Your vote on a common global language

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 02:41:43 +0000, Bob
wrote:


On 1 Dec 2004 15:16:39 -0800, (Ronaldo)
wrote:

Communication could be so much easier if there existed one common,
global language.
But which language should it be?
Whether it should be a natural or artificial language, on the
following interactive website you can take part in the first global
"election" and where you can
Vote for the best language you can think of
Have a look how others decided and what others think
Leave your imprints with your comments and ideas
http://www.freewebs.com/international-languages/

I'm sorry, but histlry is overtaking you. Not by vote but by
practice the global language, for better or worse, is becoming
English.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

But by population numbers alone, Chinese wouldn't be far off either...

Remember to factor in that people can often speak more than one
language. India has more english speakers that anywhere else, and has
a population comparable to China.
---
DFM

But by population numbers alone, Chinese wouldn't be far off either..

There are a billion of them but they all live in the same country and ride
bicycles. No need to learn their language unless its to order shrimp fried
rice.
Never Forgive, Never Forget
9-11-01


Arrogance born of ignorance.

So you really think Chinese is a suitable global language?? It has tens
of thousands of characters, and it is also a tonal language.

But by population numbers alone, Chinese wouldn't be far off either..

There are a billion of them but they all live in the same country and ride
bicycles. No need to learn their language unless its to order shrimp fried
rice.
Never Forgive, Never Forget
9-11-01


Arrogance born of ignorance.

So you really think Chinese is a suitable global language?? It has tens
of thousands of characters, and it is also a tonal language.

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:13:17 +0800, Gerrit 't Hart wrote:

Besides I believe they don't all speak the same language anyway.

Nor do so-called English speakers.

eg. Keep death off the roads, drive on the pavement.

--
Tim C.

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:30:21 +1000, windsor wrote:

But by population numbers alone, Chinese wouldn't be far off either..

There are a billion of them but they all live in the same country and ride
bicycles. No need to learn their language unless its to order shrimp fried
rice.
Never Forgive, Never Forget
9-11-01


Arrogance born of ignorance.

So you really think Chinese is a suitable global language?? It has tens
of thousands of characters, and it is also a tonal language.

It's good enough for millions of people.

Why English? It only has a couple of dozen characters, words are too long
and sounds boring (especially when spoken by a CNN presenter). ;-)

--
Tim C.

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 06:53:15 GMT, Deep Frayed Morgues
wrote:

Remember to factor in that people can often speak more than one
language. India has more english speakers that anywhere else, and has
a population comparable to China.

There are certainly not more fluent english speakers in India than the
USA, they may have very rudimentary english, but not fluency.
(obviously there's tens of millions of fluent ones, but not 3hundred
million odd)

Jim.

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 06:53:15 GMT, Deep Frayed Morgues
wrote:

Remember to factor in that people can often speak more than one
language. India has more english speakers that anywhere else, and has
a population comparable to China.

There are certainly not more fluent english speakers in India than the
USA, they may have very rudimentary english, but not fluency.
(obviously there's tens of millions of fluent ones, but not 3hundred
million odd)

Jim.

Tim Challenger wrote in
news:1101980186.fLiK6VGo9XsPeF4I0agmCQ@teranews:

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:30:21 +1000, windsor wrote:

But by population numbers alone, Chinese wouldn't be far off
either..

There are a billion of them but they all live in the same country
and ride bicycles. No need to learn their language unless its to
order shrimp fried rice.
Never Forgive, Never Forget
9-11-01


Arrogance born of ignorance.

So you really think Chinese is a suitable global language?? It has
tens of thousands of characters, and it is also a tonal language.

It's good enough for millions of people.

Looks like you never tried to learn Mandarin :-) I did - and failed
miserably. Though I am not "linguistically untalented" (I do speak and
write 3 languages more or less well), I never managed more than VERY
basic Mandarin - and, I guess, that even this is my wifes (she is
Chinese) nice way to say - you don't have a clue :-(
In my experience, only few people, not born into or grown up in a
Mandarin speaking environment, manage to become proficient in Mandarin
later on. This is probably mostly due to Mandarin beeing a tonal language
(and the Chinese characters and their combination doesn't help either).
So, my guess for a global language would be English or Spanish, and maybe
(with a big question mark) French.
What you are seeing in Europe is that almost everywhere the first foreign
language taught at school is English. For the second foreign language one
usually has a choice out of a variety (depends on the availability of
teachers)

Why English? It only has a couple of dozen characters, words are too
long and sounds boring (especially when spoken by a CNN presenter).
;-)


And here I thought that is American they use ;-)

Cheers,

Klaus

On 2 Dec 2004 11:12:36 GMT, Dr. Klaus Eimert wrote:

Why English? It only has a couple of dozen characters, words are too
long and sounds boring (especially when spoken by a CNN presenter).
;-)


And here I thought that is American they use ;-)

I give them the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes. :-)

--
Tim C.

Hatunen wrote:
Communication could be so much easier if there existed one common,
global language.

Why not an octagonal one?

I'm sorry, but histlry is overtaking you. Not by vote but by
practice the global language, for better or worse, is becoming
English.

"Becoming?" I think not. It already is.

When we were young, Dave, German was the language of medicine, French
of diplomacy, and English of business.

I have only two languages but, with them, I'm confident I can go
anywhere on Earth and find someone who can use enough of either of
them to help me fulfill my needs.

The deaf say that sign language is the only truly universal language.
Although I don't sign, I know a few signs that I often use, here and
in other countries. Whether they're understood, I don't know but they
seem to be accepted.

Sign language is not quite the same as alphabetically speaking using
one's hands. Signs are truly representative. M'mother can sign
alphabetically with speed (she learned as a child) but does not know
sign language.
__________________________________________________ __________
A San Franciscan in (where else?) San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net