Fraser Institute Publishes new study on Official Languages

[Machjo]

And so far, Canadien, you have only been able to challenge the idea of a common auxiliary language through sarcasm. Can you come up with legitimate arguments against it or are sarcasm and rhetoric the best you can do?

Sarcasm aside, please critique the following in a rational manner, proving rationally, but through rhetoric and innuendo, that it couldn't work:

Which of the following would prove most effective in achieving a common language for Canadians nationwide:

1. Making all English-speaker learn French, all French speakers learn English, and all Inuit learn both.

2. Adopting or creating an easy-to-learn language that could gradually be introduced into the school system, designed to be much easier to learn than either English and French.

And please, no sarcasm, but straight statistics, references to scientific research, whatever. But make your argument rational, not emotional, if you can.

Of coure you could argue that it's not important that all Canadians share a common language at all, and you could take the argument in that direction too. All I'm asking though is that, whatever argument is used, that it be rational, not emotional.

Fire away, Canadien.

[Smallc]

2. Adopting or creating an easy-to-learn language

Oh yeah, that's likely to exist/happen...

[Machjo]

Oh yeah, that's likely to exist/happen...

I guess that's the difference between me and you. 200 years ago, you would have been the one saying that a League of Nations, let alone a United Nations, wouldn't be possible; that a shared European currency could never happen; that there would never be a way to communicate information half way round the world at the speed of light; that women would never be legally recognized as equal to men anywhere, etc.

I think differently. If the only obstacle to an idea is will, then I see that as a surmountable obstacle through education. I won't be the one saying that women will never have the right to vote, or that a common European currency coud never occur, or that a League of Nations could never exist, etc. Lt's learn from history; let's look at how many times we've been surprised.

[Machjo]

Besides, what rational society would choose to limit its options just because of public perceptions. Myopic, no?

[Machjo]

And while you're mocking that option 2, what about the more 'normal' option of making all learn English and French, with a 17% rate of success? Are you really satisfied with that kind of education? is this really what we see as a ratioal policy of having everyone learn while knowing that the vast majority will fail, to set most up for failure? is that the epitome of Canadian language education? Let's stop following like sheep, admit that the current system is a complete failure, and think... wait for it... outside the box. Obviously we've tried all the options in the box and they havent' worked. Does it make sensse to keep looking within the box just out of fear of being ridiculed?

[Smallc]

I don't think you understand me very well. One day, there will be no countries and only one language. It's a long way off, but some day it will happen. If the current trajectory holds, we'll all one day be some shade of brown and we'll either be speaking English or some variety of Chinese (probably English)...again...a log way off.

I don't think there can be such a thing as a simply language in today's world....certainly not one that covers everything that needs to be covered in terms of verbs and nouns.

[Smallc]

admit that the current system is a complete failure, and think...

So the fact that nearly 100% of people complete their education with the ability to speak one language and 17% can speak one language and the other official language (not to mention the other people that can speak languages other than English and French) means that we've failed? Right.....can we do better? Of course we can. Should we try to invent an impossible language? Probably not.

[Machjo]

I don't think there can be such a thing as a simply language in today's world....certainly not one that covers everything that needs to be covered in terms of verbs and nouns.

I speak one.

[Smallc]

I speak one.

And which language would that be?

[Machjo]

So the fact that nearly 100% of people complete their education with the ability to speak one language and 17% can speak one language and the other official language (not to mention the other people that can speak languages other than English and French) means that we've failed? Right.....can we do better? Of course we can. Should we try to invent an impossible language? Probably not.

I don't see any educational value in failure. If the majority is failing to learn English or French as their second language, I can only see two rational courses of action:

1. The option presented above, or

2. No longer make a second language compulsory in school.

Of course the second option would further limit our ability to communicate with one another, but at least it would not have wasted our time for nothing. If a school can't guarantee a reasonable rate of success, it's only rational not to make a second language compulsory anymore and focus on other arts and sciences instead.

Going back to the topic of official bilingualism, there is no point in forcing pupils to learn a second language AND provide bilingual government services. After all, it's only rational to conclude that the objective of second-language education ought to be to eliminate, or at least greately reduce, the need for bilingual gevernment services in the first place. And it's only rational to conclude that if we intend to provide bilingual services, then there is no need to waste mony on second-language learning. Rationally, the objective of one negates the need for the other. Big waste of money. So why not aim at either one or the other? If we insist on keeping official bilingualism, then let's not waste money on compulsory bilingual education with such a dismal rate of success. Or inversely, if we insist of compulsory bilingual education, then let's find a way to ensure a reasonable chance of universal success so that we can eventually eliminate the need for official bilingualism. One rationally negates the need for the other.

[Machjo]

And which language would that be?

Esperanto.

Bear in mind though that when I propose the rational efficiency of an international auxiliary language, I'm not proposing Esperanto per se, but the idea of a language, any language, based on the same principle of a logical grammar, designed to be easy to learn.

[Smallc]

Esperanto.

Does it have a word for thorium isotope?

[Smallc]

Of course the second option would further limit our ability to communicate with one another, but at least it would not have wasted our time for nothing.

Not being able to speak a language well doesn't mean that you haven't learned anything about it. People aren't failing as much as you believe. They may not be able to speak the language when they finish school, but they will no doubt have a rudimentary understanding of the language and will have a head start if they ever wish to learn it in the future.

[Machjo]

And besides, if Ataturk could change the script of the Turkish language; and if Indonesia could rationally develop a national language capable of communicating anything under the sun from a simple Pidgin; and if the King of Korea could, based on the science of linguistics of a few centuries ago, could create a rational script allowing for Korea to have among the highest rates of literacy today, why would it be beyond Canada to reach as high? Are we any less capable or advanced in our ability to exploit the modern linguistic sciences at our disposal to achieve universal literacy and univeral bilingualism within our own borders, or is that to be restricted to certain Asiatic nations only?

[Smallc]

Look, the fact is there are several large world languages that are useful. English, French, Spanish, Mandarin, Portuguese, etc. We already cover two of those bases in Canada (even if we can't all speak both languages that we use), but if you want a useful auxiliary language, it's probably going to be one of those....and being as English is becoming the language of commerce (in place of French), then it's probably that one.

[Machjo]

Does it have a word for thorium isotope?

thorium = torio (http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torio)

isotope = izotopo (http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izotopo)

So we could say torio-izotopo or tori-izotopo, the hyphen being optional for clarification's sake only, and the -o being an optional nominal ending at the end of the root tori, optional owing to the compound.

Next challenge?

[Smallc]

So we could say torio-izotopo or tori-izotopo, the hyphen being optional for clarification's sake only, and the -o being an optional nominal ending at the end of the root tori, optional owing to the compound.

And so how is it that such a thing is supposed to be simpler than a more widely used language. If it contains just as many nouns....then I fail to see how it's going to be easy to learn.

[Machjo]

Not being able to speak a language well doesn't mean that you haven't learned anything about it. People aren't failing as much as you believe. They may not be able to speak the language when they finish school, but they will no doubt have a rudimentary understanding of the language and will have a head start if they ever wish to learn it in the future.

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't get very far with a unilingual Chinese if all I could do were to discuss about the language in English. As for persons possibly wanting to continue their language education in future, that's fine. But seeing how divers the future of a graduates could be, how do we know which second language will be most useful for him in future? In Vancouver, it might be Chinese. Oh, yes, and many Canadians emmigrate too, a term not often heard or read in the media.

Add to that that not all will have a chance to go on to university. So if we're looking at a non-elitist education systme, we need to ensure fluency in the second compulsory language before the end of compulsory education.

A language like Esperanto could achieve a number of objectives here that French or English cannot:

1. it has a higher propaedeutic value than most languages (http://www.springboard2languages.org/documents/springboard_rationale.pdf). This could thus help pupils after highschool to learn a second language if they wish.

2. It is learnable within the time it takes to finish compulsory education (http://www.internacialingvo.org/public/study.pdf).

This way, it serves all pupils. For those who can go on to university, it serves as a foundation for further language learning. And for those who can't, it serves as a complete language in its own right.

With English or French as compulsory second languages, in most cases it can only benefit those fortunate enough to be able to learn the language outside of school, hardly the ideal universal and democratic system of education we ought to have. 17% is quite elitist if I may say so.

[Smallc]

This way, it serves all pupils.

Except that, because almost no one speaks, it wouldn't serve anyone all that well.

[Machjo]

And so how is it that such a thing is supposed to be simpler than a more widely used language. If it contains just as many nouns....then I fail to see how it's going to be easy to learn.

Then let me give some examples:

1. Pronunciation:

Try to teach to a Quebecer the pronunciation rules necessary to read the following poem:

I take it you already know

Of tough and bough and cough and dough?

Others may stumble but not you

On hiccough, thorough, slough and through.

Well done! And now you wish perhaps,

To learn of less familiar traps?

Beware of heard, a dreadful word

That looks like beard and sounds like bird.

And dead, it's said like bed, not bead-

for goodness' sake don't call it 'deed'!

Watch out for meat and great and threat

(they rhyme with suite and straight and debt).

A moth is not a moth in mother,

Nor both in bother, broth, or brother,

And here is not a match for there,

Nor dear and fear for bear and pear,

And then there's doze and rose and lose-

Just look them up- and goose and choose,

And cork and work and card and ward

And font and front and word and sword,

And do and go and thwart and cart-

Come, I've hardly made a start!

A dreadful language? Man alive!

I'd learned to speak it when I was five!

And yet to write it, the more I sigh,

I'll not learn how 'til the day I die.

In Esperanto, there are 28 letters, each with their own pronunciation, along with the basic rule that there can be no more nor less than one vowel per syllable in any word, and that the stress always falls on the penultimate syllable. There, now you know all the rules of Esperanto pronunciation even better than those of English. Again, can you rationally explain in as succinct a manner the rules for the poem above?

1. word formation

Never is there an exception to a rule. To change from a noun (-o) to an advective (-a) to an adverb (-e):

sun solar in a sunike manner

suno suna sune

moon lunar in a moon-like manner

luno luna lune

monkey siman in a monkey-like manner

simio simia simie

brother fraternal in a brother-like manner

frato frata frate

Now could you teach me the rule for changing a noun into an adjective or adverb from the examples above in English? Probably not. For Esperanto? You don't even know the language yet, yet you probably can teach me the rule already. This also means that you don't need to learn each and every word in the language. Once you know the noun, just change the ending, and you know you're right 'cause there are no exceptions.

masculine feminine

In Arabic, we simply add the ending -atun to many words to make them feminine. Esperanto follows a similar concept with -in-, only without exceptions, unlike in Arabic:

father mother

patro patrino

ox cow

bovo bovino

brother sister

frato fratino

For any of these words, you could replace the -o with -a or -e to change from noun to adjective to adverb. By the way, what's the rule in English to change from masculine to feminine?

Direct opposites:

bona malbona

good bad

for an infinitive verb, add -i

fermi malfermi

open close

all words can be used to create new words in compounds. to take some examples:

sano = health

sana = healthy

ulo = person, fellow

ejo = place

malsano = disease

sanulo = healthy person

malsanulo = unhealthy person

malsanulejo = hospital

You can see how, unlike in French and English, the child's vocabulary would grow exponentially in Esperanto because he can reuse morphemes ad infinitm as long as it makes logical sense, which he cannot do with Engish or French.

One last example. How do we form the plural in English?

ox oxen

bovo bovoj

sheep sheep

ŝafo ŝafoj

aircraft aircraft

flugmaŝino flugmaŝinoj

fish fish or fishes

fiŝo fiŝoj

mouse mice

muso musoj

child children

infano infanoj

from the examples above, can you tell me the rule for the English plural? Good luck. For Esperanto? Easier, isn't it?

[Machjo]

Except that, because almost no one speaks, it wouldn't serve anyone all that well.

No one? You can buy thousands of books, CDs, etc. published in Esperanto on the following site:

http://katalogo.uea.org/

Scholars publish research in Esperanto through the following academy:

http://www.ais-sanmarino.org/respondoj/en.respondoj.html

Vatican Radio, China Radio International, Radio Polonia, etc. broadcast regularly in Esperanto. There is even a CD industry for music lovers:

http://katalogo.uea.org/katalogo.php?titol...a+reta+katalogo

And as you can see from the site, there are at least 17 pages of CD's to browse through.

Publishing on such a scale ain't cheap. Where do you think the money comes from?

Were you aware too that there are Esperanto organizations for just about everything, be it religion, science, commerce, tourism, etc. Again, maintaining so many such organizations cannot be done with just a few people. That alone is proof that there is enough of a market to maintain an Esperanto pubishing industry... and that's with little to no government support. And that brings us to another issue:

Now a few countries have recognized Esperanto in their school system more recently, so that's bound to expand it even further. The only limit is our own will to make it happen.

[Machjo]

And if Esperanto has proven so successful, I'm sure the smae could apply to any other easy-to-learn language.

[Machjo]

Let's not forget too that if a language like esperanto has shown such success without government support, for Canada to support it would certainly promote reaction abroad too. Why shouldn't Canada take a leading role in this?

According to Francois Grin ot the University of Geneva, the EU could save at least 25 thousand million euros a year if Esperanto could replace English in European international communication owing to its precision and ease of learning. So not only would Canada benefit from this, but it would even be doing other nations a favour at the same time... without even having to give any of its money? Talk about killing two birds with one stone. We'd be benefitting ourselves and others simultaneously. What more could we ask for?

Even the UN General Assembly spends about 12 million dollars a year just on General Assembly interpretation alone! Htis does not even count all other interpretation and translation at the UN.

[Smallc]

According to Wiki, between 100K and 2M people speak it..that's not many. Canadians would be better to stick to English and French since they're both widely spoken.

[Machjo]

According to Wiki, between 100K and 2M people speak it..that's not many. Canadians would be better to stick to English and French since they're both widely spoken.

There are varying statistics on it. But let's look at it this way:

Alternative 1:

1.3 billion people speak Chinese, so all of Canada decides to learn Chinese. We get a small percentage who actually succeed in learning it while the rest just managed to create jobs for teachers and publishers with not much to show for it, generation after generation.

Altenative 2:

We allow pupils to choose their second language in shcool, but the government also takes action to encourage Eperanto among those pupils who lack the necessary aptitude to learn difficult languages, as is done in Italy already. As a result, the government support guarantees jobs for Esperanto teachers for years to come. So even if few shoud speak it, it would still have an economic benefit in the teacher job market. Later, as it continues to grow, ever more English Canadians and French Canadians could start to use it for business, and lo and behold, some Europeans, Asians, Africans and South Americans decide to exploit this new market too. Don't you think this would promote further growth in those countries too? At that point, the spinoff effect would lead to a cycle. As long as the govenrment continues to encourage it, along with parallel encouragement contuning in italy (I can't imagine Italy would cease this policy if Canada then joins in), eventually it would become beneficial especially for English-French business across the Ontario-Quebec border. Sure French-English bilinguals like myself could continue to use French and English, but as the new population grows, Esperanto could eventually eliminate the need for high government spending in official bilingualism and finally allow for real grassroots dialogue between Canadians. So not ony would there be an economic beneift, but also a political one in promoting more national unity.