3 ms·

I'm not sure if you are joking, but language is highly political. You could say that language is the root of cultural, and thus national and ethnic, identity.

by aristus 16y ago

I'm not sure if you are joking, but language is highly political. You could say that language is the root of cultural, and thus national and ethnic, identity. Language domination tends to follow political, trade, and economic domination. The "lingua franca" of Europe used to be, as the phrase implies, French. Before that was bastard Latin, after that it was German. More people speak Spanish than English in the New World, and Brazillian is a close third. The problem with suggesting a default language is that you are also implying worldwide domination. It's not usually a welcome idea. :) There is a joke about that: air traffic control frequencies are shared, for obvious reasons. Once a Lufthansa flight was coming into Berlin. The pilot asked for clearance in German. The tower responded that he must use English, as that is the rule. The pilot responded: "Why? I am a German, flying a German plane to a German airport. Why must I speak English?" Another pilot cut in-- "because you lost the bloody war!" This is actually true; if you don't trust the pilots of a former enemy, a good way to keep tabs on them is to make them use your language on the radio. QED.

ellyagg 16y ago
I very much doubt he's joking. It's actually subtly insulting that you think he is. Marilyn vos Savant, for one, agrees with that idea. Not that she has any credentials other than being smart, but there's really no better credential than that for weighing in on this topic, as it's not a matter of expertise but one's assumptions about what's important. Like her, I favor the gradual unforced adoption of a single global language, and English seems the best bet at this point. I think what we lose in diversity we more than gain in standardization. Perhaps more controversially, I happen to think English is objectively the best[1] natural language currently available for this role. It's got by far the biggest vocabulary and is by implication the most expressive. Ayn Rand's native language was Russian, she was fluent in several other languages, and she wrote that English gave her the most freedom and power of expression. [1] Assuming we can agree that a concept such as "best" can exist and we don't degenerate into nihilistic pseudo-philosophical examinations of first principles.
- aristus 16y ago
  Well, that wasn't what I intended. I am truly unsure the original intent. English is pretty good, I agree, though phrasal verbs are the work of the devil. It has a head start in aviation, mathematics, engineering, some television, finance, and computer science. The British did a good job of seeding it everywhere and WWII gave it a large boost. Then again, the dissolution of the empires in the 60s made English and French less fashionable in many areas of the world as nationalism took hold. Favoring "gradual unforced adoption" is a fine thing. I suppose I favor it too, as a "lingua franca" but not as a single global language. Knowledge of history does, I'm sorry to disagree with you here, qualify one to have a credentialed opinion. Language hegemony has never happened without a lot of people getting killed. I do not favor that, and I trust you don't either. Maybe this time will be different, who knows? America has always had wonderful, astonishing optimism. But keep in mind that what you are proposing is no less than closing the book on many venerable, vibrant, and (ahem) more populous cultures. They will push back as much as you would push back on being told that English was obsolete.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    I never said how or when it should happen. Just that it should. (Would be great if it happens peacefully and gradually and with some effort to not hurt other folks feelings.) I also never said I think English is the "best". I only think it's the path of least resistance. Of all the languages that are serious candidates, most reasonable people would agree it's already the closest thing we have to a global standard language, especially in science, business and programming. Also, you can have and preserve culture even when a people's default language changes. I also would argue that there is nothing inherently special in "culture" which is distinct from it's component elements -- much of it is random and arbitrary and due to different choices and evolutionary paths caused by geographic, racial and tribal/breeding differences. I'd argue that much of what we now consider to be national culture will blur together and fade away over a long enough period of time. And the pace has likely accelerated due to modern travel and communication technology (eg. jet airliners and the Internet). I also think it would be a net-win eventually if all nations merged together into a single nation -- among other things, it would eliminate or at least drastically reduce the need or justification for large standing armies and the military-industrial complex. US wouldn't need to make another country a boogeyman (USSR/China/Iraq/Iran/etc.) and vice versa. What would have become a military/espionage situation in a multi-nation world become perhaps at most a legislative or law enforcement action. Just thinking outside the box. Long term.

by aristus 16y ago

ellyagg 16y ago

I very much doubt he's joking. It's actually subtly insulting that you think he is. Marilyn vos Savant, for one, agrees with that idea. Not that she has any credentials other than being smart, but there's really no better credential than that for weighing in on this topic, as it's not a matter of expertise but one's assumptions about what's important. Like her, I favor the gradual unforced adoption of a single global language, and English seems the best bet at this point. I think what we lose in diversity we more than gain in standardization. Perhaps more controversially, I happen to think English is objectively the best[1] natural language currently available for this role. It's got by far the biggest vocabulary and is by implication the most expressive. Ayn Rand's native language was Russian, she was fluent in several other languages, and she wrote that English gave her the most freedom and power of expression. [1] Assuming we can agree that a concept such as "best" can exist and we don't degenerate into nihilistic pseudo-philosophical examinations of first principles.

aristus 16y ago
Well, that wasn't what I intended. I am truly unsure the original intent. English is pretty good, I agree, though phrasal verbs are the work of the devil. It has a head start in aviation, mathematics, engineering, some television, finance, and computer science. The British did a good job of seeding it everywhere and WWII gave it a large boost. Then again, the dissolution of the empires in the 60s made English and French less fashionable in many areas of the world as nationalism took hold. Favoring "gradual unforced adoption" is a fine thing. I suppose I favor it too, as a "lingua franca" but not as a single global language. Knowledge of history does, I'm sorry to disagree with you here, qualify one to have a credentialed opinion. Language hegemony has never happened without a lot of people getting killed. I do not favor that, and I trust you don't either. Maybe this time will be different, who knows? America has always had wonderful, astonishing optimism. But keep in mind that what you are proposing is no less than closing the book on many venerable, vibrant, and (ahem) more populous cultures. They will push back as much as you would push back on being told that English was obsolete.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  I never said how or when it should happen. Just that it should. (Would be great if it happens peacefully and gradually and with some effort to not hurt other folks feelings.) I also never said I think English is the "best". I only think it's the path of least resistance. Of all the languages that are serious candidates, most reasonable people would agree it's already the closest thing we have to a global standard language, especially in science, business and programming. Also, you can have and preserve culture even when a people's default language changes. I also would argue that there is nothing inherently special in "culture" which is distinct from it's component elements -- much of it is random and arbitrary and due to different choices and evolutionary paths caused by geographic, racial and tribal/breeding differences. I'd argue that much of what we now consider to be national culture will blur together and fade away over a long enough period of time. And the pace has likely accelerated due to modern travel and communication technology (eg. jet airliners and the Internet). I also think it would be a net-win eventually if all nations merged together into a single nation -- among other things, it would eliminate or at least drastically reduce the need or justification for large standing armies and the military-industrial complex. US wouldn't need to make another country a boogeyman (USSR/China/Iraq/Iran/etc.) and vice versa. What would have become a military/espionage situation in a multi-nation world become perhaps at most a legislative or law enforcement action. Just thinking outside the box. Long term.