5 ms·

So we can all communicate as clearly as possible?

zepto 5y ago
Why do you assume that a single language would enable that? It could just as easily have the opposite effect, of eliminating a wide range of expression and nuance, thus reducing the capacity for clear communication in absolute terms.
- azangru 5y ago
  > It could just as easily have the opposite effect, of eliminating a wide range of expression and nuance Why would that happen? Expression and nuance is produced by the speakers of a language. Therefore, if different groups of speakers of a hypothetical common language had a need to express different nuances, they would evolve the language in such a way that it would become capable of expressing these nuances. Consider how dominant modern languages can serve hugely different social groups: scholars, petty criminals, soldiers, scientists, sports fans, social justice warriors, and so on, with each group having different ranges of nuances of expression.
  - tored 5y ago
    > they would evolve the language in such a way that it would become capable of expressing these nuances But everyone else that didn't evolve that couldn't understand it even though they speak the same language? Isn't how an evolution for a new language begins?
    - azangru 5y ago
      > Isn't how an evolution for a new language begins? Consider evolution in biology. A species becomes distinct from another species when their individual members can no longer interbreed to produce fertile offspring. For an ancestor species to split into new ones, its populations have to be separated — either geographically (in the so-called allopatric speciation), or by the difference in reproductive timing (allochronic speciation). The point is, something needs to happen that breaks the free mixture of organisms between populations. It should be similar with languages — the societies that speak them get separated, and the language they speak evolves separately in different directions to become mutually incomprehensible. Which, with the current state of communication, is only likely to happen if humans become an interplanetary or an intergalactic species. On the same planet, we have plenty of opportunities to mix together and talk to each other, which, were there a hypothetical common language, should prevent it from splitting into multiple languages. Consider a major modern language. It will contain multiple jargons/slangs/argots that are barely comprehensible to each other (e.g. the medical jargon, or the physics jargon, or Cockney rhyming slang, and so on); and yet they contain a large mutually comprehensible common core that makes television, radio, shopping, conversations between strangers, and so on possible.
      - tored 5y ago
        > It should be similar with languages That is an assumption. In this day and age of globalism, multiculturalism and fast technology advancement the measurement of geographically distance for creating a split can paradoxically be an inverse. Two groups of people can live next to each other geographically but have hard time understanding each other and not only that both can be uninterested in changing that. What this means is that you can live geographically at one point and share nothing with those around you but communicate to galaxies far away far away with people you do.
        azangru 5y ago
        > Two groups of people can live next to each other geographically but have hard time understanding each other and not only that both can be uninterested in changing that. Isn't this description also an assumption? Do you have an example of this? Groups of people who have the same language, but have hard time understanding each other? The closest I can think of is dialects, e.g. regional dialects of British English or British English as opposed to Australian English or South African English, or Australian English; but again, they are mutually comprehensible, and the more cultural exchange happens between these communities the more comprehensible they should be.
        tored 5y ago
        You can see the beginning of new languages evolving with the the mix of multiculturalism, taking words and expressions from their old languages and adding to the new language where they live. And because the majority does not have these words and expressions, and probably never will, eventually they will diverge. Yiddish is a example of this.
        zepto 5y ago
        > Isn't this description also an assumption? Do you have an example of this? Groups of people who have the same language, but have hard time understanding each other? There are two obscure tribes found in a remote part of the North American continent in which this phenomenon can be observed. I believe one calls itself ‘the Democrats’ and the other ‘the Republicans’.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > they would evolve the language in such a way that it would become capable of expressing these nuances. Would they? Or would they need to fork the language away from the common base? Nuance and expression are produced by the speakers of the language having distinct experiences and finding distinct ways to express them. Understanding other people doesn’t magically come from having the same language. It requires learning to understand their experiences.
    - azangru 5y ago
      > Or would they need to fork the language away from the common base? One does not simply fork a language :-) There must be a strong centrifugal (nationalist, separatist) political force for people to do so. > Nuance and expression are produced by the speakers of the language having distinct experiences and finding distinct ways to express them. Yes. Take a fisherman, a doctor, a frontend web developer, a fashion model, or a homeless beggar. They all have vastly different experiences. They all, however, can speak the same natural language to talk to each other. That language has the power to encompass the experiences and the nuances of all these different groups of people. I would not understand the professional jargon of a fisherman or a fashion model, while the homeless beggar may not understand the professional jargon of a frontend web developer; but we will all share the same grammar and the same core vocabulary, so that we can communicate what we want when we occasionally bump into each other. > Understanding other people doesn’t magically come from having the same language. It requires learning to understand their experiences. I am not sure what this means, and I am not after that kind of understanding anyway. I would be plenty happy if people shared the same native language when speaking at web conferences or writing documentation. Or if I could go to a shop anywhere and buy what I need, without resorting to a ridiculous pantomime; or listen to news, or to stop announcements in the public transport, or chat with a stranger, and lots of other small mundane things that we use our language for. I have no desire to understand the experiences of the most part of the humanity anyway; only some that I am interested in.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > I have no desire to understand the experiences of the most part of the humanity anyway Nobody is arguing that a common language wouldn’t make mundane everyday transactions more convenient. The argument is that a significant range of expression, nuance, culture and even experience would be lost in service of your goal of easier to use public transport, shopping etc. It’s fine for you not to be interested in the experiences of the most part of humanity. Let’s just not pretend that there is a trade-off that many people do care about.

Why do you assume that a single language would enable that? It could just as easily have the opposite effect, of eliminating a wide range of expression and nuance, thus reducing the capacity for clear communication in absolute terms.

azangru 5y ago
> It could just as easily have the opposite effect, of eliminating a wide range of expression and nuance Why would that happen? Expression and nuance is produced by the speakers of a language. Therefore, if different groups of speakers of a hypothetical common language had a need to express different nuances, they would evolve the language in such a way that it would become capable of expressing these nuances. Consider how dominant modern languages can serve hugely different social groups: scholars, petty criminals, soldiers, scientists, sports fans, social justice warriors, and so on, with each group having different ranges of nuances of expression.
- tored 5y ago
  > they would evolve the language in such a way that it would become capable of expressing these nuances But everyone else that didn't evolve that couldn't understand it even though they speak the same language? Isn't how an evolution for a new language begins?
  - azangru 5y ago
    > Isn't how an evolution for a new language begins? Consider evolution in biology. A species becomes distinct from another species when their individual members can no longer interbreed to produce fertile offspring. For an ancestor species to split into new ones, its populations have to be separated — either geographically (in the so-called allopatric speciation), or by the difference in reproductive timing (allochronic speciation). The point is, something needs to happen that breaks the free mixture of organisms between populations. It should be similar with languages — the societies that speak them get separated, and the language they speak evolves separately in different directions to become mutually incomprehensible. Which, with the current state of communication, is only likely to happen if humans become an interplanetary or an intergalactic species. On the same planet, we have plenty of opportunities to mix together and talk to each other, which, were there a hypothetical common language, should prevent it from splitting into multiple languages. Consider a major modern language. It will contain multiple jargons/slangs/argots that are barely comprehensible to each other (e.g. the medical jargon, or the physics jargon, or Cockney rhyming slang, and so on); and yet they contain a large mutually comprehensible common core that makes television, radio, shopping, conversations between strangers, and so on possible.
    - tored 5y ago
      > It should be similar with languages That is an assumption. In this day and age of globalism, multiculturalism and fast technology advancement the measurement of geographically distance for creating a split can paradoxically be an inverse. Two groups of people can live next to each other geographically but have hard time understanding each other and not only that both can be uninterested in changing that. What this means is that you can live geographically at one point and share nothing with those around you but communicate to galaxies far away far away with people you do.
      - azangru 5y ago
        > Two groups of people can live next to each other geographically but have hard time understanding each other and not only that both can be uninterested in changing that. Isn't this description also an assumption? Do you have an example of this? Groups of people who have the same language, but have hard time understanding each other? The closest I can think of is dialects, e.g. regional dialects of British English or British English as opposed to Australian English or South African English, or Australian English; but again, they are mutually comprehensible, and the more cultural exchange happens between these communities the more comprehensible they should be.
        tored 5y ago
        You can see the beginning of new languages evolving with the the mix of multiculturalism, taking words and expressions from their old languages and adding to the new language where they live. And because the majority does not have these words and expressions, and probably never will, eventually they will diverge. Yiddish is a example of this.
        zepto 5y ago
        > Isn't this description also an assumption? Do you have an example of this? Groups of people who have the same language, but have hard time understanding each other? There are two obscure tribes found in a remote part of the North American continent in which this phenomenon can be observed. I believe one calls itself ‘the Democrats’ and the other ‘the Republicans’.
- zepto 5y ago
  > they would evolve the language in such a way that it would become capable of expressing these nuances. Would they? Or would they need to fork the language away from the common base? Nuance and expression are produced by the speakers of the language having distinct experiences and finding distinct ways to express them. Understanding other people doesn’t magically come from having the same language. It requires learning to understand their experiences.
  - azangru 5y ago
    > Or would they need to fork the language away from the common base? One does not simply fork a language :-) There must be a strong centrifugal (nationalist, separatist) political force for people to do so. > Nuance and expression are produced by the speakers of the language having distinct experiences and finding distinct ways to express them. Yes. Take a fisherman, a doctor, a frontend web developer, a fashion model, or a homeless beggar. They all have vastly different experiences. They all, however, can speak the same natural language to talk to each other. That language has the power to encompass the experiences and the nuances of all these different groups of people. I would not understand the professional jargon of a fisherman or a fashion model, while the homeless beggar may not understand the professional jargon of a frontend web developer; but we will all share the same grammar and the same core vocabulary, so that we can communicate what we want when we occasionally bump into each other. > Understanding other people doesn’t magically come from having the same language. It requires learning to understand their experiences. I am not sure what this means, and I am not after that kind of understanding anyway. I would be plenty happy if people shared the same native language when speaking at web conferences or writing documentation. Or if I could go to a shop anywhere and buy what I need, without resorting to a ridiculous pantomime; or listen to news, or to stop announcements in the public transport, or chat with a stranger, and lots of other small mundane things that we use our language for. I have no desire to understand the experiences of the most part of the humanity anyway; only some that I am interested in.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > I have no desire to understand the experiences of the most part of the humanity anyway Nobody is arguing that a common language wouldn’t make mundane everyday transactions more convenient. The argument is that a significant range of expression, nuance, culture and even experience would be lost in service of your goal of easier to use public transport, shopping etc. It’s fine for you not to be interested in the experiences of the most part of humanity. Let’s just not pretend that there is a trade-off that many people do care about.