Do you think the world would be better with a global language?
MAKE WITH THE COMMENTS
FOR NO REASON AT ALL ACTION SHOTS!!!!! OOOOOHHHHHH, AAAAAAHHHHHHHH
Thursday, October 05, 2006
The Debates
A new friend of mine thought that the debates were a really good idea, and asked why I stopped them. I can barely remember how I felt yesterday let alone 3 months ago. I thought it was because people weren't posting comments, so I'll try to see how it goes this time around. I think it'll be a good way to connect new friends with old ones. So here it goes
Do you think the world would be better with a global language?
MAKE WITH THE COMMENTS
FOR NO REASON AT ALL ACTION SHOTS!!!!! OOOOOHHHHHH, AAAAAAHHHHHHHH
Do you think the world would be better with a global language?
MAKE WITH THE COMMENTS
FOR NO REASON AT ALL ACTION SHOTS!!!!! OOOOOHHHHHH, AAAAAAHHHHHHHH
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I don't think language has anything to do with making the world a better place. Understanding can be reached in other forms rather than just speaking. We need one thing to fix the world and that's acceptance.
Good Point but Can you accept something before you understand it? The easiest way to understand something is to be told why it is the way it is. That takes a shared language.
I agree with Rylan on the point that speaking the same language doesn't necessarily mean people will understand each other, although that has to due largely with "selective hearing", as some put it. Though a universal language would be convinient, I would say. That isn't to say that all other languages should be abbandoned, however.
Good Points both of you,
Rylan - I refer to the same comment I made to guru manda, can you really accept peoples differences if you don't understand why they are different
Natalie - Why would the world need the other languages, if we had global language that every can speak why even bother teaching the other languages?
A global language is a smart idea... That would fall apart in about a decade. Here's the problem: Language morphs. Ignoring people's inability to listen for a moment (which will always happen, because survival requires looking out for yourself, and we're all built just to survive), language morphs by area. Granted, with the internet, this may not happen as much, but a universal language would slowly change by area. I'm guessing that there is slang in Korea in english. Now, allow those slangs to build up (because you can't just force a language on people).
A good example is a texan and a newfundlander in the same room. Both speak english, but different dialects. Heck, one just has to look at ebonics to see that it'll fail. Thus, since the concept is flawed (ignoring the impossibility to teach the world one language), I don't think it would make the world better.
I think it'd waste time and money. Although perhaps cause a reasearch and development initiative between countries that would fail but instead change the lives of a couple of language researchers who learned about other cultures. Or just start a world war. Either way.
what do you propose that language to be? are we so boisterous to suggest that English be the universal language because it is what we who are participating in the discussion speak? Or, would our opinions change if we had to learn Chinese Mandarin which has the largest number of native speakers at 800 million or Spanish which has the second most speakers at 450 million. Though there are an estimated 1.9 billion who speak English, only 350 million are native speakers. What criteria do we determine the central language to be? What is lost in communication and translation when non-native speakers must communicate in a new language? If that new language is English, how do others define what they mean? The Inuit have something like 9 terms for snow. Other languages have upwards of 7 words for love. English has one word and some adjectives for either. Perhaps we should determine the accuracy of understanding the language and the need for a universal language before worrying whether or not it is good to have. After all, what is it we want to communicate to everyone in the world, anyway? World peace? Perhaps we should try to establish a unified church where everyone is governed by the same body religiously. That might go over about as well. Or one political view point. Language is no different. Communication is the key to making any point. What is the main purpose of being able to communicate to every person on Earth?
David - Why keep dialects? If we are getting rid of the other languages, we should be getting rid of the dialects of as well. Dialects are are just people inability to speak a language as it was proposed. Languages are supposed to be learned not made. Languages have thousands if not millions of rules. One of the main being, words can be spelled out by listening to their sounds. English sucks at this, but Japanese is not. If we get rid of the improper (slang, dialects, etc.) and made a solid language, that everyone learned and followed would it make the world better?
Anonymous - I definitely not proposing English actually english should be 5th on the list. English makes rules and breaks them while trying to explain those rules. I am not familiar with the Mandarin structure but it's second only to Japanese on my list because I know more about it. Japanese is simpler and easier to learn than most other languages on the planet. The main rule is stop at the vowels.
KAKASHI
KA KA SHI
Simple.
The multiple names for the same thing is stupid anyway. I just comes from one guy saying something and another guy repeating it. And any one whose played telephone knows that messages will get distorted. The central language should have one word for one thing and multiple qualifiers to account for slight difference in type. Ice - Slippery Ice, Bumpy Ice, Fast Ice, Black Ice and so on.
AS for the main purpose, ease and understanding. Easier on Travellers, Soldiers, Immigrants, Emmigrants Ambassadors, Workers, Diplomats, Anyone who ever plans to leave the hole they live in.
Dialects are commonplace now, but what about if the proposed global language was first language of the world but the native dialect of an area became the second language. We would have a common language, and then areas could still keep there own dialect. Could that be functional and beneficial to all?
Although the idea of a common language is appealing in some aspects, I still concur with those above me. A common language is not what the world needs the most right now. And I could only see it leading to disaster. No one would want to give up their native tongue, nor be made to feel that it is inferrior to another language. Wars have been started for less. That is the main problem that our world has to overcome if we are to survive. Rash tempers, judgement, and too much pride. Thinking we are superiour. But that is another topic all together...
Since I am now *officially* a cultural anthropology student, I will put my two cents in. Way way back when language first originated there was one language. This one language, as people started migrate in different directions, evolved into dialects. These dialects turned into separate languages (keep in mind this took a very very long time). What makes you think this won't happen again? As to the comment about languages being designed so people can sound out how to spell words, spoken words and written words are two very different things. Look at Hieratic script in egypt, there are three types of written language, with only a few of the letters being ones that actually produce sounds, the others convey concepts. Lots of written languages are short on vowels, yet the vowels are pronounced when the language is spoken. It's important to remember, spoken words came first, formal writing came much much later.
Regardless of all of that, the logistics of doing this would be a total nightmare. The window of time for a person to easily become fluent in a new language is very small, pretty much during the first five or so years of their life. The older a person gets, the tougher it is to learn a new language. Think of it like Mike Harris' new curriculum. Instead of starting at kindergarden, he started his reform at grade 9. The failing in that was he expected the students to conform to a standard that hadn't been imposed on them for the first nine years, leading to a lot of kids failing, or just giving up on school all together (my brother was one of them). If we were to implement a global language, the other languages would have to be slowly phased out, with the new babies being exposed to the language from day one. Not that I support this idea, I think its a surefire way to collapse our planet's delicate global relations, and send us into another full blown world war.
I just had to point out my comment above was the 13th comment and it's friday the 13th ...spooooooky!
Haha! I'm a geek, carry on with the debating and such
This is by far one of the most interesting debates I have seen in a long time. Given the variaty in the people I have to say that I am amazed that only one comment has even mentioned the internet (David Oct 9).
I think that we are fast aproaching a gobal language, but not in the traditional sense of language. While I cannot quote numbers most people in developed countries either have a computer or access to a computer with an internet connection. That very connection has provided us a way to talk to ppl that are half a world away. And while yes every one thus far has communcated in english who is to say that some one did not use a translator to post a comment in english.
The internet technology is fast becoming the easiest and most efficent way to run businesses that are all over the world, to talk to people that are in different countries. Technology is fast becomeing the language every one is understanding. Perhaps more correctly fast becomeing an outlet to connect people who would usually have no means to communicate.
Technology has been said to be the wave of the future. It has proven to be the wave of the future. Why can it also not be the language of the future?
I am not proposing that we do away with our native languages and dialects, that would be like asking us to give up our identity, but to intergrate technology as a way to communcate globally.
Perhaps having programs that would allow you to recieve documents files and all communications in your language of preferance regardless of what language it was sent in. I know it is not an easy feat but it is impossible?
Besides it would be a great way to cover the fact I can't spell.
Nita
An interesting idea, however, a Universal Translator would have fun translating from those languages that have "words/symbols" for concepts, instead of specific words. If anyone has ever read a literal translation, they are often increadibly hard to follow. Would this not simply add to the confusion and miscommunication instead of fixing it? I could aslo see this leading to the major powers (ie: US and China) pushing thier language on the rest of the world even more strongly, perhaps claiming that they are "easier to understand and be traslated".
To be honest the whole idea gives me the willies.
Well, it's time for the big one my thoughts. A universal language a good theory that I think would be a new commonality between the people of the world. But in application, it falls so very short. First off you can't teach language to every person on the planet. Mainly because of lack of education services and general interest in learning from the masses. Secondly, the cost of development and implementation would be astronomical. Research into the language, research into planet's languages, construction the language, education tools, training of educators, creation of learning cirriculum, etc. Going along with rylan's point. The universal translator is much more feasible alternative. It could not be a global translator because of the dialects of regions and the unstructured languages of some uncivilized areas of the world. The translator would have to take the main 30 languages of planet and store all verbal cues and written texts from each. The file size of the this would be huge, Iam picturing the first punch card computer. BUt over time as technology develops we should be able to get close. Electronic dictionaries are just the first step, then it will come to verbal translators, then bi translator speaking dictionaries, the mutli language interpreted and that should be the closest thing we can get to a universal language. In my opinion.
Thank you all for posting and posting intelligently. WOOHOO to smart friends not drooling goobers. The next debate will probably be up in a few weeks so keep an eye out.
Post a Comment