5 ms·

For the sake of argument, let's say that "we" "agree" on standardizing on one of the world's most spoken languages: Spanish. This now means that you yourself ne

by akie 10y ago

For the sake of argument, let's say that "we" "agree" on standardizing on one of the world's most spoken languages: Spanish. This now means that you yourself need to master Spanish, that your kids need to master Spanish, and that all public use of English will need to disappear. Do you think that is feasible? I don't think that will ever happen, not even in a 1000 years.

akie 10y ago
Over the course of 2000 years, the Slavic, Germanic and Romance languages have not merged into one language, for example - despite close contact...
- restalis 10y ago
  Yes and no. Romanian had a Slavic layer in it, which you may count as a result of the significant interaction between Romance and Slavic populations around the Carpathian region. French and more-so English, can be counted in the same way as the by-product of Romance and Germanic groups intermingling. I'm not aquatinted with the degree of Germanic and Slavic mixing, but I presume that there should be (or have been) plenty as well. Just remember that Poland become actually polish only after the deportation of Germans, at the end of WW2. The language groups haven't merged more because of limited movement and interaction of their populace, a political effect. The political reasons were also the ones that actually worked in the other direction - of isolating masses of people and encouraging independent development of their cultural identity. The conclusion is that linguistic convergence is not the only natural effect that you may expect with time. Take a large enough mono-linguistic space, and give it a couple of centuries. After that you'll start noticing enough differences to warrant acknowledgment of distinct dialects or even languages.
vacri 10y ago
The only real candidates with wide spread are English and Chinese (well, Mandarin). Tons of people already speak English as a second language, and Chinese has a wide diaspora with communities everywhere. Your point is still valid, but Spanish isn't going to be the 'one' - if you were going to push the world to learn Spanish (because, say, it's easier in general than English or Chinese), then you may as well go the whole hog and get everyone to learn a synthetic language like Esperanto, which is easier again.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > you may as well go the whole hog and get everyone to learn a synthetic language like Esperanto, which is easier again. For critics of Esperanto see http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/ http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/ http://miresperanto.com/konkurentoj/not_my_favourite.htm http://miresperanto.com/konkurentoj/not_my_favourite.htm
  - vacri 10y ago
    Interesting read, thanks (I'm a monoglot, myself). It's odd, though, how Esperanto is always introduced as being the work of an 'oculist'.

by akie 10y ago

akie 10y ago

Over the course of 2000 years, the Slavic, Germanic and Romance languages have not merged into one language, for example - despite close contact...

restalis 10y ago
Yes and no. Romanian had a Slavic layer in it, which you may count as a result of the significant interaction between Romance and Slavic populations around the Carpathian region. French and more-so English, can be counted in the same way as the by-product of Romance and Germanic groups intermingling. I'm not aquatinted with the degree of Germanic and Slavic mixing, but I presume that there should be (or have been) plenty as well. Just remember that Poland become actually polish only after the deportation of Germans, at the end of WW2. The language groups haven't merged more because of limited movement and interaction of their populace, a political effect. The political reasons were also the ones that actually worked in the other direction - of isolating masses of people and encouraging independent development of their cultural identity. The conclusion is that linguistic convergence is not the only natural effect that you may expect with time. Take a large enough mono-linguistic space, and give it a couple of centuries. After that you'll start noticing enough differences to warrant acknowledgment of distinct dialects or even languages.

vacri 10y ago

The only real candidates with wide spread are English and Chinese (well, Mandarin). Tons of people already speak English as a second language, and Chinese has a wide diaspora with communities everywhere. Your point is still valid, but Spanish isn't going to be the 'one' - if you were going to push the world to learn Spanish (because, say, it's easier in general than English or Chinese), then you may as well go the whole hog and get everyone to learn a synthetic language like Esperanto, which is easier again.

wolfgke 10y ago
> you may as well go the whole hog and get everyone to learn a synthetic language like Esperanto, which is easier again. For critics of Esperanto see http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/ http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/ http://miresperanto.com/konkurentoj/not_my_favourite.htm http://miresperanto.com/konkurentoj/not_my_favourite.htm
- vacri 10y ago
  Interesting read, thanks (I'm a monoglot, myself). It's odd, though, how Esperanto is always introduced as being the work of an 'oculist'.