Your vote on a common global language

For some inexplicable reasons, William Penrose
wrote:

:If there is ever a common language, it will be determined by history.

If there ever is a common language, it will be determined by
cultural events, business needs, and sociological pressures, not
history.

--
Wendy Chatley Green

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 04:05:49 -0800, Icono Clast wrote:

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.

Form the BSL site FAQ page: www.deafsign.com/
Is sign language universal?
Answer : There isn¢t a single universal sign language, no. Different
countries have their own individual sign languages. However, the existence
of sign language is universal, when groups of Deaf people and children come
together - but they have unique vocabularies and structures.

You can see from these two pages of finger spelling, that even the American
(one-handed) and British (two-handed)Sign Languages are quite different.
ASL : http://www.deafsign.com/ds/index.cfm...e&articleID=45
BSL : http://www.deafsign.com/ds/index.cfm...e&articleID=44


--
Tim C.

William Penrose 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?

If there is ever a common language, it will be determined by history.



Pretty much well on it's way I'd say.

[snip]
We would like to think that English is the obvious choice for a world
language, but there is good reason to think that India or China will
be the next world superpowers, probably bringing their languages
along
with them.

India already speaks English.


But it is more than likely that there will never be a universal
language. There is too much political opportunity to be exploited in
ethnic, race, and language divisions. The push to make Spanish an
official language in the US, for example, is probably driven most by
the desire to create a constituency. With luck, we might develop the
same language-based separatist movements that have plagued Canada.


I'm beginning to believe that the emerging global market will
end up dictating english as the language of commerce. Commerce
more than anything will dictate the language. The commercial
(and mildly social) impact of the internet should not be ignored
either. My understanding is that english is already the common
language of business between many countries including many in
the pacific rim and Asia in general.

The more difficult prediction in my mind is roughly what
"english" will look like once it's been co-opted by the
whole world.

William Penrose 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?

If there is ever a common language, it will be determined by history.



Pretty much well on it's way I'd say.

[snip]
We would like to think that English is the obvious choice for a world
language, but there is good reason to think that India or China will
be the next world superpowers, probably bringing their languages
along
with them.

India already speaks English.


But it is more than likely that there will never be a universal
language. There is too much political opportunity to be exploited in
ethnic, race, and language divisions. The push to make Spanish an
official language in the US, for example, is probably driven most by
the desire to create a constituency. With luck, we might develop the
same language-based separatist movements that have plagued Canada.


I'm beginning to believe that the emerging global market will
end up dictating english as the language of commerce. Commerce
more than anything will dictate the language. The commercial
(and mildly social) impact of the internet should not be ignored
either. My understanding is that english is already the common
language of business between many countries including many in
the pacific rim and Asia in general.

The more difficult prediction in my mind is roughly what
"english" will look like once it's been co-opted by the
whole world.

On 2 Dec 2004 06:42:36 -0800, wrote:

The more difficult prediction in my mind is roughly what
"english" will look like once it's been co-opted by the
whole world.

Was it the Japanese foreign minister that's supposed to have said to Prince
Charles:
"I am pleased to be a fluent speaker of the world's most widely spoken
language, broken English".


--
Tim C.

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:09:15 -0500, Wendy Chatley Green
wrote:

For some inexplicable reasons, William Penrose
wrote:

:If there is ever a common language, it will be determined by history.

If there ever is a common language, it will be determined by
cultural events, business needs, and sociological pressures, not
history.

Cultural events, business needs, and sociological pressures are all
influenced by history.

You can't say the global use of English is not influenced by history.

M.

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:09:15 -0500, Wendy Chatley Green
wrote:

For some inexplicable reasons, William Penrose
wrote:

:If there is ever a common language, it will be determined by history.

If there ever is a common language, it will be determined by
cultural events, business needs, and sociological pressures, not
history.

Cultural events, business needs, and sociological pressures are all
influenced by history.

You can't say the global use of English is not influenced by history.

M.

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

Which? The written language, or one of the various Chinese spoken languages?

The written language requires years of tedious memorization to get anywhere.
The spoken languages are so over-homonymized (due to the very small number
of words available) that it can be very difficult to decipher without
knowing the complete context of the conversation.

Why English?

It's got a head start, and people can learn to communicate in it relatively
quickly.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

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

Which? The written language, or one of the various Chinese spoken languages?

The written language requires years of tedious memorization to get anywhere.
The spoken languages are so over-homonymized (due to the very small number
of words available) that it can be very difficult to decipher without
knowing the complete context of the conversation.

Why English?

It's got a head start, and people can learn to communicate in it relatively
quickly.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 09:36:30 -0600, Miguel Cruz wrote:

Why English?

It's got a head start,

In what way?

..and people can learn to communicate in it relatively quickly.

True.
Remember the Babel Fish.

--
Tim C.