Question: How much fuel did electric train used less than diesel in the middle of 1970 in USSR?

Answer: 25% less fuel per ton-km

In the former Soviet Union, electric traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about 1965 electric railways became more efficient than diesel. <hl> After the mid 1970s electrics used about 25% less fuel per ton-km . <hl> However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to better operating conditions on electrified lines (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.

In the former Soviet Union, electric traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about 1965 electric railways became more efficient than diesel. After the mid 1970s electrics used about <hl> 25% less fuel per ton-km <hl>. However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to better operating conditions on electrified lines (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.

After the mid 1970s electrics used about <hl> 25% less fuel per ton-km <hl> .

question: How much fuel did electric train used less than diesel in the middle of 1970 in USSR?, context: In the former Soviet Union, electric traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about 1965 electric railways became more efficient than diesel. After the mid 1970s electrics used about 25% less fuel per ton-km. However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to better operating conditions on electrified lines (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.


Question: What could be a factor of lower energy consumption for electric trains?

Answer: better operating conditions on electrified lines

In the former Soviet Union, electric traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about 1965 electric railways became more efficient than diesel. After the mid 1970s electrics used about 25% less fuel per ton-km. <hl> However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to better operating conditions on electrified lines (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. <hl> Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.

In the former Soviet Union, electric traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about 1965 electric railways became more efficient than diesel. After the mid 1970s electrics used about 25% less fuel per ton-km. However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to <hl> better operating conditions on electrified lines <hl> (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.

question: What could be a factor of lower energy consumption for electric trains?, context: In the former Soviet Union, electric traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about 1965 electric railways became more efficient than diesel. After the mid 1970s electrics used about 25% less fuel per ton-km. However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to better operating conditions on electrified lines (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.


Question: How much more expensive was diesel compare to electricity per unit?

Answer: 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content

In the former Soviet Union, electric traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about 1965 electric railways became more efficient than diesel. After the mid 1970s electrics used about 25% less fuel per ton-km. However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to better operating conditions on electrified lines (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. <hl> Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content ) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective. <hl>

In the former Soviet Union, electric traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about 1965 electric railways became more efficient than diesel. After the mid 1970s electrics used about 25% less fuel per ton-km. However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to better operating conditions on electrified lines (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about <hl> 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content <hl>) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.

Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about <hl> 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content <hl> ) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.

question: How much more expensive was diesel compare to electricity per unit?, context: In the former Soviet Union, electric traction eventually became somewhat more energy-efficient than diesel. Partly due to inefficient generation of electricity in the USSR (only 20.8% thermal efficiency in 1950 vs. 36.2% in 1975), in 1950 diesel traction was about twice as energy efficient as electric traction (in terms of net tonne-km of freight per kg of fuel). But as efficiency of electricity generation (and thus of electric traction) improved, by about 1965 electric railways became more efficient than diesel. After the mid 1970s electrics used about 25% less fuel per ton-km. However diesels were mainly used on single track lines with a fair amount of traffic so that the lower fuel consumption of electrics may be in part due to better operating conditions on electrified lines (such as double tracking) rather than inherent energy efficiency. Nevertheless, the cost of diesel fuel was about 1.5 times more (per unit of heat energy content) than that of the fuel used in electric power plants (that generated electricity), thus making electric railways even more energy-cost effective.


Question: What caused the energy efficiency to go up?

Answer: energy-intensity dropping

<hl> Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this electricity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. <hl> Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete 2-axle freight cars increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled 2.65% of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was no improvement in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains.

Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this electricity with <hl> energy-intensity dropping <hl> from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete 2-axle freight cars increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled 2.65% of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was no improvement in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains.

question: What caused the energy efficiency to go up?, context: Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this electricity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete 2-axle freight cars increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled 2.65% of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was no improvement in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains.


Question: What type of locomotives got improved during 1950-1973 in Soviet Union?

Answer: electric

<hl> Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this electric ity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. <hl> Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete 2-axle freight cars increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled 2.65% of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was no improvement in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains.

Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this <hl> electric <hl>ity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete 2-axle freight cars increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled 2.65% of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was no improvement in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains.

Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this <hl> electric <hl> ity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop.

question: What type of locomotives got improved during 1950-1973 in Soviet Union?, context: Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this electricity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete 2-axle freight cars increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled 2.65% of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was no improvement in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains.


Question: How much of energy was saved and re-used due to regenerative braking in 1989?

Answer: 2.65%

Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this electricity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete 2-axle freight cars increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). <hl> This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled 2.65% of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. <hl> Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was no improvement in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains.

Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this electricity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete 2-axle freight cars increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled <hl> 2.65% <hl> of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was no improvement in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains.

question: How much of energy was saved and re-used due to regenerative braking in 1989?, context: Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this electricity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete 2-axle freight cars increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled 2.65% of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was no improvement in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains.


Question: Was there an energy efficiency improvement in the period 1974 through 1980?

Answer: no improvement

Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this electricity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete 2-axle freight cars increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled 2.65% of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. <hl> But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was no improvement in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains. <hl>

Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this electricity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete 2-axle freight cars increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled 2.65% of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was <hl> no improvement <hl> in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains.

question: Was there an energy efficiency improvement in the period 1974 through 1980?, context: Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this electricity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete 2-axle freight cars increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled 2.65% of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was no improvement in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains.


Question: Elimination of what helped the efficiency of diesel traction to go up?

Answer: 2-axle freight cars

Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this electricity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. <hl> The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete 2-axle freight cars increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. <hl> However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled 2.65% of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was no improvement in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains.

Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this electricity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete <hl> 2-axle freight cars <hl> increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled 2.65% of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was no improvement in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains.

question: Elimination of what helped the efficiency of diesel traction to go up?, context: Besides increased efficiency of power plants, there was an increase in efficiency (between 1950 and 1973) of the railway utilization of this electricity with energy-intensity dropping from 218 to 124 kwh/10,000 gross tonne-km (of both passenger and freight trains) or a 43% drop. Since energy-intensity is the inverse of energy-efficiency it drops as efficiency goes up. But most of this 43% decrease in energy-intensity also benefited diesel traction. The conversion of wheel bearings from plain to roller, increase of train weight, converting single track lines to double track (or partially double track), and the elimination of obsolete 2-axle freight cars increased the energy-efficiency of all types of traction: electric, diesel, and steam. However, there remained a 12–15% reduction of energy-intensity that only benefited electric traction (and not diesel). This was due to improvements in locomotives, more widespread use of regenerative braking (which in 1989 recycled 2.65% of the electric energy used for traction,) remote control of substations, better handling of the locomotive by the locomotive crew, and improvements in automation. Thus the overall efficiency of electric traction as compared to diesel more than doubled between 1950 and the mid-1970s in the Soviet Union. But after 1974 (thru 1980) there was no improvement in energy-intensity (wh/tonne-km) in part due to increasing speeds of passenger and freight trains.


Question: How many people speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States?

Answer: There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States,

The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States. <hl> There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States, as well as six million Spanish language students. <hl> Together, this makes the United States of America the second largest Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico, and with the United States having more Spanish-speakers than Colombia and Spain (but fewer first language speakers). Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census.

The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States. <hl> There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States, <hl> as well as six million Spanish language students. Together, this makes the United States of America the second largest Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico, and with the United States having more Spanish-speakers than Colombia and Spain (but fewer first language speakers). Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census.

question: How many people speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States?, context: The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States. There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States, as well as six million Spanish language students. Together, this makes the United States of America the second largest Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico, and with the United States having more Spanish-speakers than Colombia and Spain (but fewer first language speakers). Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census.


Question: How many Hispanics speak English too?

Answer: Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census.

The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States. There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States, as well as six million Spanish language students. Together, this makes the United States of America the second largest Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico, and with the United States having more Spanish-speakers than Colombia and Spain (but fewer first language speakers). Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. <hl> Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census. <hl>

question: How many Hispanics speak English too?, context: The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States. There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States, as well as six million Spanish language students. Together, this makes the United States of America the second largest Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico, and with the United States having more Spanish-speakers than Colombia and Spain (but fewer first language speakers). Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census.


Question: What type of language id Spanish?

Answer: Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world.

The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States. There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States, as well as six million Spanish language students. Together, this makes the United States of America the second largest Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico, and with the United States having more Spanish-speakers than Colombia and Spain (but fewer first language speakers). <hl> Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census. <hl>

The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States. There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States, as well as six million Spanish language students. Together, this makes the United States of America the second largest Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico, and with the United States having more Spanish-speakers than Colombia and Spain (but fewer first language speakers). <hl> Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. <hl> Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census.

question: What type of language id Spanish?, context: The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States. There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States, as well as six million Spanish language students. Together, this makes the United States of America the second largest Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico, and with the United States having more Spanish-speakers than Colombia and Spain (but fewer first language speakers). Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census.


Question: What other language is often spoken in the United states?

Answer: The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States.

<hl> The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States. There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States, as well as six million Spanish language students. <hl> Together, this makes the United States of America the second largest Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico, and with the United States having more Spanish-speakers than Colombia and Spain (but fewer first language speakers). Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census.

<hl> The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States. <hl> There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States, as well as six million Spanish language students. Together, this makes the United States of America the second largest Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico, and with the United States having more Spanish-speakers than Colombia and Spain (but fewer first language speakers). Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census.

question: What other language is often spoken in the United states?, context: The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States. There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States, as well as six million Spanish language students. Together, this makes the United States of America the second largest Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico, and with the United States having more Spanish-speakers than Colombia and Spain (but fewer first language speakers). Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census.


Question: How many Spanish speaking students are there in the United States?

Answer: six million Spanish language students.

The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States. <hl> There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States, as well as six million Spanish language students. Together, this makes the United States of America the second largest Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico, and with the United States having more Spanish-speakers than Colombia and Spain (but fewer first language speakers). <hl> Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census.

The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States. There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States, as well as <hl> six million Spanish language students. <hl> Together, this makes the United States of America the second largest Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico, and with the United States having more Spanish-speakers than Colombia and Spain (but fewer first language speakers). Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census.

question: How many Spanish speaking students are there in the United States?, context: The Spanish language is the second most spoken language in the United States. There are 45 million Hispanophones who speak Spanish as a first or second language in the United States, as well as six million Spanish language students. Together, this makes the United States of America the second largest Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico, and with the United States having more Spanish-speakers than Colombia and Spain (but fewer first language speakers). Spanish is the Romance language and the Indo-European language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. Roughly half of all American Spanish-speakers also speak English "very well," based on their self-assessment in the U.S. Census.


Question: How old is the Spanish language in the United States?

Answer: The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries

<hl> The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries , with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. <hl> The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. Additionally, western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America.

<hl> The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries <hl>, with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. Additionally, western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America.

<hl> The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries <hl> , with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California.

question: How old is the Spanish language in the United States?, context: The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries, with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. Additionally, western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America.


Question: Where in the United States did the Spanish explore?

Answer: The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states

The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries, with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. <hl> The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. <hl> Additionally, western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America.

The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries, with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. <hl> The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states <hl> leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. Additionally, western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America.

question: Where in the United States did the Spanish explore?, context: The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries, with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. Additionally, western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America.


Question: Were there states ruled by the Spanish?

Answer: western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800,

The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries, with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. <hl> Additionally, western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America. <hl>

The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries, with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. Additionally, <hl> western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, <hl> after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America.

question: Were there states ruled by the Spanish?, context: The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries, with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. Additionally, western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America.


Question: Did the Spanish conquer land in the United States?

Answer: Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California.

<hl> The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries, with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. <hl> Additionally, western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America.

The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries, with the arrival of <hl> Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. <hl> The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. Additionally, western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America.

question: Did the Spanish conquer land in the United States?, context: The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries, with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. Additionally, western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America.


Question: Do the Spanish have a legacy in America from their forefathers?

Answer: after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America.

The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries, with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. <hl> Additionally, western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America. <hl>

The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries, with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. Additionally, western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, <hl> after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America. <hl>

question: Do the Spanish have a legacy in America from their forefathers?, context: The Spanish language has been present in what is now the United States since the 16th and 17th centuries, with the arrival of Spanish colonization in North America that would later become the states of Florida, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California. The Spanish explorers explored areas of 42 future U.S. states leaving behind a varying range of Hispanic legacy in the North American continent. Additionally, western regions of the Louisiana Territory were under Spanish rule between 1763 to 1800, after the French and Indian War, further extending the Spanish influence throughout modern-day United States of America.


Question: When did the Spanish arrive to America?

Answer: Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513.

Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. <hl> Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida, and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. <hl> The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico, where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor

Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. <hl> Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. <hl> In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida, and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico, where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor

question: When did the Spanish arrive to America?, context: Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida, and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico, where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor


Question: Did Europeans speak Spanish in America?

Answer: Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America.

<hl> Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. <hl> In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida, and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico, where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor

<hl> Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. <hl> Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida, and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico, where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor

question: Did Europeans speak Spanish in America?, context: Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida, and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico, where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor


Question: How was St. Augustine founded?

Answer: the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida

Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. <hl> In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida , and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. <hl> The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico, where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor

Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. In 1565, <hl> the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida <hl>, and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico, where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor

In 1565, <hl> the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida <hl> , and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States.

question: How was St. Augustine founded?, context: Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida, and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico, where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor


Question: Where is the oldest settlement in America?

Answer: St. Augustine, Florida

Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. <hl> In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida , and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. <hl> The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico, where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor

Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded <hl> St. Augustine, Florida <hl>, and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico, where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor

In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded <hl> St. Augustine, Florida <hl> , and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States.

question: Where is the oldest settlement in America?, context: Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida, and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico, where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor


Question: What is the oldest city of the United States territory?

Answer: The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico

Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida, and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. <hl> The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico , where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor <hl>

Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida, and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. <hl> The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico <hl>, where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor

<hl> The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico <hl> , where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor

question: What is the oldest city of the United States territory?, context: Spanish was the language spoken by the first permanent European settlers in North America. Spanish arrived in the territory of the modern United States with Ponce de León in 1513. In 1565, the Spaniards, by way of Juan Ponce de León, founded St. Augustine, Florida, and as of the early 1800s, it became the oldest continuously occupied European settlement in the continental United States. The oldest city in all of the U.S. territory, as of 1898, is San Juan, capital of Puerto Rico, where Juan Ponce De León was its first governor


Question: Was Texas a part of Mexico?

Answer: In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas

<hl> In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas . <hl> A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836, the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas. In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed]

<hl> In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas <hl>. A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836, the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas. In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed]

<hl> In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas <hl> .

question: Was Texas a part of Mexico?, context: In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas. A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836, the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas. In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed]


Question: When did the Americans come to Texas?

Answer: A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836

In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas. <hl> A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836 , the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas. <hl> In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed]

In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas. <hl> A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836 <hl>, the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas. In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed]

<hl> A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836 <hl> , the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas.

question: When did the Americans come to Texas?, context: In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas. A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836, the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas. In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed]


Question: Was there a war between the Mexicans and the Texans?

Answer: Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico

In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas. A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. <hl> In 1836, the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas. <hl> In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed]

In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas. A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836, the now largely "American" <hl> Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico <hl> and established the Republic of Texas. In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed]

question: Was there a war between the Mexicans and the Texans?, context: In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas. A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836, the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas. In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed]


Question: When did Texas become a state?

Answer: In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state.

In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas. A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836, the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas. <hl> In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed] <hl>

In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas. A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836, the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas. <hl> In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. <hl> Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed]

question: When did Texas become a state?, context: In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas. A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836, the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas. In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed]


Question: Was Texas a primarily a Spanish speaking state?

Answer: Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people

In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas. A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836, the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas. In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. <hl> Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed] <hl>

In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas. A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836, the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas. In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. <hl> Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people <hl> (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed]

question: Was Texas a primarily a Spanish speaking state?, context: In 1821, after Mexico's War of Independence from Spain, Texas was part of the United Mexican States as the state of Coahuila y Tejas. A large influx of Americans soon followed, originally with the approval of Mexico's president. In 1836, the now largely "American" Texans, fought a war of independence from the central government of Mexico and established the Republic of Texas. In 1846, the Republic dissolved when Texas entered the United States of America as a state. Per the 1850 U.S. census, fewer than 16,000 Texans were of Mexican descent, and nearly all were Spanish-speaking people (both Mexicans and non-Spanish European settlers who include German Texan) who were outnumbered (six-to-one) by English-speaking settlers (both Americans and other immigrant Europeans).[citation needed]


Question: What states made up of Alta California

Answer: California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming became part of the Mexican territory of Alta California

<hl> After the Mexican War of Independence from Spain also, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming became part of the Mexican territory of Alta California and most of New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and Oklahoma panhandle were part of the territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo México. <hl> The geographical isolation and unique political history of this territory led to New Mexican Spanish differing notably from both Spanish spoken in other parts of the United States of America and Spanish spoken in the present-day United Mexican States.

After the Mexican War of Independence from Spain also, <hl> California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming became part of the Mexican territory of Alta California <hl> and most of New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and Oklahoma panhandle were part of the territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo México. The geographical isolation and unique political history of this territory led to New Mexican Spanish differing notably from both Spanish spoken in other parts of the United States of America and Spanish spoken in the present-day United Mexican States.

question: What states made up of Alta California, context: After the Mexican War of Independence from Spain also, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming became part of the Mexican territory of Alta California and most of New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and Oklahoma panhandle were part of the territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo México. The geographical isolation and unique political history of this territory led to New Mexican Spanish differing notably from both Spanish spoken in other parts of the United States of America and Spanish spoken in the present-day United Mexican States.


Question: When did other states become part of Mexico?

Answer: After the Mexican War of Independence from Spain

<hl> After the Mexican War of Independence from Spain also, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming became part of the Mexican territory of Alta California and most of New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and Oklahoma panhandle were part of the territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo México. <hl> The geographical isolation and unique political history of this territory led to New Mexican Spanish differing notably from both Spanish spoken in other parts of the United States of America and Spanish spoken in the present-day United Mexican States.

<hl> After the Mexican War of Independence from Spain <hl> also, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming became part of the Mexican territory of Alta California and most of New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and Oklahoma panhandle were part of the territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo México. The geographical isolation and unique political history of this territory led to New Mexican Spanish differing notably from both Spanish spoken in other parts of the United States of America and Spanish spoken in the present-day United Mexican States.

question: When did other states become part of Mexico?, context: After the Mexican War of Independence from Spain also, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming became part of the Mexican territory of Alta California and most of New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and Oklahoma panhandle were part of the territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo México. The geographical isolation and unique political history of this territory led to New Mexican Spanish differing notably from both Spanish spoken in other parts of the United States of America and Spanish spoken in the present-day United Mexican States.


Question: What states were part of Santa Fe de Nuevo

Answer: most of New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and Oklahoma panhandle were part of the territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo México

<hl> After the Mexican War of Independence from Spain also, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming became part of the Mexican territory of Alta California and most of New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and Oklahoma panhandle were part of the territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo México . <hl> The geographical isolation and unique political history of this territory led to New Mexican Spanish differing notably from both Spanish spoken in other parts of the United States of America and Spanish spoken in the present-day United Mexican States.

After the Mexican War of Independence from Spain also, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming became part of the Mexican territory of Alta California and <hl> most of New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and Oklahoma panhandle were part of the territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo México <hl>. The geographical isolation and unique political history of this territory led to New Mexican Spanish differing notably from both Spanish spoken in other parts of the United States of America and Spanish spoken in the present-day United Mexican States.

After the Mexican War of Independence from Spain also, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming became part of the Mexican territory of Alta California and <hl> most of New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and Oklahoma panhandle were part of the territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo México <hl> .

question: What states were part of Santa Fe de Nuevo, context: After the Mexican War of Independence from Spain also, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming became part of the Mexican territory of Alta California and most of New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and Oklahoma panhandle were part of the territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo México. The geographical isolation and unique political history of this territory led to New Mexican Spanish differing notably from both Spanish spoken in other parts of the United States of America and Spanish spoken in the present-day United Mexican States.


Question: Why is there still Bilingual spoken in these states?

Answer: The geographical isolation and unique political history of this territory

After the Mexican War of Independence from Spain also, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming became part of the Mexican territory of Alta California and most of New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and Oklahoma panhandle were part of the territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo México. <hl> The geographical isolation and unique political history of this territory led to New Mexican Spanish differing notably from both Spanish spoken in other parts of the United States of America and Spanish spoken in the present-day United Mexican States. <hl>

After the Mexican War of Independence from Spain also, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming became part of the Mexican territory of Alta California and most of New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and Oklahoma panhandle were part of the territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo México. <hl> The geographical isolation and unique political history of this territory <hl> led to New Mexican Spanish differing notably from both Spanish spoken in other parts of the United States of America and Spanish spoken in the present-day United Mexican States.

question: Why is there still Bilingual spoken in these states?, context: After the Mexican War of Independence from Spain also, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming became part of the Mexican territory of Alta California and most of New Mexico, western Texas, southern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, and Oklahoma panhandle were part of the territory of Santa Fe de Nuevo México. The geographical isolation and unique political history of this territory led to New Mexican Spanish differing notably from both Spanish spoken in other parts of the United States of America and Spanish spoken in the present-day United Mexican States.


Question: Why isn't the southwest Spanish speaking?

Answer: Through the force of sheer numbers, the English-speaking American settlers entering the Southwest established their language, culture, and law

<hl> Through the force of sheer numbers, the English-speaking American settlers entering the Southwest established their language, culture, and law as dominant, to the extent it fully displaced Spanish in the public sphere; this is why the United States never developed bilingualism as Canada did. <hl> For example, the California constitutional convention of 1849 had eight Californio participants; the resulting state constitution was produced in English and Spanish, and it contained a clause requiring all published laws and regulations to be published in both languages. The constitutional convention of 1872 had no Spanish-speaking participants; the convention's English-speaking participants felt that the state's remaining minority of Spanish-speakers should simply learn English; and the convention ultimately voted 46-39 to revise the earlier clause so that all official proceedings would henceforth be published only in English.

<hl> Through the force of sheer numbers, the English-speaking American settlers entering the Southwest established their language, culture, and law <hl> as dominant, to the extent it fully displaced Spanish in the public sphere; this is why the United States never developed bilingualism as Canada did. For example, the California constitutional convention of 1849 had eight Californio participants; the resulting state constitution was produced in English and Spanish, and it contained a clause requiring all published laws and regulations to be published in both languages. The constitutional convention of 1872 had no Spanish-speaking participants; the convention's English-speaking participants felt that the state's remaining minority of Spanish-speakers should simply learn English; and the convention ultimately voted 46-39 to revise the earlier clause so that all official proceedings would henceforth be published only in English.

question: Why isn't the southwest Spanish speaking?, context: Through the force of sheer numbers, the English-speaking American settlers entering the Southwest established their language, culture, and law as dominant, to the extent it fully displaced Spanish in the public sphere; this is why the United States never developed bilingualism as Canada did. For example, the California constitutional convention of 1849 had eight Californio participants; the resulting state constitution was produced in English and Spanish, and it contained a clause requiring all published laws and regulations to be published in both languages. The constitutional convention of 1872 had no Spanish-speaking participants; the convention's English-speaking participants felt that the state's remaining minority of Spanish-speakers should simply learn English; and the convention ultimately voted 46-39 to revise the earlier clause so that all official proceedings would henceforth be published only in English.


Question: Is Canada bilingual?

Answer: United States never developed bilingualism as Canada did.

<hl> Through the force of sheer numbers, the English-speaking American settlers entering the Southwest established their language, culture, and law as dominant, to the extent it fully displaced Spanish in the public sphere; this is why the United States never developed bilingualism as Canada did. For example, the California constitutional convention of 1849 had eight Californio participants; the resulting state constitution was produced in English and Spanish, and it contained a clause requiring all published laws and regulations to be published in both languages. <hl> The constitutional convention of 1872 had no Spanish-speaking participants; the convention's English-speaking participants felt that the state's remaining minority of Spanish-speakers should simply learn English; and the convention ultimately voted 46-39 to revise the earlier clause so that all official proceedings would henceforth be published only in English.

Through the force of sheer numbers, the English-speaking American settlers entering the Southwest established their language, culture, and law as dominant, to the extent it fully displaced Spanish in the public sphere; this is why the <hl> United States never developed bilingualism as Canada did. <hl> For example, the California constitutional convention of 1849 had eight Californio participants; the resulting state constitution was produced in English and Spanish, and it contained a clause requiring all published laws and regulations to be published in both languages. The constitutional convention of 1872 had no Spanish-speaking participants; the convention's English-speaking participants felt that the state's remaining minority of Spanish-speakers should simply learn English; and the convention ultimately voted 46-39 to revise the earlier clause so that all official proceedings would henceforth be published only in English.

question: Is Canada bilingual?, context: Through the force of sheer numbers, the English-speaking American settlers entering the Southwest established their language, culture, and law as dominant, to the extent it fully displaced Spanish in the public sphere; this is why the United States never developed bilingualism as Canada did. For example, the California constitutional convention of 1849 had eight Californio participants; the resulting state constitution was produced in English and Spanish, and it contained a clause requiring all published laws and regulations to be published in both languages. The constitutional convention of 1872 had no Spanish-speaking participants; the convention's English-speaking participants felt that the state's remaining minority of Spanish-speakers should simply learn English; and the convention ultimately voted 46-39 to revise the earlier clause so that all official proceedings would henceforth be published only in English.


Question: Was California a bilingual state?

Answer: California constitutional convention of 1849 had eight Californio participants; the resulting state constitution was produced in English and Spanish,

Through the force of sheer numbers, the English-speaking American settlers entering the Southwest established their language, culture, and law as dominant, to the extent it fully displaced Spanish in the public sphere; this is why the United States never developed bilingualism as Canada did. <hl> For example, the California constitutional convention of 1849 had eight Californio participants; the resulting state constitution was produced in English and Spanish, and it contained a clause requiring all published laws and regulations to be published in both languages. <hl> The constitutional convention of 1872 had no Spanish-speaking participants; the convention's English-speaking participants felt that the state's remaining minority of Spanish-speakers should simply learn English; and the convention ultimately voted 46-39 to revise the earlier clause so that all official proceedings would henceforth be published only in English.

Through the force of sheer numbers, the English-speaking American settlers entering the Southwest established their language, culture, and law as dominant, to the extent it fully displaced Spanish in the public sphere; this is why the United States never developed bilingualism as Canada did. For example, the <hl> California constitutional convention of 1849 had eight Californio participants; the resulting state constitution was produced in English and Spanish, <hl> and it contained a clause requiring all published laws and regulations to be published in both languages. The constitutional convention of 1872 had no Spanish-speaking participants; the convention's English-speaking participants felt that the state's remaining minority of Spanish-speakers should simply learn English; and the convention ultimately voted 46-39 to revise the earlier clause so that all official proceedings would henceforth be published only in English.

question: Was California a bilingual state?, context: Through the force of sheer numbers, the English-speaking American settlers entering the Southwest established their language, culture, and law as dominant, to the extent it fully displaced Spanish in the public sphere; this is why the United States never developed bilingualism as Canada did. For example, the California constitutional convention of 1849 had eight Californio participants; the resulting state constitution was produced in English and Spanish, and it contained a clause requiring all published laws and regulations to be published in both languages. The constitutional convention of 1872 had no Spanish-speaking participants; the convention's English-speaking participants felt that the state's remaining minority of Spanish-speakers should simply learn English; and the convention ultimately voted 46-39 to revise the earlier clause so that all official proceedings would henceforth be published only in English.