Thanks. Bahasa Indonesia is based on one of their minority languages right?
Not exactly. It's based on an Indonesian Pidgin. But because it proved inadequate as a pidgin, the Indonesian government did in fact have to systematically revise the language, mainly via vocabulary expansion, but also via grammatical regulation, to make it viable for purposes beyond simple trade.
Difficult to see that happening here because Canada is the product of recent colonization and the elimination of large portions of the original inhabitants, which are now a minority but not seen as equals by the majority(?) of the colonial population. The imposition of a region-based minority language would have to be a First Nations language and can you imagine all of us having to learn some variation of Algic or Iroquoian?
I do agree that it's unlikely considering the current political climate with the two elephants of English and French stomping on the indigenous mice as they fight for turf on foreign soil. That aside, though, I can always hope that a sense of social justice and rsponsibility wil eventually visit Canada on that front. Now based on that hope, I'll answer the rest of the paragraph. To choose one indigenous language over others would give one indigenous group an unfairly greater access to the nation's economic resources than it would others. Now if we were talking about creating a planned language based on Canada's indigenous languages, that's something I could accept, as this would mean the cretion of a language that would have no exceptions to its rules of grammar, phonetic spelling, a tendency towards one word for every meaning, and vice versa, etc. While such a language would be easier for Canada's indigenous peoples to learn owing to its indigenous roots, it should not prove too difficult even for non-indigenous peoples to learn owing to its logical structure. So the advantage such a language would give Canada's indigenous peoples would be limited at best. To take Esperanto as an example, I'd met one Chinese who'd found Esperanto to be easier to learn than Japanese owing quite simply to its logical structure, and he was amazingly fluent in the language in spite of his having learnt it on his own with but an instruction book and a dictionary. So logical structure should not be underestimated as a contributor to ease of learning. But to make a long paragraph short, I would certainly be ready to support the gradual implementation of a planned language based on North American indigenous roots as Canada's official national auxiliary language.
If it were a completely new language designed to be easy to learn, it would have to be equally easy to learn for all residents. Meaning that it would have to contain structural forms that all of the above mentioned groups could adapt to with equal facility, while at the same time retaining a comprehensive overall structure (i.e. smallest possible learning curve).
I'd be more than wiling to accept a planned language with English and French roots in it too, no problem. Honestly, I couldn't care less where the roots come from, as long as the language is planned along rational lines (phonetic, no exceptions to rules, logical compounds, etc.).
Same deal if it were an imported language (note that the euro-centric nature of Esperanto would conflict with the above requirements).
That depends on how exactly equal you would want all sides to be. For instance, I could accept a planned language based on indigenous roots just as easily as I could accept one based on foreign roots. Sure both give their respective groups a slight advantage over other groups, but the planned aspect of the language limits this unfair advantage considerably. In this respect, we could argue quite legitimately that even the worst planned language would still prove more in conformity with social justice than woudl the best of ethnic languages.This being the case, we should avoid opposing any particular language on the grounds that it's not 'perfect' when it's still more just than what we have now. Why stop progress in expectation of perfection? If we refused to advance as long as we can't achieve perfection, we'd never advance. Perfection must be approached incrimentally, and that being the case, I'd certainly be in favour of any planned language, no matter how imperfect, over the injustice we have now.
The real obstacle is that it's unlikely that Canadians would want to learn it.
Canadians would want to learn it if it could become officially promoted as a common second language in schools, as it would mean a sudden new growth market for a generation to come as the need for teachers of the language becomes real. A better comment would be to say that those Canadians already benefitting from the current system would likely oppose its implementation in the first place, thus never even giving it a chance to get off the ground.
English Canadians especially would argue that theirs is the most spoken language and so why should they not be able to speak it in Parliament?
Of course. Except for a few intellectuals or social activists, most voters look out for their own interests, not the interests of equity and justice. Naturally English-speakers wodl have the most to lose from this, while Canada's First Nations would have the most to gain. French Canadians would likely loose a little too, albeit not as much as the English-speakers. I think we all know by now that Canadian politics had degenerated to the majority looking out for its own personal interests long ago. Don't you love democracy and how the majority could screw the minority through it and still smile and call it 'rule of the majority'.
French Canadians would not benefit because then their language would effectively become a 3rd language
Not exactly. We'd essentially have a country similar to Indonesia's, whereby nearly all Canadians would speak the national language not as a first language, but as an auxiliary language. Just like in Indonesia, the official national language would likely be used exclusively in official, formal, or inter-lingual contexts. So in fact, though the entire Canadian population would know it, they would have to use it only when there is no other common language available. So though it would be the most widely known language in Canada, it would likley not be the most used, again, just like in Indonesia. In English Canada, people could use English in their daily lives, and in French Canada, French, and in Nunavut, Inuktitut, etc. But as soon as a Canadian decides to travel cross-country, or a national conference gathers, or a foreigner wishes to visit or study in Canada, or official government documents are presented, then we'd see more of the national language. Essentially it would be a language present in the mind of every Canadian, but not often on his lips. In that respect, as far as language use is concerned, English would likely be used more than the national language in daily practice. Same with French. Though granted the national language might be more visible in certain areas such as the Montreal-Ottawa corridor, certain parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, and certain parts of Northern Canada, expecially Nunavut. But in reality, it wouldn't be as noticeable a we might think.
--not to mention the effect on already degraded First Nations languages.
This would likely help the First Nations' languages. Since this language would bedesigned to be easy to learn, regardless of its roots, it would need a smaller investment of time and other resources to learn it than it would French or English. So this saving of time could be redirected towards the First Nations' languages. Right now they need more time to learn all the irregularities and chaotic spelling and verb conjugations of English and French.
We've already seen that most Canadians don't learn both French and English languages (First Nations and other languages don't even have official status so there's absolutely no incentive to learn them--putting aside that they're far less spoken than the two official languages). For those that do learn the other language, it usually doesn't stick: I learned to speak French at one point but lack of opportunity to practise it has resulted in my forgetting how.
And this is where a planned language could be beneficial. Since it would be easier to learn, it could be learnt more quickly and forgotten more slowly. The time saved from learning an easier second language could be diverted towards the mother tongue, which the First Naitons could really benefit from.
The only way to make it stick is to use it at school and at work--all work (i.e. public and private sectors) all the time.
I do agree that no matter how easy a language is, though its ease might help us forget it more slowly, we could still forget it. From that standpoint, I fully agree that once learnt, it wold have to be used at least sometimes. But if its the only official language of internal government administration, we'd naturally be exposed to it every time we'd have to deal with the government. And even if we do forget it, we could regain it quickly enough. Remember too that it would then be politicaly wise for MP's to use this language too on TV so as not to alienate certain groups. So I think that though the language might not be used often in informal contexts (films, songs, arts and entertainment, etc), that it would still be used enough in formal and official contexts to help us to maintain it.
This isn't realistic for bilingualism because people will only have contact with the other language if the person they are talking to speaks it (e.g. if most of the people you are surrounded with are from English Canada, you're unlikely to have anyone speaking to you in French, unless they just decide to start speaking in French and that is unlikely--and vice versa).
Both French and English are difficult languages, so they can't reasonably be compared to a planned language.
This means that people will be burdened to be bilingual in order to be able to work without being able to stay in practise (meaning they will frequently have to be taking courses in the other language just to remain bilingual--if only at an auditory/literate level).
Not necessarily. If all government forms are in the language, then people could maintain it easily just by being exposed to such forms. And unlike ethnic languages, since a planned language would be 100% phonetic, reading the language would naturlaly reinforce the spoken language too. Again, we can't compare ethnic languages with planned languages. Sure it would be possible to forget such a language, but much more slowly than other languages, and it could be relearnt much more quickly by self-study. So trainig would be nnecessary, ulike the case with English or French today.
And of course, you can't force people to speak the other language part of the time or something like that--that would be impractical to the point of absurdity.
People would not be forced to use it unless no other common language exists or when they're filing official documents, which is not so often, and usually similar and repetitive every year. and if you forget a word, check it in the dictionary. Of course some businessmen etc. might have to use it regularly, or those living in very cosmopolitan areas where French and Enlgish, or Englsh and Inuktitut, meet.
The thing about it is, English is so prevalent in the world and has become so entrenched in North America that listening to the PM making a speech in something not English (and not French) would be pretty weird to many people.
Sure it would be. This is why it would likely take a generation to implement it. For the next generation, it would be as normal as the air they breathe.
By the way, is it any less weird to listen to your PM speaking in English with subtitles in French and you can't understand a word he's saying, having to rely on the subtibles, while thinking that he's your PM? I've lived in Quebec, Ive seen it, and I find it weird when I think of it that way. This could potentially explain sovereigntism. I actually lived in the most Sovereigntist county in the province, and a sovereigntist friend had commented this to me one day as we were watching the news. He was not functional in English by the way. So how would that be any different than what is hapening now?
Another objection is that Quebec would still be exposed to foreign English-speaking media (especially from the USA). The main reason why French Canadians insist on speaking French at all times is that it is necessary for the maintenance of lingual integrity (i.e. to sway the lingual influence of the English-speaking media).
I partially agree. But since the national language would be limited mainly to the formal realm, it would be less menacing than English, which dominates practically all realms.
Since language is very much connected to national identity, the eroding effect on French Canadian culture would be more severe than that that of English Canada. The only way to avoid this is to apply the official language to all media as well (i.e. all incoming media would have to be translated into the official language).
I would argue that only official media (government websites, CSPAN, etc.)would really need to be in the official language. Anything non-official would be up to us. And let's not underestimate Quebec's access to French, Belgian, Swiss, Senegalese, and other French-language media, film, magazines, newspapers, channels, etc. from around the world.
The logic being that if a new official language is introduced to Canada, it cannot leave any group more or less advantaged than other.
I can agree with this in principle, I believe that we should aim at making it as equal as possible. But even if it can't be perfect, it would still be more just than what we have now.
An official language would obviously reduce the usage of all other languages but if applied universally, would dramatically reduce the corrosive effects on 'less advantaged' languages by dominant ones.
It would reduce the usage of dominant languages much more than it would of non-dominant languages. After all, the hardest hit would be the official realm, and that one is mainly in the dominant languages. So in fact FN languages would barely suffer at all, considering that they're seldom used in official contexts at all. Overall, the FN's wold benefit from the extra free time saved from having to learn an easier second language, the extra time used to develop their own languages.
This could also help weaken English and French linguistic imperialism beyond our borders too.
From what I know of newly-created languages, they tend to be less "fluid" than 'actual' languages. I attribute that to language usually having had centuries if not millennia to develop and adapt to different social realities.
The Korean script needed a few centuries, granted, mainly owing to opposition from the elite classes. Bahasa Indonesia spread rather quickly once the decision was made, but that was likely due to the strongly felt need for a common language in a nation with hundreds of languages.
Esperanto had developed rather quickly too. It now has literature on many subjects. I'm sure that once the new language were officialized, it would take no more than a generation for it to really take shape.
Clearly even the simplest, most comprehensive language would involve an uncomfortable adaptation process.
Certainly, and that's why I'd be in favour of simply allowing schools to choose their second language, and introduce the new language as one option among many. THis cold be viewd as its trial period.
Not exactly. It's based on an Indonesian Pidgin. But because it proved inadequate as a pidgin, the Indonesian government did in fact have to systematically revise the language, mainly via vocabulary expansion, but also via grammatical regulation, to make it viable for purposes beyond simple trade.
Difficult to see that happening here because Canada is the product of recent colonization and the elimination of large portions of the original inhabitants, which are now a minority but not seen as equals by the majority(?) of the colonial population. The imposition of a region-based minority language would have to be a First Nations language and can you imagine all of us having to learn some variation of Algic or Iroquoian?
I do agree that it's unlikely considering the current political climate with the two elephants of English and French stomping on the indigenous mice as they fight for turf on foreign soil. That aside, though, I can always hope that a sense of social justice and rsponsibility wil eventually visit Canada on that front. Now based on that hope, I'll answer the rest of the paragraph. To choose one indigenous language over others would give one indigenous group an unfairly greater access to the nation's economic resources than it would others. Now if we were talking about creating a planned language based on Canada's indigenous languages, that's something I could accept, as this would mean the cretion of a language that would have no exceptions to its rules of grammar, phonetic spelling, a tendency towards one word for every meaning, and vice versa, etc. While such a language would be easier for Canada's indigenous peoples to learn owing to its indigenous roots, it should not prove too difficult even for non-indigenous peoples to learn owing to its logical structure. So the advantage such a language would give Canada's indigenous peoples would be limited at best. To take Esperanto as an example, I'd met one Chinese who'd found Esperanto to be easier to learn than Japanese owing quite simply to its logical structure, and he was amazingly fluent in the language in spite of his having learnt it on his own with but an instruction book and a dictionary. So logical structure should not be underestimated as a contributor to ease of learning. But to make a long paragraph short, I would certainly be ready to support the gradual implementation of a planned language based on North American indigenous roots as Canada's official national auxiliary language.
If it were a completely new language designed to be easy to learn, it would have to be equally easy to learn for all residents. Meaning that it would have to contain structural forms that all of the above mentioned groups could adapt to with equal facility, while at the same time retaining a comprehensive overall structure (i.e. smallest possible learning curve).
I'd be more than wiling to accept a planned language with English and French roots in it too, no problem. Honestly, I couldn't care less where the roots come from, as long as the language is planned along rational lines (phonetic, no exceptions to rules, logical compounds, etc.).
Same deal if it were an imported language (note that the euro-centric nature of Esperanto would conflict with the above requirements).
That depends on how exactly equal you would want all sides to be. For instance, I could accept a planned language based on indigenous roots just as easily as I could accept one based on foreign roots. Sure both give their respective groups a slight advantage over other groups, but the planned aspect of the language limits this unfair advantage considerably. In this respect, we could argue quite legitimately that even the worst planned language would still prove more in conformity with social justice than woudl the best of ethnic languages.This being the case, we should avoid opposing any particular language on the grounds that it's not 'perfect' when it's still more just than what we have now. Why stop progress in expectation of perfection? If we refused to advance as long as we can't achieve perfection, we'd never advance. Perfection must be approached incrimentally, and that being the case, I'd certainly be in favour of any planned language, no matter how imperfect, over the injustice we have now.
The real obstacle is that it's unlikely that Canadians would want to learn it.
Canadians would want to learn it if it could become officially promoted as a common second language in schools, as it would mean a sudden new growth market for a generation to come as the need for teachers of the language becomes real. A better comment would be to say that those Canadians already benefitting from the current system would likely oppose its implementation in the first place, thus never even giving it a chance to get off the ground.
English Canadians especially would argue that theirs is the most spoken language and so why should they not be able to speak it in Parliament?
Of course. Except for a few intellectuals or social activists, most voters look out for their own interests, not the interests of equity and justice. Naturally English-speakers wodl have the most to lose from this, while Canada's First Nations would have the most to gain. French Canadians would likely loose a little too, albeit not as much as the English-speakers. I think we all know by now that Canadian politics had degenerated to the majority looking out for its own personal interests long ago. Don't you love democracy and how the majority could screw the minority through it and still smile and call it 'rule of the majority'.
French Canadians would not benefit because then their language would effectively become a 3rd language
Not exactly. We'd essentially have a country similar to Indonesia's, whereby nearly all Canadians would speak the national language not as a first language, but as an auxiliary language. Just like in Indonesia, the official national language would likely be used exclusively in official, formal, or inter-lingual contexts. So in fact, though the entire Canadian population would know it, they would have to use it only when there is no other common language available. So though it would be the most widely known language in Canada, it would likley not be the most used, again, just like in Indonesia. In English Canada, people could use English in their daily lives, and in French Canada, French, and in Nunavut, Inuktitut, etc. But as soon as a Canadian decides to travel cross-country, or a national conference gathers, or a foreigner wishes to visit or study in Canada, or official government documents are presented, then we'd see more of the national language. Essentially it would be a language present in the mind of every Canadian, but not often on his lips. In that respect, as far as language use is concerned, English would likely be used more than the national language in daily practice. Same with French. Though granted the national language might be more visible in certain areas such as the Montreal-Ottawa corridor, certain parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, and certain parts of Northern Canada, expecially Nunavut. But in reality, it wouldn't be as noticeable a we might think.
--not to mention the effect on already degraded First Nations languages.
This would likely help the First Nations' languages. Since this language would bedesigned to be easy to learn, regardless of its roots, it would need a smaller investment of time and other resources to learn it than it would French or English. So this saving of time could be redirected towards the First Nations' languages. Right now they need more time to learn all the irregularities and chaotic spelling and verb conjugations of English and French.
We've already seen that most Canadians don't learn both French and English languages (First Nations and other languages don't even have official status so there's absolutely no incentive to learn them--putting aside that they're far less spoken than the two official languages). For those that do learn the other language, it usually doesn't stick: I learned to speak French at one point but lack of opportunity to practise it has resulted in my forgetting how.
And this is where a planned language could be beneficial. Since it would be easier to learn, it could be learnt more quickly and forgotten more slowly. The time saved from learning an easier second language could be diverted towards the mother tongue, which the First Naitons could really benefit from.
The only way to make it stick is to use it at school and at work--all work (i.e. public and private sectors) all the time.
I do agree that no matter how easy a language is, though its ease might help us forget it more slowly, we could still forget it. From that standpoint, I fully agree that once learnt, it wold have to be used at least sometimes. But if its the only official language of internal government administration, we'd naturally be exposed to it every time we'd have to deal with the government. And even if we do forget it, we could regain it quickly enough. Remember too that it would then be politicaly wise for MP's to use this language too on TV so as not to alienate certain groups. So I think that though the language might not be used often in informal contexts (films, songs, arts and entertainment, etc), that it would still be used enough in formal and official contexts to help us to maintain it.
This isn't realistic for bilingualism because people will only have contact with the other language if the person they are talking to speaks it (e.g. if most of the people you are surrounded with are from English Canada, you're unlikely to have anyone speaking to you in French, unless they just decide to start speaking in French and that is unlikely--and vice versa).
Both French and English are difficult languages, so they can't reasonably be compared to a planned language.
This means that people will be burdened to be bilingual in order to be able to work without being able to stay in practise (meaning they will frequently have to be taking courses in the other language just to remain bilingual--if only at an auditory/literate level).
Not necessarily. If all government forms are in the language, then people could maintain it easily just by being exposed to such forms. And unlike ethnic languages, since a planned language would be 100% phonetic, reading the language would naturlaly reinforce the spoken language too. Again, we can't compare ethnic languages with planned languages. Sure it would be possible to forget such a language, but much more slowly than other languages, and it could be relearnt much more quickly by self-study. So trainig would be nnecessary, ulike the case with English or French today.
And of course, you can't force people to speak the other language part of the time or something like that--that would be impractical to the point of absurdity.
People would not be forced to use it unless no other common language exists or when they're filing official documents, which is not so often, and usually similar and repetitive every year. and if you forget a word, check it in the dictionary. Of course some businessmen etc. might have to use it regularly, or those living in very cosmopolitan areas where French and Enlgish, or Englsh and Inuktitut, meet.
The thing about it is, English is so prevalent in the world and has become so entrenched in North America that listening to the PM making a speech in something not English (and not French) would be pretty weird to many people.
Sure it would be. This is why it would likely take a generation to implement it. For the next generation, it would be as normal as the air they breathe.
By the way, is it any less weird to listen to your PM speaking in English with subtitles in French and you can't understand a word he's saying, having to rely on the subtibles, while thinking that he's your PM? I've lived in Quebec, Ive seen it, and I find it weird when I think of it that way. This could potentially explain sovereigntism. I actually lived in the most Sovereigntist county in the province, and a sovereigntist friend had commented this to me one day as we were watching the news. He was not functional in English by the way. So how would that be any different than what is hapening now?
Another objection is that Quebec would still be exposed to foreign English-speaking media (especially from the USA). The main reason why French Canadians insist on speaking French at all times is that it is necessary for the maintenance of lingual integrity (i.e. to sway the lingual influence of the English-speaking media).
I partially agree. But since the national language would be limited mainly to the formal realm, it would be less menacing than English, which dominates practically all realms.
Since language is very much connected to national identity, the eroding effect on French Canadian culture would be more severe than that that of English Canada. The only way to avoid this is to apply the official language to all media as well (i.e. all incoming media would have to be translated into the official language).
I would argue that only official media (government websites, CSPAN, etc.)would really need to be in the official language. Anything non-official would be up to us. And let's not underestimate Quebec's access to French, Belgian, Swiss, Senegalese, and other French-language media, film, magazines, newspapers, channels, etc. from around the world.
The logic being that if a new official language is introduced to Canada, it cannot leave any group more or less advantaged than other.
I can agree with this in principle, I believe that we should aim at making it as equal as possible. But even if it can't be perfect, it would still be more just than what we have now.
An official language would obviously reduce the usage of all other languages but if applied universally, would dramatically reduce the corrosive effects on 'less advantaged' languages by dominant ones.
It would reduce the usage of dominant languages much more than it would of non-dominant languages. After all, the hardest hit would be the official realm, and that one is mainly in the dominant languages. So in fact FN languages would barely suffer at all, considering that they're seldom used in official contexts at all. Overall, the FN's wold benefit from the extra free time saved from having to learn an easier second language, the extra time used to develop their own languages.
This could also help weaken English and French linguistic imperialism beyond our borders too.
From what I know of newly-created languages, they tend to be less "fluid" than 'actual' languages. I attribute that to language usually having had centuries if not millennia to develop and adapt to different social realities.
The Korean script needed a few centuries, granted, mainly owing to opposition from the elite classes. Bahasa Indonesia spread rather quickly once the decision was made, but that was likely due to the strongly felt need for a common language in a nation with hundreds of languages.
Esperanto had developed rather quickly too. It now has literature on many subjects. I'm sure that once the new language were officialized, it would take no more than a generation for it to really take shape.
Clearly even the simplest, most comprehensive language would involve an uncomfortable adaptation process.
Certainly, and that's why I'd be in favour of simply allowing schools to choose their second language, and introduce the new language as one option among many. THis cold be viewd as its trial period.
