Universal Language Debate

[Julius Caesar]

What are your views on an international language (Esperanto, for example)?

[Rei]

It's a nice ideal for some people, but it will never happen. And I would weep if ever it did. Language is culture, and to create one dominant world culture would mean losing all other cultures. Sure, the languages may not be wiped out, but they would slowly die out and eventually be only academic studies, and that would be tragic.

[Julius Caesar]

But this international language would be a second-language, it is not about sending to oblivion all the other languages. Nonetheless, as sad as it can be, I believe that some cultures have to be sacrified. What I mean is that many indians live in infrahuman conditions lacking of the very basic services (running water, sewers, electricity, proper health care, education, etc) because their own way of living and culture would not allow them. If we want to get at least a little bit closer to giving equal oportunities of success to everyone, then they should at least get these services and change their way of living, even if that means sacrifying the ways of their ancestors. If we want to develop as a specie we should not leave anyone behind.

[Rei]

I can agree that cultures will be lost even without it in the attempt to keep everyone up to speed with current technology. But I'm not talking about small and easy to wipe out cultures. I'm talking about things like, say, the Japanese culture, the Italian culture, the Egyptian culture. These are major cultures and while an international standard language would not eliminate them entirely right away, it would certainly remove a lot of the subtleties that language brings to a culture. Even as a second language this would happen, because it would not likely remain a second language if it were necessary to know it for any international business or transaction. And if it could be assumed that everyone knows it, it would be used for anything that may be printed or available to multiple countries with different first languages.

[zeroguy]

I would see it more as not a language that everyone knows, necessasrily, but only more official types would know it, used only in international relations. I.e. you still hire translators, but they only have to know their native language and Esperanto, instead of learning as many other languages as they can in addition to knowing their own.

And a language such as Esperanto could influence other cultures without destroying them. Look at how English has permeated Japan.

[jotabe]

Linguistics, though, is so much more than simply learning languages. That's... translation, basically. Linguistics is about what language IS, how languages work, the processes of the mind. It's the sounds we make and the very way we make words. It's fascinating, but intense.

Basically, a professional linguist is to language what a computer programmer is to PCs.

And what a mathematician is to Science...

*waits to be stabbed by mathematicians*

[Julius Caesar]

Rei said:

Even as a second language this would happen, because it would not likely remain a second language if it were necessary to know it for any international business or transaction. And if it could be assumed that everyone knows it, it would be used for anything that may be printed or available to multiple countries with different first languages.

Well...actually, this has already happened with English...most of the official scientific magazines are in English, as most important reference and study books are. This is extremely unfair for several reasons. To start with, everyone who is born in a non-English speaking country starts with a disadvantage, and so they have to struggle learning the language. I have been blessed with the opportunity to afford a good education where I have been taught several languages, but here in Mexico, English is not taught to the majority of the students due to a lousy education system, and obviously this happens to be in most (if not all) "developing countries". Now, with regard to the adults- they evidently find it much more difficult to learn a language if they were never trained for such a challenge, and who will not find a job with a decent salary if they do not learn it. So, why English? Why not a language which is a mixture of the mother languages, that is designed to learn easily, and that is fairer for most people?

Besides, many international porblems are due to lack of communication and lousy translation between parties. Each word can hold several meanings depending on the context, and any type of misinterpretation can lead to trouble or to a worse trouble than before.

[Julius Caesar]

Besides, many international porblems are due to lack of communication and lousy translation between parties. Each word can hold several meanings depending on the context, and any type of misinterpretation can lead to trouble or to a worse trouble than before.

Hmm... I must admit this doesn't really sound right...Ok, perhaps rephrasing:
"many international problems are due to some parties being unable to express themselves fully in a foreign language or to words that might get lost during translation"

I think that makes more sense...

[Rei]

English has done this, but not as totally as you were suggesting. Most people in the world are unable to communicate in English, although it is probably more used as a second language than most others, I would guess. However, I believe that if it were taught and enforced more into daily life. If you wanted to pick a language just academic writing, that would be fine by me because you do not need to rely on the cultural elements to express logic and theory near as much. There are exceptions, such as when trying to explain a cultural aspect of something or a theory based in culture or language. However, for the most part it would not be needed. And for the academic language, I'd push for Latin. But I would fight an international language for lay-people. It doesn't matter what language you pick, a huge number of people will lose their cultures and the world will lose much, then.

[Eaquae Legit]

Well...actually, this has already happened with English...most of the official scientific magazines are in English, as most important reference and study books are.

If you have said this, you have not spent hours and hours cursing the French, the Germans, and the Italians for publishing research vital to your own in languages other than English. It is maddening. What you are in fact saying is that you haven't encountered non-English research much yet. You will, grasshopper, you will.


As to a universal language, I hope one never gets established as a universal first-language. We would lose so much. I am not of the camp that says language dictates thought absolutely, but there are undeniable effects of the language you grew up with on the way your brain works. To some extent language does shape thought, and we'd be poorer for the loss of that diversity. Then we have the millions upon millions of texts, especially stories and poems, that already exist in so many different languages. Art like that inevitably loses something when it has to be translated.

Not to mention how hard it would be truly learn a second language with no native speakers around. There are sounds in other languages that are nearly impossible for an Anglo to pronounce. Native speakers can help to correct this by instruction and example.

In all, I think it would be a disaster to have a universal first language. There is so much that would be lost or destroyed.

[AnthonyByakko]

I disagree. I believe that as a necessity of evolution and of advancement, diversity of language, just like religion, will eventually become obsolete. The homogenization of earth, indeed, the confluence of many globalizing effects, will lead us to either continual unification, or the total destruction of civilization. Our parts will either become a greater whole as they become more and more compatible, or they will, like a body rejecting an organ, kill itself off.

[hive_king]

So you support the destruction of Native American cultures, then?

[AnthonyByakko]

Don't waste my time with loaded and misleading questions.

Edit: Your comma is superfluous.

[hive_king]

Whats misleading about it? Are you afraid to answer, Anthony? Its only a harmless question.

[AnthonyByakko]

No, it's a question that goes from the context of "unification of language" to implying an individual is for the "destruction of cultures." I don't know what crawled up your ass and died, but don't waste my time.

[hive_king]

But language is one of the unifier of cultures, and implicit in your post, especially where you say

The homogenization of earth, indeed, the confluence of many globalizing effects, will lead us to either continual unification, or the total destruction of civilization.

is that eventually all languages, and cultures, will be homoginized. This logically also includes Native America cultures, of which you have stood up for. So, logically, if you are for the unification and flattening of cultures, you are for the homoginization of Native American cultures into the global culture. Am i wrong, and if, why?

[AnthonyByakko]

But language is one of the unifier of cultures, and implicit in your post, especially where you say

The homogenization of earth, indeed, the confluence of many globalizing effects, will lead us to either continual unification, or the total destruction of civilization.

is that eventually all languages, and cultures, will be homoginized. This logically also includes Native America cultures, of which you have stood up for.

Here's where your problem is (at least, THIS problem - I can't help you with all the others): you start off fine here - I AM for the unification of cultures (which includes Native American ones).

However, you go on to make a urine-soaked fool of yourself by following it up with...

So, logically, if you are for the unification and flattening of cultures, you are for the homoginization of Native American cultures into the global culture.

...implying that unification of cultures will either A) be a bad thing and B) result in the erasure of current cultures. Now, we could get off on a side discussion of the fact that most Native cultures are ALREADY destroyed or very nearly so, but that would be tangential. For now, we focus on the fact that the unification process is ALREADY BEGUN, and will continue regardless of whether people like it or not. Will it result in some of the addendum-cultures being destroyed? It just might, if it's members do nothing to preserve it for posterity, but regardless - their will be a unified language, a unified culture, etc. In the larger sum-culture, the addendum cultures will be necessarily irrelevant, however, this does not mean that the addendum cultures cannot still have identity within the larger sum. To imply otherwise is your primary mistake.

[hive_king]

Flattening is a term coined by Thomas Friedman, a well known advocate and defender of globalization, to describe the effects of it. So actually, implicit in the word is defense of globalization. I believe that would make you the fool.

So remind me again why you support special benefits for native american?

[AnthonyByakko]

Do you honestly think an eye-rolling smilie makes you seem any less ridiculous?

Apparently this whole time all you wanted to do was discuss the Native benefits thing again. You're free to do so, in a thread where it would be relevant to the topic. If you want to keep discussing linguistics, and the subsequent changes regarding linguisitical unification (as we have thus far been doing), try and stay focused. There's a whole post above yours with loads of things for you to refute or counterpoint. FOCUS, son.

[hive_king]

So you recognize that you were wrong about the phrase flattening?

So in a thread discussing treatment of Native Americans, do you agree to actually discuss instead of running off like a little bitch?

[AnthonyByakko]

In a thread with people whom I might actually learn something from, and not a whiny kid who wants to change the subject every 3 minutes? In a thread where people might actually debate the issue, and not tangential issues ad nauseaum for the sake of appearances? Sure. Find me such a thread, and such people. I would most likely refrain from any such discourse with yourself - I mean, as perfectly illustrated here, what could I possibly gain from discussing, well, anything with you?

[hive_king]

I just get amazed at your hypocracy, thats why this native american thing fascinates me. you decry collectivism all over this forum, and then you argue for certain priviliages for a certain collective of people, which seems a tad hypocritical, which is why I keep coming back to it.

[AnthonyByakko]

I just get amazed at your hypocracy, thats why this native american thing fascinates me. you decry collectivism all over this forum, and then you argue for certain priviliages for a certain collective of people, which seems a tad hypocritical, which is why I keep coming back to it.

I argue for certain privileges* for a small subset of Americans who have been systematically wiped out, destroyed, subsumed and assimilated into a nation they had almost no rights in for centuries. If that's hypocrisy*, so be it. I'm so tired of going over the same old tripe with you.

Edit: Which is to say, goodbye and goodnight.

[zeroguy]

Ignoring those two....

Well...actually, this has already happened with English...most of the official scientific magazines are in English, as most important reference and study books are.

If you have said this, you have not spent hours and hours cursing the French, the Germans, and the Italians for publishing research vital to your own in languages other than English. It is maddening. What you are in fact saying is that you haven't encountered non-English research much yet. You will, grasshopper, you will.

That does not mean that English does not hold the majority. Or if it doesn't hold the majority (I have no idea, myself), does it seem to have the greatest prevalence of any other single language? Just curious; I don't read many research papers.

In all, I think it would be a disaster to have a universal first language. There is so much that would be lost or destroyed.

I thought the only thing being debated was a universal second language.

[Eaquae Legit]

Problem is, I don't read them either. I only come across them in search of something else. I can say, though, that German and French produce plenty of papers. Sometimes I'm hard-pressed to locate a single English source.

And I seem to have missed the post specifying it as second-language. I am far more open to there being a universal second-language. I'm not sure how that would work, though.

[jotabe]

i don't know about other disciplines... but you won't find a serious physics or chemistry magazine that is not in English language.

[Eaquae Legit]

Guys, this has gone in a very different direction from the original post. I'm going to split the topic so both discussions can continue.

[Rei]

Julius suggested that the universal language be a second one. I do not believe that it would ever work. Either many would not learn it or it would become a first language, which is why I oppose the idea. Either it wouldn't work or it would elminate other languages.

[jotabe]

Well...
As of now, English is that universal language, at least in the western world. And it is learned as a second (or third) language.
And it works. In some countries better than in other ones (it usually works better in the countries that don't dub american cinema or tv shows).
It wouldn't become a first language, because your identity language is the language you learn in your first years. A second (or third) language is learned only at school, when the first language is almost already fixed.

[Rei]

You may be able to answer this better than most of the people here, jota. Is it common, where you are, for people to be able to converse in a second language? Are they able to understand it or read in it? Or is it generally restricted to academic knowledge and not really practiced aside from, say, scientific journals?

[eriador]

well i know that at least among the "geek" community, two native speakers of a language will revert to english, even though they both share a first language, just because of the vocabulary it has.

[zeroguy]

Well, eriador, that's just because IT is dominated by English, since the original industry was English-speaking companies.

You may be able to answer this better than most of the people here, jota. Is it common, where you are, for people to be able to converse in a second language? Are they able to understand it or read in it? Or is it generally restricted to academic knowledge and not really practiced aside from, say, scientific journals?

I can't answer this, obviously, but I can suggest that the answer in various areas most likely depends on the level of mandatory education in a particular second language (or the quality of such education). I would say, if you kept the hypothetical second language as more of a specialized education than mandatory, it wouldn't take over everything.

(Although, if the Gaijin Smash editorials are accurate, at least Japanese culture is not in severe danger of being taken over by English.)

[eriador]

Actually a few years ago the Japanese government started a program to replace english words in Japanese with Japanese ones. When asked how they would spread the message, the Prime Minister said "With the 'massumedia.'" It's pretty bad in Japan.

[Rei]

Here we have an official second language, but I do not know many people who can converse in French. Sure, more than would otherwise, but not many.

[Charlie]

In actuality world languages seem to be very largely dependant upon whichever power is world dominant at the time. For 400-800ish years it was Latin, both during the height of Roman power and then during its shadow.

English became a dominant world language due to Englands mastery of the seas and then followed by America's.

Russian was and still is the dominant language of Eurasia, if I am not mistaken the majority of the technical details of Arabic Soviet Equipment is in Russian not Arabic.

However in terms of # of people of a particular nationality speaking a language Chinese Mandarin is spoken by more then 800,000,000 people more then any single language or ethnic group can boast with an ever increasingly popular impetus for learning it overseas to open up buisness oppurtunities within the PRC.