Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 16:22:27 MST From: Tom Uharriet Subject: Re: FOR English Only Thanks Salikoko, > The need for having a common > language for communication at the level of a few individuals does not > translate empirically into the need for one single nationwide language for > communication. True. The nation could go on for quite awhile without non-English speakers comfortably communicating with the government. We are nowhere near such a breaking point. On the other hand, there is a point at which that can become a serious problem. It seems that we may be headed in that direction--though a long way from getting there. More significant in my mind is the isolation that these people are living in by not speaking the language of the nation. As much as I favor EOL, I favor teaching ESL far more. I would like to see these issues combined in any EOL legislation. Too many people living in a country that they do not feel fully a part of is, in my mind, dangerous for the health of that country. > Besides, there are problems of communication (mutual > intelligibility) in monolingual countries. Even here in the United States, I > have witnessed native speakers of English failing to communicate successful > in their own native English! Absolutely! I think I made that point in an earlier message. It is tough enough to communicate within our own language. It is even tougher to communicate across languages. Thus, I wish everyone knew more than one language. In the United States, I would like one of everyone's languages to be English. To borrow some lines from a great, musically gifted, philosopher, "You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us [via language] and the world will live as one [or, at least a step closer to it]." Thanks again for your message, Tom Uharriet utom[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]