those people better than the rest of the world? Are they "favored"?

Why not German? French? Swahili? Russian? Pashtun? Farsi? Potugese? Finnish? Bulgarian? Serbian? Greek? Welsh?

There are hundreds of different langages. Are you seriously suggesting we conduct the business of the U.S.A. in every one of them? Are you SERIOUS?

And if not, why are we discriminating against all the others by having government business done in just a few "favored" or "special" languages? That is discrimination, no matter how you try to justify it.