What are your ideas on a universal auxiliary laguage?

[Machjo]

You can find more information at:

http://www.espero.com.cn/uk2004/c01b.htm

http://www.elerno.net/

http://www.verdapekino.com/

I like languages, but it seems that as the world gets smaller, the hegemonizing tendencies of the larger languages is now threatening the very existence of smaller languages, sometimes resulting in language conflict as well. Many native languages in the Americas, Europe, Africa and Australasia are being threatened by the intrusion of larger languages.

And sometimes even larger languages themselves are being threatened by even larger languages, such as French by English in Quebec. Language conflict has also contributed to a deadly conflict in the Sudan, and increased linguistic segregation and animosity in Cameroon, as well.

Language conflict seems to be rising in China as well. I remember strolling through the Uighur part of Urumqi one day and, asking a Uighur woman for the price of a product in Putonghua, her first responce, likewise in Putonghua, was, "Why are you speaking 'Hanyu'? Can't you speak Uighur?"

Lately, some Chinese scholars, such as Prof. Liu Haitao of the Beijing Broadcasting University, have expressed concern over the hegemonic influence of the English language on the Chinese language as well. And his concern has likewise started to be expressed by others in the government.

I believe that the adoption or creation of an easy to learn universal auxiliary language and script would be beneficial to the protection of minority languages and the stabilization of interlanguage relations in the increasingly global community of mankind. Such a language could also allow those with fewer language learning opportunities to have access to the wider world also. This would allow all people, regardless of native language or class, to preserve their native language while at the same time be able to fully benefit from globalization on an equal footing with the learning of an easy to learn common second language which would therefore not threaten the native language. In this way language rights, as a fundamental part of human rights, could be fully implemented.

[shibo77]

For the moment, Esperanto! It's very easy to learn for many people. It also has gained the most number of speakers.

There are other languages which are easy to learn, which I like toki pona.

-Shibo

[wushijiao]

I think English is bound to dominate other languages at this point. An auxilary language is a great idea, very idealistic. But language is, of course, a political thing. And, from what I've read on Esperanto websites, it seems that Esperanto, has many political enemies. Maybe the idea of a universal, easy language in which two people meet and converse as equals is bounds to fail. Human history is like a steel boot kicking a fallen person's teeth in.

I think the solution is for native speakers of English to learn other languages.

[Altair]

I think I mostly agree with Wushijiao. Selecting or devising a new "universal language" would be very political. Using an existing language as a base for vocabulary would be problematic, but coming up with completely new words for everything would make the language difficult to learn.

If I were an ambitious Hongkonger or Swiss, would I now have to grow up studying yet one more language, no matter how "easy" the grammar would be?

Even if I wanted to learn "minority languages," which should I speak. If I were from Taiwan, would I have to learn Mandarin, Minnanhua, Hakka, and the aboriginal Taiwanese language to be morally correct? Most

countries have similar situations. EVen within "language minorities" there are often "dialect minorities" who often resist attempts at homogenization. Such attempts sometimes fracture the "strength" of the language as a whole, such as in the case of Basque.

I once read an article about disappearing languages among Native Americans. It said that the rate of disappearance was actually somewhat independent of the number of native speakers. It seems that the cultural attitude of speakers has a great deal of influence on what course that language will follow and whether young people grow up speaking it.

Some speakers of minority languages have been ashamed to speak their language or have discouraged outsiders from learning it. In either case, such attitudes seem to imperil the survival of the language regardless of what attempts are made to preserve it. This is arguably what has happened to such diverse languages as Manchu and Provencal.

[benotnobody]

As the world becomes an increasingly smaller place and we become more and more connected to other nations, the need for an international language is apparent. English would probably be the most obvious choice, but it has such a history and background that it might not be ideal.

I know this sounds a little one-eyed, but I think Bahasa Indonesia would be a perfect choice. Firstly, it is essentially a manufactured language, created to unify Indonesia. Thus, it doesn't have much negative history surrounding it.

Secondly, it is easy to learn. The writing system, using the Roman alphabet, is highly phonetic. The individual letters sound much the same as their English counterparts, the most notable exception being that "c" is pronounced more like a "ch". But there are no odd letter liasions such as "gh" and "ph". Plus, the sentence structure is not as difficult as the English one might be for a non-native speaker.

Thirdly, it is a superb language for use in the computing age. For better or worse, most computers only natively support Roman letters. Thus, sending emails etc. in Chinese, Japanese or Korean is particularly difficult as they are double-byte languages with logographic scripts. Indonesian, however, uses the Roman alphabet.

The only real difficulty I can forsee in Indonesian becoming an international language is that it has a small amount of speakers. Bahasa Indonesia is only spoken in Indonesia, although Bahasa Melayu, a highly similar language, is the official national language of Malaysia and is also spoken in Singapore.

I just realised how long I've been rambling off-topic... sorry

[Machjo]

Not at all. I don't believe Esperanto is the only possible contender as a universal auxiliary language, though that is the one I know.

And although I'd learnt it primarily on principle, Id since learnt that much scientific research relating to it has discovered its propaedeutic advantages in learning other languages and other subjects in school(transfer theory, Language Orientation Instruction, affective effects of learning the language, etc.), translation (research has found that documents translated into Esperanto tend to be more true to the original than translations into other languages when one was asked to retranslate into the original language without having seen the original text), computer aided translation, speech synthesis, etc.

That doesn't mean, however, that only Esperanto has such qualities; Bahasa Indonesia or other languages might possess such advantages as well. And as for the number of speakers, consider that Esperanto has grown from zero speakers in 1887 to over ten million today, at least (no one is certain how many really know it). And that without much support from any official body, and sometimes even with official resistance, as was the case in Hitler's Germany (Hitler even referred to it explicitely in Mein Kampf), and Stalinist Russia during the war with Nazi Germany.

Mind you, Tolstoy, Cai Yuan Pei, Castro, and President Putin of Russia, Koffi Annan, and a and other famous figures in history took to learning it (although I don't know if Annan and Castro have ever learnt it beyond a few phrases, nor am I sure if Putin still knows it well today after years out of the KGB, where he originally learnt it). Einstein, Sun Yat Sen, Mao Zedong, and others have also voiced their support for the ideals of Esperanto, at least in principle. In fact, just last year in the European Parliament there was a vote in favour of Espranto as a translation and interpretation language, with 43% for, and 57% against. Needless to say, it didn't pass, but it still stirred up some debate.

So the fact that not many speak Esperanto, or Bahasa Indonesia, doesn't matter. As the experience with Esperanto and the vote in the European Parliament prove, people will learn laguages on principle, and languages can also be sensitive to political events (we can immagine if the vote were above 50%). Consider also that before the Indonesian government stood behind Bahasa Indonisia, people outside the nation would not have expected it to ever have any official position, yet today it is now the language of government, the military, education, and so on.

And as for English, it's obvious that it will never become truly universal unless the language itself is revised and simplified. I've tought English in Quebec and China, and can say that most can't speak it, despite the fact that almost everyone studies it for many years. Needless to say, that can only cause resentment on the part who don't successfully learn it in the end. And resentment is growing, especially in Quebec, but in China also some are now starting to speak out in favour of more emphasis on learning Chinese, the native language, in schools. And more Chinese forums are starting to voice concern for the fact that more Chinese adults are forgetting how to write certain charachters.

In the end, unless English is revised, another language will certainly take its place sooner or later.

[Machjo]

Not at all. I don't believe Esperanto is the only possible contender as a universal auxiliary language, though that is the one I know.

And although I'd learnt it primarily on principle, Id since learnt that much scientific research relating to it has discovered its propaedeutic advantages in learning other languages and other subjects in school(transfer theory, Language Orientation Instruction, affective effects of learning the language, etc.), translation (research has found that documents translated into Esperanto tend to be more true to the original than translations into other languages when one was asked to retranslate into the original language without having seen the original text), computer aided translation, speech synthesis, etc.

That doesn't mean, however, that only Esperanto has such qualities; Bahasa Indonesia or other languages might possess such advantages as well. And as for the number of speakers, consider that Esperanto has grown from zero speakers in 1887 to over ten million today, at least (no one is certain how many really know it). And that without much support from any official body, and sometimes even with official resistance, as was the case in Hitler's Germany (Hitler even referred to it explicitely in Mein Kampf), and Stalinist Russia during the war with Nazi Germany.

Mind you, Tolstoy, Cai Yuan Pei, Castro, and President Putin of Russia, Koffi Annan, and a and other famous figures in history took to learning it (although I don't know if Annan and Castro have ever learnt it beyond a few phrases, nor am I sure if Putin still knows it well today after years out of the KGB, where he originally learnt it). Einstein, Sun Yat Sen, Mao Zedong, and others have also voiced their support for the ideals of Esperanto, at least in principle. In fact, just last year in the European Parliament there was a vote in favour of Espranto as a translation and interpretation language, with 43% for, and 57% against. Needless to say, it didn't pass, but it still stirred up some debate.

So the fact that not many speak Esperanto, or Bahasa Indonesia, doesn't matter. As the experience with Esperanto and the vote in the European Parliament prove, people will learn laguages on principle, and languages can also be sensitive to political events (we can immagine if the vote were above 50%). Consider also that before the Indonesian government stood behind Bahasa Indonisia, people outside the nation would not have expected it to ever have any official position, yet today it is now the language of government, the military, education, and so on.

And as for English, it's obvious that it will never become truly universal unless the language itself is revised and simplified. I've tought English in Quebec and China, and can say that most can't speak it, despite the fact that almost everyone studies it for many years. Needless to say, that can only cause resentment on the part who don't successfully learn it in the end. And resentment is growing, especially in Quebec, but in China also some are now starting to speak out in favour of more emphasis on learning Chinese, the native language, in schools. And more Chinese forums are starting to voice concern for the fact that more Chinese adults are forgetting how to write certain charachters.

In the end, unless English is revised, another language will certainly take its place sooner or later.

[roddy]

Very interesting. I think the idea of a neutral common language is great, and it should obviously be one that is as easy to learn as possible. It still seems to me that a simplified version of an already popular language might be a better idea in practical terms, but as you say, language is culture, and culture is politics . . .

[Machjo]

If English were easy to learn, I'm sure political resistance to it might decline just because people could actually learn it.

Mind you, considering all the exceptions, spelling irregularities, etc., I'm not sure if a revised English would resemble the current language very much. Your thoughts?

[wix]

English has arisen as the international language for a variety of reasons. However, it is really a poor choice for an international language. Its grammar is complex, vocabulary very large and it lacks consistent rules for usage.

It would be great if Esperanto or something similar could gain acceptance, but I doubt this would happen. If several governments around the world actively began promoting Esperanto this might lead to its wider acceptance. Indeed if the Chinese government adopted a wide spread program to educate its citizens in Esperanto then it wouldn't take long for the rest of the world to start learning it!

I do believe that now there are so many people speaking English as a second language more simplified versions of English will begin to emerge. I suspect this will be on a regional basis. Hence there will be people speaking "European simplified English", "Asian simplified English" "African simplified English". Each one will have its own characteristics but will be functional enough for international communication.

[J.B. Frog]

I have to say Esperanto is European language-based, and so, not a neutral candidate.

There are lots of constructed languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_languages), one of which is 'lojban', whose vocabulary was drawn from all the world's languages, weighted by how many speakers it has so that some of the vocabulary will be familiar to everyone.

Then there're several simplified Englishes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Forms_of_English, Basic English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English seemingly the most extreme, intended to be even easier than Esperanto.

My own speculation is, as the non-English world gets more important and the world more interconnected, pressure has to rise (IMO) for some common language. It's likely that most people will learn some minimal English, with the long-term effect that it will simplify structurally to just that needed to communicate, probably affecting ultimately, even its home countries. Or, some other fusion will arise, perhaps with lots of bits of Indian and Chinese. I have to think English has a strong head start though.

[wix]

I have to say Esperanto is European language-based, and so, not a neutral candidate.

There are very good reasons why a universal language should be based on European languages. Firstly, the roman script is the most widely used throughout the world. Its use extends to non-European languages and even in countries which use other forms of writing many people will still be familiar with roman script. Secondly, European languages are spoken by significant numbers of people on every continent. They are no longer just confined to Europe. Thirdly, if you think in terms of Indo-European languages, not just European languages then the influence of European languages can be seen to be even greater.

[GuernseyMatt]

Languages are "living" entities that grow, change and in some cases die, whether it be in part for some obscure words that fall out of use, or by loss through one culture assimilating another or each other - giving rise to new hybrid languages or "patois".

This is not a "good" or "bad" thing, only a natural social occurance. For instance archaeologists are often required to learn "dead" languages if they are to understand the past, and you would be surprised at how many dead languages there are.

The Germans have an old saying that goes "if you are coming to buy, then you can speak any language you like, but if you are coming to sell, you must speak only German" - its to do with business, why else do most people actually bother to learn foreign languages?

English is regrded as the international language of business, and this is why it is so prolific. The reasons being the historical influence of British colonialism (may those days never return!), and the worlds biggest economic power, America, is also English speaking.

On the bright side for China is that due to ever improving economic growth, many foreign businesses want to develop interests and contacts within the country, and I think you will find that this is promoting Mandarin very strongly indeed throughout the rest of the world - although this might not bode so well for regional dialects.

[CBC]

it's more economical for the world to learn Chinese than English in terms of the number of learners .

[ronaldo]

For people who want to go a step further:

On the below website you can vote for your favorite and best global language that you can think of. You can have a look at what the current trend is. And you can let the world know more about your reasons, ideas and your profile.

www.freewebs.com/international-languages

Ronaldo

[Machjo]

http://www.lernu.net/

It's a free virtual esperanto classroom with currently 11,398 registered users from around the world. You don't necessarily need to know English or Espranto, however, since it also includes a Chinese option.

[J.B. Frog]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=591193

Half the world's population will be speaking or learning English by 2015, researchers say.

Other languages, such as French, risk becoming the casualties of this "linguistic globalisation". But the boom will be over by 2050 and the English-language teaching industry will have become a victim of its own success, says David Graddol, author of the report, The Future of English.

Based on its findings, Mr Graddol has predicted that the world is about to be hit by a tidal wave of English. "Many governments, especially in countries which have relatively recently gained independence, are introducing the teaching of English under a utilitarian banner.

"The native languages of countries such as Malaysia and Sri Lanka are often almost synonymous with their new-found independence and, as such, are closely protected.

"But English predominates in the business world and for such countries to be able to compete for work, including lucrative outsourcing contracts, English is being pushed heavily from kindergarten on."

The report also showed that English was not the only language spreading, and the world, far from being dominated by English, was to become more multi-lingual. Mr Graddol said: "Chinese, Arabic and Spanish are all popular, and likely to be languages of the future."

Lots removed, read the original if it's still available.