Who Needs Esperanto When There's English?
Thursday, July 9, 2009
just like a lot of things, this came from sin. when Babel was built, we all got our respective languages. had those of the past not worried about reaching up to heaven by a tower, and just shut up and done what they were told (we all really should) we all would have (a) no language school classes and (b) an easy way to understand eachother
I don't think a universal language is necessary or desirable. I think the variety of languages is an important part of the varied cultures and how they express their ideas. Also, if there were a universal language why should it be English? English is an extremely complicated language.
Esperanto suffers from a few fallacies, some of which which I would like to list here.
A common fallacy is that because Esperanto was invented, it is not organic. It was artificial 120 years ago, but was soon released to the public, free to evolve and grow at the whims of its speakers. Through continuous us in every imaginable situation by a world-spanning community, it matured into the complete, living, organic natural language it is today.
Another common fallacy is that if Esperanto is indeed a living, organic natural language, it has fractured or will soon fracture into dialects, or has acquired or will soon acquire all the messiness of other living languages, losing any advantages it may have had in the process. In actual fact, Esperanto has proven very resistant to dialectization and increased complexity. Its vocation as an internationally used second language and its inherently elegant simplicity have helped ensure that; innovations either fit easily into the existing framework, spread quickly and are adopted by the entire community world-wide, or they do not, and fizzle and die just as quickly. Esperanto is just as easy to learn and just as universally understood by the entire Esperanto community as it always
Yet another common fallacy is that "Esperanto, universal language" = "Esperanto, only language". Esperanto is meant to be an easy-to-learn common bridging language, with everyone keeping his or her native language and regional language (if different from the native language). No loss of other languages.
Esperanto is small (about 2,000,000 speakers), but it is growing, and faster than the world's population. If it continues the way it has, it could eventually reach a critical mass where it just takes off.
A universal language is highly desirable -- and inevitable -- and I think it will be an organic language and not an invented one. In my view, English by far shows the most promise for becoming this organic universal language. This is the case for several reasons. British colonization of America, Australia, Canada, India, and Africa gave the language a huge geopolitical base from which to grow.
The emergence of the United States, in turn, as the business powerhouse of the 20th century ensured that English would become the language of international business. This is in evidence in China, Japan, Europe, and Latin America.
Add to that the phenomenon of global media, driven largely, for better or for worse, by American cultural exports, and you have the makings of the world’s first universal auxiliary language. English is not, by a longshot, the most widely spoken first language in the world today, a distinction that belongs to the Mandarin of the populous Chinese. The three most widely spoken languages on Earth today are:
1. Mandarin: 873 million native + 178 million secondary = 1.051 billion
2. Spanish: 400 million native + 100 million secondary = 500 million, and
3. English: 380 million native + 720 million secondary = 1.1 billion.
The telling number in all of this is the final number, which shows that, when native English speakers and speakers of English as a second language are added together, it tops the list. And perhaps most significantly, that far more people speak English as a second language than any other.
But if English indeed does become the global language, don’t look for it after several generations of ongoing global cross-pollination to be identical to current English. Rather, I believe that what we will see is an extension of what we already have: an organically changing version of English that constantly is being infused with words from other cultures that convey more specific meanings and subtle cultural origins. Long before globalization, English was a melting-pot language, incorporating Germanic Anglo-Saxon dialects, French, and Latin, and in more recent centuries adding useful terms from cultures around the world. Perhaps a language that already has such a long history of mutations and assimilations is our best chance at a first universal language.
@SayItRight The sharing of ideas is extremely important, and there's no denying it is hindered by the language barrier. It's also accurate that words with out an exact translation could be summed up well enough in many cases, although the spirit of the word can be lost.
Our launguage affects our thought process greatly. The diversity of thought that generated individual languages remains in the thought process of its speakers. Consider the differences beween Eastern and Weastern Logic, which although subtle and now greatly eroded, created significant cultural differences.
On a utilitarian level, the sacrfice of these differences would be minimal compared to the gains of a universal language. A universal language wouldn't by any means lead to homogenous thought. But ideally the sacrifice wouldn't have to be made and we could preserve the ideas that could potentially stem from this diversity.
I definitely think that it would be easier if we all spoke the same language, but isn't a little bit arrogant for Americans to think it should be english? I also don't think it would work. Around where I live, it seems that I encounter more people who CAN'T speak english than people who can. I will readily admit that I find this annoying and frustrating, especially when there is a great number of people who can't speak the language native to my country. If I went to Spain, I'd learn spanish; France--French. It's just polite I guess.
That being said, I think a universal language would be a great thing in a step to achieving peace.
@Hayley
The language border hugely hinders the spreading of knowledge and information. The concept of words that are not easily translated is not a good thing, it just makes the language barrier even harder to get by.
Besides, many words that can't be replaced by one in another language could probably be summed up in several different words. That would be a trivial inconvenience when compared to how great it would be if the world could share ideas more fluently. (You should laugh at my use of the word 'fluently' because it is a pun.) The sharing of ideas has proven to have fantastic outcomes; just look at the Renaissance era.
Here's a fun fact: Mozilla Firefox, Wikipedia, Facebook, Google all have Esperanto as a language preference.
Oops, the arrogance is that I mentioned in my previous comment was the arrogance of native English speakers who often believe that English is easy to learn and use because they can speak it so easily. And, the arrogance in believing that the world will be the same but better if English would be used everywhere.
I am a native english speaker. I love all of the uniqueness of our language but I would never want it to be the world's global language for two reasons: difficulty and arrogance.
English is an incredibly difficult language to learn...even for english speaker! Over the last year, I had the opportunity to help teach beginning reading in a kindergarten classroom and I discovered how difficult english can be. First of all, the pronounciation is variable. For instance, the vowel 'a' is pronounced differently in can, cap, cauldron, skate, and car. Secondly, there are all of the borrowed words that don't fit any of our language 'rules' ( ie, bouquet, tortilla) Thirdly, there are two english languages and spellings: British English (the original) and American English ( at times, a simplified english) English is so difficult to write and speak really well that I believe it should be kept as an individual/national language. I believe that making English an international would cause it to degrade and become less than the amazing language it is.
Also, I believe that english as an international language would wipe out many, perhaps most, of the less spoken languages in the world. So, French, Mandarin, Hindi, Portugese, Bengali, Russian, Spanish and Arabic are sure to survive (these are the top 10), but what of the others? Earth and mankind would be less with out the other cultures that would be wiped out with their language. Can you imagine this world without Italian, German, Polynesian? What about Cree, Inuktutuk, Gaelic or Maori? Do you think that those cultures would survive without the language to hold them together?
Try Googling endangered languages. Or check out the reasons why languages die at this site http://www.sil.org/sociolx/ndg-lg-grimes.html. For example in reason 3.1 Parents push children to learn prestige language thinking that they can only learn one language well. I've seen this happen in Canada. Many of my friends cannot speak the language of their parents.
Esperanto can easily be learned at home by anyone. No one would have to lose their cultural language if a language like Esperanto was used for international communication.
I'm not sure I like the idea of an international language, because I enjoy how different languages are so unique, not only in sound, but in how they are used to communicate ideas, and how they are used to generate thought. With different languages come not only diffferent ways to communicate but different ways of thinking. I feel like it would be a shame to lose this diversity.
Also, as so many things are lost in transation due to the diversity of languages, it would be difficult to get a single language to accomidate for the unique aspects of individual languages. Certain words and phrases can't be translated, and therefore certain ideas can never truely be translated. Losing these ideas to a universal language that couldn't accomidate would be a shame as well.
Yes, I believe that English is becoming the world's first universal language. I've been told by foreign exchange students themselves that they have been learning English for 7 or 8 years in school. How many years have I learned Spanish? Only 2.
I think universal language is found in the arts, science and math. These subjects convey the depths of both reason and emotion that language simply cannot. I don't think a universal language such as English or Esperanto is useful, for it feels like domination of one culture over another.
why not japanese, or freakin german or the one i freakin made up... what about math???
Esperanto is meant to be a widespread second language to supplement native languages, not a universal first language to replace native languages. So, no danger of loss of individual cultures.
As said earlier, English is actually quite difficult to learn to speak well. Overall, Esperanto is several times easier - enough so that it would be considerably cheaper to have everyone learn Esperanto, even those who already speak English, than it would be to have only those who do not speak English learn English. It's been around for over 120 years, has a sizeable world-wide community of speakers, and has been around the block enough times to have matured into a complete, living natural language that, in spite of its ease of learning, is just as rich and expressive as English.
What's more interesting than communication barriers? Overcoming them! To give Esperanto a try, check out http://www.lernu.net.
No one needs Esperanto... Having a universal language eliminates part of one's culture and uniqueness. Most people all over the world are fluent in more than one language, Americans should start working on that.
Besides, What's more interesting than communication barriers?
I feel that it would be beneficial for everyone to know three languages. In some countries, there are so many different ancestral ethnic groups with their own languages and dialects, it becomes necessary for each of them to speak multiple languages for any interaction to occur. there is the language of the ethnic group, the language of the religion, and the national language of that particular government. America is one of the few countries that does not expect this flexibility of its citizens. It gives the rest of the world more reason to know that as a populace, we are stupid and lazy when it comes to making an effort outside of our childhood comfort zones.
also, English is incredibly difficult to learn. if one must be chosen, this is not a good choice. my vote is for Spanish, or for everyone to know two or three. studies have shown that people who speak multiple languages are stronger mentally, and have greater comprehension that those who don't. their brains are simply able to work harder.
something else would be lost if English became the universal language. there are certain words and ideas that only exist within a certain culture. there is no translation into English for that concept. entire worlds of understanding would be gone. there are already thousands of dead languages, and with each one a culture and a history has died. why kill more?
I'm 51 years old and when I was in grade school the teachers said we were going to convert to the metric system soon. Well soon has come and gone and other than a few labels on our bottles of drink or other liquids we are no closer to the conversion then we were 40 years ago, so we are never going to invent another language for the the world to use in common cos' Americans R 2 dam Laz
I spent some time trying to learn Esperanto simply for curiousity's sake, but also because I was procrastinating my way out of studying for finals during my first year of my undergrad. I think that we, as North Americans, often take for granted that there are more non-North American's than actual North American's and, therefore, we don't rule the world in every aspect. The USA is a superpower but put the population of India or China head for head against the Americans and the American's are easily outnumbered. Not only will they be out of the running population-wise, but they will be unable to pick the majority for language of choice. However, because globalization of commercial industry dictates many trends in learning and society, English (as spoken in the USA superpower) will most likely be the choice of the "universal language" if ever such a thing were to exist.
Enough -Through - Dough - Plough - Cough - Slough - Tough - Bough - need I say more! English is a delightfully confounded language and in so many ways - nonsensical. Yes, let's make it the universal language. It will keep our interplanetary visitors totally flummoxed, giving us enough time to "borrow" their craft and take off out of here...
as long as both strong globalization and strong localization hold up the world as nowadays, i don't think English will replace any other language. On the top of that, I guess there will be many universal vocabularies but it won't change other languages' own grammatical system.
With all the texting and instant messaging going on, it won't b long b4 ppl wlt (acronym for "write like this").
FAIL.
@Pseudonym Nenio estas perfekte. Äu vi povas trovi pli bone lingvon?
Mi bedaÅras, sed nun mi ne parolas ofte.
@birminghamgirl: ASL, I hope you realise is American Sign Language. It's far, far less "universal" even than English, given that most English-speaking countries have completely different sign languages. Even the alphabets are different.
Esperato havas kelkajn problemojn. Ekzemple, la alfabeto kaj la pronuncio estas Poluja. Aliflanke, Esperanto estas simpla, por lernanto.
Really? This is astounding to me. I live in NYC and the staggering number of people here who speak little to no English is incredible. Perhaps that isn't an accurate description of the country or world, but it also always seems that not knowing English is catered to. It seems to me that, unfortunately, it is becoming less and less necessary to know English for those living in America. Simultaneously, it is becoming more important to know a second language, (here Spanish in particular), in order to be competitive in the job market.
From my experience here, I would think that Spanish was closer to becoming a global language, but again maybe that's all subjective to living in NYC.
In The Lord of The Rings each race has its own language, but they are all also fluent in "Common Speech." I suppose one of our languages becoming universal would be the same thing. While I don't think it is necessary, it certainly worked for those elves, men, dwarfs and hobbits! I'm for anything that promotes and enables thorough and easy discussion. So, I suppose it could be a good thing.
Then again, there's the joke: Q: What do you call someone who knows three languages? A: Trilingual Q: What do you call someone who knows one language? A: An American. I suppose a universal language might only work with English, seeing the unfortunate lazy and closed minded nature of Americans to not want to learn another. :/
I think Esperanto is a great idea for an auxiliary language, although I agree that English, so far, is the leading candidate. I’m sort-of conversant in a few languages, both from circumstances of geography and also by education. Nothing deep, but OK for casual circumstances. Several years ago I was involved in a local Esperanto group, which meant we met a couple of time a month and forced ourselves to converse only in Zamenhof’s lingvo. We regularly had visitors from other countries, and I was astounded that we could understand each other so well. Even after only a few months I could discuss pretty weighty matters with people who had only a few dozen words of English under their belt. So even with less than a year’s exposure to Esperanto I could convey my thoughts better than with languages I’ve known (and spoken) for years.
An auxiliary language should be easy to learn, and Esperanto has a decided advantage over English on this score. It has simple rules with no exceptions. The idea is that someone interacting with several languages only needs to learn one extra tongue, and so does everyone else. It has a few glaring deficiencies. My personal favorite is that all feminine nouns are based on the masculine (Father is patro, mother is patrino) which of course, as guy, is fine with me. Others might object. It is also very Latin-oriented, and even non-Esperantists can glean portions of a conversation if they have knowledge of French Spanish, English, German, or Italian. But it is a good start. It is largely purveyed by the aging left, and historically has been linked to socialist movements. But new generations are picking it up, and there are regular conventions in which linguistic changes can be made. It may not be as sexy as English, but it is worth a second look.
@dannyjbixby "When most people say "English" they usually mean "American." Which is appropriate, despite many variations."
Really? Appropriate? Really?
Who are these "most people"? Other americans I'm guessing? ha!
Cause I don't know any self respecting, Brit, Kiwi, Aussie, Canadian, South African, Indian, Irish person etc or otherwise who would say such a thing.
@Crapscallion I agree with your sentiments. :)
RE: the post - Those statistics are interesting. I didn't know that before reading this.
Growing up with a different language as my first, I would have to say that a universal language is definitely unnecessary. As modern beings, we are capable of making ourselves understood even without the verbal language factor in common.
Agreeing with @Crapscallion, with the establishment of English as the universal language, cultural destruction will result. Maybe it will be countered by the option of bilingualism, but then again it might not. With the universal language, the need for knowledge and practice of other tongues will be eliminated.
Languages contain precious pieces of culture, as said many times in previous responses. Each language expresses certain ideas uniquely, incomparable to others. It opens a portal that allows the mind to think of a concept in a totally different way. I remember in psychology class that a certain language has at least different names for various shades of yellow. That person, compared to an English native, will remember the particular shade of yellow more accurately than a person who only has the word 'yellow' to describe the shade. This concept applies to other ideas as well, saying that a universal conversion to the English language will most definitely lead important mentalities to extinction.
It seems to me that English is already a language that most people have at least a rudimentary knowledge of. In that sense, it is a universal language, and I have no problem with that - certainly being on the same page linguistically eases the work of those in business, politics, and technology. However, I do not think that English should have to be everyone's primary language or that anyone should be forced to learn it. It is a beautiful thing that we have so many different cultures on this planet with their accompanying languages and dialects. Occasionally it might make matters more confusing, but I think that's all part of living on a planet as large and spread-out as ours. As always, an open mind is key.
It seems like until we figure out how those universal translators work or discover where all the Babel fish live, a common language would be a good idea. What with the interwebs and technologies and what not.
English is definitely becoming, or already is, the universal language. It’s like the Borg, or a snowball, or both. Yes…the English language is like a Borg snowball, rolling down the hill of humanity collecting whatever linguistic bits and pieces it encounters and leaving a trail of cultural destruction along the way.
How about we all learn sign language? Would 400 words and 40 verbs suffice in ASL? I think I could do it if I can use my hands!
I'm like Salieri in the movie Amadeus, just substitute "learning languages" for "writing music." Cursed with a passionate thirst and absolutely no God-given ability to master it. "Why, God?"
@Rasputnik You comment was Bootylicious!
I think Idiocracy made a good observation:
"Unaware of what year it was, Joe wandered the streets desperate for help. But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts. Joe was able to understand them, but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them. "
"....Welcome to Costco. I love you."
English is an excellent contender for a universal language. But I wouldn't want a universal language to ever replace other languages altogether. There's so much information, history, and culture represented in a language I'd hate to see other languages fall out of use.
Quick observation about the story, above. The millionth word was not ACCORDING to Web 2.0, it WAS Web 2.0. This just goes to show how ridiculous our inclusion of words has become.Bootylicious is in the OED, for example. So, the sheer volume of our lexicon shouldn't qualify English, alone.
If English WAS to become an official global language, it would most likely follow some less than savory event by the US, UK, or some other English speaking country. Otherwise, I don't see the world accommodating such a silly language.
When most people say "English" they usually mean "American." Which is appropriate, despite many variations. American isn't the original, obviously, but it is the most pervasive globally. As said below, English is THE undisputed language of business, and therefore more and more people are learning it. In America we think of English as a primary language and other language that we may know as secondary languages. That is not the case elsewhere in the world. Both language "X" AND English are the 'primary' language taught in schools and spoken by citizens. This will become more the norm over the next few decades, and is already shown to be happening over the last few.
This video presentation from a TED conference has a lot of good info in if if you're interested in this sort of thing: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jay_walker_on_the_world_s_english_mania.html
I like how Joss Whedon projected it in Firefly, that English and Chinese would somehow find a way to coexist!
I think with more and more, English is a global language for business, but I don't think that it will become a global language for everyone. I know for a fact that there are many in America that have lived here for YEARS and STILL don't know how to speak English. I agree with the previous post, I think that there are too many exceptions and pronunciations. For instance, we say "fox" and "ox," but plurals are "foxes" and "oxen." Just doesn't make sense.
Just because English words are drawn from other languages doesn't make it "accommodating." Non-native speakers actually find English very different to learn, as there are a ton of weird rules & quirky exceptions. English grammar is very different from other languages, and pronunciation is quite a bit trickier than French or Spanish, which have very consistent rules for pronunciation.
I think it's altogether too easy to forget that not everyone can speak and hear and see! So, while I could see "English" (are we talking American English or British English here, people?) naturally becoming the Universal language (hopefully with more words from other languages added in!), it would have to be expanded to include some form of sign language, as well as braille to more fully accommodate the global population!
It probably will, and if it happens naturally, then awesome! But because I seem unable to keep my nose out of it, I would never suggest that the availability of choice A automatically makes choice B is superfluous and unnecessary. This holds especially true if A is marketed by a group who coincidentally favor A. (This last bit was really in response to the title. The text of the question seems very likely).
I personally love the idea of a universal language, but I also love listening to other languages.
Considering the globally transparent society that we live in, I think having a universal language would be a great idea, and since it is my own native tongue, I think English would be a great candidate for the job!
DISCUSSION TOOLSET
I think that a universal language is absolutely unnecessary! Spending time in other cultures, I realized how beautiful their language was. However, aside from the sheer beauty of various other languages out there, there is a major cultural aspect to each language. Without that language, I think that a major part of that culture dies. Certain ideas can only be expressed in that language. I know that in learning Italian, I have often felt as though certain things I'm thinking or would like to say just aren't possibly expressed in Italian. However, I realize that is because that is part of our culture. It is something completely different in their culture, and in trying to force my English thoughts and sayings into a rough translation of Italian, I am in a way defacing both languages AND cultures. The Italian towns I have spent time in that primarily speak English massively lack that sense of culture that I have found in the smaller towns and less-Americanized bigger cities. Language is a strong aspect of culture, and without it, the unique, rich cultures of our world will suffer and die out--leaving us completely shallow and ignorant.