4 ms·
I think you're confusing monolingualism with everyone having a lingua franca. Your argument sounds like "We should all just have one common language; therefore,
by biswaroop 10y ago
I think you're confusing monolingualism with everyone having a lingua franca. Your argument sounds like "We should all just have one common language; therefore, we don't need others."
Bilingualism has existed in countries for centuries without either language dying out. I'm all for everyone speaking English. I want people to know as many languages as possible. What I don't want is everyone speaking only English.
It's not ok to lose some of our knowledge. Uniformity is bland, dull, uninteresting, and sad. There's a reason why we think knowing a lot of languages is cool. There's beauty to be found in other cultures and their languages. I don't want to force everyone to learn languages, but it'd be tragic if we lost French and with it Hugo, Voltaire, Verne, Baudelaire, Dumas, Asterix and the rest. It just isn't the same in English.
- sametmax 10y agoYou are the one introducing "monolingualism". In no way not saving dying languages will lead to it. Even if by some act of god suddenly everybody learned english and forgot their own language in a night, very soon you would see emerge variations, slangs, then dialects. Languages are like living creatures, they evolve. My point is mereley "we got thousand of languages, it's ok to loose some of it, let's spend more energy on making sure we got at least one lingua franca".