Iowa Aviation Weather...en Espanol

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

So what *do* you mean by "foreign language"?

My apologies. You have gone to extreme lengths to explain your
ignorance of the situation, thanks. I didn't realize that the concept
of a "foreign language" needed to be defined, but here goes:

A "foreign language" in the context of the United States of America
(and in the context of this discussion) is a language that is not
spoken by the majority of people since the country's inception.

Since every major founding document, every major newspaper, and (to
bring this discussion into the 21st century) every major American
website was/is published in English, we consider every language other
than English to be "foreign".

For further clarification, please refer to the definition of the word
"foreign", available in any of the free on-line dictionaries.

Your example of such indigenous languages as Lakota and Spanish are
not relevant to this discussion, as they pre-date the creation of the
United States. They were never considered to be official languages of
the United States, and may therefore be defined as "foreign", both in
fact and in the context of this discussion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

A "foreign language" in the context of the United States of America
(and in the context of this discussion) is a language that is not
spoken by the majority of people since the country's inception.

Fair enough. (Note - this isn't the only reasonable definition, but
I'll use it in this context)

Since every major founding document, every major newspaper, and (to
bring this discussion into the 21st century) every major American
website was/is published in English, we consider every language other
than English to be "foreign".

1: =You= consider... not =We= consider...

2: The statement does =not= follow, in any case, from the definition
you gave above, which does not refer to founding documents or websites.
It refers to "not spoken by the majority...". I'm sure you can recall
examples of countries where the language of official documents is
different from the language commonly spoken by the majority of the
population. In fact, early England comes to mind.

Your example of such indigenous languages as Lakota and Spanish

It wasn't my example.

They were never considered to be official languages of
the United States, and may therefore be defined as "foreign", both in
fact and in the context of this discussion.

Again, this does not follow from the definition you gave above, which
does not refer to official languages, only to "not spoken by the
majority..." (which, btw, leaves open the question of whether "not
spoken" means "not commonly spoken" or "not able to be spoken")

You get to define the words, but then it is upon you to use those words
according to your own definition.

Jose
--
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.

Jose wrote:

1: =You= consider... not =We= consider...


Who is this "we"... you have a frog in your pocket?

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

So what *do* you mean by "foreign language"?

My apologies. You have gone to extreme lengths to explain your
ignorance of the situation, thanks. I didn't realize that the concept
of a "foreign language" needed to be defined, but here goes:

Well, one of use is surely unclear on the definition...

A "foreign language" in the context of the United States of America
(and in the context of this discussion) is a language that is not
spoken by the majority of people since the country's inception.

So after all this you really *do* just mean "non-majority" language when
you say "foreign language". OK...


Since every major founding document, every major newspaper, and (to
bring this discussion into the 21st century) every major American
website was/is published in English, we consider every language other
than English to be "foreign".

This would be the royal "we", right? Or do you presume to speak for all
America, Federal Government included (the US government doesn't, as it
happens, agree with your definition of "foreign language", but never
mind, I'm sure it's the thought that counts, right? Rigour never matters
when language is involved, right?).

(And the idea that "every major American website was / is published in
English" is funnier than you'll ever know, for reasons I'm guessing
you'll never know (let's just say I'm in the biz...). Or are we
encountering a "no true Scotsman" argument from you here?)

For further clarification, please refer to the definition of the word
"foreign", available in any of the free on-line dictionaries.

I have. I even -- twice -- quoted you the definition of "foreign
language" from one of your "free on-line dictionaries". Since you don't
agree with your own sources, this isn't aimed at you, but if anyone's
still playing along out there, a good place to start calling Jay's bluff
is http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foreign.


Your example of such indigenous languages as Lakota and Spanish are
not relevant to this discussion, as they pre-date the creation of the
United States. They were never considered to be official languages of
the United States, and may therefore be defined as "foreign", both in
fact and in the context of this discussion.

English predates the official creation of the United States, too, oddly
enough. Can you tell me what *the* official language(s) of the United
States is (are) "in fact"? Where is it defined as official? Can you tell
me in which significant part of this country Spanish is the official
language? Is English a foreign language there?

Anyway, I hereby give up. If you want to call the native languages of a
country "foreign" languages in the countries of their origin, that's OK,
just expect to be badly misunderstood in the world beyond the flyover
states (unless, of course, you're using "foreign" as one of those dog
whistle words...). I don't expect you to care one way or another what
the wider population of the United States thinks (in fact something
tells me you'd be proud of the fact that they disagree), but your basic
ignorance of that wider United States rubs someone like me -- a fiscal
conservative who might otherwise bristle at the idea of spending *my*
tax dollars on unnecessary weather products -- very much the wrong way.

Over and out.

Hamish

English predates the official creation of the United States, too, oddly
enough. Can you tell me what *the* official language(s) of the United
States is (are) "in fact"? Where is it defined as official? Can you tell
me in which significant part of this country Spanish is the official
language? Is English a foreign language there?

It is indeed rare to find someone who is both eloquent and ignorantly
obstinate -- but you seem to fill both bills.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone work so hard to try to disprove
the well-accepted (for 225 years!) fact that English is the de facto
"official language" of the United States. The reason it has never
been put in writing is because its predominance was so painfully
obvious to all concerned that codifying it seemed unnecessary.

That situation has recently changed, with the rise of misguided souls
who seem to believe that it is the U.S. taxpayer's sworn duty to
translate every official document and website into every language
(AKA: "foreign" ones), rather than raising the bar the *tiny* amount
it would take to require English language skills of our citizens.
Your moral relativism with regard to this issue provides the perfect
explanation for the growing movement to have English declared the
"official language" in so many U.S. states today.

But believe what you wish. Just don't try living and working in the
vast majority of America without learning English, or you will learn
what economic marginalization is all about.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
That situation has recently changed, with the rise of misguided souls
who seem to believe that it is the U.S. taxpayer's sworn duty to
translate every official document and website into every language
(AKA: "foreign" ones), rather than raising the bar the *tiny* amount
it would take to require English language skills of our citizens.
Your moral relativism with regard to this issue provides the perfect
explanation for the growing movement to have English declared the
"official language" in so many U.S. states today.


Well stated Jay. It is exactly this new 'relativism'... this new
striving to be politically CORRECT to the extreme that that is slowly
but inexorably taking apart the integrity of this country fiber by
fiber. This mis-guided hell bent attempt to get the rest of the world to
like us is really netting less and less respect.

But who cares, its more important to be 'stroked' by the media than
actually stand for anything.

Jay Honeck wrote:

That situation has recently changed, with the rise of misguided souls
who seem to believe that it is the U.S. taxpayer's sworn duty to
translate every official document and website into every language
(AKA: "foreign" ones), rather than raising the bar the *tiny* amount
it would take to require English language skills of our citizens.

I guess this is going to be another point where we will disagree :-)
it is not however a matter of 'moral relativism', but of different
background; I know, albeit indirectly, what forced integration
looks like, and it isn't pretty (horror stories from my late
grand dad, the french were quite brutal in their way of spreading
the 'One True Culture/Language (tm)' -- which makes it all the more
ironic when you hear them whine today about anglo-saxon cultural
imperialism, but I digress);

since we are way off topic wise, anyone could suggest a good Spanish
language course in Santa Clara county? my high-school Spanish is
quite a bit rusted and I wouldn't mind getting back to learning it.

--Sylvain

Sylvain wrote:

I guess this is going to be another point where we will disagree :-)
it is not however a matter of 'moral relativism', but of different
background; I know, albeit indirectly, what forced integration
looks like, and it isn't pretty (horror stories from my late
grand dad, the french were quite brutal in their way of spreading
the 'One True Culture/Language (tm)' -- which makes it all the more
ironic when you hear them whine today about anglo-saxon cultural
imperialism, but I digress);

How on God's green earth you have equated an opposition to government
spending taxpayer money to translate services into multple languages
with "forced integration" just illustrates that you can only demagauge
the issue.

ktbr wrote:


How on God's green earth you have equated an opposition to government
spending taxpayer money to translate services into multple languages
with "forced integration" just illustrates that you can only demagauge
the issue.

the arguments justifying either tend to be very similar, hence the
connection I made.

--Sylvain