Here is what I found.The Annoyed Man wrote:No, but you said that you thought so about Americans who don't learn a second language, unless I misread your previous posts in this thread.karl wrote:Never said you did.mctowalot wrote:I never considered anyone foolish for not speaking perfect English, nor did I think they were lazy.
By the way, I am bilingual. I spoke French before I ever spoke English, and I can still carry on a fairly fluent conversation in French today. But I don't speak in French to my French-speaking relatives in front of non-French speakers. That would be rude, since I am fully capable of speaking English. But more importantly, when I'm in France - as a guest of that nation - I don't speak English with my relatives in front of non-English speakers, because that would be doubly rude.
My mother, bless her obsessive soul, speaks about 8 languages, including ancient Greek (which nobody speaks anymore), Latin, Spanish, Arabic, and a smattering of Russian. But then, she is a professional linguist with 14 published academic books under her belt.
But I don't speak Spanish. I don't think I have any obligation to learn Spanish. If I choose to do so, it will be because I have developed a casual interest in it, or perhaps because I may feel drawn to a mission field in a Spanish speaking country in the future; but not because someone else thinks I have an obligation to do so. And I certainly will refuse to learn it just because some other folks think I'm lazy if I don't. They can go pee up a rope. It is my observation that today's breed of immigration activist views it as an entitlement for immigrants that the rest of us must learn to speak the immigrant language, instead of the quite normal and logical expectation of immigrants (both on the parts of Americans and on the parts of the immigrants) of previous generations that they should attach a high priority to learning our language.
Never before in the entire panoply of human history has it ever been considered politically correct and expected for the citizens of even a welcoming host nation to have to learn the language of the primary (or even the secondary or tertiary) immigrant group. That has always been an illogical supposition, and it remains one today. The notion that citizens are lazy because they don't want to have to do it is a false accusation. People are busy. They are trying to live their lives and earn their wages -- some of which will be confiscated for the benefit of the immigrant population -- and they don't have time to devote to it. If they would rather relax in the evening and watch reruns of Hawaii Five 0 instead of taking a language class, who can blame them? As the government dithers about controlling immigration (please note that I said control, not limit, which are two very different things), is it any wonder that these same taxpayers have some frustrations, which in addition to being frustrated about having to contribute financially to immigrant populations who are here illegally, also spill over into frustrations about being expected to learn the immigrant language too?
BTW, will someone clue this old fart as to the meaning of "EE.UU?" Thank you very much.
EEUU-"Estados Unidos" is abbreviated as "EEUU" (also: EE. UU.) because in
Spanish the abbreviation for a plural item doubles the letter of the
abbreviation. The same is done, for example, with the abbreviation for
"Fuerzas Armadas" (= Armed Forces), which is "FF. AA.", indicating
that the abbreviation relates to a plural term.
The English language knows this custom too, albeit in a few cases
only. For instance, the abbreviation for "page" in singular is "p.",
while "pages" in plural are abbreviated as "pp.".
Sometimes, however, the abbreviation "EUA" (Estados Unidos de América)
for the United States is indeed used in Spanish, but not often.