The fact that street signs in Romania are not bi-lingual is a small part of
the complaints of Hungarians.  Indeed, they are asking for the ability to
use  the Hungarian language in government offices, courts, etc., especially
in areas where the proportion of Hungarians is above a certain number.

Proponents of the official English language in the US would like to prohibit
exactly this kind of bi-or multi-lingualism. I agree with Jeliko, there is a
big difference between people speaking various languages voluntarily
migrating to the US, with the knowledge that English is spoken here (as many
readers of this list did) or sitting in your home and the border of another
country (with its official language) moving over you.

In this sense I would think that those Spanish speaking people in the South,
who moved into the US by the border moving South should be able to use their
language. During my recent visit to New Mexico I had the impression that
they were.

Gabor D. Farkas

In article >, 
says...
>
>At Sun Aug  4 21:17:25 EDT 1996 HUNGARY #749 Farkas D. Gabor wrote:
>
>>>[...] nobody was ever taught the original
>>>name of Rakosi, Farkas (no relation, hopefully ;-) to our Gabor), and
some
>of
>>>the others mentioned in this context.  So identifying their original
names
>>>may provide additional information, not commonly available to the
average
>>>layman.
>>
>>I don't know if there is a relation.
>
>So you see, Gabor, knowing the original name can help.
>All you need to know is what your (or your ancestors')
>original name was.  Unfortunately, I can't help you with
>Mihaly Farkas' original name: all I remember is his first
>name: Beni.
>
>>Why? If this Farkas were related to me, would I be in any way
responsible
>>for his deeds, whatever they are? Also, please tell me, what is the
value of
>>the additional information so obtained?
>
>Of course you would not be responsible.  But I guess you
>wouldn't be real proud, either.  Hopefully :-)
>The value of the information, for you, would be to either
>prove or disprove the relationship, since you don't know.
>
>>>The fact that they happened to be Jewish names need not worry the Jews
on
>>>this list.  I don't think anyone here is going to be blamed for the
crimes
>of
>>>Rakosi and his ilk.
>>
>>I hope not. However, here is my (in your opinion paranoid) view: when
>>someone writes Rakosi (Rosenfeld), he is planting and promoting the
idea
>>that the whole communist plague was brought upon us by Jews. And why
are the
>>Jews paranoid about this? There is a good Romanian saying about this:
once
>>you burn your mouth with the soup, you blow even the yoghurt.
>>
>I like this saying.  How true.
>
>>>I guess the fear is that someone, by compiling the list of evildoers
and
>>>showing that a certain number of them were Jewish will, somehow, come
up
>with
>>>a theory of some Jewish conspiracy.
>>
>>This is not fear. This is happening. Because those who compile these
lists
>>don't stop there.
>>
>>>  And these good people think that the
>>>best defense against such a thing happening is to silence, at whatever
>cost,
>>>those who would advance such ideas.  But this is dead wrong.
Precisely by
>>>not confronting ideas they think erroneous or harmful, they lend
credence
>to
>>>some of the craziest theories.
>
>>One thing I cannot be accused of is that I did not confront these
ideas.
>
>I mean confront them with arguments, not by name-calling.
>
>>>  Let those who will advance theories of
>>>conspiracy of any kind speak their mind, then offer counterarguments
to
>>>demolish those theories in a fair debate.  That is what I mean by
"search
>for
>>>the truth wherever it may lead".  The truth will triumph in rational
>debate.
>>> Irrational theories will be laughed out of the arena.
>>
>>We are saturated with quotes from The Protocols of The Elders of Zion
and
>>other "scholarly" works. They have been laughed out already.  But they
just
>>won't stop.
>>
>>Gabor D. Farkas
>
>I don't know what the Protocols are.  Are they real or forged documents?
>If, as you imply, they are not real, why waste time on them?  I would
>appreciate it if you would briefly describe them to me.  Thanks in
advance.
>
>Ferenc

The Protocols are a forgery issued by Tsarist Russia.  And we have to
"waste"time on them because all the viciously antisemitic publications
quote them as real.

Agnes

At 01:02 PM 8/9/96 -0400, JFerengi wrote:

>I figured that Farkas did a lot of work and might be right after all. I
>wanted to be open minded even though there were  little holes in the
>proofs.
>Maybe the little holes were not enough to sink the Farkas ship. Maybe they
>were insignificant.
>So, I figured that my best course of action would be to personally
>investigate each item on the list rather than take one person's
>editorialized
>version as being definitive.

I tried not to editorialize my quotes from NPA. I also mentioned, that I
only researched a very small portion of his postings.

>So, I emailed both Farkas and NPA. I informed each that I was e mailing
>the
>other.
>I took the first item from Farkas' LIST. It had to do with the "origins of
>Jesus".


JFerengi did not read my original posting very carefully. The item he chose
to check out (after deciding to "investigate each item") happened to be a
quote form Z. Szekely. The only reason I included that quote was, that I
found it interesting that even Szekely, a defender of NPA compared NPA's
ideas with that of Rosenberg, Hitler's ideologue.

>I asked Farkas what he thought NPA's views were on the origins of Jesus
>and
>how those views were proof that NPA was anti-semitic.
>Farkas said that he was not inclined to elaborate.


Well, I am not an expert in Jesus and therefore I indeed did not want to
elaborate. As I mentioned above, I was referring to a debate between NPA and
Z. Szekely.

>I asked NPA what his views were on the origins of Jesus and why someone
>might
>feel that those views are indicative of antisemitism.
>NPA responded by volunteering to send me a 20 page history of Jesus if I
>so
>desired. I did not so desire.


NPA will send you 20 pages about anything. The question usually is: where
are his quotes from. My quotes were from his own postings.

>So, I'm back to square one.

I don't think you ever moved away from it.

Gabor D. Farkas

On Fri, 9 Aug 1996 01:46:06 GMT  George Szaszvari
> wrote:

> Does the USA really have a unilingual law a la despotic Slovakia and
> Romania? What about all those Spanish speakers in the SW?

FYI, I am attaching herewith a copy of the report which was sent by
 (Johanna Rubba) on Thu, 8 Aug 1996
11:47:33 -0500  to the Linguist-list (BTW, I hope that quoting from
other lists is no breach of netiquette!?).

It seems to me that the English-Only Bill purports to stem the Spanish
flood in the States.

I realize indeed that this topic possibly is beyond the scope of the
Hungarian Discussion List and I apologize in advance with the list-readers,
but I'd like to hear the opinion of our friends living in the USA.

Kindest regards

          Paolo Agostini >

> -------------------------------------------------------------------
 LINGUIST List: Vol-7-1121.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>From our Washington correspondent, James Crawford (July 25, 1996):
>
>A modified English-Only bill, approved yesterday by the House Economic
>and Educational Opportunities Committee, appears to be on a
>legislative fast track.  After months of inaction, H.R.123 (the
>"Language of Govern- ment Act") is suddenly a priority for House
>Republican leaders.  The measure is expected to come to a vote late
>next week, before Congress leaves for its August recess.  With nearly
>200 cosponsors and a clear display of party discipline in committee,
>the English-Only bill seems likely to pass in the House, although
>Senate support remains uncertain.
>
>If enacted, H.R.123 would designate English as the official -- and
>sole permissible -- language of U.S. government business, with only a
>few exceptions.  The use of other languages would be permitted for
>purposes of national security, international trade and diplomacy,
>public safety, and criminal proceedings.
>
>To mollify critics of the bill's restrictiveness, Rep. Randy
>Cunningham (R-Calif.) proposed an amended version of H.R.123 that
>would also waive the English-Only mandate in the case of language
>education -- including programs funded under the Bilingual Education
>Act and the Native American Languages Act -- public health, census
>activities, and civil lawsuits brought by the U.S. government.  It
>would also exempt oral communications with the public by federal
>employees, officials, and members of Congress. Federal publications --
>that is, virtually all written materials -- in languages other than
>English would still be banned.  The House committee passed the
>Cunningham "substitute" on a vote of 19 Republicans in favor and 17
>Democrats against.  The committee's day-long session was remark- able
>for its rancor and partisanship, even by the standards of the 104th
>Congress.  Democrats accused the Republican majority of desperately
>seeking to exploit anti-immigrant feeling in an election year, even if
>that meant violating constitutional principles of free speech and
>equal rights.  "What about people who think in another language?"
>asked ranking Democrat Bill Clay (Mo.).  "Would your bill prohibit
>that?"  Republicans labeled such attacks as "demagogy," insisting they
>merely want to unite the country through a common language and help
>newcomers learn English.
>
>Rep. Matthew Martinez (D-Calif.) argued that the bill would deprive
>limited English speakers of essential rights and services while doing
>nothing to address the acute shortage of adult English classes in
>cities like New York and Los Angeles.  (In the past two years,
>Congressional budget cutters have substantially reduced federal
>support for such classes.)  "The idea that people who come to this
>country don't want to speak English is the sickest thing I've ever
>heard," Martinez said, accusing the bill's proponents of "promoting
>fear" of language minorities. "I'm sorry that people on the other side
>of the aisle are so insecure that they feel they need to do this," he
>said.
>
>Cunningham responded to Martinez: "You want to keep people in the
>barrio" by discouraging them from learning English.  "We want to
>empower them." Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-N.C.) added that "the purpose of
>this bill isn't just to make people speak English; it's to help them
>reach the American dream."  As a small business owner, Ballenger said
>he had personally sponsored language classes for his foreign-born
>employees.  "My Vietnam- ese are the best workers in the world because
>they can speak English," he said.
>
>Citing the majority's refusal to discuss constitutional objections or
>to justify any need for the legislation, Rep. Pat Williams
(D-Mont.)
>called the session "the most maddening debate I've sat through in my
>18 years in Congress."  Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) observed that even
>though everyone was speaking English, there was little communication
>taking place between the two sides.
>
>Throughout the day the partisan split was consistent in votes on
>several proposed amendments, with not a single defection from either
>the Demo- cratic or Republican side.
>
>The committee rejected an amendment by Del. Carlos Romero-Barcelo
>(D-Puerto Rico) that would have allowed federal agencies to
>communicate in other languages to promote government efficiency.  Rep.
>Jan Meyers (R-Kans.) argued that such an exemption would "totally gut
>the bill. What we're saying is that agencies must communicate in
>English....If I was in China, I wouldn't expect their government to
>print everything in my language."
>
>The lawmakers then approved a proposal by Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
>to extend English-only restrictions to all "publications,
>informational materials, income-tax forms, and the contents of franked
>[i.e., Con- gressional and other U.S. government] mail." Under
>questioning, Graham conceded that his amendment would forbid virtually
>any written communi- cation by a federal agency in another language,
>including the tourist- oriented pamphlets of the National Park
>Service.  Graham insisted, however, that "common sense" would
>eliminate any need to remove "E Pluribus Unum" from U.S. currency and
>coins.
>
>Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Hi.) offered an amendment to keep the bill from in-
>fringing the freedom of speech, due process, and equal protection of
>the law.  But Republicans objected to including what Graham called a
>"laundry list" of constitutional rights.  Instead, they inserted an
>assurance that H.R.123 was not intended to conflict with the U.S.
>Constitution.
>
>Finally, the committee rejected an English Plus substitute proposed by
>Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.).  It would have removed the bill's re-
>strictive features and advocated a policy of encouraging the
>acquisition of English, plus other languages, to promote international
>competitive- ness and preserve cultural resources.  Before voting
>against the Becerra amendment, Cunningham conceded that "we're fools
>if we don't learn other languages in this country."  But he insisted
>that language restrictions are necessary because of "a propensity for
>more and more Americans not to speak English" -- citing anecdotal
>evidence from his own Congressional district in south San Diego.
>
>Until this week, H.R.123 had appeared to be going nowhere.  Its chief
>sponsor, Rep. Bill Emerson (R-Mo.), recently died after a long bout
>with cancer.  House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a longtime backer of
>English-Only legislation, apparently decided the measure could boost
>Republicans' prospects in the 1996 election.  As recently as May,
>Committee chairman Bill Goodling (R-Pa.) had assured the Joint
>National Committee for Languages that he would block the bill from
>reaching the House floor. But Goodling did an unexplained about-face
>yesterday, along with Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-Wisc.) and other members
>of the majority side who had expressed reservations about H.R.123
>during committee hearings.
>
>In the Senate, Republicans have postponed three scheduled votes on a
>companion measure, S.356, where support is weaker than on the House
>side of the Capitol.  Meanwhile, the Justice and Education departments
>have spoken out in opposition.  But President Clinton, who once signed
>a similar measure as governor of Arkansas, has yet to commit himself
>publicly on federal English-Only legislation.
>
>                                    --Jim Crawford
>                                    
>
^^^^^^^^

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 Thanks, Paolo!
On Sat, 10 Aug 1996, Paolo Agostini wrote:
> FYI, I am attaching herewith a copy of the report which was sent by
>  (Johanna Rubba) on Thu, 8 Aug 1996
> 11:47:33 -0500  to the Linguist-list (BTW, I hope that quoting from
> other lists is no breach of netiquette!?).
 Certainly not if it is relevant.

> It seems to me that the English-Only Bill purports to stem the Spanish
> flood in the States.
 And the Asians as well - particularly in California many areas are
majority non-English speaking now.

> I realize indeed that this topic possibly is beyond the scope of the
> Hungarian Discussion List and I apologize in advance with the list-readers,
> but I'd like to hear the opinion of our friends living in the USA.
 If for no other reason than the Eastern European nationalists being bound
to cite this as an example of apropriateness of pushing language
monopoly, it does have unfortunate relevance to us.
 I knew that there have been attempts to such legislature in the USA
(struck down in the states mostly on constitutional grounds, I believe) -
but was not aware that they got this far on the federal level. Seems to me
that desperation got the best, as it were, of the Republican right.
Incidentally, it may be fun to watch as they are headed to the election:
as much as one can believe what's written in the National Review, The New
American and the likes, this may be the first time to see them
self-destruct the way ususally seen by the Dems ;-(...

- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgx3lsQ/4s87M5ohAQGnNAH+IIuSGRWu6/cWbjnaCL4qVEPfuWbQ/Qm0
8V7VnlhiG/dNdLHchu9Yiagk+TKjNK7ysPyVT6L6Bfvw2CbgpN57Dw==
=Mnbd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 11:05 PM 8/9/96 -0400, JFerengi wrote:
>Sorry that I did not make clear what I meant by 'source'.
>
>I was referring only to your use of the recent Farkas List as a source to
>prove that NPA  is anti semitic.
>
>I know absolutely nothing about the radio show. And I know nothing about
>Nemenyi naming people.

        But if you know so little about the case, why do you feel compelled
to write so many posts on it.

        (1) I didn't need "the recent Farkas List as a source." I have been
reading NPA's writings in the original for over two and a half years, and in
the first month I knew that he was enamored with the idea of an
international Jewish conspiracy. Gabor collected a few samplings for those
on the list who didn't have the "pleasure" of reading them in the original
Hungarian.

        (2) Nemenyi didn't name people *yet," but he is threatening to do
so, when he gets his evidence from the Department of Energy. However, in the
last two and a half months there were so many hints concerning the possible
culprits that by now those who believe NPA are certain that they know who
the "rats" were, to use NPA's expression.

        Eva Balogh

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 Just after reading Paolo's crosspost I found this article on SCM, and am
forwarding it here for the interesting twist on the language issue in
cyberspace, with a censorship angle.
 The original copy had an Esperanto version as well, I only copy the English
(irony, oh ;-)).

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 07 AUG 1996 10:59:00 GMT
From: Laszlo Szilvasi >
Newgroups: soc.culture.magyar
Subject: Betiltott spanyol nyelv ...

This article appeared on the Albany, NY, USA, newspaper,
on July 26th, 1996:

San Francisco.  America Online, the nation's largest online
service,reversed a week-old English-only rule in a soccer
discussion forum after angry spanish-speaking subscribers
called it racist and threatened to cancel.

Many of the regulars in the forum hail from countries where
soccer verges on a religion, and they flooded AOL with irate
e-mail messages complaining that their Spanish postings were
being deleted as quickly as they wrote them.

"AOL's supposed to let you communicate with the world, but
we can't talk about our teams?" said Marcelo Rossetti, a
Burlingame,California, graphic designer who led the protest.

On Thursday, AOL issued a public apology and a note that "AOL
now encourages members to post multilingual messages."

The rule, which took effect July 17, came about because
America Online strives to maintain a G-rating for all its
public areas -- which requires being able to understand
what's been said.  None of the volunteers who monitored the
forum for offensive statements spoke the language.

"We couldn't read the postings in Spanish or Portuguese,"
said AOL spokeswoman Cathy Johnson.

Although  __English is the unofficial language__  of
cyberspace, the use of other languages is growing as more
people globally get online.

- --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMgx4/MQ/4s87M5ohAQGxgwH7BaWFAmlelJMXJH17EV0KOh4QqTLp8eO3
bBK2CM4YYuTjy203Z9X2VDuCk8BP/+W3JSYVVSDK9u2K6fguJWP/ag==
=b7IK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Yes it was realy so refreshing not to see for 2 day anithing about the
Nemenyi files.It would be nice if you could enrich us with further delay in
this subject till Mr.Nemenyi comes out with his list?
Andy.

Farkas Gabor wrote:
> JFerengi did not read my original posting very carefully. The item he chose
> to check out (after deciding to "investigate each item") happened to be a
> quote form Z. Szekely. The only reason I included that quote was, that I
> found it interesting that even Szekely, a defender of NPA compared NPA's
> ideas with that of Rosenberg, Hitler's ideologue.
Farkas Gabor has an oversimplified point of view here (as in many
other question).

1. I am not a defender of Nemenyi. What I claim is that he is not
   a Nazi. He is a neo-encyclopedian thinker, who has the (maybe
   wrong) idea, that encyclopedianism is still relevant in the end
   of the 20'th century.
2. I am a defender of the free speech, which appropriates from the
   First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
3. The attacks on Nemenyi are, in fact, attacks of the political
   views of the ACLU, the advocate of free speech in America, and
   fit into the frames of an anti-ACLU movement of a radical leftish
   group, governed by resentment and dissatifaction toward the
   liberated expression of political views in the USA.
4. Nemenyi never claimed, that the views, he quoted about the birth
   of Christ, are his own. I never compared his own ideas to that
   of Rosenberg. What happened is that Nemenyi quoted some very
   questionable views, which still would not make him an anti-Christian.
   (On the other hand, Hitler's chief ideologist, Rosenberg, was a real,
   'echte' anti-Christian as Hitler was himself.)
5. I know, that the historical facts of the birth of Christ are
   under question by many political/historian groups. The plane denial
   of these facts (as recollected in the Bible) would not make anybody
   an anti-Christian. It is a sign only, that the person is not a
   Christian.
                                                             Sz. Zoli

In article >, 
says...
>There is a movement to require English to be the official language in both
>state and federal  level.
>But, this is somewhat different from what is being practiced elsewhere.
>City names are not changed on the basis of who is there. Just see the
<snip>..

Right, as I guessed. Probably just the Canadians in a typical burst of,
er, "friendly rivalry", over-stating their arguments to the detriment
of the US ;-)  Sure, such a huge mosaic of peoples and cultures must
also differ wildly from state to state, town to town...it's must be a
good idea to to have English as the lingua franca of such a large and
diverse country to help keep it unified, while allowing long-standing
indigenous languages and cultures to flourish (so long as any group
doesn't get ideas about seceding from the Union). Neither do I hear
about Spanish speaking Americans trying to annex the SW back to Mexico,
even if the Alamo is recaptured from the gringos every Saturday night
by General Tequila and his crew.  :-)

Regards

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * ARM Club * C=64..ICPUG * NW London CC

Right ON!
JudoHun

In article >,
 says...
>
>Here is some background information to this new thread.
>
>At 10:40 AM 8/5/96 -0400, Frank Aycock wrote:
>
>>Actually, if the U.S. did take over Canada then English would become
the
>>official language of Canada, too, like the Congress is doing right now.
>>Canadians would no longer need bilingual signs! :-) :-) :-)
>
>Then, at 12:43 PM 8/5/96, I wrote:
>
>I'm in favour of bilingual signs.  Official bilingualism acknowledges
that
>Canada is not just an English speaking nation.  It also sets Canadians
apart
>from that 'Great Satan' to the south.
>
>I think that bilingual signs would be a good think in Slovakia and
Romania.
>It would make the Magyar speaking people feel a bit more at home in
those
>countries.  As it is now, the Slovak and Romanian law makers just have
to
>glance at America's unilingual law and feel that they too are moving in
the
>right direction.
>
>At 12:31 AM 8/9/96 GMT, Agnes Heringer wrote:
>
>>Hear, hear!  Maybe you send an E-mail message about this to the Quebec
>>government!
>
>At 01:46 AM 8/9/96 GMT, George Szaszvari wrote:
>
>>Some other off-hand examples that come to mind are: Belgium, with three
>>official languages, albeit German being localised around Eupen, having
>>a good mixture of French and Flemish road signs where the linguistic
>>communities are in proximity to one another. London's Chinatown, where
>>the street names are in both English and Chinese characters, etc, etc.
>>
>>Does the USA really have a unilingual law a la despotic Slovakia and
>>Romania? What about all those Spanish speakers in the SW?
>
>I think the Americans are scared silly by all the Spanish speakers in
the
>South Western States.  I may be wrong on this, but I once read that
English
>is growing everywhere in the world except in the American South West.
>There, Spanish is growing faster than English.
>
>As we approach the next millennium it might be appropriate for the
United
>Nations to pass an international law that would guarantee minority
language
>rights around the world.  Certainly a percentage would have to be agreed
>upon and historical facts would have to be considered.  The percentage
would
>have to be local, regional, or national.  Let's assume that 10 percent
is a
>workable number.
>
>How would such a law work in Romania, for example?
>
>In Romania, Magyar speakers are less than 10 percent of the total
>population.  However, in Transylvania more than 10 percent of the
population
>is Magyar speaking.  Accordingly, Transylvania should be an officially
>bilingual region.  If Magyar speakers made up more than 10 percent of
the
>population of Romania then all of Romania should be officially
bilingual.
>
>How would such a law work in a city like Toronto, for example?
>
>Toronto is a multicultural and multilingual city.  Street signs are
already
>in Chinese and English in Toronto's Chinatowns, Greek and English in the
>Greek areas, etc..   Many business and municipal services are already
>available in a plethora of languages in Toronto.  The new law would make
>official, throughout the city and not just the ethnic neighbourhood, any
>language that was spoken by more than 10 percent of the total
population.
>
>A United Nations minority language law would make it next to impossible
for
>petty local politicians to feed on racist and intolerant attitudes.
They
>would not be able to pit one ethnic group against another.  Well, they
>might, but the whole world would be watching with great disapproval.
>
>When it comes to bilingualism or multilingualism it should be remembered
>that nothing is being taken away from anyone.  Instead, something is
given
>to those whose numbers warrant.
>
>Joe Szalai
>
>"After all, when you come right down to it, how many people speak the
same
>language even when they speak the same language?"
>          Russell Hoban

Interesting idea, Joe.  We can soon all start to learn to read Chinese
ideogrammes in the Toronto area... (I am just kidding)

Agnes

S&G Frakas said:
The fact that street signs in Romania are not bi-lingual is a small part of
the complaints of Hungarians.  Indeed, they are asking for the ability to
use  the Hungarian language in government offices, courts, etc., especially
in areas where the proportion of Hungarians is above a certain number.

Proponents of the official English language in the US would like to prohibit
exactly this kind of bi-or multi-lingualism.
<<<<
I believe that you are quite mis-informed. While I completely agree with
the basics of your first paragraph...I do not agree with the last one at all.
I agree that Hungarians (and others) should have the ability to have
their own lagnuage signs, etc. IF they are above a certain percentage of
the population in an area. If fact, it makes sense to permit them to
converse, adn interact in their native language.Having Hungarian signs,
schools, etc. in Romania, for example, where the Hungarians are a
significant minority (or some cases the majority) would go a LONG way in
easing tensions.

Now as far as your mis-information...The issue in the USA is NOT that one
will be "prohibited" from using their own language, but rather that in
certain areas, such as voter/elections, schools, government offcies, etc.
the current trend is to "capitulate" to ALL minorities regarless of how
many there are. Let me cite several exmaples. There ar many counties in the
USA that have a certain ethnic minority population that barely exceeds a
few percent (maybe 5). Yet, voter registration, election ballots, school,
government offices "insist" on having documents and so on in these
minority languages. {California is a perfect exmaple] { So is Canada -- the
Fed gov't }.

The cost to benefit ratio is ridiculously low and what does it accomplish??
What happens in the USA (take the Spanish speaking minority as an example
-- in a state with under 5% population) is that these minorities are in fact
being denied a better job, because they are NOT being trained in English
{ which after all in the USA ) is the major language. If a Spanish
sepaking minority wishes to (or for that matter ANY OTHER minority) use
their native language to communicate, have a store sign in ONLY Spanish,
speak Sapnish on the street, et infinitum....no one will stop them, it is
not against the law now NOR will it be!! The issue is more fundamental
than that.  It is a matter of freedom. ALL immigrants that came to the
USA (with very few exceptions) did not speak the language (English). Yet
they all learned and succeeded.  Those that did not remain on the bottom
of the economic and social structure. The beauty of the USA is that we do
have multiculturism adn it is NOT frowned upon. The issue of having
English as the official language has to do with the fact that those who
have learned English (and the vast majority have) want to SAVE MONEY and
effort in this very large and populous country.  Unlike the Hungarians in
the sorrounding countries...who did not WANT to move into those countries.
So the issue is clearly different. I am for English as the offcial
language in the USA (as explained above) AND I am for having Hungarian
signs in ALL areas that have Hungarians of at least 5 to 10% of the
population.

Peter Soltesz