International language

[willowtooth]

Would an international language be a good thing? Would it even be possible? How would we go about installing a a single global international language? Has any leftist spoken in depth about creating and, or promoting one?

[Rafiq]

Even in today's context the prospect of an international language is high. English, for example, has to varying degrees already assumed this role (and that is if we discount languages of science, i.e. computer coding, ETC.).

We do not need to create an international language, however. Esperanto works just fine.

[Guardia Rossa]

IMHO we can create a internet international script - based on Chinese ideogramic script.
It isn't syllabic, meaning anyone in any language can write something meaning "Lamp" and everyone will understand it's a lamp.

It is somewhat hard but after you learn it is as natural as associating the thing Lamp with the spoken word "Lamp" and the script "L - a - m - p"

On Esperanto, it's a language based on germanic and slavic, If i'm not wrong, and it's not popular at all. English is a way more simple language to be used as Global Language.

Except if you kill all the high and middle classes, then it gets quite hard.... :)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Would an international language be a good thing? Would it even be possible? How would we go about installing a a single global international language? Has any leftist spoken in depth about creating and, or promoting one?

Of course an international language would be a good thing - socialists are not opposed to the progressive process by which disparate cultures unite into a single human culture. However, there is no possibility of a single language "being installed" in capitalist society - the bourgeoisie needs nationalism like the human body needs oxygen. Only in the socialist society can the question be posed. When the time comes, it will be up to human society to make the decision - I don't really think Esperanto will be accepted, for example. But that's not on the agenda, currently.

[tuwix]

On Esperanto, it's a language based on germanic and slavic,

No. It's more about romance languages. The name 'Esperanto' has its origin in Spanish 'esperanza' and means the same.

But now English is uses as international language. And it was imposed by USA in world.

[Armchair Partisan]

I think the best way to "create" an international language for socialist society is to just assume the lingua franca of the time (i.e. English, unless something changes drastically), maybe create a committee to reform it (creating an English with phonemic orthography would be like a wet dream for me, although such a reform might be a bit too top-down to pass successfully) and then roll with it.

However, in practice, an "international language" will probably still only be a global second language that everyone can revert to if they're not speaking to someone from their linguistic region. Of course, it's a great unifying factor for a global society, and eventually there will be communities which will switch to this international language as their first over generations, but trying to entirely supplant the bigger competing languages (Chinese, Arabic, Spanish) cannot be done through decree. Therefore, any "reformed English", Esperanto or other international language should be chosen with an eye to making it as easy as possible to learn as a second language, even to people who speak a completely different type of first language.

[Tim Cornelis]

Papiamento: http://www.pagef30.com/2009/03/why-language-called-papiamentu-might-be.html

[Guardia Rossa]

My idea, mildly developed:

Language based on reconstructed Indo-European, divided into two: Simple Language (The language of common people, with day-to-day terms) and Complex (Scientific, Philosofical, Mathematical, etc... with expanded vocabulary)

Script based on Chinese Logographic script, inspired in chinese ones. Easy to read, two versions: Simple and Complex (A really complex thing would be dividing even the meanings/interpretations of one word, like ideology, society, etc...)

This would for once buy out most of the world's population into this (As Indo-European is the biggest language branch, and East Asia using Logographic script. Only numerous peoples excluded completely are the arabs and africans.) and allow a complete scientific building of a language on top of a previously-existing base language (Indo-European)

[Бай Ганьо]

Language based on reconstructed Indo-European, divided into two: Simple Language (The language of common people, with day-to-day terms) and Complex (Scientific, Philosofical, Mathematical, etc... with expanded vocabulary)


What's the point in formally dividing a language along those lines?

[Q]

On Esperanto, it's a language based on germanic and slavic, If i'm not wrong, and it's not popular at all. English is a way more simple language to be used as Global Language.
Only in its idiom Esperanto can be said to be based on European (including Romance) languages. Its grammar isn't based on any existing language and is purposefully designed to be easy to learn. How easy? Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto) gives a reference (source is in French) where it was compared how long it would take a French-native high-school student to learn a certain set level of a language:


2000 hours studying German = 1500 hours studying English = 1000 hours studying Italian (or any other Romance language) = 150 hours studying Esperanto.Secondly, I would argue against the point that English is de facto already a world language. Even in Europe this isn't true. Besides the Netherlands, English-as-a-second-language is actually not that popular. In this wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population) Germany for example ranks quite high with 64% of the population, but this data is to be said to treat with great caution. From personal experience, I know that English fluency with Germans is quite low, not getting even close to that number. So, with that in mind France's 39% or Italy's 34% appear far worse.

Maybe you could argue that English is the de facto world language of the bourgeoisie, but surely that shouldn't be our guiding standard...

[Armchair Partisan]

Secondly, I would argue against the point that English is de facto already a world language. Even in Europe this isn't true. Besides the Netherlands, English-as-a-second-language is actually not that popular. In this wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population) Germany for example ranks quite high with 64% of the population, but this data is to be said to treat with great caution. From personal experience, I know that English fluency with Germans is quite low, not getting even close to that number. So, with that in mind France's 39% or Italy's 34% appear far worse.

Maybe you could argue that English is the de facto world language of the bourgeoisie, but surely that shouldn't be our guiding standard...

You forget an obvious, yet important example: the Internet. Beyond class interest, it is mainly the Internet that unifies the workers of the world, with the bourgeoisie being far from the only ones to use it (although it may not be very widespread among the proletariat of the third world). And as you can see, when two people who don't share a first language meet on the Internet, chances are they are going to resort to English.

As for taking a minor language only spoken by a relatively tiny number of people and elevating it to the status of universal second language, my problem with it is basically this:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png

A universal language can only be instituted by decree, and a small language like Esperanto would not only have to win the acceptance of most people, but also supplant the already established English and other major languages, which is an uphill battle.

Finally, about this:


Even in Europe this isn't true. Besides the Netherlands, English-as-a-second-language is actually not that popular.

Okay, but is there any other language that is close to being as popular as a second language? Because it seems to me that this is simply a case of many people not speaking a second language at all, or have only a broken, functionally useless knowledge of it (since you are also willing to discount that group).

[Guardia Rossa]

What's the point in formally dividing a language along those lines?

So it can be simple and easy to learn the language, and complex enough so we can truly express ourselves.

Also, most people are afraid of some languages because they think these languages are far too complex, this solves this problem.

Of course, the distinction wouldn't be much, only complex words that regular people don't know or are not interested on knowing will be in the second language, as well as the broken-up words

(As I said, using the logograms to break up the definition of "Ideology" into "Common-sense Ideology", "Marx&Engels Ideology", "Zizekian Ideology" etc...)


Only in its idiom Esperanto can be said to be based on European (including Romance) languages. Its grammar isn't based on any existing language and is purposefully designed to be easy to learn. How easy? Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto) gives a reference (source is in French) where it was compared how long it would take a French-native high-school student to learn a certain set level of a language:

Secondly, I would argue against the point that English is de facto already a world language. Even in Europe this isn't true. Besides the Netherlands, English-as-a-second-language is actually not that popular. In this wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population) Germany for example ranks quite high with 64% of the population, but this data is to be said to treat with great caution. From personal experience, I know that English fluency with Germans is quite low, not getting even close to that number. So, with that in mind France's 39% or Italy's 34% appear far worse.

Maybe you could argue that English is the de facto world language of the bourgeoisie, but surely that shouldn't be our guiding standard...

1) This is true to French Speakers. Have you done that research in other nations and tested if it's true?

2) English will most probably fall in use in the whole third world, as it is mostly a middle-class/bourgeoisie language. Esperanto is not expected to fall, it is not even a thing outside of internet. The substitution of it with a way more neutral and scientifically constructed language is easy to do.


A universal language can only be instituted by decree, and a small language like Esperanto would not only have to win the acceptance of most people, but also supplant the already established English and other major languages, which is an uphill battle

Making both English and this Neo-Indo-European can win the acceptance of most of the world's population, with the Logogramic script winning over the easternmost Asiatic people's. This scientific construction allows for a simplicity of the pill and complexity of the medicine (As such, my division of the language into two..... Sociolects? If you can consider them so. One simple to learn and based on the most-spoken language tree of the world, other scientifically constructed into being a very complex and scientific/philosophical language.)

[Armchair Partisan]

Making both English and this Neo-Indo-European can win the acceptance of most of the world's population, with the Logogramic script winning over the easternmost Asiatic people's. This scientific construction allows for a simplicity of the pill and complexity of the medicine (As such, my division of the language into two..... Sociolects? If you can consider them so. One simple to learn and based on the most-spoken language tree of the world, other scientifically constructed into being a very complex and scientific/philosophical language.)

A sociolect? Are you trying to make a class society through language? Seriously... This, along with the following:


Of course, the distinction wouldn't be much, only complex words that regular people don't know or are not interested on knowing will be in the second language, as well as the broken-up words

I guess those dumb, run-of-the-mill regular people are not interested in knowing sophisticated words, they are content with speaking in short, simple sentences that could fit into a school textbook? (And what committee will decide on what words the "regular person" should not have to be exposed to in the simplified language classes?)

I hope you realize how bad that sounds. You might want to rethink this idea. (I have yet to read anything in your posts that indicate it would be better, in any way, to stratify language than to use the old-fashioned way of everyone learning as much of it as possible.)

[Guardia Rossa]

A sociolect? Are you trying to make a class society through language? Seriously... This, along with the following:

¬¬
Now people that study philosophy are from a different class from the ones that study quantum physics?
And are all different from the class that studies math and don't need/want to learn the various meanings of some words accordingly to each and every single dude that wrote on the subject?


I guess those dumb, run-of-the-mill regular people are not interested in knowing sophisticated words, they are content with speaking in short, simple sentences that could fit into a school textbook? (And what committee will decide on what words the "regular person" should not have to be exposed to in the simplified language classes?)

I hope you realize how bad that sounds. You might want to rethink this idea. (I have yet to read anything in your posts that indicate it would be better, in any way, to stratify language than to use the old-fashioned way of everyone learning as much of it as possible.)

As all division, it is an artificial division, for, again, SIMPLICITY'S SAKE. People learn what they WANT, as there will probably be no language schools (Cmon, wtf? I learn German on internet, I read Marx on internet, anyone can do anything in the internet. After a socialist revolution everyone will have enough free time and enough acess to worldwide communication systems, Language Schools are not needed for linguistic diffusion)

Then again, if you want to make it mandatory to every single person know every little single word, good luck with THAT! (False dichotomy, I know, but ilustrates) But, please, call me a Linguistic Führer, I don't mind.

[Guardia Rossa]

This one is funny.

MARX WAS WRONG!!!1!!

Classes are created through the process of sociolect creation! I am from the marxist-historian-rockist class, he is from the mathematics-soccerist class, that one is from the linguistics-historian class, that other person is from the anarchist class.

[Armchair Partisan]

...Right... uh, whatever, good on ya, fella.

[Q]

1) This is true to French Speakers. Have you done that research in other nations and tested if it's true?
I'm only citing research, I haven't done any myself. But while more is always better, it is a pretty safe bet that we'll see very similar results in at least other European languages.


2) English will most probably fall in use in the whole third world, as it is mostly a middle-class/bourgeoisie language. Esperanto is not expected to fall, it is not even a thing outside of internet. The substitution of it with a way more neutral and scientifically constructed language is easy to do.You are referring to a neutral and scientifically constructed language besides Esperanto? There are quite a few constructed languages around, but none are as well rooted as Esperanto. At point there was a genuine Esperantist mass movement in the early 20th century, why not rebuild it?

[Rafiq]

Language based on reconstructed Indo-European, divided into two: Simple Language (The language of common people, with day-to-day terms) and Complex (Scientific, Philosofical, Mathematical, etc... with expanded vocabulary)

Script based on Chinese Logographic script, inspired in chinese ones. Easy to read, two versions: Simple and Complex (A really complex thing would be dividing even the meanings/interpretations of one word, like ideology, society, etc...)


The language of technocrats, in other words. This already exists - it is the language of peer-reviewed journals, etc.

What you propose encapsulates the alienation, and the formalization of thought - its reduction for private use - t hat already exists. The point of Communism is to destroy the gap between "everyday" common language and "complex" language. In fact, this was the point of very early social democracy in Russia, Germany, and so on - for the dissemination of scientific knowledge among the broad masses, which Lassalle claimed was a task never before carried out in history (and he was right).

We should rather stay true to the tradition of Orthodox Marxism in approximating scientific language to concrete political and historic circumstances (without butchering it). A great task lies ahead of us in "ironing out" (NOT formalizing) the achievements of Marxism that occurred in the past several decades, those theoretical nad philosophical. Most "marxists" today have no notion of thought - they instead tacitly accept analytical philistinism and it is perfectly compatible for them because their Marxism amounts to nothing more than self-identification with a few formal ideas.

Zizek has been especially helpful in this - for example, in his attempts to make Lacan understandable for "even your grandma". But this isn't enough, because it doesn't have a solid programmic or political dimension - this is our task. Every Marxist today must also be a Lacanian - to navigate present coordinates of politics, ideology, ETC. is impossible without him. This is aside from the fact that we need Lacan in the midst of biological determinism, its implications for biogenetic engineering, and so on.

Esperanto perhaps can undergo a revival. If not for the world, at least as the language of a Pan-European left.

[Antiochus]

There is something that is certainly enticing about wanting an international language. I'll put forward the example of Spanish, although the same can be applied to several others.

What the hell does Spain have in common with Latin American countries other than centuries of rape, murder and destruction? Well, a language. And that is quite powerful. But I think one would be mistaken to believe that a language can 'overcome' the antagonisms that exist within those nations or even ameliorate them (by antagonism, I mean largely the class one and the subsidiary ones like racism and so forth).

People in Latin America for example have this idiotic notion that racism is "not a problem" for them. They think that, the U.S has racism, but that they are "inclusive" of everyone. You can see it all the time in novelas from these countries and Brazil (I realize they don't speak SPanish ofc). But what should be understood is that these Iberian nations (and France to some extent) practiced racial superiority THROUGH inclusion. No doubt as as a byproduct of their own submission to the Moors. So unlike the English, they mixed with the local population; albeit always keeping a 'white' caste.

Perhaps its a bit of a ramble on my part but my question is: Why bother? The world is already headed towards international languages all the time (just look at the internet). I don't see how wasting any energy on this would help.

[moxalt]

> Simple Language (The language of common people, with day-to-day terms) and Complex (Scientific, Philosofical, Mathematical, etc... with expanded vocabulary)

This is beginning to sound frighteningly like Newspeak.

[Ritzy Cat]

The Korean Hangul script is deceptively simple and easy to learn. I was able to learn how to pronounce and form almost any syllable I could imagine within a few days. I wouldn't mind seeing that becoming a universal script, at least.

[Artiom]

The Korean Hangul script is deceptively simple and easy to learn. I was able to learn how to pronounce and form almost any syllable I could imagine within a few days. I wouldn't mind seeing that becoming a universal script, at least.


Very true, it was made to be logical and easy enough for anyone to learn it in a couple of days.

There seems to be a missconception that Esperanto is eurocentric, and only easy to learn for people who already know a indoeuropean language because of its vocabulary, but then you have to understand that languages are mostly hard to learn for being unlocigal with complex gramma rules that will contradict themselves with a bunch of ecceptions to thoos rules, and being bounded to specific cultures that makes it hard for outsiders to learn them without experiencing the culture at the same time.
This is what the guy who made esperanto realized and started to make a logical system (just like with hangul) with a gramma thats easy to follow and with few ecceptions. Thats whats makes it a potential International language, but like already menthioned it probably has to go through some sort of revival. Another interesting example is the officila language of Indonesia, Bahasa, thats supose to be really easy to learn because of very few existing gramma rules.

Just to be clear, I dont think that esperanto will swoop the world and become the second language of evry individual of the planet, but its potentional limits is not in its vocabulary but more in that people dont know about it or just dont see the point of it. Add to that, nationalism and cultural chauvinism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The Korean Hangul script is deceptively simple and easy to learn. I was able to learn how to pronounce and form almost any syllable I could imagine within a few days. I wouldn't mind seeing that becoming a universal script, at least.

Han/Choseon/whatevergul is easy to learn because it shares some of the features of alphabets. But then it's much easier to adopt an alphabet and not arbitrarily group certain sequences of letters into signs for syllables.

It also needs to be considered how much information is carried in vowels. In English, not so much; bt mst ppl cld ndrstnd ths. But if you took vowels out of something like Finnish, there would be little left.


There seems to be a missconception that Esperanto is eurocentric, and only easy to learn for people who already know a indoeuropean language because of its vocabulary, but then you have to understand that languages are mostly hard to learn for being unlocigal with complex gramma rules that will contradict themselves with a bunch of ecceptions to thoos rules, and being bounded to specific cultures that makes it hard for outsiders to learn them without experiencing the culture at the same time.
This is what the guy who made esperanto realized and started to make a logical system (just like with hangul) with a gramma thats easy to follow and with few ecceptions.

That's the theory, anyway.

In practice Esperanto does not have significantly less exceptions and irregularly formed words than other Indo-European languages. And it is a Indo-European language. For example, the two cases are nominative and accusative, not ergative and absolutive (as in Basque), there is adjective agreement, the word order is generally SVO and so on. This is not a criticism of Esperanto; it's something generally recognised. The problem arises only when Esperanto-pushers try to pretend their language is more universal than it actually is.


Another interesting example is the officila language of Indonesia, Bahasa, thats supose to be really easy to learn because of very few existing gramma rules.

Japanese also has relatively few grammar rules (although some of them are hilariously archaic and arcane). All this means is that it depends heavily on context, which actually makes it more difficult to learn, in my experience.

[Artiom]

That's the theory, anyway.

In practice Esperanto does not have significantly less exceptions and irregularly formed words than other Indo-European languages. And it is a Indo-European language. For example, the two cases are nominative and accusative, not ergative and absolutive (as in Basque), there is adjective agreement, the word order is generally SVO and so on. This is not a criticism of Esperanto; it's something generally recognised. The problem arises only when Esperanto-pushers try to pretend their language is more universal than it actually is.


You sure? I have studied Thai, Korean, Spanish and Russian and just started to "taste" some Esperanto and so far i have not seen as many exceptions at all as in the other ones. Not Even Close.
But ok, so it can be classified as an Indieuropean language, well then its still the most logical and easy one I have dealed with, including english.


Japanese also has relatively few grammar rules (although some of them are hilariously archaic and arcane). All this means is that it depends heavily on context, which actually makes it more difficult to learn, in my experience.

Well, I have been told that its easy because its lack of grammar makes it hard to make any misstake, and therefor easier to learn and thats why any (western) backpacker, scientist or sextourist that goes there and just pay a little attention tend to pick up quite a lot. Compared to japanese where I have only met western people that struggles a lot with it.