CokedUpHobit64 said:

English is my first language, and I am now becoming fairly fluent in Spanish as well.  Just the fact that I've been speaking English my whole life may hint that I'm approaching this subject with some sort of bias, which I try to think I'm not.

With all of the chaos and destruction going on in the world, it seems as though we need more than ever to band together as one people and break all forms of racism and instilled hate. 

I believe one of the most effective steps we can make in performing this extraordinary feet is working to make English the universal language.  One of the main reasons we feel so disconnected from people from other countries is because of the fact that we cannot verbally communicate with them.  Why English?  Simply because it is a fairly easy language to learn and is spoken by most of the earths population right now. 

I realize that their is a certain sense of identity and culture that goes along with each language, but wouldn't universal communication trump those things in the long run?

---

CokedUpHobit64 said:

Why English?  Simply because it is a fairly easy language to learn and is spoken by most of the earths population right now. 

---

Quote:

I realize that their is a certain sense of identity and culture that goes along with each language, but wouldn't universal communication trump those things in the long run?

---

Universal language and local language do not compete with each other, nor do they need to. Almost anyone in Norway, young and old, for example, can speak fluent English, but Norwegian itself isn't disappearing in the slightest.

Quote:

I think the essence of language is not spoken, but rather imagined. I think if we universalized a spoken language, like English, the preeminence would destroy diversity. And already we can see the English language rising to power because of the medias monopoly on it. Is there not a better, or possibly, a more efficient way to consolidate communication? Hell, some people would argue that English is one of the harder languages to learn.

---

MushroomTrip said:

I really do think that, the existence of a language that everybody knows and speaks is very important and constructive, and that it can bring a long list of benefits. It can help break communication and understanding barriers, it can bring one to the awareness that getting together and working together for mutual interests seems to be the wisest decision one could make. It could help in accepting differences and focusing in actually understanding them rather that fighting against them.

---

I agree, and I definitely do not think that English should be the global language. If there is to be a universal language, then I think it would be most beneficial to be one that is newly-created from consensus, not only for the sense of diplomacy and inclusion, but because English, while being a language that is very capable of fulfilling a certain purpose, is definitely very incomplete in being able to express a full spectrum of meaning. There are aspects of every language, I think, that are more capable of fulfilling a specific purpose in expression than others, and bringing these aspects together could definitely advance this civilization, our understanding of reality, and our ability to relate with each other in unprecedented ways.

I think global progress will naturally bring this effect into place to some degree, but I definitely think that it would be necessary to be more progressive in achieving this. I think one opportunity in the way education is handled in regards to language, at least in my own experience, is how it is attempted to teach young children an entire language, like French or Spanish in the case of the United States, when it would be much more productive to teach basic elements of a great multitude of languages. I've personally always felt like identifying the most basic elements of expression of any given language, finding the most efficient way to convey that understanding to anyone, and to then compile these aspects of a great number of languages together in some sort of educational package. Maybe this just stems from my ambition to know a great number of languages, from Romanian to Norwegian to Dutch and Italian to French and Farsi and Hungarian to Japanese and Sioux, but I could definitely see accomplishing something like this having a great benefit to anyone/everyone in any number of ways.

I have a feeling there is no real limitation on how many words one could know, and simply knowing more and understanding how to use them will exponentially increase one's own understanding of reality itself and enable one to be more productive and successful in one's own endeavors. I think I'm rambling though, but there was definitely something I was trying to express in all of this. Maybe I would have been more successful if I was using Chinese instead?
Alan Watts once speculated that the reason Japanese and Chinese have a nice edge when it comes to education is because a picture can say a thousand words in 1/1000th of the space and time.

Quote:

I agree, and I definitely do not think that English should be the global language. If there is to be a universal language, then I think it would be most beneficial to be one that is newly-created from consensus, not only for the sense of diplomacy and inclusion, but because English, while being a language that is very capable of fulfilling a certain purpose, is definitely very incomplete in being able to express a full spectrum of meaning. There are aspects of every language, I think, that are more capable of fulfilling a specific purpose in expression than others, and bringing these aspects together could definitely advance this civilization, our understanding of reality, and our ability to relate with each other in unprecedented ways.

---

Reaching a universal agreement regarding the universal language can get quite disastrous
I think that, part of the reason why people are opposing so much resistance to this idea is because they automatically end up thinking about deeper and hidden interests of the culture that will end up being chosen as a representative in this domain, and that this would happen no matter what the universal language will be. Right now it seems that some people have this reaction towards English because it seems to be gaining ground, but maybe they just need to become aware that their reaction would be the same just to any other language. Maybe we just need to learn to take this fact as an opportunity to relax and stop worrying so much, and, at the same time, realize that agreeing to a universal language doesn't have to imply adopting and adhering to it's culture. This could never happen unless we choose to actually do so.

You are right that different languages add up to meaning, but, like you said, everything happens gradually and we definitely have to start from somewhere.

English is my second language, and I learned most of it as a kid, from watching cartoons. Needless to say that my intention was nothing more that having fun and watching cartoons, but, in order to enjoy even more of them, I had to actually understand what they were talking about. The fact that I ended up watching cartoons in English and not other languages was because I liked them more than French, or German, or Hungarian cartoons, and not because of the media. Anyways, where I'm getting at, is that, part of the reason why I continued learning English was because I just found it very easy to learn.
My native language is Romanian, and I can manage to speak quite well French and Spanish, and am aware of the extra meaning they can bring to communication; personally, I believe that there are high chances that, after adopting and learning a universal language, people will end up realizing that knowing more languages could be of benefit, and they might even find pleasure in doing so. Things can become more complex and enjoyable after passing the standard of necessity, which, in this case, is having a universal language.

Quote:

Alan Watts once speculated that the reason Japanese and Chinese have a nice edge when it comes to education is because a picture can say a thousand words in 1/1000th of the space and time.

---

I don't know about that, but I bet it's one of the reasons why Japanese animation kicks so much ass

MushroomTrip said:

Maybe we just need to learn to take this fact as an opportunity to relax and stop worrying so much, and, at the same time, realize that agreeing to a universal language doesn't have to imply adopting and adhering to it's culture.

---

Poate ei gândesc "să ne fute poporul american sau chinez"?

fireworks_god said:

Most? Mandarin Chinese tops the number of people speaking English 2 to 1, and nearly as many people speak Hindi as English.

---

fireworks_god said:

If there is to be a universal language, then I think it would be most beneficial to be one that is newly-created from consensus

---

zouden said:

You guys should totally get a room together where you can speak Slavic languages to each other while listening to Lamb

---

What was discussed was entirely on-topic, and we weren't speaking a Slavic language, but rather one that is based upon Latin nearly as much as Italian is (although there are some Slavic influences).

fireworks_god said:

Not if you count people who speak English as a second language. Then there's far more English speakers than speakers of any other language.

---

Touche.

Platinum said:

Sounds like Elitism. Why is English the language that should be spoken? Why not Spanish? Or hell... why not even go back to Latin, after all, so many languages are founded upon Latin, so that would make the most sense.

---

Quote:

But the problem here is simple. The world we live in is diverse, as others have previously said. To go tell a culture that they need to adopt this new language is... well... isn't fair. Who are we, you, me, them, to go to a tribe in Africa and tell the natives they must learn ANY language, and that this is the new universal language so they must know it?

---

CokedUpHobit64 said:

 
I believe one of the most effective steps we can make in performing this extraordinary feet is working to make English the universal language. 
I realize that their is a certain sense of identity and culture that goes along with each language, but wouldn't universal communication trump those things in the long run?

---

It's been tried and God smote them.  What's next, a Tower of Babel?


Seriously though, there are several hurdles to jump.  First, iirc, Eskimos have something like a dozen words for snow while Arabs have none.  The numbers may not be accurate but you get the point.

Also Esperanto is the most widely spoken constructed international auxiliary language in the world.  Zamenhof's goal was the same as yours.  It didn't work.

MushroomTrip said:

Platinum said:

Sounds like Elitism. Why is English the language that should be spoken? Why not Spanish? Or hell... why not even go back to Latin, after all, so many languages are founded upon Latin, so that would make the most sense.

---

Wouldn't it still be "elitism" if Spanish became the universal language?

Germanic languages are pretty spread and diverse too, why do you think this should be taken to consideration when a universal language is being chosen?

---

Quote:

Quote:

But the problem here is simple. The world we live in is diverse, as others have previously said. To go tell a culture that they need to adopt this new language is... well... isn't fair. Who are we, you, me, them, to go to a tribe in Africa and tell the natives they must learn ANY language, and that this is the new universal language so they must know it?

---

I think you're confusing yourself more than anything, since nobody here was suggesting that a culture or country has to adopt a new language and forget about their local language, or stop using it, nor did anyone mention that tribes or nations will be forced to learn English; those who will want to learn English will, because they want to do so, because that would benefit them in one way or another.

I wonder how this is elitism...

---

Quote:

It's elitism to think that it should be english, the point I was merely making was that to say "it should be english" seems a bit elitist to me. if anything, an agreed upon language by the nations of the world would be more appropriate, and perhaps they would chose english.

---

Wait, cause it still doesn't make sense
So, it IS elitist of someone (without any kind of official, diplomatic, or political status) to say that English should be the universal language, but, if it is "agreed by the nations" (whatever that means, because this decision can be taken in millions of ways) it is not elitist anymore!? Why?

Also, how do you see that this decision should be taken? Should the leaders of each nation vote, and the majority wins? Should the governments of each nation decide? The church? Should there be held a referendum in each country on the planet? Does this mean that the results would be "fair", in this way?

Quote:

sorry, perhaps need wasnt the right word to use. but I feel if nations of the world adopted English as the universal language, other nations not adopting it would feel pressured.

---

Quote:

I mean hell... were tlaking about the more powerful nations of the world. US, China, Japan, England, the list goes on and on. and the US is certainly known for it's bullying of other nations. You don't think if majority, or not even majority but most powerful, of nations adopted English as a universal language they wouldnt pressure the weaker/3rd world/whatever nations to do the same?

---

Quote:

"If you don't do this we won't help you" - America is notorious for doing this. Hell... it does it to it's own states.

---