Currently in the United States, there is much hype and bombast about, "our Language." It is a rally point for Patriots, many of whom have never made any other investment. The rural areas of California have many, many, citizens whose concept of patriotism is in how many places they can find to fly a flag. The favorite seems to be flags flown from a 4x4 anchored by rope or cable in the rear bed of the ubiquitous pickup. It is, in fact, not a simple quandary, but there are important considerations that are seldom discussed.

If, as a vehicle of discussion, we assume any abstract country at any random time, the humans will, have a language. Volumes have been written on the relative sophistication and beauty and complexity and power of languages. Some will endlessly argue the merits and beauty of the different tongues. I personally feel that some languages are better at expressing some subjects better than 1) they are at expressing other subjects in that same language, and/or are 2) better or worse at expressing some subjects than are other languages. It is my understanding, from readings in Semantics, that most experts fall back to those same general opinions; i.e., some are better at some things and some are better at others.

So, if we were to play pin-the-tale-on-the-donkey at any place on an Earth map, the language story of every culture will be a history of change. If the language (in its present form) is different now than it once was, then something changed it. One possibility is gradual change over time. In my high school in Oklahoma, our English teacher from back east could scarcely understand our speech, yet I am reasonably sure that "time" in provincial isolation was the primary agent of our change. That included our pronunciation of specific words and the general tang we gave to it. The point is, that the Irish, and German, and English, and the broad selections of pioneers who settled the west soon spoke a very different language than what might have been their lot had they stayed at home. After a rather short time, even the English spoken by expatriate Englishmen had little to do with England's standards.

I think reflection will demand that we accept that languages change even when they stay in "A" place with "A" relatively stable population of native speakers. All the more pertains if the population is not static. Exodus, influx, amelioration, and decay push the instability. One or more instability factors have always been present on this continent. Even in the major Indian tongues the records seem to indicate cross tribal pollination in normal times and drastic change in warfare and during migration.

Given that change did, has, and will occur, it seems to me that we must investigate the things that allow one language to change and/or absorb another. That, by the way, is the normal circumstance; trying to outlaw a language usually succeeds in creating parallel languages. At least it is so until schools, commerce, and time finally elects one prevailing variant. But, by that time, the one elected has almost always absorbed a lot of the other.

And the main instruments of change? There are, I think, three:

One very obvious force for change, is FORCE! When people who speak different languages wage war, the victor usually insists on the use of their language, but the extent may vary. Typically the government itself will use the victors tongue. Business, at least major business and business locations, will tend to function as the victors dictate. Official schools will help the transitions by using and promoting the new tongue. But, this "contamination" is hated and resisted by the populace, and, with enough time, the populace will usually end up using mixture of the old and the new and imposed. Example: the English over the Irish. But, isn't it interesting how an Irishman, George Bernard Shaw, out did the English with their own tongue)?

The second is commerce. A major source of change, but much simpler than war. Even merchants, who are of the prevailing major class, will kowtow to the subject language when money dictates. If one grocery store tends to hire employees who can speak the "non-official" language, that portion of the populace will gravitate to that store.

The third instrument of change is birth rate. If minorities outbreed the majority long enough, they become a balance of power even in the use and power of the first two instruments of change. If there are more of the "new language" users in a time of war, they will be solicited or drafted. If the need is dire and present, the military will find ways to speak to them. If they have the buying power, commerce will court them. If there are enough of them, and the majority does not accommodate them, the majority ends up at war with them. Regarding which, ghetto violence is both extended and fueled by this very problem. The language is an audible tag of position. It is not, admittedly, language alone, but if you allow an exploding birth rate in a disenfranchised atmosphere, the results will be, and are, evolved from and do provoke violence. Denying heritage and language within these parameters is a volatile fuse for a very heavy explosive.

All this is preamble to the central question about whether, or not, "they" must learn "our" language. We need, I think, to be careful how we answer. We must be sure that we know and understand who and what "they" are. It is also conducive to all parties if they also know and understand who and what we are.

We also should not ever assume that "our" language is, in fact, ours. It coexists with us, we use it, we learn it, and we may love it, but it belongs to history. It is not "ours." It has, will, and now is changing! The Spanish speakers have already changed it greatly (a great portion of the names and titles of towns, geography, and history in California are identified and titled in Spanish).

And, by the way, the quickest way in the world to kill a given language is any to keep it from growing, changing, discarding old parts, and absorbing the new. French was, at one time, where English is now; it was the common denominator language of the world. But the French, with conceit and condescension, decided their language had to remain pure … so time and the world ignored the French. I’m sure it is concurrent, but as the use of the French language, France concurrently ceased to be the

number one military power in the world. Whether we remain the preeminent military power in the world is yet to be seen, but if we can't collectively admit, welcome, and embrace the growth and change of English, our language, we WILL wind up like France, and that might also be a part of our loss in international politics.

The arguments, answers, anger and instincts of the "good-ole pickup and flag patriots" all display their tendency to proscribe and dictate. It does not work. It will not work. It will, of certainty, fail from within. The argument of being here first and having our own language is, as a justification, specious. If that were not so, we Americans should all be speaking some variant of American Indian. They were here and they had their own language. If military power at the time when the new languages entered had be the valid and driving justification, we would again be speaking Indian. Even without guns, all the native population needed to expel, or kill, or enslave the new comers was the will to do so. If, and to the extend possible, the prior waves of migration of the “native” Americans probably had similar situations as they moved on other native populations.

If we want to perpetuate "our" language, there is only one sure way; we must seduce the new speakers. But, we must absolutely allow for change, growth, expansion, and transition. We must lead with a carrot, not with a stick. Unfortunately, our schools do a very poor job at this. If we do not effectively continue the four hundred year seduction that created (and fuels) what America is … then we will be left trying to force continuity. And that, I think, would not succeed! And even if it did, the result would no longer be the American Dream; it would cease to exist. Stasis can not be forced.

Jim Lyle is a former Lake County Poet Laureate. He now lives in Yountville.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}