One Unified Language?

[Rêve Rouge]

So I've been getting the feeling that most people here are for a genderless, nation-less, open border, ect. society because these things separate the working class.

Well what about language? Could it be also said that having multiple languages is like having multiple nationalities and/or ethnicities? The existence of multiple nationalities separate the working class. Could the same be said for having multiple languages?

So it comes down to my main question of would a socialist society have one unified language, or still have multiple languages as we do now?

[Sentinel]

I speak three languages, and partially understand some others that are related to them. I think that we should strive to learn as many languages as possible, preferably including at least one of the widely spoken ones (english, spanish, portuguese, french, russian, german, chinese, arabic, swahili etc).

I think that is realistically the best that we can do to increase understanding between language groups and cultures. The dream of a single language spoken by all is nice, but utopistic. The countries of the world could never agree about which language of the existing ones should be the universal one, and attempts to create and launch new ones such as esperanto have failed, and probably will continue to do so.

As for speaking multiple languages equaling 'having multiple nationalities and/or ethnicities', well I guess that in a way you could say so. While both my parents were immigrants from Finland, and finnish is my first language, I do consider myself swedish as well, of course largely due to having been exposed to the swedish culture all my life, but also due to being fluent in the swedish language since early childhood.

[EvilRedGuy]

Maybe someday we'll be able to use one unified language, but now i think its more realistic to educate peoples in alot, if not all languages, this can be provided in a communist society.

[Q]

I believe we as communists should revive the tradition of Esperanto that, at least in Europe, could become an easy to learn lingua franca for the population. In this setup you simply learn two languages: your mothertongue (which can be a local dialect) and Esperanto.


Maybe someday we'll be able to use one unified language, but now i think its more realistic to educate peoples in alot, if not all languages, this can be provided in a communist society.
You're seriously suggesting everyone should learn English, French, German, Turkish, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Swahili, Indonesian and other widely spoken languages? Never mind other more local languages and countless dialects. Talk about being utopian.

[Sentinel]

I believe we as communists shouldrevive the tradition of Esperanto that, at least in Europe, could become an easy to learn lingua franca for the population. In this setup you simply learn two languages: your mothertongue (which can be a local dialect) and Esperanto.

I'm sceptical.. Even though it's a great idea, I think that esperanto would have already had a breakthrough in the 130 years that have passed since it was created, if it ever were to.

I'd love to be proven wrong, of course.

[Q]

I'm sceptical.. Even though it's a great idea, I think that esperanto would have already had a breakthrough in the 130 years that have passed since it was created, if it ever were to.

I'd love to be proven wrong, of course.

With that logic we better stop being a communist, because you would have expected a breakthrough during the past 160 years or so :lol:

There was a big movement for it in the past, and it was for example submitted as the diplomatic language of the League of Nations. The French at the time vehemently opposed this as French was the diplomatic language at that time (how things would change in less than 30 years ;) ). This is the answer as to why that movement failed: it relied on the ruling elites to kindly adopt Esperanto. This is of course hopelesly idealist as nationalism and imperialist politics always plays a central role in underming it.

But from a communist point of view things become very different as we strive for a global unification and we need a language that fits in that scheme. Esperanto isn't ideal as a world language, but it's at least a very good start.

[Sentinel]

Well, I'll believe it when I see it. Perhaps it will seem more logical in the future. :)

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Believing in the intrinsic value of different languages is pretty much racism, and I oppose it. The world needs a unified language: having different languages is the main way for preventing the working classes from communicating with each other.

In practice, there is already a de facto world language: World-English. English is actually quite a natural choice for a world language in memetic terms because it's so unregulated that anybody can speak it however they want and still be "speaking English". It's also almost a global Esperanto, mixing French and German bases with words from all over the world. In practice, English will probably continue to evolve as the global language for natural reasons, and in the long run it will be a good thing that there's one world language.

[Q]

Believing in the intrinsic value of different languages is pretty much racism, and I oppose it. The world needs a unified language: having different languages is the main way for preventing the working classes from communicating with each other.

In practice, there is already a de facto world language: World-English. English is actually quite a natural choice for a world language in memetic terms because it's so unregulated that anybody can speak it however they want and still be "speaking English". It's also almost a global Esperanto, mixing French and German bases with words from all over the world. In practice, English will probably continue to evolve as the global language for natural reasons, and in the long run it will be a good thing that there's one world language.

I believe this to be a common misconception. English isn't even universally known in Europe. I frequently visit Germany and many people, including younger ones, don't know how to formulate a single sentence, let alone speak it. It gets worse the further East you go. Also many to near all French speaking people don't know it. Outside Europe I could think of Latin-America, China & East-Asia (except perhaps Japan), South-East Asia, about half of Africa and the Middle-East not to know English.

So that pretty much leaves the former British Empire, which is indeed pretty vast.

But compared to Esperanto, it makes little sense to learn English. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto), it takes about 1500 hours to study English to reach the same level of fluency as you get after 150 hours of Esperanto! Clearly this is the far more efficient choice.

But only after the revolution ;)

[Dimentio]

So I've been getting the feeling that most people here are for a genderless, nation-less, open border, ect. society because these things separate the working class.

Well what about language? Could it be also said that having multiple languages is like having multiple nationalities and/or ethnicities? The existence of multiple nationalities separate the working class. Could the same be said for having multiple languages?

So it comes down to my main question of would a socialist society have one unified language, or still have multiple languages as we do now?

No. It is a possibility, but it is hardly desirable to supplant all languages with one. Diversity amongst the human race is as necessary as diversity in nature.

What we need though is an auxiliary language which should be a technical administrative language for the entire global system the day when capitalism is replaced. That language would not be used in every-day interaction and would be designed so that every word just serves one purpose. That is needed in order to avoid misinterpretations.

This is one example: www.loglan.org (http://www.loglan.org)

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

English, though, remains the only language with a substantial number of speakers outside the "native speakers" areas of Britain, the US and the "White Dominions". I'm a pragmatist, and don't see the need to impose a constructed language on people any more than I want to impose a constructed nationality. I'm not even keen to impose a natural language. I do though think that we will naturally end up with a unified language, and that at present it looks likely that it will be based around a shell of English - but an "English" that continues to evolve by memetic osmosis, absorbing characteristics and phrasings of the national languages. There are no other realistic candidates. Only English is used around the world, and the only language that is sometimes described as having as many speakers is "Chinese", a language in which many varieties are not even remotely mutually intelligible, making "Chinese" as much of a language as "European" is. Perhaps something astonishing will happen, but otherwise it looks like this memetic evolution will continue.

[Aeval]

Esperanto is easy to learn if you know an Indo-European language - it's very eurocentric so I don't really see the difference between expecting everyone to learn that and expecting everyone to learn English or Spanish. If, for example, your mother tongue is a tonal language (chinese, thai etc) then you're gonna have a tough time learning a stress-timed language, whether the grammar is regular or not.

The problem with the idea of a unified language is that that's just not how languages work. The way people speak naturally diverges away from each other if they have less contact - this is why the grammar and vocab of, say, the English spoken in India or Africa or Jamaica or anywhere else in the world, is strikingly different to the English spoken in the UK, the US etc, or even going down to a regional level, why people from different parts of the country can have massive problems understanding each other. Linguists believe that, if separated enough, these "Englishes" will continue to diverge until they again become separate languages, much like the Germanic languages (and every other language family) did. The only way to "stop" this would be to have an official written language that all people must learn but didn't really speak on a day to day basis - and this would have to be enforced (as in, forcing people to talk/write in a certain way, banning them from talking/writing in the way they want to) as it would slowly become more and more different to their actual spoken languages as the years went by.

The problem with synthetic languages is that people people don't want to learn them - most people don't even want to speak their own language "properly", language is a key way of differentiating ourselves from each other, not just in terms of nationality, but also regionally, by class, by gender, by age, even by what things we're into. Even if we all started from scratch today with one language we'd all immediately start changing it to show what group we do/don't belong to and in a few generations we'd have separate languages again :p

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

No. It is a possibility, but it is hardly desirable to supplant all languages with one. Diversity amongst the human race is as necessary as diversity in nature.

What we need though is an auxiliary language which should be a technical administrative language for the entire global system the day when capitalism is replaced. That language would not be used in every-day interaction and would be designed so that every word just serves one purpose. That is needed in order to avoid misinterpretations.

This is one example: www.loglan.org (http://www.loglan.org)
This is another example: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.html

[Aeval]

Oh, and I didn't say what I think we should do instead of a universal language - simple; encourage people to learn more languages, and be nice to translators and interpreters :lol:

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

The problem with the idea of a unified language is that that's just not how languages work. The way people speak naturally diverges away from each other if they have less contact - this is why the grammar and vocab of, say, the English spoken in India or Africa or Jamaica or anywhere else in the world, is strikingly different to the English spoken in the UK, the US etc, or even going down to a regional level, why people from different parts of the country can have massive problems understanding each other. Linguists believe that, if separated enough, these "Englishes" will continue to diverge until they again become separate languages, much like the Germanic languages (and every other language family) did.
The difference is that with modern mass media and especially the internet people will have increasingly sustained contact with the unified language.

[Triple A]

There is already a language widelly speaken in the world:english.
I speak 4 languages but i dont identify me as a specific nationality. I rather identify me as a human being.
I think latin would be cool aswell.

[Widerstand]

I am confused about this LEARN-A-LOT-OF-LANGUAGES fetishism on the left. What if I don't like learning languages?

[Rêve Rouge]

I am confused about this LEARN-A-LOT-OF-LANGUAGES fetishism on the left. What if I don't like learning languages?

Haha, I see your point. Well given the unlikelihood of a single unified language, it'd be a good idea to learn multiple languages. Even now it is. Like Noinu said, it broadens your horizon. Communication is key to social harmony. The more languages you know, the more you'll be able to establish connections. And on the left, it's all about internationalism right? You can't bring about world socialism without strong communication.

[EvilRedGuy]

One unified language is the only realistic thing. Period. Esperanto FTW.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Esperanto has bias towards European languages, it neglects Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc.

Lojban? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Esperanto has bias towards European languages, it neglects Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc.

Lojban? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban

I was going to suggest this myself.

An auxiliary language doesn't have to be an ideological steamroller - Latin is used to ensure stuff like species names etc is unambiguous across various languages - it would allow anyone willing to put in ~150 hours to communicate clearly with someone on the other side of the planet. But they will in all likelyhood speak to their neighbour in the local language.

[Rêve Rouge]

One unified language is the only realistic thing. Period. Esperanto FTW.

I was thinking that it would be possible to have a universal language. But I don't think all other languages would cease to exist. Instead, all other languages would play a more minor role, being used only locally.

As for what should be the universal language, Esperanto sounds nice. But I prefer to have a language that's monosyllabic. Even though that would most likely require it to be tonal, which can be a little tough to learn.

[Ovi]

Everyone (or almost everyone) on Earth speaking the same language would be quite an achievement. I don't find that utopian at all. A characteristic it should have is cultural neutrality, so we don't find ourselves arguing from a silly national point of view.

Esperanto is easy to learn if you know an Indo-European language - it's very eurocentric so I don't really see the difference between expecting everyone to learn that and expecting everyone to learn English or Spanish.

However, Esperanto is not tied to any single country, either historically or culturally. A hundred years ago, French was the foreign language you were supposed to know around here due to ties with France. Next it was German. Later, it was Russian. Now English. It would be nice if we could choose a language outside of imperialist influences or political connections between states.

Plus, it's much easier to learn Esperanto, as Q already stated. That alone makes it a better alternative. I do agree that a completely neutral language would be a better choice (the main thing I don't like about Esperanto is that it's Euro-centric), though hopefully not one that mixes words from different languages and ends up with many problems that modern languages have, but an a priori language. That would make it equally difficult (or easy) for everyone to learn it, though I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.


The problem with the idea of a unified language is that that's just not how languages work. The way people speak naturally diverges away from each other if they have less contact - this is why the grammar and vocab of, say, the English spoken in India or Africa or Jamaica or anywhere else in the world, is strikingly different to the English spoken in the UK, the US etc, or even going down to a regional level, why people from different parts of the country can have massive problems understanding each other.
If humanity would be a organized as a number of completely isolated communities, I don't think we would even discuss the need for a global language. But it's not like that. Contacts between different language speakers is what drives this need. Since contacts between different parts of the world are so widespread today to due television, internet, airplane travel and others, like never before, the language itself might not diverge that much (as long as we all live on Earth at least).

[Vampire Lobster]

Esperanto has bias towards European languages, it neglects Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc.

Lojban? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban

It neglects Russian? Eh, no. In fact, Russian influences in Esperanto are very obvious, especially in how the language is pronounced. Zamenhof was himself Russian as well, you know, and whereas the grammar and most of the vocab has been borrowed from Romance and Germanic languages, the Slavic sound of the language is pretty clear.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Well, my use of 'neglect' was pretty vague. I agree, besides the change from Cyrillic, Russians would be the least affected on that short list.

[chegitz guevara]

I prefer C++.

[graymouser]

I know Esperanto; I have spoken it, written in it, read books, watched movies and listened to music in Esperanto. I rather like the language, and I'm a long time devotee of the idea of a second, neutral language. But I don't think Esperanto is the best choice. Its main problems are alphabet (the special extra letters that weren't included in ASCII), the grammar (the accusative case and adjectival accord are the most criticized points), and its sexism - all of which were addressed in Ido, an Esperanto reform project. But while Ido fixed all the problems, Esperanto in its unreformed state was too wide-spread among the small group of people who were interested in constructed auxiliary languages for Ido to get much of a following.

I do think eventually that Ido or something similar should be adopted as a universal second language, so that when you have international meetings and conferences, things only need to be written in Ido and you don't have on the fly translation or people just not understanding each other. It's eurocentric to some extent, but it's a lot better than English for political reasons.

[Vampire Lobster]

Well, my use of 'neglect' was pretty vague. I agree, besides the change from Cyrillic, Russians would be the least affected on that short list.

They're less affected than most languages out there, European or not, as they were one of Zamenhof's main source languages for constructing Esperanto.

[pastradamus]

I believe we as communists should revive the tradition of Esperanto that, at least in Europe, could become an easy to learn lingua franca for the population. In this setup you simply learn two languages: your mothertongue (which can be a local dialect) and Esperanto.


Oh god no. Esperanto in my opinion is a joke. It seems to me that anyone even interested in speaking Esperanto these days are upper-class college students who want bragging rights over the rest of us. It was tried and tested and it failed abysmally.

Languages aren't for everybody - plain and simple. I was never good at languages in school and I dont think I ever will be able to learn to speak fluent french, spanish or german for that matter - simply they are not my cup of tea in the way of subject. I prefer History, Business studies, English and Sciences. I dont think im unique in this neither.

[pastradamus]

I am confused about this LEARN-A-LOT-OF-LANGUAGES fetishism on the left. What if I don't like learning languages?

I couldnt agree more. All I speak is English and Irish.

[Magón]

I speak enough languages, thanks. (Spanish/English, with broken French and Italian thrown in there too.)

I don't see the need for a one single language, it doesn't hurt anything knowing just a couple or even just one.

[Sam_b]

But compared to Esperanto, it makes little sense to learn English

But at least English is mostly gender neutral, am I right?

I think 'we as communists' should focus on the important things right now rather than trying to big up a constructed and failed language in the rationale that universalism will somehow bring us together. Get tae fuck.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

A hundred years ago, French was the foreign language you were supposed to know around here due to ties with France. Next it was German. Later, it was Russian. Now English. It would be nice if we could choose a language outside of imperialist influences or political connections between states.
This is just nationalism through the medium of language. You don't want to speak English because you think that your nation is special. "They're taking our language" is one of the first and most pathetic battle-cries of racist nationalists everywhere.

I happen to think that plenty of the other European languages would be reasonable choices for a "unified language", but ceteris paribus none of them are going to be, Esperanto is certainly not going to be, and Lojban seems to have been designed solely to make my head explode with irritation at the utter waste of intelligent people's lives creating such a useless thing. There is more chance of the world adopting Klingon or Na'vi as its unified language.

[Sentinel]

I am confused about this LEARN-A-LOT-OF-LANGUAGES fetishism on the left. What if I don't like learning languages?

Well it's your loss, then you'll be able to communicate with considerably less people and get familiar with less cultures, than your potential would allow. Of course, if you don't mind that, then it hardly matters. You will probably do fine enough in any case, after all you already do speak english, which probably is the geographically most widely spoken language, and -- I presume -- German, which is also spoken in several countries.

But there will still be lots of interesting people that you won't be able to communicate with without a translator, and lots of places you can't visit without an interpreter. Another thing to remember is that in the age of globalisation, we communists also need to syncronise our activities with comrades on a global scale. Knowledge of foreign languages is an invaluable tool in that work.

Personally I'm trilingual out of necessity, though: my first language is Finnish but I was grown up in Sweden, a country where nearly everyone under the age of 40 besides swedish also speaks english. I'm quite happy for these circumstances. Speaking three languages is an enormous privilege, even though two of them are rather regional ones.

[Widerstand]

Well then you'll be able to communicate with considerably less people, and thus get familiar with less cultures, than your potential would allow. Of course, if you don't mind that, then it hardly matters. You will probably do fine enough in any case, after all you already do speak english, which probably is the geographically most widely spoken language.

But there will still be lots of interesting people that you won't be able to communicate with without a translator, and lots of places you can't visit without an interpreter. Another thing to remember is that in the age of globalisation, we communists also need to syncronise our activities with comrades on a global scale. Knowledge of foreign languages is an invaluable tool in that work.

I hear what you're saying, but none of this will make me put up with the bores and chores that learning a language is. Shit has to be the least interesting activity on earth, reading stupid grammar rules and vocabulary lists for months.

[Rafiq]

I think that the most beautiful language is Russian.

But for the interests of the world, English or Spanish would be a better International language.

[Sentinel]

I hear what you're saying, but none of this will make me put up with the bores and chores that learning a language is. Shit has to be the least interesting activity on earth, reading stupid grammar rules and vocabulary lists for months.

Well, we are all different, some enjoy this and others that. But clearly the studying of languages is something that should be actively encouraged by society, and by progressives, regardless?

An interesting point is that if the teaching is started in an appropriate age, most children have the potential of learning multiple languages with ease. I have friends that speak four languages fluently due to growing up in multi-background homes.

In my opinion the education system should take advantage of this potential in small children. Indeed, it should be entirely reformed to fit a new purpose of improving the skills of the human being for her own and for society's sake, rather than in order to meet the demands of the labour market, but that's another topic I guess.

[Lee Van Cleef]

I think it is a grave mistake to lump language diversity in with nationalism. It should not be forgotten that language is a vital component of culture, and countless things are lost in translation; if they can be translated at all.

The idea of supplanting all the world's thousands of languages with one global language is cultural imperialism, plain and simple. If anyone has seen a documentary called Encounters at the End of the World, there is a great interview with a linguist that addresses just this topic. He poses the question of what would happen if, say, German or Russian disappeared overnight. All the ideas and histories and culture of the people would go with it. There would be no more original text of Marx, or Lenin; no Goethe or Pushkin. At best, someone might translate their works and provide us with a distorted and bias view, with no reference point as to the author's true meaning. Things we would neglect to translate, be it Nazi or religious texts, would be more or less erased from history.

Indeed the primary goal of many linguists today is to combat this loss of cultural knowledge where it is already happening, where dominant cultures attempt to stamp out indigenous languages. In places like India or Latin America, it is in fact nationalism that leads the fight against language diversity. Although the goal of uniting humanity may well be the most noble ideal of the left, let us not get so wrapped up in the struggle to unite that we end up leaving humanity by the wayside.

[Q]

I think it is a grave mistake to lump language diversity in with nationalism. It should not be forgotten that language is a vital component of culture, and countless things are lost in translation; if they can be translated at all.

The idea of supplanting all the world's thousands of languages with one global language is cultural imperialism, plain and simple. If anyone has seen a documentary called Encounters at the End of the World, there is a great interview with a linguist that addresses just this topic. He poses the question of what would happen if, say, German or Russian disappeared overnight. All the ideas and histories and culture of the people would go with it. There would be no more original text of Marx, or Lenin; no Goethe or Pushkin. At best, someone might translate their works and provide us with a distorted and bias view, with no reference point as to the author's true meaning. Things we would neglect to translate, be it Nazi or religious texts, would be more or less erased from history.

Indeed the primary goal of many linguists today is to combat this loss of cultural knowledge where it is already happening, where dominant cultures attempt to stamp out indigenous languages. In places like India or Latin America, it is in fact nationalism that leads the fight against language diversity. Although the goal of uniting humanity may well be the most noble ideal of the left, let us not get so wrapped up in the struggle to unite that we end up leaving humanity by the wayside.

I believe my point may have been lost in translation somewhere ;)

I wasn't argueing against language diversity, I was in fact argueing for it. Let the Basques learn Basque, the Welsh talk Welsh, the Britons teach Britonian (sp?)... You get the point. The language that however binds us all is Esperanto (or Ido, or a similar language). This is not a recipe for the end of culture, but for the vast expansion of it and for overcoming nationalism (and nationalist suppression of local dialects, such as Frysian and Limburgian in the Netherlands) at the same time.

[Lee Van Cleef]

I believe my point may have been lost in translation somewhere ;)

I wasn't argueing against language diversity, I was in fact argueing for it. Let the Basques learn Basque, the Welsh talk Welsh, the Britons teach Britonian (sp?)... You get the point. The language that however binds us all is Esperanto (or Ido, or a similar language). This is not a recipe for the end of culture, but for the vast expansion of it and for overcoming nationalism (and nationalist suppression of local dialects, such as Frysian and Limburgian in the Netherlands) at the same time.
I realize this, and fully support the idea of an "auxiliary language," or at least some kind of global pidgin. Such very basic modes of communication have existed for centuries in trade-heavy areas. My post was more of a general reply to the OP, who came across as advocating a universal language.

[Dimentio]

English, though, remains the only language with a substantial number of speakers outside the "native speakers" areas of Britain, the US and the "White Dominions". I'm a pragmatist, and don't see the need to impose a constructed language on people any more than I want to impose a constructed nationality. I'm not even keen to impose a natural language. I do though think that we will naturally end up with a unified language, and that at present it looks likely that it will be based around a shell of English - but an "English" that continues to evolve by memetic osmosis, absorbing characteristics and phrasings of the national languages. There are no other realistic candidates. Only English is used around the world, and the only language that is sometimes described as having as many speakers is "Chinese", a language in which many varieties are not even remotely mutually intelligible, making "Chinese" as much of a language as "European" is. Perhaps something astonishing will happen, but otherwise it looks like this memetic evolution will continue.

There are two problems with any dominant natural languages.

Firstly, they have ambiguites built into them, meaning that the language could be used for vague statements, exaggerations, understatements, white lies, irony and so forth. When Non-native speakers are confronted with administrative documents written in the dominant language (or translated from it), there could emerge real practical problems. In the EU, translations from one of the languages to the others tend to create entirely new documents with entirely new meanings.

Secondly, natural dominant languages tend to slowly overtake minority languages, replacing them.

That is why Loglan would be quite good.

[Noinu]

There is already a language widelly speaken in the world:english.
I speak 4 languages but i dont identify me as a specific nationality. I rather identify me as a human being.
I think latin would be cool aswell.

Latin _is_ cool. And useful, when one thinks about learning other languages like English or Russian (not to mention Italian and Spanish...).

[NecroCommie]

I really see no reason why there shouldn't be a standard language.

[Noinu]

I really see no reason why there shouldn't be a standard language.

And what language would then get to be a standard language?

[NecroCommie]

And what language would then get to be a standard language?
That's completely another issue. I didn't say it was gonna be easy, I just think it would be good provided the transition were succesfull.

[Noinu]

That's completely another issue. I didn't say it was gonna be easy, I just think it would be good provided the transition were succesfull.

I really hope I didn't sound offensive, I really was just asking because the topic seems interesting : D

I was really just wondering for example in a hypothetical country that has maybe just formed, has no historical ties to any language in particular, is multicultural and thus one couldn't choose a majority language and many of the languages spoken were completely different from each other (say sami and latin). How would one go about in getting a standard language.

[graymouser]

That is why Loglan would be quite good.
Do you seriously prefer Loglan over Lojban? James Cooke Brown and The Loglan Institute have taken such a proprietary interest in Loglan that it pretty much alienated all the supporters of the idea, and they used the same underlying ideas to create Lojban. Most of the relatively small logical language movement is around Lojban and not Loglan these days.

If anybody's interested in the history of constructed languages, including Esperanto and Lojban, Akita Okrent's book In the Land of Invented Languages is a recent, and mostly sympathetic, history from a linguist.

[NecroCommie]

I really hope I didn't sound offensive, I really was just asking because the topic seems interesting : D

I was really just wondering for example in a hypothetical country that has maybe just formed, has no historical ties to any language in particular, is multicultural and thus one couldn't choose a majority language and many of the languages spoken were completely different from each other (say sami and latin). How would one go about in getting a standard language.
No you didn't sound. And I really don't think unified language would be possible in the near future. One should however understand that the multitude of languages is not a value in itself, meaning we should not artificially preserve dying languages. Sure, people should have services despite the languages they speak, but to artificially upkeep languages "just because" is stupid. IMHO. Languages are not important. Being understood is.

[Noinu]

No you didn't sound. And I really don't think unified language would be possible in the near future. One should however understand that the multitude of languages is not a value in itself, meaning we should not artificially preserve dying languages. Sure, people should have services despite the languages they speak, but to artificially upkeep languages "just because" is stupid. IMHO. Languages are not important. Being understood is.

So you don't think that a. cultures go together with the languages spoken in them and b. cultures are also not important?

[RedAnarchist]

The posts about the role of Swedish in Finland are now in a new thread - http://www.revleft.com/vb/role-swedish-language-t144763/index.html?t=144763

[ComradeOm]

English, though, remains the only language with a substantial number of speakers outside the "native speakers" areas of Britain, the US and the "White Dominions"...And fifty years ago it was French that occupied that position; one that it had held for centuries. A lingua franca (the term itself refers to France) is nothing like a single world language. There have been countless throughout history as various empires rise and fall. What we are witnessing now is the apex/legacy of US imperialism - where America, as the world's dominant economy, military and cultural power imposes its standards and norms on the ROTW. Everyone else has little choice but to adjust

There is little doubt in my mind the the decline of the US as a hegemonic power, which we are already witnessing, will in turn lead to a decline in the usage of English (if that bastardised tongue spoken by businessmen can indeed be called English) as a lingua franca. It seems bizarre to insist that English is the foundation of a new 'universal' tongue when its foundations are in turn crumbling


There are no other realistic candidates. Only English is used around the world, and the only language that is sometimes described as having as many speakers is "Chinese", a language in which many varieties are not even remotely mutually intelligible, making "Chinese" as much of a language as "European" is. Perhaps something astonishing will happen, but otherwise it looks like this memetic evolution will continue.Mandarin alone has more native speakers than English. Most speakers of 'Chinese' can understand it as a second language; certainly as much as those who speak 'international English'. Yet you include the latter while dismissing the various Chinese tongues? Which is without even mentioning Spanish


This is just nationalism through the medium of language. You don't want to speak English because you think that your nation is special. "They're taking our language" is one of the first and most pathetic battle-cries of racist nationalists everywhere.Whereas the insistence on one 'imperial' tongue is the first demand of all conquers and imperialists. What is your mother tongue? Why do you have the right to impose your language on others?

No, the starting point for imperialists (even social-imperialists) is the assumption that their culture, or tongue in this case, is "special" and worth exporting around the world. We then have the gross hypocrisy of them exclaiming that those who reject this alien standard, those who refuse to conform to imperialist norms, are "racist nationalists". Unbelievable :rolleyes:


I am confused about this LEARN-A-LOT-OF-LANGUAGES fetishism on the left. What if I don't like learning languages?Then don't learn them. Just sit back and count your stars that you happen to speak a language that is currently popular. You probably won't even realise what you're missing

As for why so many on 'the left' are interested in learning foreign languages, it's natural that many of us are by nature internationalists. We recognise the benefits that come with interacting with another culture on its own terms


One should however understand that the multitude of languages is not a value in itself, meaning we should not artificially preserve dying languages. Sure, people should have services despite the languages they speak, but to artificially upkeep languages "just because" is stupid. IMHO. Languages are not important. Being understood is.Languages are an integral part of culture. This has two aspects. Imagine if people suddenly stopped speaking French tomorrow, you would immediately consign centuries of literature, art and learning (everything that makes up this nebulous concept we call 'culture') to history. Goodbye Hugo and Balzac, we don't need to read you any more! This is happening at an alarming rate already

Furthermore, you would also eradicate the future as well as the past. How could a culture be French if one of its defining features, a huge part of its identity, was universal? French culture written in English? No thank you, I get enough English culture in English as it is. A unified language would invariably lead to a mono-culture, an eventuality which can only be described as terminally boring. A diversity of languages is vital in maintaining a diversity of culture

Finally of course, language is in itself often a thing of beauty. English has its moments but its largely a dull and plodding tongue. I would not like to lose the specific charms of, for example, French and Italian. Even Irish, at the hands of a O'Muircheartaigh, has a delightful elegance about it that would be a pity to see vanish into history. But then those who argue for a single language inevitably do so from the position that their own is superior to all others and the only one worth keeping (see above)

Now if none of the above has any impact on you, and you consider language to be little more than a means to order food, then you're simply a grotesque philistine. In which case there's little more to say

[Ovi]

This is just nationalism through the medium of language. You don't want to speak English because you think that your nation is special. "They're taking our language" is one of the first and most pathetic battle-cries of racist nationalists everywhere.

I was wondering how long it would take until some native English speaker that holds on the idea that English should be the second language of everyone in the world accuses me of nationalism when proposing Esperanto :rolleyes: . Taking our language? If most people on the Planet would speak the same language, I would see little reason for any other native language. I'm perfectly fine with english, I started learning it since kindergarten. What I do think a true international language should have is cultural neutrality, so we won't have people proposing their own natural language as the best (like now). It's stupid. What I don't like about Esperanto is that it's too euro-centric and its vocabulary is too much based on Romance languages, like my own. It is however, easer to learn. A single second language for everyone would be a great achievement and we're far away from that.

Oh god no. Esperanto in my opinion is a joke. It seems to me that anyone even interested in speaking Esperanto these days are upper-class college students who want bragging rights over the rest of us. It was tried and tested and it failed abysmally.

Languages aren't for everybody - plain and simple. I was never good at languages in school and I dont think I ever will be able to learn to speak fluent french, spanish or german for that matter - simply they are not my cup of tea in the way of subject. I prefer History, Business studies, English and Sciences. I dont think im unique in this neither.
You don't have to learn it if you don't want to, just like with any other second language today...

[Noinu]

Languages are an integral part of culture. This has two aspects. Imagine if people suddenly stopped speaking French tomorrow, you would immediately consign centuries of literature, art and learning (everything that makes up this nebulous concept we call 'culture') to history. Goodbye Hugo and Balzac, we don't need to read you any more! This is happening at an alarming rate already

Furthermore, you would also eradicate the future as well as the past. How could a culture be French if one of its defining features, a huge part of its identity, was universal? French culture written in English? No thank you, I get enough English culture in English as it is. A unified language would invariably lead to a mono-culture, an eventuality which can only be described as terminally boring. A diversity of languages is vital in maintaining a diversity of culture

Finally of course, language is in itself often a thing of beauty. English has its moments but its largely a dull and plodding tongue. I would not like to lose the specific charms of, for example, French and Italian. Even Irish, at the hands of a O'Muircheartaigh, has a delightful elegance about it that would be a pity to see vanish into history. But then those who argue for a single language inevitably do so from the position that their own is superior to all others and the only one worth keeping (see above)

Now if none of the above has any impact on you, and you consider language to be little more than a means to order food, then you're simply a grotesque philistine. In which case there's little more to say

Thank you for being able to put to words the exact things I was thinking :) Really well said.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Well, we are all different, some enjoy this and others that. But clearly the studying of languages is something that should be actively encouraged by society, and by progressives, regardless?
But, why? I don't find this clear at all. For as long as a plurality of languages exist, humanity cannot properly unite.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

And fifty years ago it was French that occupied that position; one that it had held for centuries. A lingua franca (the term itself refers to France) is nothing like a single world language. There have been countless throughout history as various empires rise and fall. What we are witnessing now is the apex/legacy of US imperialism - where America, as the world's dominant economy, military and cultural power imposes its standards and norms on the ROTW. Everyone else has little choice but to adjust

There is little doubt in my mind the the decline of the US as a hegemonic power, which we are already witnessing, will in turn lead to a decline in the usage of English (if that bastardised tongue spoken by businessmen can indeed be called English) as a lingua franca. It seems bizarre to insist that English is the foundation of a new 'universal' tongue when its foundations are in turn crumbling

Mandarin alone has more native speakers than English. Most speakers of 'Chinese' can understand it as a second language; certainly as much as those who speak 'international English'. Yet you include the latter while dismissing the various Chinese tongues? Which is without even mentioning Spanish

Whereas the insistence on one 'imperial' tongue is the first demand of all conquers and imperialists. What is your mother tongue? Why do you have the right to impose your language on others?

No, the starting point for imperialists (even social-imperialists) is the assumption that their culture, or tongue in this case, is "special" and worth exporting around the world. We then have the gross hypocrisy of them exclaiming that those who reject this alien standard, those who refuse to conform to imperialist norms, are "racist nationalists". Unbelievable :rolleyes:
Comrade, you misunderstand my position. Here it is, as I stated it earlier:
I'm a pragmatist, and don't see the need to impose a constructed language on people any more than I want to impose a constructed nationality. I'm not even keen to impose a natural language. I do though think that we will naturally end up with a unified language, and that at present it looks likely that it will be based around a shell of English - but an "English" that continues to evolve by memetic osmosis, absorbing characteristics and phrasings of the national languages.Now, as I said, I'm not planning to impose English or any other language on anyone. I happen to think that English is likely to end up being the basis of a unified language. But maybe it won't; maybe a different language will become the basis for the unified standard. It won't happen in my lifetime, so I don't particularly care. What I do care about is people who are opposed to a particular natural language because of nationalist sentiment. Honestly, the things you say, such as
How could a culture be French if one of its defining features, a huge part of its identity, was universal? French culture written in English? No thank you, I get enough English culture in English as it is. seem to desire the continued existence of a specifically national French culture. I don't understand how nationalist sentiments like that are compatible with socialism. I don't see why any particular "national culture" should survive as is. Nations are just bourgeois imitations of feudal states, and serve to keep the international proletariat divided.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Personally, I don't think that a unified language will ever work just because of the presence of slang and the preferences of certain phrases and words that different communities have. And besides, every language has at least one quality that people recognize and respect about each individual language. If anything, I think people should try to learn at least one other language in their life, and I think people should make the effort to preserve and restore languages that were once spoken by a community but then purged because of some larger imperial force.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

I was wondering how long it would take until some native English speaker that holds on the idea that English should be the second language of everyone in the world accuses me of nationalism when proposing Esperanto :rolleyes: . Taking our language? If most people on the Planet would speak the same language, I would see little reason for any other native language. I'm perfectly fine with english, I started learning it since kindergarten. What I do think a true international language should have is cultural neutrality, so we won't have people proposing their own natural language as the best (like now). It's stupid. What I don't like about Esperanto is that it's too euro-centric and its vocabulary is too much based on Romance languages, like my own. It is however, easer to learn. A single second language for everyone would be a great achievement and we're far away from that.
I don't think that English is "the best" language, though it does have certain evolutionary adaptations which are strengths when it comes to memetic survival. I just think that English is currently the most likely language to be the basis for a unified global language. Actually, when it comes to the sound of the language, I like Russian and Spanish best. What is pretty certain, in my opinion, is that no constructed language will become a unified global language unless it's imposed by cultural elites.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Personally, I don't think that a unified language will ever work just because of the presence of slang and the preferences of certain phrases and words that different communities have.
Does the presence of New York slang and London slang and Bombay slang and Sydney slang etc etc mean that English "doesn't work"? The answer is no.


And besides, every language has at least one quality that people recognize and respect about each individual language.
Would you say that every nation has "at least one quality that people recognise and respect about each individual nation"? Because I don't see the difference.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Does the presence of New York slang and London slang and Bombay slang and Sydney slang etc etc mean that English "doesn't work"? The answer is no.

English is changing all the time BECAUSE of slang. If this weren't true, modern English as we know it today wouldn't exist. Also, while English is spoken worldwide, there is still considerable difference in the way that people speak it. And personally, I don't see any reason as to why there would be a problem with this. Everybody deserves their own identity and their own way of doing things as long as it brings no harm or inequality to another person.


Would you say that every nation has "at least one quality that people recognise and respect about each individual nation"? Because I don't see the difference.

And you totally misunderstood what I said... What I meant is that all languages are valuable and recognizeable because of this. Also, I do not consider one language to be "better" than another language. Instead, I view all languages as I do religions: They are all unique and valued by those who speak it because the structure and context of each individual language is representative of the culture that it came from and the history for which the culture has gone through.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

English is changing all the time BECAUSE of slang. If this weren't true, modern English as we know it today wouldn't exist. Also, while English is spoken worldwide, there is still considerable difference in the way that people speak it. And personally, I don't see any reason as to why there would be a problem with this. Everybody deserves their own identity and their own way of doing things as long as it brings no harm or inequality to another person.That ability to differ in the use of English but still be understood and accepted is one of English's greatest strengths. Even people speaking Creoles and the most obscure dialects have their poetry and literature published without translation in areas adhering more closely to conventional English. But I'm concerned by your talk about "everybody deserving their own identity", which to me sounds dangerously like a particularly bland relativistic liberalism rather than anything socialist. I also refer you to point 3 of Chapter 1 of the Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm), and its demolition of the word "fair", which parallels your word "deserve".



And you totally misunderstood what I said... What I meant is that all languages are valuable and recognizeable because of this. Also, I do not consider one language to be "better" than another language. Instead, I view all languages as I do religions: They are all unique and valued by those who speak it because the structure and context of each individual language is representative of the culture that it came from and the history for which the culture has gone through.This is essentially the henotheistic fascism of seminal proto-fascist Charles Maurras. Maurras, a Frenchman, didn't believe that France or French culture was intrinsically better than other countries (in his philosophical works rather than his rabble-rousing pamphlets, that is), but he believed that it was right for French people to identify with it, and for Germans to identify with Germany and German culture, and so on. This has continued to be a major strand in fascist thought, through the Axis to the modern day, when fascist groups from countries such as America, England, Holland, France, and even Japan encourage each other in prioritising their own culture and language. Even the public rhetoric of many of these groups about ethnic minorities echoes this: the BNP propose repatriation on the grounds that ethnic minorities ought to value and live in their "own" countries and cultures.

My country is the world and my culture is global and my race is human and my language should be similarly unfettered by anachronistic deference to the local culture of the region where I happen to have been born.

[ComradeOm]

I don't understand how nationalist sentiments like that are compatible with socialism. I don't see why any particular "national culture" should survive as is. Nations are just bourgeois imitations of feudal states, and serve to keep the international proletariat divided.I do hate this faux internationalism that stubbornly refuses to distinguish between nationstate and nation. It simply displays an ignorance as to how others live and a startling assumption of superiority. Get rid of the French and everything that defines them as a culture (as if that was ever possible*) but don't make Ingerland speak Mandarin or replace football with ice hockey!

This is particularly dumbfounding in this context where you have the gall to label others as nationalists (or even fascist!). Look at the below conversation and tell me which one is the rabid nationalist:

Person A: You must adopt my language
Person B: No thank you, I'm perfectly happy with my own

Person A is clearly an imperialist who assumes that their customs are superior to that of Person B. Nationalist. It doesn't matter if Person A finishes their sentence with, "... in order to overcome bourgeois divisions"; that just makes them social-imperialist. An attitude on clear display in this thread


I don't see why any particular "national culture" should survive as isBecause they have value in their own right. Who the fuck are you to simply write off French culture, and all that makes it unique, as if it was worse than worthless? What gives you the right to dictate how people should and shouldn't speak? Oh yeah... assumptions of superiority

* Of course its not. Cultures are born from differing material conditions; its fantasy to assume that someday the exact same conditions will apply to every person on earth

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Comrade, take a step back and calm down.

I don't want people to adopt the language that I happen to speak. I already said that I don't care. I already said that I wouldn't impose a particular language from any culture or none onto the world. Maybe everybody will end up speaking English, or French, or Chinese, or Tagalog, or Klingon. I honestly don't care. I believe that as a matter of evolutionary memetics English has certain traits that make it materially likely to be the one that gets chosen, and we can have a discussion about that, fine. But I don't think English is intrinsically "better". That would be as stupid as thinking that every language is valuable, or that a language is "yours" for you to "keep" or "lose". Language is a tool for functional and artistic expression.

All "national cultures" are the product of class society and hegemonic elite interest. I am alarmed that you're so defensive and chauvinistic about the national culture in which you live. Who ever said that anyone would "get rid of the French?" How silly. What on earth do you mean by "all that makes [French culture] unique"? Are there moral traits that only the French possess? As I say, calm down. Address the question like a scientific socialist instead of like a nationalist.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think that is realistically the best that we can do to increase understanding between language groups and cultures. The dream of a single language spoken by all is nice, but utopistic. The countries of the world could never agree about which language of the existing ones should be the universal one, and attempts to create and launch new ones such as esperanto have failed, and probably will continue to do so.


I don't think the dream is nice. It is utopian, but as a native speaker of a "small" language I've developed an understanding that the enormous variety of languages is not a barrier to human communication, but a challenge that may be overcome if the conditions are favourable. And I can't think of more favourable conditions than that of classless society.

Now, a huge problem with the idea of one unified language is that it would engender discrimination just as Esperanto does towards speakers of the African group of languages, the Asian group and so on.
These languages are radically different and are not compatible in order that they may be combined with respect to their morphological, phonological syntactic and lexical differences.

On top of that, it is immensely pleasurable to learn new languages, especially in the context of being in the country where it is spoken, so I would fiercly argue against the notion of a universal language :tt2:
Other than that, Sentiel has nailed it pretty well.

[Thirsty Crow]

I believe that as a matter of evolutionary memetics English has certain traits that make it materially likely to be the one that gets chosen, and we can have a discussion about that, fine. But I don't think English is intrinsically "better".Evolutionary memetics? What?
Does it have something to do with imperialism, both military/economic and cultural? If it hasn't than you're wrong.

That would be as stupid as thinking that every language is valuable, or that a language is "yours" for you to "keep" or "lose". Language is a tool for functional and artistic expression.Every language indeed is valuable if the group who uses it decides that it is an important part of their identity.

[ComradeOm]

I don't want people to adopt the language that I happen to speakOf course, its just that you believe that English (read: the language that you speak) has certain traits that elevate it above the rest. As if the world was some sort of jungle in which only the 'fittest' language could hope to become universal. As well as being a dizzyingly idealistic and chauvinistic take on language, your posts ignore, as Menocchio notes, that the current status of English as a global language has nothing to do with "evolutionary memetics" and everything to do with imperialism. They do not speak English in Jamaica because of its compatibility with slang

But hey, don't let that dampen your enthusiasm for eradicating other cultures and imposing your own norms on others


Language is a tool for functional and artistic expressionAnd it makes no difference if you are speaking in French or German?


Who ever said that anyone would "get rid of the French?" How sillyYou do every time you advocate some global mono-cultural nightmare. How can anyone consider themselves to be French when they are entirely divorced from French culture? When 'French culture' itself no longer exists because everyone speaks Klingon or English?


What on earth do you mean by "all that makes [French culture] unique"?Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as French culture? That French society is in fact, aside from a language of course, indistinguishable from that in Germany or Spain? That someone raised in Dublin will mature in the exact same way as someone raised in the different material conditions of Lille?

I'm not going to even attempt to quantify just what makes the French French but to deny that there is no such culture is simply wilful ignorance


All "national cultures" are the product of class society and hegemonic elite interest. I am alarmed that you're so defensive and chauvinistic about the national culture in which you live. This is laughable. When have I stated that my culture is superior to others? When have I suggested that my language should be exported (for the benefit of others of course)? Yet you label me a chauvinist? I suggest that you look up the meaning of the term

"National cultures" are the product of the material conditions from which they arise. They also pre-date the emergence of the bourgeois nationstate, which has served to homogenise and exploit the existence of these differing customs. The bourgeois nationstate will of course go, but there is no reason to insist, and insist it will be, on the imposition of some bland mono-culture in which all differences between nationalities have vanished. It is the height of vulgar Marxism to insist that people will suddenly start behaving like interchangeable robots post-revolution


As I say, calm down. Address the question like a scientific socialist instead of like a nationalist.You tell me to calm down when you throw around accusations of nationalism, chauvinism, and fascism? Please

[Rêve Rouge]

Le Corsaire Rouge, I somewhat understand where you're coming from. But as ComradeOm stated, there is a difference between a "nation" and a "nationstate". Nations are not necessarily oppressive or separatists to the working class as compared to nationstates. Also, not all languages are linked to nations. There are numerous ethnic minorities with no nation, but still have their own language. Hmong would be a good example. They have no nation, but they still hold on strong to their own language, culture and customs.

[Ovi]

I don't think that English is "the best" language, though it does have certain evolutionary adaptations which are strengths when it comes to memetic survival. I just think that English is currently the most likely language to be the basis for a unified global language. Actually, when it comes to the sound of the language, I like Russian and Spanish best. What is pretty certain, in my opinion, is that no constructed language will become a unified global language unless it's imposed by cultural elites.
That's a straw man. It has nothing to do with anything in this thread. French, English, German and Russian were all considered the second language everyone should speak around here because of politics. There isn't anything intrinsic better in any of them compared to the other that led to their adoption. They were all imposed by cultural elites, as you say. You get even more ridiculous when you attack those who don't share your own chauvinistic views about what language everyone should speak as nationalist reactionaries. One reason for a neutral international language is that we won't have to deal with nationalists like yourself who propose their own language as the best.
Now this thread went to shit.