< PREVIOUS ]   [ 1988 Index ]   [ Ed Quillen HOME ]   [ SEARCH ]   [ NEXT >


Don't give English to the government

Published 30-Oct-1988 in the Denver Post
Copyright ©1988 by Ed Quillen. All rights reserved.

It's time to get serious about Amendment 1 on the Colorado ballot, which would enshrine English as the official language of our state, but would not change Colorado's name to Red.

Nor would making English the official state language affect any federal laws which concern bilingual ballots, bilingual education, etc. Such federal laws would remain in force. Official English would merely make a statement, a statement that many people would understandably interpret as an insult.

Beyond that, there is no better way to ruin the English language than to make it official.

As languages go, English certainly has flaws. It's highly idiomatic, so that a literal interpretation of what you say is often the exact opposite of what you meant: I could care less. Your check is in the mail.

Our orthography is, to put it mildly, inconsistent. George Bernard Shaw once noted that we should spell fish as ghoti -- the gh of cough, the o of women, and the ti of motion.

English punctuation is another nightmare. Judging by what I see in correspondence, on signs, and in newspapers, not one Coloradan in 10 can distinguish among plurals, possessives, and contractions -- just look at the house signs that say the Smith's or all the printed confusions between its the possessive and it's the contraction.

But all living languages have flaws, and the virtues of English have allowed it to become the most widely used language on earth. English is most flexible, as reflected in the dialects you can hear at any city bus stop: melodious pidgins, jive-talk Black English, languid Southern drawls, Kansas twangs, cowboys with hyperbolic metaphors. None of those is or ever could be official, but we generally manage to understand each other.

English is also extensible. We grab words and phrases all the time: opossum and moose from Algonquian Indians, boss and waffle from the Dutch, carburetor and faux pas from the French, weltanshauung from the Germans, and so forth, for thousands of words. It is almost amusing that some supporters of Amendment 1 have referred to English as the lingua franca of our society.

Making English official will destroy the flexibility and extensibility that make English so useful. Some governmental body will have to decide what meets official standards. Do we want to be like the French, with their official academy which keeps French pure, so that they're stuck saying pomme de terre (apple of the earth), while we were free to adopt the Taino word, potato?

Official academies freeze an official version of the language. Over time, the ruling and educated classes will use one language, and the general public another. That happened in Europe, when unchanging Latin was the official language of the bureaucracies, while the public used vulgar variants that became Spanish, Italian, French, etc. That might explain why those days are known as the Dark Ages.

Making English official will put the control of our language into the hands of government. Governments are among the foremost abusers of English; the incomprehensibility of bureaucratic jargon is legendary.

Governments always use language to obscure truth.Recall the proposed revenue enhancements from a Reagan administration which opposed tax increases? Or Richard Nixon's insistence that we did not invade Cambodia, an act of war; it was just a harmless little incursion?

As George Orwell put it in his essay, Politics and the English Language: Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification.... People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of undesirable elements.

Orwell made another point in another work, 1984. A government with the power to control the language thereby has the power to control thought. While this may be appealing to some authoritarian types, it is a long ways from what America is supposed to stand for.

If you cherish your freedom to think, you don't want an official language. And if you love English and delight in it, you will want to keep our marvelous language out of the hands of government.


< PREVIOUS ]   [ 1988 Index ]   [ Ed Quillen HOME ]   [ SEARCH ]   [ NEXT >