Is one language enough? No. Illiterate is a person who cannot read or write. So that too would be a no. The definition does not say that the person can not read or write the language of the country they are in.

You could say they are illiterate in English, but it doesn’t apply to the broad base definition of the word. To not be able to read or write in any language would then apply.

No. Not knowing your native one makes you illiterate.

Strictly speaking, no. They can read, even if it’s in their language. In this specific situation, yes. They are in a foreign country and are not able to use the basic mean of communication. Yes, they are illiterate in English, and if they want to live in an English speaking country, they better learn it asap.

One language is never sufficient.

No.

No. Being illiterate is not being able to read and write in any language. Only being able to read or write one language you are usually called, ‘American’ (sorry… bad joke, I was told that when I started language school learning my second language in my adopted country. I was the only American in the class and the only person who spoke and wrote only one language.)

@cazzie

That’s because we understand that American is the only language worth knowing.

Well, if that were the case then the vast majority of American’s would be considered illiterate.

That was a joke, @Darth_Algar, right?

American is the only language worse knowing? I’m sure he’s being sarcastic, but it’s hard for me to get past calling the language we are writing in “American” even if he is joking.

Well, the American English we speak is gradually moving further and further from the King’s English. Sometime in the future they’ll be two distinct languages.