Canada's Bilingualism Racket

[Bonam]

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

That would not be enough. The machine would need input from both visual and audio contexts too. Your phone is not recording your every move, is it? Unless it is, then the machine translator would be missing context.

Now, a simple solution to that would be to program the translator to request clarification; but especially for a language like English where nearly every word can mean severeal things, for the machne to correctly translate one sentence might require multiple requests for clarification. That could be a very tedious process, especially in an industry in which time is money.

Beyond language, the machine must also understand cultural context, which again could vary somewhat even between municipalities. The input required would be phenomenal.

Now of course some solutions exist. For example, we could learn a language like Lojban and machine-translate from that. Since Lojban is so semantically precise, all necessary linguistic input would already be included in the sentence. But then if everyone must learn Lojban, when why not just skip machine translation altogether and just communicate in Lojban? And if we all need to learn a common second language anyway, then why not an easier one like Espeanto (since except for cybernetic communication like machine translation, Lojban is far more precise than most people would need in their daily lives anyway)?

Anyone who knows a second language understands the complexities involved in communication. It involves not only grammar and lexis but context too. And context itself is far more complex than many realise. While the human brain can compute it instantly based on a lifetime of accumlated personal knowledge, how do you program that kind of data into a computer system individually for each person. After all, even English contains different dialects and different accents exist across the English-speaking world and even English-speakers might have lived very different life experiences which can afect the meaning of their sentence. It's far more complicated than some seem to realize.

People deep in a specific field often tend to overestimate the complexities of their own field and underestimate the ability of people outside their own field to come up with creative solutions. None of the problems you mention are any more qualitatively difficult than dozens of other problems that are actively being researched and addressed by people working in AI and machine learning. As for Lojban and Esperanto, the US couldn't even switch to metric, let alone adopting new languages. Not gonna happen. 

[Machjo]

Just now, Bonam said:

People deep in a specific field often tend to overestimate the complexities of their own field and underestimate the ability of people outside their own field to come up with creative solutions. None of the problems you mention are any more qualitatively difficult than dozens of other problems that are actively being researched and addressed by people working in AI and machine learning. As for Lojban and Esperanto, the US couldn't even switch to metric, let alone adopting new languages. Not gonna happen. 

You do have a point in saying that a person who intended to rely on machine translation would not intend to learn another language to use it more effectively, since that would defeat the whole point of machine translation (i.e. not needing to learn another language). Going by that, then we need to accept certain limitations.

Firstly, machine translation will probably never be able to produce a literary translation, so let's put that aside and focus on academic or technical translation.

As for technical translation from English without needing to learn another language (since that's the pont of it after all), then I could see three different solutions.

For the buyer on a budget, Google translate as it now exists. Highly unreliable and not something you'd want to rely on if your life depended on it, but it can usually produce reasonably comprehensible translations from simple sentences.

For the one willing to spend a lot more, I could see an interactive machine translator that would request clarification at each stage of the translation process. It might be a slow and tedious process, but it could produce an accurate translation at last.

For the wealthy, a total machine-translation system, interconnected with every smart device he owns to collect as much information as possible to help provide context, with unlimited internet access and cloud storage. Even then, it might still need prompting, but it could present the meaning it thinks is the correct one at the top of the list, so that in most cases the person would just need to select the first option. The information it would be processing would probably mean that you'd need extremely high-speed internet.

So yes, it's doable. But as a taxpayer, would you not rather Government employees just share a common language?

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, Machjo said:

So yes, it's doable. But as a taxpayer, would you not rather Government employees just share a common language?

Not really. Technology gets better over time, and the cost of technology goes down over time. Meanwhile, the language capabilities of humans stay the same from generation to generation, but the pay of government civil servants just goes up and up over time. Sooner or later, the machine version will be more cost effective. My bet is on sooner rather than later. 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Bonam

[Machjo]

43 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Not really. Technology gets better over time, and the cost of technology goes down over time. Meanwhile, the language capabilities of humans stay the same from generation to generation, but the pay of government civil servants just goes up and up over time. Sooner or later, the machine version will be more cost effective. My bet is on sooner rather than later. 

I know a few languages and work in the language industry so I do have some knowledge with regards to the complexities of language. Remember that mortal human beings with limited human knowledge of imperfect human languages will be creating this technology. Do you know a second language? Have you ever had to translate complex text from one language to another?

 

Let's put it another way. Why do you think most languages arte so difficult to learn? And if a language is that difficult to learn (just because it includes so many complex components, then how do you think we can create this technology in any cost effective manner? Remember too that a language changes over time, meaning a need for constant upgrading.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Machjo

[Bonam]

24 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I know a few languages and work in the language industry so I do have some knowledge with regards to the complexities of language. Remember that mortal human beings with limited human knowledge of imperfect human languages will be creating this technology. Do you know a second language? Have you ever had to translate complex text from one language to another?

Yes, I'm fluent in two languages (English and Russian). I spent about 6 months working in translation of technical documents between English and Russian, as it happens. I also used to have passable French but its been years since I used it so its mostly rusted away (another flaw of humans as compared to computers). 

Quote

Let's put it another way. Why do you think most languages arte so difficult to learn?

I don't think they are that difficult to learn. Rather, the motivation for people to learn multiple languages is not that high since in most situations people remain in areas where their native language is sufficient for their daily lives. Additionally, traditional language teaching methods at the school level (i.e. your typical French class in an English speaking school in Canada) are ineffective to the point of absurdity, explaining the almost null results after 7+ years of French "education" that a typical Canadian receives. A focused effort to learn a language can lead to fluency in about 1 year, which is shorter than the time it takes to learn many other types of practical skills. 

[Bonam]

34 minutes ago, Machjo said:

how do you think we can create this technology in any cost effective manner?

There's a huge profit motive, which is why companies like Google and others are spending millions on the effort. 

Quote

Remember too that a language changes over time, meaning a need for constant upgrading.

AI/machine learning. Once a working system is set up, keeping it updated by continuing to train it on contemporary data-sets will be easy. 

[Zeitgeist]

Canada has two official languages in its constitution.  As long as Canada exists, that will not change.

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada has two official languages in its constitution.  As long as Canada exists, that will not change.

I've translated between the two official languages and between co-nationals.

[cannuck]

29 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Let's put it another way. Why do you think most languages arte so difficult to learn?

To be more precise, languages are not that difficult to learn, they are just very difficult to learn a) to speak well, and b) to translate idioms, sayings, ideas, etc. to fit the rules and nuances of other languages.  Our children are multi-lingual, and routinely take me to task for clumsy translations to and from French.  I was lucky to have a handler once who specialized in Japanese.  He was so good at it, he could teach Japanese classical literature, language and even technical subjects in a Japanese university (his PhD was in cultural anthropology - which led him down that path).  Working with him over several months in yet another foreign nation gave me plenty of opportunity to see up close just how intense one's education and experience needs to be to be totally capable in a very different language.  His particular skill was in deciphering how Japanese changed the key to military encryption codes (yes, WWII era).  I am in awe of people who are effectively able to master more than one language, but even at that level, there is still a LOT more to learn of the culture to really get the drift of the language.

[Machjo]

15 minutes ago, cannuck said:

To be more precise, languages are not that difficult to learn, they are just very difficult to learn a) to speak well, and b) to translate idioms, sayings, ideas, etc. to fit the rules and nuances of other languages.  Our children are multi-lingual, and routinely take me to task for clumsy translations to and from French.  I was lucky to have a handler once who specialized in Japanese.  He was so good at it, he could teach Japanese classical literature, language and even technical subjects in a Japanese university (his PhD was in cultural anthropology - which led him down that path).  Working with him over several months in yet another foreign nation gave me plenty of opportunity to see up close just how intense one's education and experience needs to be to be totally capable in a very different language.  His particular skill was in deciphering how Japanese changed the key to military encryption codes (yes, WWII era).  I am in awe of people who are effectively able to master more than one language, but even at that level, there is still a LOT more to learn of the culture to really get the drift of the language.

Yes, but you can't expect your local marriage registrar, police or immigration officer, or even lawyer to get a specialized degree in a foreign language. That requires a major investment of time and money on a mass scale. That's where an international auxiliary language could come in handy. We cannot afford to provide specialized language training to our entire civil service.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Machjo

[cannuck]

6 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Yes, but you can't expect your local marriage registrar, police or immigration officer, or even lawyer to get a specialized degree in a foreign language. That requires a major investment of time and money on a mass scale. That's where an international auxiliary language could come in handy. we cannot afford to provide specialized language training to our entire civil service.

Agreed.  However, something goofy such as esparante or whatever it was called may not have the things that the best of the bunch would need:  some hard and fast rules on how new words are structured from roots.  While English may not  be perfect (in fact far from it) it DOES have some workable rules that allow for new words.  There is a reason that pretty much everything in academia is published in English.

Besides, we have already establish that I am a greedy, selfish prick, so since I don't have good enough memory to be really good at more than one language, I would prefer the international standard was the one I already speak.

Edited December 4, 2018 by cannuck

[Machjo]

4 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Agreed.  However, something goofy such as esparante or whatever it was called may not have the things that the best of the bunch would need:  some hard and fast rules on how new words are structured from roots.  While English may not  be perfect (in fact far from it) it DOES have some workable rules that allow for new words.  There is a reason that pretty much everything in academia is published in English.

Besides, we have already establish that I am a greedy, selfish prick, so since I don't have good enough memory to be really good at more than one language, I would prefer the international standard was the one I already speak.

Actually, Esperanto, like any other living language, is in constant development. According to one study, due to Esperanto being from five to ten times easier to learn than English, if the EU switched to Esperanto as its common second language, that could save the EU from 17 to 18 billion euros yearly. It's kind of ironic how Esperanto is the fiscally conservative choice in the long term.

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada has two official languages in its constitution.  As long as Canada exists, that will not change.

I find it odd that many people outside of Quebec react so strongly against French language institutions and rights. We uncontroversially fund multilingual services and heritage language programs and yet French language services somehow generate vitriol and angst. Sure, English-speaking Canadians can point to Quebec's often antagonistic language laws and policies, including Bill 101, as justification for their antipathy. But, unlike the precarious situation of the French language outside of Europe, English is not a threatened language in North America or in the rest of the world for that matter. Despite its irritating laws, Quebec funds three mainly English-language universities while, as I understand it, Ontario funds no primarily French-language university. I wonder how many Ontarians realize that Ontario once tried to essentially ban the use of French in the province's education system? Those who don't should research Regulation 17. My Franco-Ontarian paternal grandfather was a young man when the infamous regulation became law. Based on his own experience, including suffering economic discrimination, he believed that French-Canadians living outside of Quebec were doomed to assimilate and he didn't even try to raise his own children to speak French. He used to say that 'English is the language of money' and more or less left it at that. I doubt that Doug Ford has read much history nor I believe has he studied at any university. Perhaps if he were more aware of Ontario's sometimes ignominious treatment of its Franophone population he might refrain from rubbing salt in a not fully healed wound.

[Moonlight Graham]

Ontario is not an officially bilingual province.  New Brunswick is the only province/territory that is in all of Canada.  The Ontario government has absolutely no obligation to serve the french language in Ontario.  How many francophones live in Ontario outside the national capital region (which borders Quebec)?

[Machjo]

3 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I find it odd that many people outside of Quebec react so strongly against French language institutions and rights. We uncontroversially fund multilingual services and heritage language programs and yet French language services somehow generate vitriol and angst. Sure, English-speaking Canadians can point to Quebec's often antagonistic language laws and policies, including Bill 101, as justification for their antipathy. But, unlike the precarious situation of the French language outside of Europe, English is not a threatened language in North America or in the rest of the world for that matter. Despite its irritating laws, Quebec funds three mainly English-language universities while, as I understand it, Ontario funds no primarily French-language university. I wonder how many Ontarians realize that Ontario once tried to essentially ban the use of French in the province's education system? Those who don't should research Regulation 17. My Franco-Ontarian paternal grandfather was a young man when the infamous regulation became law. Based on his own experience, including suffering economic discrimination, he believed that French-Canadians living outside of Quebec were doomed to assimilate and he didn't even try to raise his own children to speak French. He used to say that 'English is the language of money' and more or less left it at that. I doubt that Doug Ford has read much history nor I believe has he studied at any university. Perhaps if he were more aware of Ontario's sometimes ignominious treatment of its Franophone population he might refrain from rubbing salt in a not fully healed wound.

While what you say is true, it applies even more to other languages. For example, sign-language communities are even more marginalized. Also, German Ontarians lost the right to send their children to school in German after WWI, but unlike Franco-Ontarians, have not regained that right to this day.

If I had my way, I'd rename the Ministry 'the Ministry for Language Rights' and broaden its scope to include Deaf, indigenous, and other unofficial language rights too.

As for the Francophone university, just issue school vouchers, let each student present an electronic voucher at the participating university of his choice, and let each participating university teach in the official or unofficial language of its choice. What irritates me the most as a Franco-Ontarian myself is not the ignorance that some anglophones reveal towards French but the ignorance francophones reveal towards other languages. In many respects, French Canadians are just as self-centred as English Canadians on this matter.

[turningrite]

8 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Ontario is not an officially bilingual province.  New Brunswick is the only province/territory that is in all of Canada.  The Ontario government has absolutely no obligation to serve the french language in Ontario.  How many francophones live in Ontario outside the national capital region (which borders Quebec)?

It's true that Ontario is not officially bilingual. But there are vast swaths of Quebec outside of the Montreal region and Eastern Townships where there are very few Anglophones. Quebec, however, still funds extensive English-language services, including three mainly English-language universities, despite the fact that it's official language is explicitly French. Many English-speaking Canadians point to Quebec's French-language laws and the status of French as its sole official language to justify their antipathy. My guess is that many Franco-Ontarians would be quite happy were Ontario to fund French-language services to the same extent English-language services are funded in Quebec.

[Machjo]

8 minutes ago, turningrite said:

It's true that Ontario is not officially bilingual. But there are vast swaths of Quebec outside of the Montreal region and Eastern Townships where there are very few Anglophones. Quebec, however, still funds extensive English-language services, including three mainly English-language universities, despite the fact that it's official language is explicitly French. Many English-speaking Canadians point to Quebec's French-language laws and the status of French as its sole official language to justify their antipathy. My guess is that many Franco-Ontarians would be quite happy were Ontario to fund French-language services to the same extent English-language services are funded in Quebec.

You want the opinioin of a Franco-Ontarian? Well, here's mine:

1. Ontario should rename the Ministry of Francophone Affairs 'the Ministry for Language Rights.'

2. Appoint a Commissioner for Language Rights, a Deputee Commissioner for Deaf Language Rights, a Deputee Commissioner for Indigenous Language Rights, and a Deputee Commissioner for an International Auxiliary Language, but do not increase the Commission's budjet and instead just shrink staff as required to hire the Commissioners. It has fourteen staff members at present, so it should be able to find the savings from that.

3. Establish a school-voucher program that would allow each student to present a voucher to the institution of his choice and allow each institution to teach in the official or unofficial language of its choice accoridng to market supply and demand.

4. Make learning a second language in secondary school compulsory (as is already the case), but let each school teach and each student take the test in the second language of his choice (within reasonable limits like in Hungary) to fulfil the second-language requirement to obtain his secondary-school diploma. in Hungary for example, a student can choose from languages as diverse as Latin, Esperanto, and Hungarian Sign Language among many others.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Machjo

[turningrite]

2 minutes ago, Machjo said:

While what you say is true, it applies even more to other languages. For example, sign-language communities are even more marginalized. Also, German Ontarians lost the right to send their children to school in German after WWI, but unlike Franco-Ontarians, have not regained that right to this day.

If I had my way, I'd rename the Ministry 'the Ministry for Language Rights' and broaden its scope to include Deaf, indigenous, and other unofficial language rights too.

 

The problem with language diversity is critical mass. It simply wouldn't be practical to educate Canadians in vast numbers of languages. And why would Germans living in Canada ever have expected to send their children to German-language schools? For better or worse, Canada has always functioned as a somewhat brittle political pact between its primarily English-language and French-language populations. That's a historical fact that's now a historical legacy. We're increasingly receptive to the notion that Indigenous Canadians, whose history in this country long predates European contact, have a right to maintain their languages even if for practical purposes these languages will likely never be widely used. We also make efforts where possible to address the practical needs of deaf Canadians. Multiple immigrant groups are also for practical purposes provided services in some locations but it would be outrageously unwieldy and expensive to elevate these efforts to "rights" that would compel accommodation. Where else in the world does such a situation exist? If it does anywhere, it would surely fall under the category of an exception that proves a rule.

[Machjo]

As for Anglo-Quebecers, I don't believe they should enjoy more rights than any other of Quebec's unofficial language communities either.

[turningrite]

6 minutes ago, Machjo said:

You want the opinioin of a Franco-Ontarian? Well, here's mine:

1. Ontario should rename the Ministry of Francophone Affairs 'the Ministry for Language Rights.'

2. Appoint a Commissioner for Language Rights, a Deputee Commissioner for Deaf Language Rights, a Deputee Commissioner for Indigenous Language Rights, and a Deputee Commissioner for an International Auxiliary Language, but do not increase the Commission's budjet and instead just shrink staff as required to hire the Commissioners. It has fourteen staff members at present, so it should be able to find the savings from that.

3. Establish a school-voucher program that would allow each student to present a voucher to the institution of his choice and allow each institution to teach in the official or unofficial language of its choice accoridng to market supply and demand.

4. Make learning a second language in secondary school compulsory (as is already the case), but let each school teach and each student take the test in the second language of his choice (within reasonable limits like in Hungary) to fulfil the second-language requirement to obtain his secondary-school diploma. in Hungary for example, a student can choose from languages as diverse as Latin, Esperanto, and Hungarian Sign Language among many others.

1.) NO

2.) NO

3.) NO - If some people want access to such programs they can and should pay for their children to attend private schools.

4.) Maybe this might be a good idea if it were possible but would be very difficult to implement in anything less than a few decades due to the lack of qualified teachers. It's difficult as it is to get qualified teachers to staff French-language immersion programs in many places across Canada. Also, people in places like Europe can move about and practice and maintain their language skills. I have friends who were raised speaking French or other languages who admit they've lost their fluency due to living for years or decades in mainly English-speaking North America.

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, turningrite said:

The problem with language diversity is critical mass. It simply wouldn't be practical to educate Canadians in vast numbers of languages. And why would Germans living in Canada ever have expected to send their children to German-language schools? For better or worse, Canada has always functioned as a somewhat brittle political pact between its primarily English-language and French-language populations. That's a historical fact that's now a historical legacy. We're increasingly receptive to the notion that Indigenous Canadians, whose history in this country long predates European contact, have a right to maintain their languages even if for practical purposes these languages will likely never be widely used. We also make efforts where possible to address the practical needs of deaf Canadians. Multiple immigrant groups are also for practical purposes provided services in some locations but it would be outrageously unwieldy and expensive to elevate these efforts to "rights" that would compel accommodation. Where else in the world does such a situation exist? If it does anywhere, it would surely fall under the category of an exception that proves a rule.

What would have given German Ontarians that idea? Probably the fact that they actually did enjoy that right prior to WWI and in fact had established schools around Berlin Ontario.

As for unofficial language rights, those exist in a few countries. Sweden has a school-voucher program. It's history is interesting too in that the most vocal proponents of the program were members of unofficial language communities, especially the Saami and the Finns. Under the school-voucher program, they do not enjoy the guaranteed right to education in their language, but they do enjoy the freedom to do so according to market supply and demand. The rest is up to them.

In Hungary, any person or NGO can present a course plan for any language to the Ministry of Education which it will then rate according to its pedagogical soundness. Once the plan is approved, any public school can teach it and any student can take a test in it to fulfil the second-language requirement for high-school graduation, again according to teacher supply and parent or student demand.

Indonesia has one official language, Indonesian, which evolved from a trade Pidgin (since systematically developed for use by the state) that few in Indonesia actually speak as a first language. Instead, it serves as the state's official lingual franca. In a sense, Indonesia turns the notion of language rights on its head. In Indonesia, no one has a right to his first language and everyone has an obligation to learn the official language of the state. One advantage with this is that since it's no one's 'ethnic' language, Indonesians therefore have no interest in promoting it as such and instead want to promote it as Indonesia's auxiliary language to serve as a common second language in conjunction with the mother tongue. This is very different from the case in Canada where the state promotes the languages of its two dominant ethnic groups and so has a certain incentive to assimilate others to it.

So yes, others states do recognize the idea of unofficial-language rights.

[Machjo]

5 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1.) NO

2.) NO

3.) NO - If some people want access to such programs they can and should pay for their children to attend private schools.

4.) Maybe this might be a good idea if it were possible but would be very difficult to implement in anything less than a few decades due to the lack of qualified teachers. It's difficult as it is to get qualified teachers to staff French-language immersion programs in many places across Canada. Also, people in places like Europe can move about and practice and maintain their language skills. I have friends who were raised speaking French or other languages who admit they've lost their fluency due to living for years or decades in mainly English-speaking North America.

One reason for the critical shortage of French-language teachers is precicely because Ontario imposes French as a second language in all of its schools. Should it allow more freedom, then more sino-Ontarians might decide to study education in university and teach Chinese as a second language too. Some unilingual Anglo-Ontarians might decide to study Esperanto (due to its ease of learning) and become qualified as second-language teachers too. Some Deaf Ontarians might then have an interest in pursuing a career in second-language education too. Within a generation, we wouldn't have this critical shortage of competent teachers anymore. the reason for the critical shortage is a government-imposed second-language bottleneck in our schools.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Machjo

[Machjo]

By the way, Quebec suffers a similarly critical shortage of English second-language teachers and for the same reason.

[turningrite]

11 minutes ago, Machjo said:

As for Anglo-Quebecers, I don't believe they should enjoy more rights than any other of Quebec's unofficial language communities either.

Apparently, you don't know and/or understand Canadian history? Where are you from?

 

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

What would have given German Ontarians that idea? Probably the fact that they actually did enjoy that right prior to WWI and in fact had established schools around Berlin Ontario.

As for unofficial language rights, those exist in a few countries. Sweden has a school-voucher program. It's history is interesting too in that the most vocal proponents of the program were members of unofficial language communities, especially the Saami and the Finns. Under the school-voucher program, they do not enjoy the guaranteed right to education in their language, but they do enjoy the freedom to do so according to market supply and demand. The rest is up to them.

So yes, others states do recognize the idea of unofficial-language rights.

Informally various immigrant languages may well have persisted in schools in locations where a critical mass of speakers were present. I doubt, however, that Ontario ever explicitly funded German-language schools nor would any aspect of Canada's constitution or its history have compelled it to. As for the Finns and Swedes, there has long been interaction between the Scandinavian countries and respect for each others' languages has a historical component. It's my understanding, however, that by far the most commonly taught second language in Scandinavia and throughout continental Europe for that matter, is English. This has nothing to do with unofficial language rights and instead is grounded in economic factors related to the status of English as the world's modern 'lingua franca'.

[Machjo]

16 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Apparently, you don't know and/or understand Canadian history? Where are you from?

 

Informally various immigrant languages may well have persisted in schools in locations where a critical mass of speakers were present. I doubt, however, that Ontario ever explicitly funded German-language schools nor would any aspect of Canada's constitution or its history have compelled it to. As for the Finns and Swedes, there has long been interaction between the Scandinavian countries and respect for each others' languages has a historical component. It's my understanding, however, that by far the most commonly taught second language in Scandinavia and throughout continental Europe for that matter, is English. This has nothing to do with unofficial language rights and instead is grounded in economic factors related to the status of English as the world's modern 'lingua franca'.

I could be wrong, but I think English is compulsory in Scandinavian secondary schools. Bear i mind though that they're also Germanic countries. France is one country where students do have a choice but overwhelmingly choose Engllish. Qhen France tried to rectify that by making a second foreign language compulsory, they overwhelmingly turned to German as their second foreign language. So yes, it doesn't always work in all countries, but even the French system still has the virtue of giving choice at least in principle. Where choice of the second language has proven more successul is Hungary where only around 40% of students actually choose English, around 30% German, and shockingly, Esperanto comes in a distant third followed by French in close fourth followed by other languages numbering over fourty from which to chooce.

As to why it's proven so successful in Hungary, I can only guess that it might have to do with regional factors. I know Poland allows at least English, German, French, and Esperanto too, so the language policies of neighbouring countries might play a role to an extent.

As for Canadian history, I know enough to know that the notion of 'two founding races' is a myth. I've read the B&B Commission report. In fact, did you know that the only linguist by profession among the Commissioners wrote a dissenting opinion in the report with the main focus of his dissent surrounding the notion of 'two founding races.' Also, did you know that Chinook Jargon, an indigenous language of the pacific Northwest, borrowed words from Chinese too? Did you know that Ukrainian Canadians consider themselves among the 'founding races' of Canada too? You'll find that in the dissenting option of the B&B Commission report if you read it.

The report makes for dry reading, granted, but I think one can not truly understand the development of the notion of 'two founding races' without reading at least Book I of that report. Perhaps ironcally, my reading of that report made me further reject the notion of 'two founding races.' I say ironically since except for the dissenting opinion, the rest of it attempts to convince me to adopt the notion of 'two founding races.'

Edited December 4, 2018 by Machjo