Originally posted by Ramo
The point was that the American nation is suppoed to be international and ideological.
Non sequitur? Then where did this come from
The point was that the American nation is suppoed to be international and ideological.
Why just Spanish forms? Why not Japanese forms as well? Why not French forms?
If there's a huge amount of Japanese or French speakers who lack English fluency, there's no reason not to. It's about pragmatism, rather than superiority about specific languages.
A national language establishes a common language.
No. It doesn't. That's totally absurd. This is part of that magic that I was talking about.
Nor is a national language necessary for a common langauge (see the US for the past few centuries).
The following measure does protect already established multi-lingual services and treats English as the common language of the US.
Yes, Salazar obviously disagreed with Inhofe, and undermined his Amendment to a great extent (and now only expansion of federal services in other languages is prevented). The point remains, that the Inhofe Amendment is ultimately what the National Languagers wanted, and the Salazar Amendment is simply a tamer version of the same principle.
Why don't you say what you want in this regards? Because where is the incentive to learn English, if everything is provided in other languages? How pragmatic is it to divide our schools and other institutions by language? How does that promote multi-cultural unity? What I see is segregation by language.
Comment