3 ms·

I agree with the basic premise that having multiple languages is an annoying point of friction, and it would be great if it could be removed (I have lived in fi

I agree with the basic premise that having multiple languages is an annoying point of friction, and it would be great if it could be removed (I have lived in five countries and dealing with government, insurance, doctors, etc. is always a big roadblock). However, if you have any sort of international exposure beyond holidays, it is abundantly clear that you cannot extricate the language that people speak with the culture and history of a region. Having everyone speak the same language would mean throwing away much of what makes countries unique, because the old language would be forgotten over time. And people won't like that. Politicians won't like that either, as it becomes much harder to push the narrative that "we" are superior and "they" are barbarians, when everything is so uniform.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
But a universal translator makes it irrelevant if you learn a common language, it’ll allow people to speak their native language without material friction. IMO that’ll be the best thing for preserving a rich linguistic body of languages and dialects.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > a universal translator makes it irrelevant if you learn a common language We are nowhere close to a proper universal translator. Simply transcribing words from one language to another is lossy.
denton-scratch 3y ago
> you cannot extricate the language that people speak with the culture and history of a region. This, to me, is the reason for the diversity of language (and the reason for learning foreign languages, and for conserving your own language). Whether or not a speaker is familiar with his own literary and historical traditions, he relies on them in the idioms he uses, the jokes he makes, and in his understanding of the actions and utterances of others. If everyone in France spoke only English, they'd struggle to understand themselves. This is the main reason I consider myself a prescriptivist, in lexicographic terms. If you strip your language of what some people consider archaisms, you lose the ability to read the old plays and poetry, the soil from which your culture germinated.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

But a universal translator makes it irrelevant if you learn a common language, it’ll allow people to speak their native language without material friction. IMO that’ll be the best thing for preserving a rich linguistic body of languages and dialects.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> a universal translator makes it irrelevant if you learn a common language We are nowhere close to a proper universal translator. Simply transcribing words from one language to another is lossy.

denton-scratch 3y ago

> you cannot extricate the language that people speak with the culture and history of a region. This, to me, is the reason for the diversity of language (and the reason for learning foreign languages, and for conserving your own language). Whether or not a speaker is familiar with his own literary and historical traditions, he relies on them in the idioms he uses, the jokes he makes, and in his understanding of the actions and utterances of others. If everyone in France spoke only English, they'd struggle to understand themselves. This is the main reason I consider myself a prescriptivist, in lexicographic terms. If you strip your language of what some people consider archaisms, you lose the ability to read the old plays and poetry, the soil from which your culture germinated.