A Stitch in Haste

A Stitch in Time Saves Nine...But Haste Makes Waste

A collection of real-world libertarian, individualist and laissez-faire rants on law, economics, politics, culture and other current events
by an average, everyday lawyer & investment banker and part-time pop scholar.

Lingua Arabica?
How ironic that English is the lingua franca while the franca are going arabica (and I'm not talking coffee):
A report calling for all school children in France to learn English has started a heated debate. The report, part of a review of the French education system, said English should be made compulsory. According to Le Monde, it says pupils should leave school with the language of "international communication".

The Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin is said to back the proposal, but some politicians are against it.
...
France's report said standards of English in schools were poor and worsening. Its conclusions have been challenged by some politicians, including one deputy from the ruling UMP party, Jacques Myard. He told Le Monde: "English is the most-spoken language today, but that won't last." He said Spanish, Chinese and Arabic were all growing in importance. "If we must make a language compulsory, it should be Arabic," he said.
...
During a trip to Vietnam earlier this month, President Jacques Chirac was quoted as saying he was against a world "where we speak only one language".

I'll give the French credit for one thing -- at least their kids learn some foreign language.

"In Canada, people are bilingual...in America, we're not even 'lingual.'" -- Ray Romano

"Naturally I am biased in favour of boys learning English; and then I would let the clever learn Latin as an honour and Greek as a treat. But the only thing I would whip them for is not knowing English. I would whip them hard for that." --Winston Churchill

Hat tip to LGF.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, Captain Ed reports that the French haven't quite given up on that whole lingua franca concept just yet.

(Cross-linked at Outside the Beltway.)
Posted by KipEsquire on 22 October 2004.
"I Would Whip Them Hard for That"

(Guest-posted earlier today at Freespace.)

One of the great joys of reading blogs is not only their intellectual substance but also the fact that, usually, most are so well-written. Tim is no exception. There is so much bad English in our society that, to a grammar-anal person like me, reading something -- anything -- in true Standard Written English is always refreshing, even if I disagree with the content.

So my heart certainly went out to Veda Charrow as I read her op-ed piece in the Washington Times:

Have you ever wondered why so many reporters don't know that "criterion" is singular and "criteria" is plural? How many times have you read something like this in a magazine: "The student who brings a knife to school to peel their orange may be expelled"? How many times have you heard a newscaster saying, "The new phone bill is different than your previous bills"? Or hypercorrections like "The judge admonished the driver whom everyone knew had struck the cat"? In short, have you ever wondered why so many people who should know better make grammatical errors? Earlier in the 20th century, professional writers and educated speakers could be expected to make few, if any, grammatical errors. Newspapers and magazines were edited not only for content and length, but for grammatical correctness. This is no longer the case. Newspapers, magazines, newscasts and, of course, the Internet are rife with errors like the ones above.

I have no doubt that the reason for this profusion of grammatical errors is that most American elementary and high school students aren't taught English grammar anymore. And I'm afraid that my own discipline, linguistics, may be largely to blame.

Read the entire piece, especially if you don't like Noam Chomsky.

As for me, I'm reminded of this Churchill quote:

Naturally I am biased in favour of boys learning English; and then I would let the clever learn Latin as an honour and Greek as a treat. But the only thing I would whip them for is not knowing English. I would whip them hard for that.

Yeah, yup, whoa, killer, dude, far out, right on...

Indeed. Now if we could just get those Brits to spell "favor" and "honor" correctly...

Posted by KipEsquire on 16 December 2004.
"You Want patatas fritas With That?"
Here's a story about that bastion of tolerance -- Virginia:
A dispute over language at a Wendy's last Thursday comes as the latest reminder that multiculturalism has its limits. Alexandria police say the restaurant's Pakistani manager and cashier attacked a customer with a rake and a pair of hedge trimmers they grabbed from the victims landscaping truck after the man suggested they learn Spanish, in deference to their Spanish-speaking employees and customers.

The comment apparently pushed the wrong cultural buttons for the Pakistanis, said to have been deeply offended by the remark. Now, the pair face felony assault charges for using gardening tools as their reply.

It's easy to sympathize with their frustration, if not their violence. Are native Urdu speakers now expected to learn Spanish, Korean, Farsi, Vietnamese, Hindi and all the other 300 tongues now spoken in the United States just to sell burgers and fries? Couldn't this ugly scene have been avoided if everybody at the Wendy's just spoke English?

I'm surprised that I don't see more in libertarian circles about whether English should be the official language of the United States and whether it is appropriate for government to function multilingually.

I'm all for the English-first movement, for several reasons:

(1) I've seen it in action -- my mother was a German immigrant who spoke not a word of English when she arrived here at the age of 19. Today she doesn't even have an accent.

(2) It is bureaucratically efficient -- a multilingual government is an expensive government.

(3) It's "tough love" -- efforts to "coddle" and cater to non-English speakers in this country, especially children -- are the political equivalent of what psychologists call enabling, and it doesn't work.

(4) It's fair -- you simply cannot have multilingualism policies without encountering the politics of pull. Stated differently, some foreign languages will receive preference over others.

Here are some more anecdotes, courtesy of U.S. English.

--"[B]oth the U.S. Department of Education and the Labor Department found that the average English-speaking immigrant earned $40,741, but those stuck with their homeland's language earned just $16,345. The 1999 study eliminated other factors such as education -- meaning the $24,000 difference is based on language skills alone."

--"Some U.S. highway exit signs near the Canadian border include the French translation (sortie), the Social Security Web site already provides directions in 16 different languages and California offers drivers license forms in 32."

--"In 2002, 36,625 people were served by language interpreters in Virginia criminal cases, at a cost of $2.7 million to taxpayers. These numbers have almost doubled since 2000 and are expected to keep rising."

--"From 1980 to 1990, Canada's dual-language requirement cost a minimum of $6.7 billion. Canada is one-tenth the population of the United States and spent that amount accommodating only two languages. A similar dual-language policy would cost the United States more than $60 billion over 10 years. Depending on the exact number of languages accommodated of the total 329, these Canadian calculations take the price tag of official multilingualism in the United States up to $10 billion per year, $100 billion over 10 years."

--"In 1994, the IRS printed and distributed 500,000 copies of 1040 forms and instruction booklets in Spanish and manned an 800-number hotline with Spanish-speakers. Of the half-million forms distributed, only 718 were returned. The total cost of the Spanish forms was $113,000, bringing the cost of each completed form to $157. The IRS is considering expanding this service to other languages."

--"In July 1993, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) conducted a U.S. citizenship swearing-in ceremony almost entirely in Spanish."

There are many more examples at the U.S. English website.

Of course, there are undoubtedly many people who use the English-first movement as a cloak to vent anti-Hispanic bigotry. That's unfortunate. And there is a difference between English-first and English-only. The latter makes no sense. If Univision or Telemundo can make a profit, then good for them. If a store merchant in an ethnic neighborhood wants to display his signage in a foreign language, he of course has every right to do so.

And yes, there might be some sui generis examples where even public facilities should be multilingual, but only because it is economically efficient to do so (e.g., airports).

But if you want to vote, or drive a car, or attend a public school, or sue in a court (i.e., if you want to function as a citizen or future citizen), then you should have to play by the rules -- and the rulebook is printed in English.

UPDATE: Here's a related (sad) story regarding bilingual education in California, courtesy of Pathetic Eathlings --
[Netflix CEO] Reed Hastings lost his seat on the state Board of Education on Wednesday when the Senate Rules Committee refused to forward his name to the full Senate for reappointment.
...
Hastings, a Democrat who speaks English and Spanish, lost his bid for confirmation when the three Democrats on the panel voted against him or abstained, purportedly over bilingual education. ...Those opposed to his reappointment represented several groups supporting classroom instruction in a student's native language, a practice that has dwindled since California voters approved Proposition 227 in 1998 requiring instruction in English unless a school wins a waiver. Hastings, who opposed Prop. 227, later became an ardent supporter when test scores of English learners soared in California.

Neither money, nor résumé, nor common sense, nor loyalty to the Democratic Party will spare you the wrath of the bilingualists if you dare suggest that students in American schools actually be taught in English. Where's Schwarzenegger when you need him?

Related Posts:
"I Would Whip Them Hard for That"
Lingua Arabica?
Posted by KipEsquire on 12 January 2005.
English as the Official Language, Revisited
Catallarchy has a post critical of the "English as Official Language" movement, which I support and about which I have blogged previously.

The Catallarchy post has four prongs:

1. "Historically speaking, all the previous immigrant waves in the United States were absorbed into the English language without this measure."

--But that's exactly the problem: providing multi-lingual education and government services are a powerful disincentive to assimilation. In olden times people learned English because they had no choice. Today they do, and they're making that choice, to their own detriment and the detriment of the civic fabric.

2. "Who really cares anyway? The large influx of Spanish speakers into Atlanta has produced, in addition to a larger, more dedicated labor pool, one extra step in ATM transactions, the one where you press one button for English and one button for Spanish. Even if English becomes the official language, there will still be a demand for Spanish language service, and since I can't imagine that the law would prohibit it entirely, that step will still be there."

--This is a complete non sequitur. No one gives a hoot about ATM buttons or that Univision and Telemundo are available on cable. It's about government documents, ballots, translators in court and other government agencies, and bilingual education in public schools. And it's not just about two languages, it's often about dozens of different languages. This has proven to be quite expensive.

3. "For people who worry that people who don't speak English will start demanding legal services in other languages, they can take it easy. Cases like this have come up in LA County, where there are lots of immigrants (assaulting the titanic California economy like icebergs, no doubt), and last I heard, they were still going to English-speaking courts."

--This is simply inaccurate as a matter of fact. Government at all levels spends (wastes?) tremendous resources catering to non-English-speaking citizens and immigrants. English-speaking courts, with taxpayer-provided translators, and schools that will only hire bilingual teachers, are not something I "take it easy" about.

4. "The most abstract reason, but the one that first came to my mind when I saw the legislative agenda, is that if the government at some level declares English the official language within its territory, won't they have to start controlling English?"

No, they won't. This assertion is so bizarre that I can't really respond to it. Yes, language evolves, yes there may be such a thing as "legalese," yes in some parts of the country it's "soda" and in others it's "pop" -- so what? How would making English the official and exclusive language of government change any of that or complicate matters any less than allowing any and every language on earth to be used?

English should be the exclusive language of American government, if for no other reason than for economic efficiency. I accept the premise that there are other reasons to advocate "English first," and that some of those reasons might not be entirely positive (e.g., anti-Mexican bigotry). But the honest justifications far outweigh the dishonest ones.

Related Posts:
"You Want patatas fritas With That?"
Lingua Arabica?
"I Would Whip Them Hard for That"
Posted by KipEsquire on 17 March 2005.
West Virginia Goes Public-English
In an admittedly “back room” sort of way, the West Virginia Legislature has declared English the official language of that State:
The language amendment was quietly inserted into a bill addressing the number of members that cities can appoint to boards of parks and recreation. Among mundane details about record-keeping, the amendment adds the provision that "English shall be the official language of the State of West Virginia."
...
Andrew Schneider, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, said English-only laws are based on the false premise that immigrants will not learn English without government coercion.

"And English-only laws do nothing constructive to increase English proficiency. They simply discriminate and punish those who have not yet learned English," Schneider said.
This is, of course, utter nonsense.

Public-English laws are not at all based on the premise that immigrants need to be “coerced” into learning English. They are based on the premise that it is unreasonably expensive for government to have to provide its services multilingually to accommodate insular minorities who have the option and expectation of assimilating into this country.

I suppose that, if one chooses to play fast and loose with the dictionary, then yes one might say that non-English speakers face “discrimination” and “punishment” — in the same sense that the Army “discriminates” against those unable to fire an M-16 rifle or a state bar “punishes” those who don’t go to law school.

But the consider the alternative. To accommodate without regard to cost or consequence all those who expect the government to function in however many languages the Politics of Pull can muster in turn “punishes” those who fulfill their obligation to learn English, and they face “discriminatory” taxes that subsidize an extraneous government function.

Do some people advocate public-English laws out of mere animus toward certain immigrant groups? Undoubtedly. But that does not cancel out the enormous economic benefits of having a single language of government and an unifying element of American culture.

It was unfortunate that West Virginia passed this law the way it did. It is not unfortunate, however, that the law was passed at all.

Hit & Run has a comment thread on this.

UPDATE: West Virginia's governor has vetoed the bill on technical grounds, although he supports the concept (indeed, he had sponsored similar bills himself as a state legislator). Stay tuned...
Posted by KipEsquire on 12 April 2005.
Words Have Meaning -- Even in Ebonics
Naturally I am biased in favour of boys learning English; and then I would let the clever learn Latin as an honour and Greek as a treat. But the only thing I would whip them for is not knowing English. I would whip them hard for that.
--Winston Churchill

The latest incarnation of public school child abuse:
Incorporating Ebonics into a new school policy that targets black students, the lowest-achieving group in the San Bernardino City Unified School District, may provide students a more well-rounded curriculum, said a local sociologist.
...
"Ebonics is a different language, it's not slang as many believe," Texeira said. "For many of these students Ebonics is their language, and it should be considered a foreign language. These students should be taught like other students who speak a foreign language.
This comes in the wake of Oakland's decision back in 1996 to support the use of Ebonics in the classroom.

I'm not a linguist, and I refuse to wade into the muck of whether Ebonics is a "language" or a "dialect" or both or neither. Here's the easy part — it's not "foreign," hence it cannot legitimately be considered a "foreign language."

When a child shows up in school with head lice, we don't create a special "head lice classroom" for them. We treat the condition and move on.

We don't quibble about which among the immigrant German, Austrian or Swiss children in an American classroom speaks "proper" German or which Spanish dialect — Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican or European — is more "proper" in our schools. We (hopefully) simply teach them Standard Written English and move on.

Ebonics may certainly have some cultural validity, comparable to Hebrew or Yiddish for secular Jews. Knowledge of Ebonics as a supplement to Standard Written English is a personal and family decision that may be rational in some situations and some locations. But Ebonics as an alternative to Standard Written English is not rational and not an appropriate option in our public schools any more than instruction in Spanish or any language (except insofar as to catalyze the learning of Standard Written English).

Otherwise, Ebonics is merely linguistic head lice.

Other thoughts at Cranky Bastard, Wood Chips and Text Musings, Number 2 Pencil and Rogue Son.
Posted by KipEsquire on 19 July 2005.
No Habla Need Apply?
A Supercuts franchiser is being sued for allegedly banning Spanish in his establishment:
Stylists say the notice was put up in 2003, directed at employees as Supercuts managers allegedly barred them from speaking Spanish anywhere at work — including in the break room or other places outside the earshot of customers.

Supercuts says there is no such ban.
...
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which joined in the lawsuit, argues that such a ban is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin.
This is, of course, utter nonsense.

Even assuming every single allegation by the plaintiffs is true (Supercuts denies the assertions), how exactly is an English-only requirement by a private employer on his private property "discrimination based on national origin"? Language is not national origin. Language is language; national origin is national origin. End of discussion.

The "NINA" signs (i.e., No Irish Need Apply) of legend would have been discrimination based on national origin (had they actually existed). Not hiring any Mexican-Americans, or Cuban-Americans, or Nicaraguan-Americans in the first place would be discrimination based on national origin.

But how can there possibly be discrimination by an employer that is actually hiring members of the suspect class? If this is "discrimination," then the word no longer has any viable meaning.

Who knew that the "streets paved with gold" meant those that lead to a courthouse?

POST SCRIPT: Can lawsuits for discrimination based on "Ebonics" be far behind?
Posted by KipEsquire on 12 August 2005.
Student Wrongly Suspended for Speaking Spanish in School
I am on record as supporting making English the official language of this country, requiring all government documents to be printed exclusively in English, and eliminating all bilingual education in elementary and secondary schools.

But that is not the same as condoning suspending a kid for speaking Spanish on his own time:
Zach Rubio, a 16-year-old high school junior, was sent home from the Endeavor Alternative School on Nov. 28 for talking in Spanish at lunch and later in the day. Principal Jennifer Watts sent him home and suspended him through the following day.

District officials said Watts told the boy's father the suspension was a direct result of his speaking Spanish. Superintendent of Schools Bobby Allen reversed the suspension within hours of learning about it from the father, the district said.
...
[Rubio] speaks perfect, unaccented English and is also fluent in Spanish.
Fluent bilingualism among our schoolchildren — how scandalous!

By the way, did I mention that this occurred in Kansas? Land of Intelligent Design in schools and vicious anti-gay bigotry in courts?

I'm starting to think it's per se child abuse even to bring a kid into that state, let alone raise one there.

The Washington Post has more details. More thoughts at LP Blog.
Posted by Kip on 9 December 2005.
On English-Only Drivers Licenses
Alabama is not my most-beloved state, and the ACLU is not my most-hated enemy.

But this time they've flip-flopped -- the rednecks are right and the card-carriers are crazy:
A state judge could rule soon on whether Alabama must give driver's license exams only in English or can test potential motorists in 12 other languages as it has since 1998.
...
Alabama voters in 1990 approved a state constitutional amendment making English the official language. The state then stopped giving driver's exams in many languages.

In 1996, however, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the state on behalf of non-English-speaking residents. The civil rights groups won a series of decisions in federal courts. The state won the case before the Supreme Court but decided to offer driver's license exams in many languages.
It's quite simple really: If you can't speak English, then you can't read road signs. If you can't read road signs, then you're a dangerous menace on the roads. There is no "constitutional right" to be a menace on the roads (see also, "anti-DUI radicals").

The anti-English response to this straightforward syllogism?
"If they don't have time to learn English, then they won't have a license, and that could lead to unlicensed driving, which is probably a more significant safety problem than not knowing road signs."
So if we don't let them be lazy law-breakers "just a little bit," then they might become lazy law-breakers "a whole lot"? Is that intelligent public policy? Is this really the way to maximize highway safety?

Of course not.

It's bad enough that our state and local governments are increasingly wasting (yes, wasting) taxpayer money on multilingual operations. But to extend the illogic to hurling multi-ton slabs of metal down public roads at potentially lethal speeds is, well, potentially lethal. And damn stupid.
Posted by Kip on 5 January 2006.
Bush: "Be Neighborly ... Learn Arabic"
President Bush's latest boondoggle is a $114 million program to make Arabic-speaking people like us:
The plans, which represent an expansion of some programs and the start of a few others, aim to involve children in foreign-language courses as early as kindergarten while increasing opportunities for college and graduate school instruction. They also would draw more linguists into government service and establish a national corps of language reservists available to the Pentagon, State Department, intelligence community and other agencies in times of heightened need.
I wonder whether those "language reservists available to the Pentagon" will be subject to Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

More:
Bush portrayed the enhancement of foreign-language skills as a way of enlarging U.S. capacity to spread democracy. "You can't convince people unless you can talk to them," he said.

He described learning somebody else's language as a "kind gesture" showing care for another culture. It would be a way to combat the notion that the United States is bullying in imposing its concept of freedom, he said.

"When Americans learn to speak a language, learn to speak Arabic, those in the Arabic region will say, 'Gosh, America's interested in us. They care enough to learn how we speak,' " Bush said.
Actually, there's a much better form of "kind gesture" that members of one culture can show to members of another culture: The kind gesture of not flying commercial jets into our skyscrapers. Not to mention the kind gesture of not blowing yourself up in a coffeeshop full of civilians.

Shoring up language instruction for national security is all well and good, but such "priorities" are notoriously fleeting. For example, when I was a freshman, German was the "hot" language, only to be replaced by Russian by the time I was a senior. In grad school it was Japanese, then later Chinese. Now it's Arabic and Farsi. Tomorrow it will be something else -- probably a renewed interest in Spanish (to "ensure domestic tranquility"). In any case, the government tends to "learn the last language" much as it tends to "fight the last war."

But the idea that terrorists won't blow us up if we ask them, in Arabic, not to do so, or that Saudi Arabia will give us a "language discount" on the price of oil, is among the stupidest and most insulting warm-fuzzy-feeling programs to come out of this tax-and-spend White House yet.

If the Administration wants to, yet again, defend the indefensible in the name of the War on Terror, then fine and good luck with that. But dump the "Gosh, America's interested in us..." idiocy.

To corrupt a Teddy Roosevelt quote: "Speak English and carry a big stick."

More thoughts at Rolling Doughnut.
Posted by Kip on 8 January 2006.
Another Bilingual Education "Success" Story
If you believe in bilingual education, if you believe that people have a fundamental right not to have learn English, then this is what you believe in:
For a 16-year-old, Iris Padilla's resume looks pretty good: Not only is she already a senior close to completing all the credits needed to graduate from Richmond High, she's president of a Latin American culture club and is active in political and religious clubs at school. Next year, Iris wants to go to college and study psychology.

But Richmond High might not let her graduate this spring.
...
Iris is one of 73,270 California high school seniors in the same pickle — unable to fulfill a new state law requiring students to pass a test of basic English, math and algebra to graduate. That's 1 in 5 members of the state's Class of 2006, says the state Department of Education.
...
"I need a diploma," said Iris [in Spanish]... "I want it. I deserve it. I've been going to school and studying. I want to have a profession."
Well, young Ms. Padilla, that's just too damn bad. If you were smart enough to accumulate all those créditos, then you were smart enough to figure out that learning English isn't too much to ask when conferring diplomas. Maybe, just maybe, you should have spent a little less time being president of the Latin American culture club and a little more time with an ESL tutor.

Stated differently, you are a whiny little brat, Ms. Padilla, and you are (not) getting exactly what you (didn't) earn and what you (don't) deserve.

Welcome to the real world.

(Via Joanne Jacobs.)
Posted by Kip on 2 March 2006.
Oregon Fire Bosses "Fuegoed" for Not Speaking Spanish
If you oppose making English the official language of government in the United States, then you must, by corollary, support actions such as this:
Officials are now having to lay off some of the bosses who manage [Oregon] firefighting crews because the bosses are not bilingual. Many of the newer hires in Oregon only speak Spanish.

"What we do know is 85 percent of the crew makeup is of Hispanic descent," said Jim Walker, with the Oregon Department of Forestry.

The state said all bosses must speak the same language of their crew on the fire lines for safety reasons. They want to make sure that the leader of the crews can quickly communicate during an emergency if the fire turns or if there is another problem on the fire lines.
...
So why couldn't the state require that these crew members speak English? The state doesn't have a clear answer.
Notice that the article did not say "85 percent of the crew are recent immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries." It said "of Hispanic descent." There's a difference.

And this is not Texas, Arizona or New Mexico. It is Oregon, which is only 8% Hispanic according to the 2000 Census. One can only imagine what new rules might be imposed in more heavily Hispanic states under this twisted logic.

Given that firefighting is a public good, and that the purported concern here is over "safety," then the correct approach would of course have been to pay enough to recruit English-speaking firefighters in the first place, not to settle for cheaper non-English speakers and then create "collateral damage" among the even more skilled fire bosses by laying them off or demoting them for not having a skill which no reasonable person could consider "necessary" to the position of fire boss. It would be akin to firing them for not knowing how to ride a horse or play the oboe.

Stated differently, how hard is it to find a raw recruit firefighter, and how hard is it to find a veteran, expert fire boss? Which should therefore be the one accommodated and whose retention should be prioritized?

Of course "safety" is a necessary component of "public safety." Which is precisely why the inability to speak English is something to be proscribed in such occupations, not accommodated.

(Via Fark.)
Posted by Kip on 23 June 2006.
It's All Phoenician to Me!
From the book on linguistic history I'm currently (sorta kinda) reading, regarding the comparative use of Greek versus Phoenician in the Mediterranean regions prior to the rise of Rome:
The cultural undertow was thus running strongly in favor of Greek. And in fact it is possible that, despite its users' commercial prowess, Phoenician or Punic had never been widely used as a lingua franca or even as a trade jargon outside Africa. The language of trade is, after all, perforce that of the customer, rather than that of the merchant.
I had never considered that before, but it's generally true. No matter how wonderful your product or service may be, and no matter how much market dominance you may have, it will still be difficult, if not impossible, to sell to a customer whose language you don't speak. A great product means nothing if you can't explain to people how great it is.

And it really is for the most part unidirectional. I have no desire, nor should I desire, to learn Portuguese just to see whether there are any cool Portuguese (or Brazilian) products to buy. The Portuguese (or Brazilians) have to reach out to me — in English — as a potential customer.

Meanwhile, I as a businessman have to reach out to the Portuguese (or Brazilians) in their language — as potential customers. They are simply not going to learn English just to make it easier for me to profit from their business.

More:
The Phoenicians and Carthaginians, notorious as shrewd businessmen, must have been pragmatists; like their modern analogues, they would have focused on the practical utility of a means of communication, and chosen a language accordingly.
Now compare and contrast the view of the "pragmatic" ancient businessman with that of the "enlightened" modern politician, who thinks not in pragmatic terms but in political terms, and is often perfectly willing to engage in the most unpragmatic catering to multilingualism.

All the arguments in favor of adopting the language of the customer ought to work in reverse for government. Government is not a business, hoping to win customers and therefore required to accommodate them or their language. Government is the one institution that has a captive audience and a guaranteed "customer base." It need not and ought not yield to language barriers.

It is inefficient and costly for Microsoft, or Wal-Mart or the local pizzeria, not to bear the burden of multilingualism. Exactly the opposite is true for government: it is costly and inefficient for it to be anything other than monolingual.

Finally, we all know that the classical version of the Greek language was preserved over the centuries and even to this day. But what about Phoenician — the language of the "shrewd" ancient businessmen? Sadly, unlike Greek, Latin or Hebrew:
There was no tradition to preserve Phoenician or Punic texts, and so they perished with the papyrus on which they had been written.
All linguistic power, like all market power, is fleeting.


---

English as the lingua franca of the world? It's not even the lingua franca of England!
Posted by Kip on 19 March 2007.