AFN asks Ottawa to declare all aboriginal languages official

[Derek 2.0]

The GG even has authority to use the Great Seal. I see yo stil like to use these silly little things so I'll throw one in for ya.

Who gave the GG the authority to use the Great Seal (in her/his absence)?

[Smallc]

Granted by King George the sixth in 1947.

You should like this, it's from the Star:

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/opinion/2009/10/19/who_is_our_head_of_state_jean_or_the_queen.html

[Smallc]

Granted by King George the sixth in 1947.

The head of state at the time.

[On Guard for Thee]

The head of state at the time.

Here, have a read.

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/001060/f2/1940/cgc_p2-0_v081_n012_t002_000_19471001_p00000.pdf

[Evening Star]

It's a jurisdiction that's still part of Earth, the way Quebec would be if it separated.

Wales sends 40 MPs to the UK Parliament, uses the pound, is protected by the UK military. I'm not sure it has greater sovereignty than Canadian provinces do at present.

[Smallc]

Here, have a read.

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/001060/f2/1940/cgc_p2-0_v081_n012_t002_000_19471001_p00000.pdf

Yes?

[Boges]

Back to the OP. Would this mean that all our consumer goods would have to have these languages as well?

Edited July 13, 2015 by Boges

[Bryan]

Back to the OP. Would this mean that all our consumer goods would have to have these languages as well?

I sure hope not. The expense of having to have french is already inflating the cost of Canadian consumer goods as it is. People complain about US prices being lower than the exchange rate would indicate they should be, then turn around and demand that manufacturers add more expense to the packaging.

A smarter solution for global trade, IMO, would be have one label in the dominant language of a given region with a website listing that has translations of the label in a bunch of other languages.

[cybercoma]

I sure hope not. The expense of having to have french is already inflating the cost of Canadian consumer goods as it is. People complain about US prices being lower than the exchange rate would indicate they should be, then turn around and demand that manufacturers add more expense to the packaging.

A smarter solution for global trade, IMO, would be have one label in the dominant language of a given region with a website listing that has translations of the label in a bunch of other languages.

I agree. It's costly and cumbersome. They should just drop English from all packaging and leave it French only.

[Second-class Canadian]

I sure hope not. The expense of having to have french is already inflating the cost of Canadian consumer goods as it is. People complain about US prices being lower than the exchange rate would indicate they should be, then turn around and demand that manufacturers add more expense to the packaging.

A smarter solution for global trade, IMO, would be have one label in the dominant language of a given region with a website listing that has translations of the label in a bunch of other languages.

I sure hope not. The expense of having to have french is already inflating the cost of Canadian consumer goods as it is. People complain about US prices being lower than the exchange rate would indicate they should be, then turn around and demand that manufacturers add more expense to the packaging.

A smarter solution for global trade, IMO, would be have one label in the dominant language of a given region with a website listing that has translations of the label in a bunch of other languages.

Another solution I could see is to simply abrogate the language requirements of the Packaging and Labelling Act. You don't label it in my language, I won't buy your product, simple as that.

I think the Chief's real intent was to say that what the law applies to one, it must apply to all.

There could be many ways of conforming to that principle.

[Argus]

Back to the OP. Would this mean that all our consumer goods would have to have these languages as well?

Bellegarde said his “ultimate goal” would be to have translations of all those languages on consumer products.

Unrealistic and silly. And apparently we're already spending millions of dollars trying to preserve native languages anyway.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/naomi-lakritz-more-money-wont-save-dying-aboriginal-languages

Edited July 13, 2015 by Argus

[Machjo]

Another solution I could see is to simply abrogate the language requirements of the Packaging and Labelling Act. You don't label it in my language, I won't buy your product, simple as that.

I think the Chief's real intent was to say that what the law applies to one, it must apply to all.

There could be many ways of conforming to that principle.

We need a common language for safety reasons though.

One solution I could see would be an international agreement requiring packaging and labelling to be in at least two languages (with any additional language being of the company's choosing) and all in the same size with Esperanto appearing last. We could also consider requiring the packaging and labelling to include the local indigenous language of the location where the packaging and labelling was made.

Due to Esperanto being from five to ten times easier to learn than English, anyone could learn it in a short time. This would be extremely manageable.

[TimG]

One solution I could see would be an international agreement requiring packaging and labelling to be in at least two languages (with any additional language being of the company's choosing) and all in the same size with Esperanto appearing last.

Packaging is part of a commercial contract (i.e. the seller is liable if the packaging is false). Therefore the only suitable language(s) are the language(s) used in the legal system for the country involved. I realize that you are keen on Esperanto but with a mere 2 million speakers is it is small niche that is not a plausible language for commerce at this time. Edited July 13, 2015 by TimG

[Charles Anthony]

It's heartening to see most everyone is ignoring the troll in this thread.

All references to said trolling are being deleted. I imagine this will be as well.

If you perceive something/somebody to be trolling or if you fail to understand what somebody writes, you have 2 choices:

1) politely ask that person to explain

or

2) report it, ignore it and move on. Let the moderators handle it.

Your choice of action demonstrates your intent.

[Machjo]

Packaging is part of a commercial contract (i.e. the seller is liable if the packaging is false). Therefore the only suitable language(s) are the language(s) used in the legal system for the country involved. I realize that you are keen on Esperanto but with a mere 2 million speakers is it is small niche that is not a plausible language for commerce at this time.

But one of the reasons for official bilingualism in the sixties, and probably for the AFN's proposal now, is that few can learn English well and want to understand the packaging and labelling.

With Esperanto being from five to ten times easier to learn than English, this could potentially satisfy the demands of non-English-speaking Quebecers and Inuit and others for ecample.

Also one reason so many know English and so few know Esperanro is due to an unequal official status, and so using numbers as a reason leads to circular reasoning. Promote language Xbox because it's more dominant while ignoring thatbit's more dominant because of its official status.

Esperanto could eliminate an important barrier to trade.

[TimG]

But one of the reasons for official bilingualism in the sixties, and probably for the AFN's proposal now, is that few can learn English well and want to understand the packaging and labelling.

Not a particularily compelling argument given that most aboriginal languages have no traditional written form. If they do have a written form it is one constructed for the purpose of teaching the language and the overwhelming majority of speakers that can read the language will also be able to read English. The AFN demand has nothing to with practicality - it is all about ego and posturing. i.e. they want to feel that their tiny nations are more important than they actually are so they want the 'status' of an official language bestowed upon them and paid for by others.

With Esperanto being from five to ten times easier to learn than English, this could potentially satisfy the demands of non-English-speaking Quebecers and Inuit and others for ecample.

Except you can't watch a Hollywood movie or the GoT in Esperanto. A huge amount of technical and topical material is available in English and speaking English is a job requirement in many places. IOW, people don't care that Esperanto is easier to learn because they need a language that is useful to them. English is useful. Esperanto is an academic exercise. Edited July 13, 2015 by TimG

[Machjo]

Not a particularily compelling argument given that most aboriginal languages have no traditional written form. If they do have a written form it is one constructed for the purpose of teaching the language and the overwhelming majority of speakers that can read the language will also be able to read English. The AFN demand has nothing to with practicality - it is all about ego and posturing. i.e. they want to feel that their tiny nations are more important than they actually are so they want the 'status' of an official language bestowed upon them and paid for by others. Except you can't watch a Hollywood movie or the GoT in Esperanto. A huge amount of technical and topical material is available in English and speaking English is a job requirement in many places. IOW, people don't care that Esperanto is easier to learn because they need a language that is useful to them. English is useful. Esperanto is an academic exercise.

Not a particularily compelling argument given that most aboriginal languages have no traditional written form. If they do have a written form it is one constructed for the purpose of teaching the language and the overwhelming majority of speakers that can read the language will also be able to read English. The AFN demand has nothing to with practicality - it is all about ego and posturing. i.e. they want to feel that their tiny nations are more important than they actually are so they want the 'status' of an official language bestowed upon them and paid for by others. Except you can't watch a Hollywood movie or the GoT in Esperanto. A huge amount of technical and topical material is available in English and speaking English is a job requirement in many places. IOW, people don't care that Esperanto is easier to learn because they need a language that is useful to them. English is useful. Esperanto is an academic exercise.

English is all of these things BECAUSE OF its official status in education and government over the years. To defend it's official status because of its prestige while ignoring that its prestige comes from its official status is circular reasoning. Should we gradually switch their statuses, Esperanto would overtake English in all of these areas within seventy years.

How do we avoid circular reasoning?

[Machjo]

I agree. It's costly and cumbersome. They should just drop English from all packaging and leave it French only.

Why French when French is the second most difficult major European language to learn to read and write according to one OECD study in 2005?

[Boges]

Why French when French is the second most difficult major European language to learn to read and write according to one OECD study in 2005?

Because they got owned on the Plains of Abraham. That's why.

[Evening Star]

English is all of these things BECAUSE OF its official status in education and government over the years. To defend it's official status because of its prestige while ignoring that its prestige comes from its official status is circular reasoning. Should we gradually switch their statuses, Esperanto would overtake English in all of these areas within seventy years.

The US does not have a legislated official language per se, yet people still use English.

For Esperanto to overtake English on anything resembling a global scale, it seems that there would have to be a co-ordinated effort with the US and UK to actively impose Esperanto on a presently English-speaking population, which doesn't seem realistic. (I actually have some interest in learning Esperanto at some point btw; I'm still fine with keeping English and French as our official languages.)

[poochy]

If you perceive something/somebody to be trolling or if you fail to understand what somebody writes, you have 2 choices:

1) politely ask that person to explain

or

2) report it, ignore it and move on. Let the moderators handle it.

Your choice of action demonstrates your intent.

lol, really? So i guess you missed this posters constant troll in this same vein, throughout this entire thread? But my one reference to that trolling gets noticed, well, isn't that just terribly unsurprising.

Here you go, a sampling since you so obviously missed it.

You're right. They should just do everything in French.

Who cares? French is our official language. We should stop doing things in English to save money. France is French and there's a whole French diaspora we that we could be a part of. Let's get rid of English.

So what? We need to scrap one. It might as well be English. It's too wasteful having both and the French were here before the English.

So? You had classes. That's good enough. English is unnecessary. We could just stop teaching it altogether. Every child into immersion regardless of their language at home.

It goes on and on and on, not one single serious post, only posts mocking virtually everyone elses opinion, yea, i suppose that was difficult to notice. There is no doubt that if I any number of other people did that they would have been suspended already.

[Argus]

But one of the reasons for official bilingualism in the sixties, and probably for the AFN's proposal now, is that few can learn English well and want to understand the packaging and labelling.

Few can learn English well? If some of the people on this web site can learn it anyone can...

[Evening Star]

Yeah, people from all over the world manage to learn English quite well when they immigrate to English-speaking countries.

[TimG]

English is all of these things BECAUSE OF its official status in education and government over the years.

Not really. Most countries don't have 'official languages' because everyone understands that the nation's business should be conducted in the commonly used language. In Canada we ended up with official languages because we have different geographic areas where different languages dominated so one language could not be chosen for the entire country. That said, the languages chosen were based on the languages that people lived their lives in. i.e. official languages simply recognize a reality that already existed. They did not create that reality.

Should we gradually switch their statuses, Esperanto would overtake English in all of these areas within seventy years.

Esperanto cannot compete with the cultural behemoth that exists in English and French today. Governments can pass whatever laws they want but people won't have any interest in using Esperanto in their daily lives unless there is a cultural basis for it and you cannot create that cultural basis by fiat - it must be naturally developed over decades and centuries.

IOW, what has to come first is the development of an Esperanto culture that people want to be part of. Once that culture reaches a critical mass then governments could talk about leveraging that culture. Before that point mandating Esperanto makes as much sense as mandating Latin.

Edited July 13, 2015 by TimG

[Evening Star]

For Esperanto to overtake English on anything resembling a global scale, it seems that there would have to be a co-ordinated effort with the US and UK to actively impose Esperanto on a presently English-speaking population, which doesn't seem realistic. (I actually have some interest in learning Esperanto at some point btw; I'm still fine with keeping English and French as our official languages.)

If you're actually in favour of a co-ordinated global effort like this, maybe overseen by the UN, that's a little intriguing. I don't think Canada should move towards an official-Esperanto policy prior to this.

And it wouldn't just be a matter of Hollywood and Game of Thrones: there are centuries' worth of literature and scholarship in the major European languages that we (or at least I) would want to preserve. This is a more important matter to me than the (noble) ideal of moving towards a more neutral and scientifically designed invented language.