5 ms·

> Archive and Extinguish! That is the most cruel thing I have read this month. Really horrible idea. It would be controversial if you would clarify your reaso

> Archive and Extinguish! That is the most cruel thing I have read this month. Really horrible idea. It would be controversial if you would clarify your reasons but until then it is just stupid. My reasoning? You first.

unethical_ban 13y ago
Tower of Babel. I'm not sure "Extinguish" is necessary, but perhaps the teaching of a common language throughout the country would be beneficial. I can't imagine the United States having a different language for every House district, with only 5% of the population speaking common English.
- davidw 13y ago
  Europe has its problems, but it's not that bad off either, in the grand scheme of things. It's slightly larger than the US and has a large variety of languages, including many countries with their own linguistic diversity. Italy, for instance, has regions where French and German are accepted, as well as a slew of regional "dialects/languages". Belgium has three official languages. Spain has several. And so on...
  - prawn 13y ago
    Switzerland with French, German and Italian depending on where you are.
    - davidw 13y ago
      Switzerland also has Ladino as one of its official languages.
      - davidw 13y ago
        Err, sorry, 'Romansh' is the name they use.
- realrocker 13y ago
  Well, India does not have to imagine that, since its common practice. A language is the identity of the people. I am not sure that India is ready to inorganically archive or extinguish the identities of its various sub-cultures. India is already proving that it can mix growth with diversity(albeit at a slower pace), but a section of the middle class think's this approach is too slow. I personally do not agree with the one language nation theory. It reeks of sectarianism. Edit: I consciously ignored Tower of Babel due it being a misplaced argument.
  - winter_blue 13y ago
    China is a good counterexample to this. China had a huge number of "dialects" -- mutually un-intelligible dialects (and being mutually unintelligible is generally what distinguishes a language from a dialect). The Chinese government has sort-of successfully driven Mandarin as the lingua franca of the nation, and I can't imagine the Chinese having been anything but better off for it. Perhaps, there was some loss of cultural/linguistic heritage in the case of China, but that's why I said India should "archive" before extinguish. Languages evolve all the time. If everyone were to hang on to the languages and identities that were present and predominant at the end of the twentieth century, I don't think we'd get anywhere closer to a more global society. As a nation, there's much more of a reason to have a common language.
    - realrocker 13y ago
      If you know anything about China's history, it cost them tens of millions of lives to surgically implement uniformity. Not just in language but in every thread of society. Now give me an example of a country as diverse and massive as India whose lingual diversity was a hindrance to growth. I will just go ahead and respond. There is none. India is unique and there is no evidence it's current model won't work. Languages evolve all the time> Incorrect. Languages evolve over centuries due to several geopolitical reasons like: land topography, availability of food, neighboring tribes. Each language and it's multiple dialects are an imprint of the struggle their speakers went through over hundreds or thousands of years. In case of India, the frequency is so high since it has been a melting pot of the world for a very large period of time. >Global society Contrary to what you believe it's not synonymous with a central society. The ultimate goal of the human race is a moving target. Adopting a common language so that we can do better trade, better science and produce more is fallacious since we don't know that's we are supposed to do. Maybe we need to slow down so that we don't kill ourselves off by becoming too powerful and cocky. I don't know. Neither do you.
- primelens 13y ago
  Hard as it may seem to believe, India was not modeled on the US. On the whole it has dealt quite well with its diversity of languages and cultures. If that is too hard to imagine, perhaps you can try imagining Europe.
- saraid216 13y ago
  Here's the thing: You can learn multiple languages. You can even learn multiple dialects. One of the things I'm proud of my grandfather for was that he learned 22 different dialects of Chinese for the purposes of doing business on a fairly wide scale. Imperialism is sort of not a thing these days.
  - devcpp 13y ago
    But why? All that does is handicap the people who don't speak more than 2 dialects, even though they may be more productive in terms of work than the people who speak 22 dialects. At age 21, I have already immigrated twice to countries with different languages, and I have always considered language as the major barrier in everything I always did (because past a certain age, no matter how hard I try, I keep the accent). I dream of a world where language is a concern of the past. It just makes no sense to keep this hindrance around when there are important things to do.
    - primelens 13y ago
      What's the problem with keeping the accent? Why do you think an accent hinders you? And which language and universal accent should the world switch to?
      - devcpp 13y ago
        >What's the problem with keeping the accent? Why do you think an accent hinders you? In my experience, it does, in most social contexts, and also in job interviews, as some interviewers don't feel it would be as easy for me to integrate to the rest of the team, which is true to some extent. These may all be exceptions but it's a big indicator in my opinion. >And which language and universal accent should the world switch to? I think any language known to me would do. When the time comes and people feel ready to accept the idea of one language (looking at the replies I got, it's not gonna happen), we'll discuss it.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      Language is important to people who aren't you. Your notions of what is and isn't important are personal, not universal, and you really don't have the right to dictate to people that they're no longer allowed to speak a certain language simply because it's not the one you picked. That's presuming that the very notion of a one world language would even work, considering all we know about linguistic mutations. What you want is akin to, "Why are we wasting all this time fighting cancer when we could be achieving spaceflight?" Maybe, just maybe, it's people that are important?

unethical_ban 13y ago

Tower of Babel. I'm not sure "Extinguish" is necessary, but perhaps the teaching of a common language throughout the country would be beneficial. I can't imagine the United States having a different language for every House district, with only 5% of the population speaking common English.

davidw 13y ago
Europe has its problems, but it's not that bad off either, in the grand scheme of things. It's slightly larger than the US and has a large variety of languages, including many countries with their own linguistic diversity. Italy, for instance, has regions where French and German are accepted, as well as a slew of regional "dialects/languages". Belgium has three official languages. Spain has several. And so on...
- prawn 13y ago
  Switzerland with French, German and Italian depending on where you are.
  - davidw 13y ago
    Switzerland also has Ladino as one of its official languages.
    - davidw 13y ago
      Err, sorry, 'Romansh' is the name they use.
realrocker 13y ago
Well, India does not have to imagine that, since its common practice. A language is the identity of the people. I am not sure that India is ready to inorganically archive or extinguish the identities of its various sub-cultures. India is already proving that it can mix growth with diversity(albeit at a slower pace), but a section of the middle class think's this approach is too slow. I personally do not agree with the one language nation theory. It reeks of sectarianism. Edit: I consciously ignored Tower of Babel due it being a misplaced argument.
- winter_blue 13y ago
  China is a good counterexample to this. China had a huge number of "dialects" -- mutually un-intelligible dialects (and being mutually unintelligible is generally what distinguishes a language from a dialect). The Chinese government has sort-of successfully driven Mandarin as the lingua franca of the nation, and I can't imagine the Chinese having been anything but better off for it. Perhaps, there was some loss of cultural/linguistic heritage in the case of China, but that's why I said India should "archive" before extinguish. Languages evolve all the time. If everyone were to hang on to the languages and identities that were present and predominant at the end of the twentieth century, I don't think we'd get anywhere closer to a more global society. As a nation, there's much more of a reason to have a common language.
  - realrocker 13y ago
    If you know anything about China's history, it cost them tens of millions of lives to surgically implement uniformity. Not just in language but in every thread of society. Now give me an example of a country as diverse and massive as India whose lingual diversity was a hindrance to growth. I will just go ahead and respond. There is none. India is unique and there is no evidence it's current model won't work. Languages evolve all the time> Incorrect. Languages evolve over centuries due to several geopolitical reasons like: land topography, availability of food, neighboring tribes. Each language and it's multiple dialects are an imprint of the struggle their speakers went through over hundreds or thousands of years. In case of India, the frequency is so high since it has been a melting pot of the world for a very large period of time. >Global society Contrary to what you believe it's not synonymous with a central society. The ultimate goal of the human race is a moving target. Adopting a common language so that we can do better trade, better science and produce more is fallacious since we don't know that's we are supposed to do. Maybe we need to slow down so that we don't kill ourselves off by becoming too powerful and cocky. I don't know. Neither do you.
primelens 13y ago
Hard as it may seem to believe, India was not modeled on the US. On the whole it has dealt quite well with its diversity of languages and cultures. If that is too hard to imagine, perhaps you can try imagining Europe.
saraid216 13y ago
Here's the thing: You can learn multiple languages. You can even learn multiple dialects. One of the things I'm proud of my grandfather for was that he learned 22 different dialects of Chinese for the purposes of doing business on a fairly wide scale. Imperialism is sort of not a thing these days.
- devcpp 13y ago
  But why? All that does is handicap the people who don't speak more than 2 dialects, even though they may be more productive in terms of work than the people who speak 22 dialects. At age 21, I have already immigrated twice to countries with different languages, and I have always considered language as the major barrier in everything I always did (because past a certain age, no matter how hard I try, I keep the accent). I dream of a world where language is a concern of the past. It just makes no sense to keep this hindrance around when there are important things to do.
  - primelens 13y ago
    What's the problem with keeping the accent? Why do you think an accent hinders you? And which language and universal accent should the world switch to?
    - devcpp 13y ago
      >What's the problem with keeping the accent? Why do you think an accent hinders you? In my experience, it does, in most social contexts, and also in job interviews, as some interviewers don't feel it would be as easy for me to integrate to the rest of the team, which is true to some extent. These may all be exceptions but it's a big indicator in my opinion. >And which language and universal accent should the world switch to? I think any language known to me would do. When the time comes and people feel ready to accept the idea of one language (looking at the replies I got, it's not gonna happen), we'll discuss it.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    Language is important to people who aren't you. Your notions of what is and isn't important are personal, not universal, and you really don't have the right to dictate to people that they're no longer allowed to speak a certain language simply because it's not the one you picked. That's presuming that the very notion of a one world language would even work, considering all we know about linguistic mutations. What you want is akin to, "Why are we wasting all this time fighting cancer when we could be achieving spaceflight?" Maybe, just maybe, it's people that are important?