we have a global country now what is the language?

[sypher]

I understand that people are diverse and different languages help make culture beautifull. however if we as a people will ever achieve complete unity we need to decide on a one language. This can be done over time and be very easy. but what lanuage would you suggest?

[Eastside Revolt]

I think you are wrong about things not working without a universall language. I have lived with many people who didn't speak my language, and we were fine.

[Monks Aflame]

hmm... I don't know. If a global language is implemented, will others still exist? Does that mean everything should be globalized, ending different culture and setting a standard that is geared toward working with current times and forgetting the past?

[Umoja]

Esperanto is the language I'd suggest. I can give you numerous links to Esperanto sites, but the best is-
Http://www.esperanto.org (http://Http://www.esperanto.org)

Edit- Okay two people posted at the same time. The purpose of Esperanto is for people of the global community to be able to communicate with each other while still speaking with their own people, in their own language. It basically only makes it so every person needs to be bi-lingual, and since everyone has to take the effort to learn Esperanto (a rare few children grow up in Esperanto speaking households), it's far closer to a linguistic "hand-shake". I've stopped studying it, in favor of some Arabic, but it really is a most appealing language.

(Edited by Umoja at 2:07 am on Mar. 25, 2003)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Looks like it might be english. Lokk at this site, it's predominantly english and we have folks from all over.

"hmm... I don't know. If a global language is implemented, will others still exist? Does that mean everything should be globalized, ending different culture and setting a standard that is geared toward working with current times and forgetting the past?"

I believe taht something we should reach for is a global integration of all cultures, as it is needed for the unification of the proletariat.

[sypher]

I agree that we could function as a people with more than one offical language but I just feel that it would make things easier in the long run to do so.

As for the languages dieing off, I don't see why they would. People would simply learn more than language if they pleased.

[Umoja]

People don't seem to understand. Languages are dying off. At the start of this century their were probubly over 7000 languages spoken. Now it's only 6000, and many of them are losing speakers fast. English is biased, it represents colonialism and imperialism. So, it wouldn't be right to unify a working class, or any of the people of the world without it showing the lack of unity in the world.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

The problem with Esperanto is that languages to have any vitality must be associated with a culture, and there is none for Esperanto. Those I know who have learnt bits of it complain that the cultural element also makes learning language dull. I know in learning French as a second language I have learnt almost as much about French culture as about the language and that is part of what I find interesting. As for the associations on English... these may change. In Tanzania KiSwahili was the language of Arab slave traders, yet it has now been adopted very effectively as the national language and it is a matter of pride for Tanzanians.

[Umoja]

Esperanto isn't supposed to have a culture of it's own. It allows a person to learn of other peoples cultures, without having to learn a complicated language.

Also, Kiswahili existed in Pre-Islamic times. It just adopted many Arabic words. The actual speakers of Zanzibar "Proper" Swahili were Bi-Racial Bantu-Arab slave traders.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

English is biased, it represents colonialism and imperialism. So, it wouldn't be right to unify a working class, or any of the people of the world without it showing the lack of unity in the world.


Just wondering how this is so?

[Umoja]

The fact is, English was originally spread for reasons of Colonialism, and conquering. Native American children were forced to learn it, immigrants are considered dumb if they speak it badly, and all international exchanges are expected to be done in English. Clearly, since English is a national language, this shows the tremendous amount of damage it has caused. A truly neutral language can't be one that's also a national language. People can't unify until they realize, to quote Baha'u'llah, that "the earth is but one nation, and all humantiy it's citizens" not that one nation should unify the world under it's banner.

[Zombie]

i apologize for having skipped a few posts but i really am busy. but ill say this.
one universal langage is INSANE and fucking RACIST.
behind every (native) langage theres a culture, a history, a people. to say that you are gonna use one langage instead of another is saying that you want to completely erase or undermine thousands of years of culturism and shit like that. what makes english so much more appealing that greek or russian? r u saying that the english culture is superior to the greek or the chinese? i dont understand the fuckin point of this! the diversity of langages and cultures isn't what makes this world only 'beautiful' but also fuckin DYNAMIC.
if u wanna live in a matrix-like world, it's ur problem, it ain't mine. i love meeting other people and seeing that not only they don't have the same native langage as mine, but different cultures and lifestyles.
and one more thing ; one langage wouldn't make us more unite than today (FUCK, TO SAY THAT ALL PEOPLE WHO SPEAK ENGLISH TODAY ARE UNITED! HA!).
im sorry but ur whole idea doesn't work for me, and im sorry if this has already been said i had to skip a few posts. im gonna go back to my work now.
:angry:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think we should just let matters fo language take its course, there's little we can do about that.

[Umoja]

Esperanto is what we can do or say about it. Zombie seems to understand to a stronger extreme what's wrong with English. The point of Esperanto is to prevent that, and it's grammatically more basic so translators don't become a rare and hard to find thing, when compared to speaking complicated languages like Arabic/Russian/English or any other "real" language.

[redstar2000]

I expect that, like it or not, it's going to be English...or Chinese.

If English does win out, it won't be much like the English we speak and write now. Look at the English of 1600 and the changes that have taken place. The "world language" of 2400 will be an "English" with many more words and idioms borrowed from other languages.

Spelling and pronunciation will probably be much different then as well.

And, as victorcommie pointed out, there's very little we can do about it. Language is a tool and people, for the most part, will only learn it if it has practical use.

Dying languages can certainly be kept alive--a sort of linguistic intensive care effort. It's happening right now in the case of some languages. But I think the future of such efforts is problematical.

:cool:

[Umoja]

English only becomes the international language if people want it to, and regardless, it will become more "Newspeakish" but that's not exactly what I'd consider prefferable, since it'll increase that feeling of globalization.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Quote: from Umoja on 2:41 pm on Mar. 27, 2003
English only becomes the international language if people want it to, and regardless, it will become more "Newspeakish" but that's not exactly what I'd consider prefferable, since it'll increase that feeling of globalization.
Not neccessarily. English is already becoming the international language by default simply because it has the most economic backing. People want/need to know how to speak English to get ahead in life. Many do not think twice about it's political associations; they are merely worried about their own perdicament.

Moreover, English does not have such a bad reputation in all countries. In South Africa, it has a good reputation as it is an alternative to Afrikaans and is associated with the more liberal British white community. Thus a friend of mine - who's mother is a South African diplomat - was intentionally brought up speaking English (as the international language), and Xhosa (his tribal language). Also, within Europe English may be resented as an example of British and American influence, but it does not carry the negative connotations it has in many ex-colonies.

Overall I think it would be very difficult to dislodge English from its present position.


(Edited by Uhuru na Umoja at 3:25 pm on Mar. 27, 2003)

[Uhuru na Umoja]

*sorry, my mouse fucked up and I ended up posting something before I had thought through it*

(Edited by Uhuru na Umoja at 3:20 pm on Mar. 27, 2003)

[YerbaMateJ]

A world with just one language would be boring as hell. It would be EVEN MORE boring if that language was English. And if that day does come where English is the "dominant language of the world" it will be another victory for the oppressor. I'm with Zombie.

Hate to add a worn out cliche, but variety is the spice of life...

YMj:biggrin:

[Umoja]

Well, even politcally if one puts things aside. English is hard to learn. A universal language should be easy.

English is tough stuff!
Dearest creature in creation,
study English pronunciation.
I will teach you in my verse
sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.
I will keep you, Suzy, busy,
make your head and heart grow dizzy.
Tear in eye, your dress will tear,
so shall I! Oh hear my prayer.
When you correctly say croquet.
rounded, wounded, grieve and sleeve,
scenic, Arabic, pacific,
science, conscience, scientific,
tour, but our, and succour, four,
gas and alas and Arkansas.
Sea, idea, guinea, area,
psalm, Maria, but malaria;
youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean,
neither does devour with clangour;
soul but foul, and gaunt but aunt,
font, front, wont; want, grand and grant;
shows, goes, does; now first say finger,
and then singer, ginger, linger;
real, zeal, mauve, gauze, and gauge,
marriage, foliage, mirage, age.
Query does not rhyme with very,
neither does fury sound like bury,
dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth,
job, Job, bosom, oath;
though the difference seems little,
we say actual but victual;
refer does not rhyme with "deafer,"
foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer;
dull bull; and George, ate, late;
mint, pint, senate and sedate,
barn but earn, and wear and tear
do not rhyme with "here" and "ere."
Seven is right, but so is even,
hyphen, roughen, nephew, Stephen;
monkey, donkey, clerk and jerk,
ask, grasp, wasp; and cork and work;
doctrine, turpentine, marine;
dandelion with battalion;
sally with ally, yea, ye,
eye, I, ay, aye, whey, key, quay;
pronunciation -- think of Psyche!
Is a paling stout and spikey?
Won't it make you lose your wits
writing groats and saying grits!

[YerbaMateJ]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:30 pm on Mar. 27, 2003
I expect that, like it or not, it's going to be English...or Chinese.

If English does win out, it won't be much like the English we speak and write now. Look at the English of 1600 and the changes that have taken place. The "world language" of 2400 will be an "English" with many more words and idioms borrowed from other languages.




Why Chinese?

You actually think the human race will still exist in the year 2400?

YMj:biggrin:

[Zombie]

Chinese, perhaps because it is spoken by the largest (demographicaly speaking) country in the world?
I read somewhere that Spanish was the most used language and that Chinese or English come second/third..
RS2000's post makes pretty much sense to me actually..
But adopting a universal langage, while undermining all the others, would be somehow, and pardon my French, catastrophic to most societies...
nevertheless this will take a lot of time as pointed out by RS2000, so does it make sense whether we debate this or not?

[redstar2000]

Spanish is an interesting "dark horse" in the race for a "world language". It shares with English the willingness to borrow words from other languages.

Chinese, I think, is a possibility because the present course of American-British politics suggests a big war sometime in this century and a marked reduction in the English-speaking population of the planet.

I don't know if a world language will make for a "boring" planet or not...I suspect other things will occupy our attention. You rarely miss what you've never known...and I'm sure there will always be a small number of scholars who will find old languages endlessly fascinating.

Will humans still be around in 2400? It's hard to see why not...we are rather like cockroaches. No matter how effectively we kill each other off...there's always some that survive. I'm not sure that even global nuclear war would do it; there'd probably be a few thousand survivors here and there.

That may be comforting or not, depending on your point of view.

:cool:

[YerbaMateJ]

Well---I like to think this is my last time around on this planet---so---as long as I won't be there with the roaches---I guess it could be comforting...

If English is the predominant language, I hope they at least have a Welsh accent or something. You know--- where the men call you "love" all the time...(sigh)

YMj:biggrin:

[Umoja]

If a national language has to be one, I'm lobbying for Hindustani.....