Iowa Aviation Weather...en Espanol

Bob Fry writes:

Most of the Mexican nationals in the US are poor country people from
northern Mexico, but even they have learned the basics of reading and
writing their native language.

No, they have not. Most of them are illiterate, in Spanish and in English.

In most countries, in fact, the rural population tends to have low rates of
literacy.

Do you even know any of these people?

A few. It's hard not to when living in certain parts of the U.S. I also know
college-educated Mexicans who can speak real Spanish, and read and write it as
well (and of course they also read, write, and speak English).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

C J Campbell writes:

Plenty of countries without a common language have been around for
a lot longer than we have.

And just about everyone of them has suffered with interminable internal
conflicts as a result.

Even the US has never had a common language and
for part of its history English was a minority language.

Which part?

You keep insisting that Spanish is a foreign language. In what way is it a
foreign language that English is not?

It's not the predominant language in the U.S., so it's a foreign language
there.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jim Logajan writes:

Amazing. So in what country is Lakota a native language?

The country or area in which the natives speak it. But if it is not the
predominant language in the country, it's still a foreign language.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

C J Campbell writes:

You must believe that America has become weak indeed if it can no longer
tolerate what has been the situation since its inception. I suspect that the
problem is more that we now have better communication in the country, and a
lot of folks who live in what were relatively isolated, English speaking,
farming communities are suddenly discovering that the rest of America is not
like that. And they don't like it.

What is actually happened is that the country has shifted from the notion of
personal responsibility to a deluded ideal of a Great Society in which nobody
need take any responsibility for his own actions or destiny.

Early immigrants adapted by learning the predominant language. Successful
immigrants today still do that. But lazy immigrants, and certain other groups
that have a vested interest in isolating these immigrants, refuse to
assimilate.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jose writes:

The United States was made great... er... powerful, because all of us
(at least all of us who matter) are the same. We speak the same
language, we have the same religion, we have the same moral values, we
are the same color, and we have the same aspirations. That we are all
the same allows us to unify in a very deep sense, and saves us from
unnecessary effort and angst.

Before you spout off calling this all BS, consider how we are reacting now.

People who are different are a crack in that unity. They make others
uncomfortable. They are a threat to the lifestyle, rights, and control
that the others (already) have. They require special accomodation, both
in the legal sense and in the social sense. They require us to be tolerant.

Tolerant of colored skin. Of wrong religious beliefs. Of depraved
marital ideas. Of incomprehensible tongues. Of idiot politics. Of
choice of intoxicants. Of ideas and ideals that we ourselves do not
share, we are required to be tolerant. We are required to share the
power, the vote, with those who do not deserve it because they are
different from us. This does not go down well. Americans seem to feel
that everyone else should conform to our views.

The problem is this: In the past, Americans were American first, and then
Italian or Irish or Spanish or whatever second. Today, they want to be
something else first, and being American is almost something that they're
ashamed of.

One nice thing about living outside the United States is that nobody asks my
nationality if they know I'm American. In the U.S., when someone says "what's
your nationality," they care only about your ancestry. Outside the U.S., when
I say I'm American, that's good enough, for me and for them--and I don't feel
any need to pretend to be anything else. There's nothing wrong with being
American.

Even though I've long been a strong Francophile, when people ask me what I am,
I still say "American," without missing a beat. Yes, I like France, but I'm
not ashamed to be a native citizen of the United States. I always wonder
about people who are about as American as anyone can get and yet say "I'm
Irish," or "I'm African-American" (when they wouldn't even be able to locate
Africa on a map).

We preach tolerance, but don't practice it very well. How many
Americans whose native language is Engligh can actually =speak= a second
language?

I can, but it's rare. But not being able to speak a second language has
nothing to do with being tolerant or intolerant. It's usually just a
practical matter--why speak German if you live in a U.S. State where nobody
speaks the language, and you never travel?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Bob Noel writes:

How many citizens can only read/write Spanish?

Very few of those who cannot read and write English are able to read and write
Spanish.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

C J Campbell writes:

Perhaps one day people will be concerned
about catering to those pockets of Anglos who refuse to assimilate.

I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future.

What really happens is that Spanish speakers who wish to get ahead in the U.S.
learn to read, write, and speak English. Those who confine themselves to
Spanish live in a large but isolated ghetto and fall prey to hucksters and
demagogues who profit from the captive audience created by monolingual
Hispanophones to further their own ends.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

Amazing. So in what country is Lakota a native language?

The country or area in which the natives speak it. But if it is not the
predominant language in the country, it's still a foreign language.

There is no definition of "foreign" that makes it synonymous with "non-
dominant". You've simply added a new definition to an existing word for
personal reasons.

Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:

Obviously a forgery. Tony doesn't make spelling mistakes.

He does occasionally edit imperfectly.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Feb 12, 5:15 pm, Jose wrote:
Does anyone else find it disturbing that the National Weather Service
in the United States is paying out taxpayer money to a government
employee to create a foreign-language web page?

Yo no lo encuentro así. ¿Que es su problema?

José
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Chto? Nihuya ne ponimayu po ispanski. Davayte vse govorit' Russkim
translitom?

(that's actually translit as i don't have a cyrillic keyboard)