English only?
Don Coldsmith
Monday, March 19, 2007
I’VE BEEN interested in the sudden efforts in the past few months to establish a “national language.” Most of us in the United States have grown up speaking English, but it’s also to be noticed that many of the parents of my generation spoke another language. In my case, it was German. My grandmother would rock me to sleep with a German lullaby. An uncle, in another branch of the family, spoke Scottish, and in my wife’s family there’s a touch of Welsh.
In most cases, it has simply become easier to adapt, but not mandatory. The Kansas town of Lindsborg, for instance, is proud of Swedish ancestry and the nickname, “Little Sweden.” The king of the original Sweden visited Lindsborg a few years ago, a real honor. Street signs and store placards are often in Swedish and their annual celebrations in costume, with parades, music and street dancing, could pass for the real thing. But, there’s no pressure to do so.
There are other examples in our Midwest, but that’s not the point. It has always been possible to retain the “mother tongue” of one’s ancestry. It was simply easier to bend a little and easier to communicate with the neighbors.
In other parts of the world, most children grow up learning at least three languages, because they hear all of them in daily use. I’ve seen this first-hand and marveled at its efficiency. There seems to be no problem in sorting out these differences, even if they are learning all at the same time. The human brain sorts it out with no confusion and much more easily if it begins very early.
Let’s face it — English is a somewhat inferior hash of a wide variety of other cultures’ words, including those of some quite advanced civilizations: Egyptian, Greek, Latin, Norse, others going back into pre-history.
All of this came to mind recently when I was reading about an effort in Oklahoma to declare English to be the official State Language. I see some problems there, perhaps more than in most other states. This was brought into the open with a protest by Chad Smith, principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. Notice the term “nation.” We’re not talking “reservations” here. There are a number of the American Indian cultures which have national status within the boundaries of the United States. Oklahoma has more of these than any other area, I believe. I can recall as a kid in southeast Kansas, that the old timers referred to Oklahoma as “Down in the Nations” — The Indian nations, of course.
Now, the question arises: Does the State of Oklahoma have the authority to force such a regulation on the sovereign status of the Cherokee nation? And besides Cherokee, there are a least thirty other Indian nations in Oklahoma. Most have their own languages, dating back for centuries.
And what about “Indian” words that we use already? For instance, a very usable Cherokee expression of agreement that was adopted quite early by the whites. Even before the Trail of Tears, a Cherokee expression of agreement had been adopted almost universally. It’s been translated and used for so long that its origin is almost forgotten. It has been spelled in several ways, phonetically, of course. It’s a peaceful word, implying that all is well. “Oh-keh.” Literally, the meaning is understood universally. Oh-keh, Okay, O.K. — Any way it’s spelled, its meaning is clear, and understood by all.
Now if the State of Oklahoma is to declare English as the official language, it brings along a great many problems. Not only the question of the dozens of nations within the state who are NATIONS with geographic sovereignty of their own. Obviously, it would not be okay to say okay, no matter how appropriate, if the state of Oklahoma insists on English only.
And, if Oklahomans are limited to English, what happens if they cross over into Creek, Seminole or any other of some 30 Indian nations? Would we have to be limited to using THOSE unfamiliar tongues, instead of the use of the foreign mishmash that we call English?
Here’s hoping that wiser thoughts prevail. I’d hate to have to learn a new language to visit Cherokee friends in case the Cherokee Nation decided to reject English. After all, it’s a two-way street! Okay?
See you down the road.
Author and columnist Don Coldsmith lives in Emporia.
Phil_Dillon (anonymous) says...
Mr. Coldsmith
I agree with a lot you've said. My wife and I have hosted international students who use three or four (in one case five) languages interchangeably. I don't think the notion of official languages is necessary.
Myself, I speak and write in English. I've studied Latin, Greek, and French and have found them to be rich languages.
I do not agree with you on one thing. English is hardly an inferior language. It's true that is has roots in Europe and has borrowed words from other languages. That, to me, means that it's a very alive, creative language. Some, like Shakespeare and Miton, have used used prose so well that what they've passed on to us are masterpieces known in every language and culture.
Also, I know of few languages that don't borrow from other cultures. I've heard French folks say, "Je vais au boxing match." I've heard Vietnamese people use the expression, "Okay." Would that mean that Vietnamese is an "inferior hash" because it has used a word rooted in the Cherokee language?
I can't say that. I speak little Vietnamese, but I hear it often since we have a Vietnamese college student living with us. I can say for sure that Vietnamese if a rich, beautiful language, It's rythmic, almost musical.
I'm all for freedom of expression in language. I think it enriches us immensely. That includes the use of English. It is far from an inferior language.
March 20, 2007 at 7:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )