Would a world-standard set language be beneficial?
Yes, it would be beneficial
Side Score: 8
|
 |
No, it would not be beneficial
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but I still think we should learn our own language. However, having an international language would be good in my opinion. English is known as a universal language, though many people don't know it, most poeple do. Therefore, we already sort of have a world-standard language. Side: Yes, it would be beneficial
We kind of already do, English. but since there are countries out there that dont speak it. A world standard language would be beneficial because of all the ethnicity and trade in this world. In a society today were an American might need to do business with a French native speaker for biasness, it would be better if everyone just knew one language and we wouldn't have problems like that Side: Yes, it would be beneficial
A world-standard language would primarily be beneficial for diplomats, ambassadors, and government officials of international bodies (like the UN, IFC, etc.). However, it probably would not be efficient on an individual national basis (i.e. it would not do to make it necessary for everyone worldwide to learn the standard language irrespective of their occupations). English already is virtually an international language in those circles, but it would be unlikely to be used as an official language because then it implies the supremacy of English-speaking countries over non-English. It would probably be best to use another simple invented language that has no national ties, like Esperanto, so as to avoid conflict. Under this plan, there would not necessarily be any incentive to learn the international language if you didn't want to go into international affairs, and so there would not be any additional danger to linguistic diversity. Additionally, it would make communication more readily available for international officials. Side: Yes, it would be beneficial
1
point
0
points
|
Would the "world-standard set" language be decreed by something like international law or function more like a de facto lingua franca? Either way, I can't see it as being ultimately beneficial. English is already the de facto language for most international affairs, and as much as linguists have tried to preserve peoples' native languages, there is such an incentive to learn English that languages are dying faster than they can be catalogued. I see this as a huge problem. The widespread use of one language carries with it a dominant culture that bears more legitimacy in the minds of people. It's bringing us closer and closer to a monoculture that lacks the diverse cultural values that have been propagated in a multitude of minority languages for thousands of years. This takes us further and further from a world in which we will actually have available data to explore to full range of human nature. Would a world-standard set language be good for business and trade. No doubt about that. But at some point we have to consider what is more valuable: continual globalization or a world that accommodates human creativity, spirituality, community, etc. And as far as international communication and understanding go, I think we'd gain more from learning other languages rather than expect everyone to speak one tongue. Language Preservation
Side: No, it would not be beneficial
1
point
A great point is made here: http://esperanto-usa.org/en/content/ Esperanto could be used as a way to fill the cultural gaps that would be left by the world using solely English. Side: Yes, it would be beneficial
The entire concept behind Esperanto is offensive of my philological sensibilities. Followers of Esperanto seem to think that the language, being artificial, will come without the ethnic and nationalistic problems associated with real languages, forgetting that, though far from a real language, Esperanto was based upon the languages of Europe. Also, the writer of that article got his facts wrong. English does have a pluralized form of "mister": "misters". Considering that Esperanto is based upon European languages, I do not see how it could adequately accommodate their deficiencies. English, however, has done a good job of evolving; when a concept for which there is no English word, it is simply taken from another language, such as the word sauna from Finnish and schadenfreude from German. Making up words to fill the holes of Esperanto is arguably less efficient than adopting words from any of the thousands of other languages into English. Side: No, it would not be beneficial
1
point
|
