That’s putting the cart before the horse. There is no “language of the United States.” Spanish speakers were here before English speakers, and speakers of other languages were here earlier still. Which brings us nicely to…
Certainly. More importantly, making English an official US language would set a precedent for Spanish,* et al,* to claim official status as well.
It should be noted, since it may have been missed, that English is not currently an official language of the US. It’s the de facto language of the law, but not the de jure language of anything on a national level.
Certainly not, any more than black and white populations in the states are physically separate. I’m living proof, as is the rest of my huge French Catholic Albertan family.
Still speak French at home? (Or whatever you call that language they speak in Quebec. I’ve heard that Frenchmen deny it is French. Rather indignantly.)
The point goes to “country”, not continent. And let it be chosen by the people. I think that’s correct. Let them vote on it. It does a country well to have an official language to bind them. and this is important at times of high immigration, not back when there were few people coming in. It’s a common denominator for people from countries A, B, C, D, E, and F now living in Country X.
Would that include the right to having court proceedings to which one is a party
conducted in the language of one’s ancestors?
You’re the one who’s in law school, Jack. Please don’t try to tell me that when
you get out in the real world you would really prefer to have to deal on a regular
basis with 22 languages, or something like that.
(from post #134)
No, per Wiki India has two country-wide official languages: Hindi and English.
Although there may be 22 different languages recognized as official at the state
level, it is at the insistence of the non-Hindi speaking states that English has
been retained as an official language almost 50 years after the date (1965) when
it was to have been phased out.
However, it seems that there is only one official language for the Federal court system,
and that language is— English!
[quote=]
…On the other hand Article 348 of the Constitution states the language to be used in the Supreme Court and High Courts and for Acts and Bills etc. shall be English. Permission will be granted for use of Hindi only by the President and of any other language and translation of the same shall be made available in English.
The former Chief Justice of India, Justice Balakrishnan rejected the proposal on the use of languages other than English saying, “The Supreme Court and all the High Courts should have a common language. English should continue to be the language of the Supreme Court and all the High Courts, until in due course Hindi becomes rich and ripe enough to take its place and regional languages should not be introduced as languages of High Courts.”
Justice Balakrishnan added, “If regional language is permitted to be used in orders, decrees and other proceedings of the High Court, it will create difficulties for the judges who may not know the regional language, in order to discharge their judicial functions. The translation being a costly affair may not be accurate and may not reflect the true import of the judgment or order of the High Court. This will cause delay in disposal of cases in Supreme Court.”
[/quote]
So, it seems there is at least one multilingual country with what I would call
a healthy appreciation for the benefits of a common administrative langauge.
(from post #141)
Nonsense. Providing the historically predominant language with official status
entails no logical obligation to provide any minority language with the same.
Of course, the American legal profession is so good at getting a hearing for all
kinds of completely ridiculous shit, maybe I’d better not go too far out on a limb here.
You confuse the people’s “right” (assuming that’s even the right word) to retain it and the government helping them do so. I don’t know where you get that notion from. If a Dane, Ghanan, Turk, Brazilian, Lapplander, Italian, or Maori, want to retain their language and culture, they can go right ahead and do so. There is zero reason why the government should spend on dime or lift one finger in helping them do so. Now, they shouldn’t impede their desire to retain it, but a basel;one of zero is all that is called upon.
And it is in the best interest of the host nation to have as much a common tongue as possible. That’s the state’s interest in things from and efficiency standpoint, which is beneficial to all who reside within it.
I don’t speak it, actually. But it was the first language of my Dad and all his brothers and sisters and most of my cousins, and they still speak French in their homes. One of my aunts is the principal of a Francophone elementary school in Edmonton, too; École Père-Lacombe. I was surprised someone had the impression that French- and English-speaking populations are kept separate, to be honest.
It’s already the de facto language of law and commerce. It would be a waste of time, energy, and money to create a silly law that made it “official,” leading to numerous money wasting lawsuits filed to discern just what “official” meant in the context of various situations. Why bother, just to enrich more lawyers?
I am under the impression that federal law requires that linguistic difference does not prevent access to justice, and that the court system in the U.S. is one domain that seems to consistently recognize the importance of multilingualism, by providing interpreters as needed by defendants or the state.
For example, Nebraska has passed some very nasty anti immigrant laws recently, yet even it’s state law requires interpretive service for civil as well as criminal proceedings. I hope you are not suggesting that is too much to ask for colonialist.
Are you under the impression that when someone comes before an indian court, he or she is forced to participate in English, even if he or she doesn’t understand it? There are translators, evidence is given in the preferred language of witnesses, etc.
Of course lingustic difference does not prevent access to justice,
and I did not think it would be necessary to refer to provision for
interpreters where interpreters are needed. That does not mean
that a right exists to conduct an entire trial in the non-English langauge
of one’s choosing.
Now that you bring it up, however, I hope you would agree it would
be best to work to reduce the extra trouble and expense such measures
entail, and that means taking whatever steps most effectively promote
universal fluency in English.
Well, that’s the kind of thing that “official English” advocates in the United States are trying to do, to actually prohibit the use of other languages in official situations, such as courts, and barring accommodation for litigants or other participants who aren’t comfortable with English.
