Iowa Aviation Weather...en Espanol

Mxsmanic wrote:
ktbr writes:


Something obtained too cheaply or with little effort is little valued.


Or perhaps things that can be obtained cheaply or with little effort tend to
attract people who don't understand the concept of value.


That may also be true.... I am reminded me of the classic movie movie
starrring Humphry Bogart called "The Treasure of Sierra Madre".

If you've seen it you'll know what I mean. If you haven't seen it then
you should.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:10:14 -0800, Matt Whiting wrote
(in article ):

C J Campbell wrote:

No, I'm in it for the money. I had my heart surgically removed 30 years ago
when I started being a landlord. Didn't need it anymore. I think having
signs
and other government services in Spanish is good for business, good for
trade, and good for freedom.

How about Chinese? Japanese? Korean? German? French? Hindu?


Yeah, of course, if there are enough speakers of those languages in the area
to make it economically worthwhile.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:01:08 -0800, LWG wrote
(in article ):

I think what Jay says makes a lot of sense.

The essence of America was that its immigrant population willingly abandoned
many or most aspects of the culture it left.

Well, there were a lot of reasons for that. Many Americans left Europe to get
away from all the feuding. The Scots may all have spoken Gaelic, but they
didn't get along with each other. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:01:08 -0800, LWG wrote
(in article ):

I think what Jay says makes a lot of sense.

The essence of America was that its immigrant population willingly abandoned
many or most aspects of the culture it left.

However, the wisecrack aside, I think what you are missing is that a lot of
these Spanish speakers are not immigrants. They were born here. They have
lived here for hundreds of years, speaking nothing but Spanish. They were
here before the Mayflower. We have a whole territory of nothing but Spanish
speaking people. We have at least a few states where Spanish speaking people
are, if not the majority, at least a very large part of the population.

But, if you just want to expel Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Southern California,
and parts of Arizona and Texas and give it all back to Mexico just so you can
call those people immigrants, well then you might have a point.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:17:34 -0800, ktbr wrote
(in article ):

C J Campbell wrote:
An interesting question, at that. How much money are we really talking
about
here? They have some guy, probably, already on the payroll, or maybe even a
computer translator, that translates the site into Spanish. I bet it
doesn't
cost all that much compared to their whole budget. They probably spend more
on wastebaskets every month.


Wait until someone who speaks Lithuanian files a lawsuit.

I would say that describes a problem with the legal system instead of with
'immigrants' who aren't really immigrants.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:10:14 -0800, Matt Whiting wrote
(in article ):


C J Campbell wrote:


No, I'm in it for the money. I had my heart surgically removed 30 years ago
when I started being a landlord. Didn't need it anymore. I think having
signs
and other government services in Spanish is good for business, good for
trade, and good for freedom.

How about Chinese? Japanese? Korean? German? French? Hindu?



Yeah, of course, if there are enough speakers of those languages in the area
to make it economically worthwhile.


What is the economic advantage of offering weather reports in additional
languages? Who decide what constitutes "enough speakers?"

Matt

C J Campbell wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:01:08 -0800, LWG wrote
(in article ):


I think what Jay says makes a lot of sense.

The essence of America was that its immigrant population willingly abandoned
many or most aspects of the culture it left.


However, the wisecrack aside, I think what you are missing is that a lot of
these Spanish speakers are not immigrants. They were born here. They have
lived here for hundreds of years, speaking nothing but Spanish. They were
here before the Mayflower. We have a whole territory of nothing but Spanish
speaking people. We have at least a few states where Spanish speaking people
are, if not the majority, at least a very large part of the population.

But, if you just want to expel Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Southern California,
and parts of Arizona and Texas and give it all back to Mexico just so you can
call those people immigrants, well then you might have a point.


Well, that is a very compelling proposition! :-)

Matt

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:16:37 -0800, Matt Whiting wrote
(in article ):

C J Campbell wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:01:08 -0800, LWG wrote
(in article ):


I think what Jay says makes a lot of sense.

The essence of America was that its immigrant population willingly
abandoned
many or most aspects of the culture it left.


However, the wisecrack aside, I think what you are missing is that a lot of
these Spanish speakers are not immigrants. They were born here. They have
lived here for hundreds of years, speaking nothing but Spanish. They were
here before the Mayflower. We have a whole territory of nothing but Spanish
speaking people. We have at least a few states where Spanish speaking
people
are, if not the majority, at least a very large part of the population.

But, if you just want to expel Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Southern
California,
and parts of Arizona and Texas and give it all back to Mexico just so you
can
call those people immigrants, well then you might have a point.


Well, that is a very compelling proposition! :-)

Matt

Only if you get to throw Washington, DC into the deal. We declare that a
Spanish speaking territory (because it largely is) and give it to Mexico. The
only requirement is that anyone serving in office or working there in any
capacity, paid or unpaid, or who has ever worked there, will be declared a
resident of Mexico and be deported from the US as an undocumented alien.

Once we are rid of them, we can turn on the telephone sanitizers,
hairdressers, marketing people, and other useless members of society like a
pack of dogs. Maybe even send them to another planet. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:15:22 -0800, Matt Whiting wrote
(in article ):

C J Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:10:14 -0800, Matt Whiting wrote
(in article ):


C J Campbell wrote:


No, I'm in it for the money. I had my heart surgically removed 30 years
ago
when I started being a landlord. Didn't need it anymore. I think having
signs
and other government services in Spanish is good for business, good for
trade, and good for freedom.

How about Chinese? Japanese? Korean? German? French? Hindu?



Yeah, of course, if there are enough speakers of those languages in the
area
to make it economically worthwhile.


What is the economic advantage of offering weather reports in additional
languages? Who decide what constitutes "enough speakers?"


You know, that question could be asked of every single decision made by
government.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

In article om,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Hamish (for whom American English is definitely foreign :-))

So, let me get this straight:

You're saying that Spanish is *not* a foreign language in the United
States, simply because a large portion of people here are originally
from Spanish-speaking countries?

I'm not saying anything of the sort (forgive me for asking, but is
English is a foreign language for you? That might explain a few things
about this exchange...).

Let's review your stance. You've said that one of the indigenous native
languages of the United States -- Lakota -- is a foreign language in the
US. You've claimed that Spanish, the native (first, and, in some cases,
only) language for millions of natural-born citizens in this country, a
language whose native use predates that of English in large parts of the
US, and whose history in many parts of this country as a first language
is long and unbroken, is a foreign language in the US.

So what *do* you mean by "foreign language"? Do you mean "not the
official language"? If so, why not say so (while keeping in mind that
the US doesn't have an official language in the same sense that, say,
France does, or the Soviet Union did)? Do you mean "language spoken by
foreigners or immigrants?" If so, why not say so (while bearing in mind
that I'm both a foreigner and an immigrant here, and since English is my
native language, by those rules that would make English a foreign
language here...)? Do you mean "dominant language"? If so, why not say
so (but does that mean you believe that Scots Gaelic is a foreign
language in the United Kingdom, or that the hundreds of Aboriginal
languages in Australia are foreign languages there)?

As a native English speaker and a long-time resident of the United
States, your usage baffles me -- maybe you can spell out precisely what
makes a language "foreign" in your mind, and how your definition
compares to more traditional, conservative definitions that talk in
terms of (for example) languages not spoken by the indigenous people of
a certain place.


By that definition, German is not a foreign language in Iowa and
Wisconsin. Neither is Italian. Or Irish.

If you say so (I certainly haven't said so).

Or have you come up with some intellectually gymnastic limitation on
your theory, like "it's only not a foreign language if the speakers
have not been here more than 'x' generations..."?

The gymnastics seem to be yours -- but again, before I get too impolite
about your reading skills, is English perhaps a foreign language for
you? That might excuse your strawman argument in the paragraph
immediately above.


Honestly, you guys are hilarious!

Well, I wouldn't laugh too hard -- the joke seems to be on the person
who believes that a country's indigenous languages are somehow foreign
in that country...

Hamish