Is One World Government Possible?

Machjo · July 31, 2009

Expression in English can rise to heights no lesser than those of just about any other language. One need only look at the great works of English literature for confirmation. There are certainly also works of great merit in many other languages, but the English ones are by no means inferior.

Fully agreed. In fact, English is among the richer languages in the world for poetry and whatnot, owing to its myriad nuanced synonyms.

As for consistency, formal English language is no less logically and systematically based than many other languages. It abandons the use of genders, (almost all) conjugations, etc, in favor of a simplicity and consistency, as well as the extensive use of prepositions and other parts of speech that more explicitly indicate the interrelation of the words in a sentence. It also rejects the extremes of agglutinative languages such as German, etc.

English spelling is chaotic. It has way too many exceptions to the rules, even more so than many other languages. And it has many dialcts and pronunciations to contend with. Add to that that it's also grammatically imprecise in comparison to certain other languages. For aeronautical safety and other areas where precision is required for either legal or safety reasons, English is far from the ideal language. What serves as an advantage for poetry, allowing for puns, etc., could make the difference between life and death in an airplane, or alot of headaches in a court case.

English also is the language which has adapted and created by far the most technological and scientific vocabulary. Even other living, vital languages of technologically advanced nations borrow words heavily from English when speaking of matters technical or scientific.

But this is useful only for those who can learn English, thus creating two separate linguistic classes, completely anathema to the concept of democracy. For that reason, it would be necessary for governments to intervene and choose a more just language to then become the compulsory second-language in schools. Translation into that language woudl soon follow.

As for its use as an international language, it is not yet a foregone conclusion, but it is very likely. It is taught as a second language around the world by far more than any other language. It is used as the language of science and technology in nations around the world, and as such is understood at least on a rudimentary level by technical professionals almost anywhere on Earth.

Remember though that teaching it in school and really succeeding in learning it well are two different things. Also, much of the science written in English can be atrributed to the brain drain, which again conflicts with the idea of equality and justice.

Also, your statement that the use of different languages is beneficial to coming to a consensus seems completely backwards. As you say yourself, language affects world view, and those who share a more similar world view will be more likely to be able to come to agreement on anything. Thus the use of a common language should facilitate more understanding and cooperation, not less. How many conflicts and hatreds throughout history have been contributed to by the people of opposing sides being unable to understand each other? How often has the language of the enemy been portrayed as inane babble, as barbaric, as uncouth, uncivilized, to perpetuate hatred? The use of translators is not a solution - have you ever gone to a meeting or conference where you had to wait for a translation before understanding the speaker? It is a huge barrier, and without it, it is much easier to come to understanding and agreement.

Fully agreed. If we wanted a world federation, no matter how decentralized or capitalistic a federation it may be, it a common second language would be an essential prerequisite. The EU budget is strained by multi-millions of euros a year going towards interpretation and translatin for the Europarl alone, with two translation buildings, highrises, being rected! A common second language would not be an option.

All that being said, the current demographics of the world do not bode well for English continuing its dominance on the international scene.

True enough.

Machjo · July 31, 2009

You forget that English is widely used within Indian society (not without controversy albeit). As India grows in economic status its use of English will likely help ensure the dominance of English as the language of international commerce for a few more generations.

I remembre one statistic from the 1980s by Pattanayak, saying that, tests aside, the real knowledge of English (i.e. knowing to the level taht it could really be of use to you in your life to improve your quality of life, etc.) is at about 4%!

As India's status grows, it's more likely to turn away from English with Hindi growing in value.

Machjo · July 31, 2009

How do you figure that it's too difficult? English has got to be one of the easiest European languages to learn.
Unless you mean that any real language is too complex, and that we instead need to come up with a constructed language like Esperanto that is specifically intended to be extremely easy to learn. In which case I would disagree, because there is no incentive for billions of people to start learning a language that no one else yet uses. Just as Esperanto never took off, so too would any such future undertaking flounder. You just need to take the most widely used, most common language out there, that already has more of the world's information represented in it than any other language, and keep building it up until it becomes the de facto common language of the world.

Have you read books on the subject? Haave you seen the statistics? Teh rate of success in English-learning abroad (and I mean real success, not test-passing ability) is dismal at best. According to Ulrich Matthias well-researched book La Nova Latino, only about 6% of German students really learn English well, and this includes university graduates! And add to taht that German is a Germanic language like English.

The statistics truly are dismal. In fact, just look at Stats Can to see how even in Canada itself, only about 45% of Quebecers claim to know English (and this is self-assessment, not objecitve tests which would likely drop it even further down), and this includes native English speakers and French-speakers living right on the Englsih bordrs in Montreal and Gatineau!

English is becoming the world language of the elite, no more. It will never become a grassroots language for all. Statistics, even in Canada, have proven how dismal of a success it's been.

lictor616 · July 31, 2009

Any talk of world government will get you labelled a conspiracy loon. However, there are organizations promoting it. check out this website and share your thoughts.
http://www.voteworldgovernment.org/

of course its possible, which makes it all the more dangerous and behooves us all that much more crush it NOW, while it is still in its infancy.

Machjo · July 31, 2009

How do you figure that it's too difficult? English has got to be one of the easiest European languages to learn.
Unless you mean that any real language is too complex, and that we instead need to come up with a constructed language like Esperanto that is specifically intended to be extremely easy to learn. In which case I would disagree, because there is no incentive for billions of people to start learning a language that no one else yet uses. Just as Esperanto never took off, so too would any such future undertaking flounder. You just need to take the most widely used, most common language out there, that already has more of the world's information represented in it than any other language, and keep building it up until it becomes the de facto common language of the world.

Then that's a quastion of justice. If we think that government's role is to just reinforce the market trend, then you're right. But if we think government's role is to try to rectify injustices in the market system, then certainly governemtns could gradually introduce such a language. With government backing, Esperanto would certainly grow.

In 2004, there was a vote in the EU Parliament in favour of Esepranto as the default pivot translation language when direct translation was not available. It failed with 43% voting in favour. That may be a minority, but a significant minority none-the-less. Add to that that Esperanto is already being promoted by certain governments in their school system:

http://www.internacialingvo.org/public/study.pdf

Hungary, Poland, and Croatia have similar laws. People are not just going to roll over and let native English-speakers and theelites take over the democratic process.

Riverwind · July 31, 2009

As India's status grows, it's more likely to turn away from English with Hindi growing in value.

Not very likely. English is the competitive advantage that India has leveraged to build its IT industry. It will be in India's interest to continue to promote English as an international language because that will bring more business to India and put its competitors like China at a disadvantage.

Riverwind · July 31, 2009

English is becoming the world language of the elite, no more. It will never become a grassroots language for all.

Why should it? English is only useful to non-English speakers because it is a common language that many know. Obviously, only the 'elite' work in fields that require such fluency but the elite are the group that everyone aspires to join and in many countries speaking English is one of the tickets that will allow someone to join that group.

Bonam · July 31, 2009

But this is useful only for those who can learn English, thus creating two separate linguistic classes, completely anathema to the concept of democracy. For that reason, it would be necessary for governments to intervene and choose a more just language to then become the compulsory second-language in schools. Translation into that language woudl soon follow.

I strongly disagree with your notion of "democracy". There is nothing incompatible between democracy and the notion of classes of any kind. Democracy is a form of government which coexists with a free market economy, where classes are quite common, as I'm sure you're aware. It seems what you mean by democracy is socialism, and that is anathema to freedom.

Remember though that teaching it in school and really succeeding in learning it well are two different things. Also, much of the science written in English can be atrributed to the brain drain, which again conflicts with the idea of equality and justice.

The world is not about equality and justice. And it is certainly not about the socialist sense of equality you seem to be advocating here, where the successful and the prosperous must go through extra pains to bring themselves down to the levels of those less so.

Have you read books on the subject? Haave you seen the statistics? Teh rate of success in English-learning abroad (and I mean real success, not test-passing ability) is dismal at best. According to Ulrich Matthias well-researched book La Nova Latino, only about 6% of German students really learn English well, and this includes university graduates! And add to taht that German is a Germanic language like English.

These statistics are meaningless without a broader context. Anyone that's ever tried to learn a second language knows that it's almost impossible to "really learn it well" when taught it abroad, without the chance to immerse oneself in it. I studied French from grade 4 to grade 12, and learned nothing. When interviewed for a job in Montreal, I had to answer one of the questions in French, and quite literally, the only thing I managed to say was "Je..." Then, when I got the job anyway and moved there, and immersed myself in the language, I became comfortable with it in just a few months, and capable of reading any work of French literature and carrying on a decent conversation by the end of my stay there.

The same is certainly true of English, and any other language. Your 6% figure is irrelevant without comparing it to how other languages do, and also to how well the languages are learned in an immersive setting.

Then that's a quastion of justice. If we think that government's role is to just reinforce the market trend, then you're right. But if we think government's role is to try to rectify injustices in the market system, then certainly governemtns could gradually introduce such a language. With government backing, Esperanto would certainly grow.

The role of government is not to create the type of social justice and equality you are advocating. Government is there to protect the freedoms of individuals, and to pursue goals that can benefit all of its people that cannot reasonably be carried out by private means. It is certainly within the interests of the peoples and the governments of anglophone nations to promote and advance English as a dominant international language, just as it is within the interests of nations like Russia and China not to allow that to happen.

It is only when people around the world begin to look after their own prosperity, rather than expecting it to be handed to them by those who they perceive to be unjustly rich and successful, that the world will have a chance of attaining the kind of unity needed to engender a "world government". Such a government would fail miserably if it tried to enforce equality as you would have it.

Machjo · July 31, 2009

Not very likely. English is the competitive advantage that India has leveraged to build its IT industry. It will be in India's interest to continue to promote English as an international language because that will bring more business to India and put its competitors like China at a disadvantage.

1. I was referring to likely long-terms trends, not necessarily come morning.

2. Yes, English may be beneficial for India's IT industry, but again, only the 4% who know English would benefit from it. For the rest, the time and money spent on English courses has been time and money wasted unless they enjoyeed learning a smattering of English for its own sake.

Machjo · July 31, 2009

Why should it?

Shouldn't the grassroots have access to knowledge too? I remember a debate I'd overheard a few years ago between a friend of mine, a professor from one university, and a student from another.

The profesor was complaining of all the English words peppering the local newspaper, making it hard for the average local to follow. The student said it was fine because she could understand it.

The professor, shocked, reminded her that she was attending a prestigeous university and that it was a local paper and not a a university thesis.

The student argued that the locals needn't read the papers anyway as that's for more educated people.

The professor, now quite incensed, invited her to step outside where in fact some construction workers were working, and pointed to one on his break readinga copy of the same paper the professor had in his hands, pointing out that even the locals have a right to information and that the paper should be entirely in the local language for all to understand.

The student acquiesced only because she could see the professor was angry.

This is en example of the psychological impact English risks having on the elite, thus restricting even some more basic information from the general population.

On a wider scale, what about the intellectual working class who are intelligent but simply never had the chance to get a higher educaiton to to get sufficient exposure to English? You do realise, don't you, that intelligence is not limited to a diploma, and that all, not just th elites as exemplified above, should have acceess to knowledge. That is a basic point of justice.

English is only useful to non-English speakers because it is a common language that many know. Obviously, only the 'elite' work in fields that require such fluency but the elite are the group that everyone aspires to join and in many countries speaking English is one of the tickets that will allow someone to join that group.

Very interesting point. The British, contrary to what many beleive, never imposed English n the general population in their colonies. They knew that if you impose it on the government, courts, and higher education, all else would follow.

The psychological impact is significant on a mass scale, causing parents to spend significant portions of their savings on what essentially amounts to a gamble owing to the difficulties of English, with the teacher, publishing industries, and universities benefitting, especially those in English-speaking countries, subsidized by the tuition of poor families hoping that their child might stand a chance of success.

Machjo · July 31, 2009

I strongly disagree with your notion of "democracy". There is nothing incompatible between democracy and the notion of classes of any kind. Democracy is a form of government which coexists with a free market economy, where classes are quite common, as I'm sure you're aware. It seems what you mean by democracy is socialism, and that is anathema to freedom.

I'm not against classes per se, but access to certain information should be a basic right of all. Have you ever read the Official Languages Act? I have, and I can say that in Parliament, no interpretation in Inuktituk is required, in spite of the fact that at least 8% of Nunavut's population, according to Stat'sCan 2006, is functional in neither English nor French.

So, how are they to participate in the democratic process at the federal level?

The world is not about equality and justice. And it is certainly not about the socialist sense of equality you seem to be advocating here, where the successful and the prosperous must go through extra pains to bring themselves down to the levels of those less so.

Then how do you define 'capitalism'? Let's look at the aeronautical industry. English dominates there, and increasingly becomimg more officialized, to the displeasure of a few governments. Now in a free market, ther would be no official language and the pilots and ATCs could communicate in the language of their choice. Obviously, from a safety point of view, that's not possible, so a language must be decreed by the appropriate international and national bodies. At that stage, we turn to statism, not capitalism, yet I'm sure even the most fervent free-marketeer would support government intervention at least in this case. Now, if the language chosen is English (now that's not free markets anymore, but government intervention), it gives a disproportionate advantage to the 10% of the world's population that speaks it.

Now I'm all for free markets when that's possible and no one's safety is at risk. But when a common language MUST be chosen for safety reasons, then the government should make a just choice, not further entrench an unjust playing field. And then we wonder why English-speaking countries are the wealthiest in the world.

So if the government should not even try to promote justice, then what's the point of its existance?

These statistics are meaningless without a broader context. Anyone that's ever tried to learn a second language knows that it's almost impossible to "really learn it well" when taught it abroad, without the chance to immerse oneself in it. I studied French from grade 4 to grade 12, and learned nothing. When interviewed for a job in Montreal, I had to answer one of the questions in French, and quite literally, the only thing I managed to say was "Je..." Then, when I got the job anyway and moved there, and immersed myself in the language, I became comfortable with it in just a few months, and capable of reading any work of French literature and carrying on a decent conversation by the end of my stay there.

Lucky you weren't a Japanese tourist in sudden need of medical attention.

By the way, not all languages are equally difficult to learn. English and French are among the more difficult ones, some languages being much easier to learn.

The same is certainly true of English, and any other language. Your 6% figure is irrelevant without comparing it to how other languages do, and also to how well the languages are learned in an immersive setting.

There'd been research in China on Esperanto in the 1920's that had proven that pupils could learn much more Esperanto in 1year than they could in 3 years, with other research in some countries showing Esperanto to be from 5 to 10 times easier to learn than other languages, with pupils who start learning it by the age of eight for 2 hours a week being fluent in it within 6 years! And that'sjust through classroom instruction without any lerning environment outside the classroom, and that includes regular students, not just the bright ones.

The role of government is not to create the type of social justice and equality you are advocating. Government is there to protect the freedoms of individuals, and to pursue goals that can benefit all of its people that cannot reasonably be carried out by private means. It is certainly within the interests of the peoples and the governments of anglophone nations to promote and advance English as a dominant international language, just as it is within the interests of nations like Russia and China not to allow that to happen.

My God, I had to highlight that. You obviously don't believe in God (even if you think you do), and that is the epitome of imperialism!

It is only when people around the world begin to look after their own prosperity, rather than expecting it to be handed to them by those who they perceive to be unjustly rich and successful, that the world will have a chance of attaining the kind of unity needed to engender a "world government". Such a government would fail miserably if it tried to enforce equality as you would have it.

Now I definitely have to agree with the idea that they must stand to protect and defend equality. Some countries have done so, such as Italy, Poland, Hungary and Croatia as mentioned above. In 2004 a vote in the European Parliament in favour of using Esperanto as a default pivot language in the Parliament failed to pass, but got 43% of the vote.

I do agree that, at least to some degree, other countries are responsible for allowing English this unfair advantage. I say to some degree because historical colonialism plays a role too. And native English speakers who don't believe in justice are equally culpable. Even the UK now allows for more freedom in this regard:

http://www.springboard2languages.org/home.htm

And I know of one school in Halifax that will experiment with it this coming September. In most of Canada, though, schools do not allow it. And the Official Languages Act is a sore spot for Canada's Aboriginal people too.

But hey, we don't all believe in justice anyway, so what does it matter, eh?

Riverwind · July 31, 2009

1. I was referring to likely long-terms trends, not necessarily come morning.

In 2100 English will likely still be a the most widespread language used for international communication and science because countries like India will continue to use it even as the anglo-american empire declines. 500 years from now I would not waste time guessing what language will be used.

2. Yes, English may be beneficial for India's IT industry, but again, only the 4% who know English would benefit from it. For the rest, the time and money spent on English courses has been time and money wasted unless they enjoyeed learning a smattering of English for its own sake.

4% of 1 billion is still 40 million people - more than enough to ensure a critical mass for a language. The question is not whether everyone will eventually speak the same language - that will never happen. The question is whether English will be replaced as the dominate international language. I don't see the latter happening any time soon.

On a wider scale, what about the intellectual working class who are intelligent but simply never had the chance to get a higher educaiton to to get sufficient exposure to English?

It really does not make a difference what you think is just or not. The fact is that a common language is required for international communication and that language will be a foreign (i.e. a language not spoken natively) language for the majority of people in the world. This means that unilingual 'commoners' in most societies will be at a disadvantage.

You seem to think that an artificial language like Esperanto can replace English. I doubt it because languages are nothing without a culture to sustain them. Esperanto is nothing but the plaything of academics and mandates by governments are not going to change that.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Riverwind

Bonam · July 31, 2009

I'm not against classes per se, but access to certain information should be a basic right of all. Have you ever read the Official Languages Act? I have, and I can say that in Parliament, no interpretation in Inuktituk is required, in spite of the fact that at least 8% of Nunavut's population, according to Stat'sCan 2006, is functional in neither English nor French.
So, how are they to participate in the democratic process at the federal level?

By learning one of the official languages. Nothing is stopping them from doing so. Or in lieu of that, they can use translators.

Then how do you define 'capitalism'? Let's look at the aeronautical industry. English dominates there, and increasingly becomimg more officialized, to the displeasure of a few governments. Now in a free market, ther would be no official language and the pilots and ATCs could communicate in the language of their choice. Obviously, from a safety point of view, that's not possible, so a language must be decreed by the appropriate international and national bodies. At that stage, we turn to statism, not capitalism, yet I'm sure even the most fervent free-marketeer would support government intervention at least in this case. Now, if the language chosen is English (now that's not free markets anymore, but government intervention), it gives a disproportionate advantage to the 10% of the world's population that speaks it.

Any language could have become the official language of air traffic control. It was not some evil decree of an elite few that made it English. The reason English became the universal language of ATC is because it was so prevalent, because so much of the early roots of aviation originated in an English-speaking nation. The free market was there, and one product won out to the exclusion of others. Now it has a monopoly.

Now I'm all for free markets when that's possible and no one's safety is at risk. But when a common language MUST be chosen for safety reasons, then the government should make a just choice, not further entrench an unjust playing field. And then we wonder why English-speaking countries are the wealthiest in the world.

English is dominant internationally because of the success of anglophone nations, not the other way around. The British Empire, and now the USA, have both exported their culture and language around the globe. I do not wonder why English-speaking nations are among the wealthiest, I understand it, and would have it no other way. Should we all debase ourselves to the levels of third world tribesman so that we can claim we have been "just"?

So if the government should not even try to promote justice, then what's the point of its existance?

I told you what I believe the role of government should be. It is to protect the freedoms of individuals, and to undertake endevors that benefit society that cannot be done reasonably by private means (i.e. military, police, firefighting, infrastructure, large scale science, space exploration, etc). What you call "justice", but what is more commonly known as "equality of outcome" in socialist terms, is not an ideal I at all value, in fact, I find it reprehensible.

Lucky you weren't a Japanese tourist in sudden need of medical attention.

What's that have to do with anything?

By the way, not all languages are equally difficult to learn. English and French are among the more difficult ones, some languages being much easier to learn.

I would say French is substantially more difficult than English. Russian, too, I would say is more difficult to learn than English.

There'd been research in China on Esperanto in the 1920's that had proven that pupils could learn much more Esperanto in 1year than they could in 3 years, with other research in some countries showing Esperanto to be from 5 to 10 times easier to learn than other languages, with pupils who start learning it by the age of eight for 2 hours a week being fluent in it within 6 years! And that'sjust through classroom instruction without any lerning environment outside the classroom, and that includes regular students, not just the bright ones.

I agree, Esperanto is indeed easier to learn. That was, after all, the design intent of the language's creators. But among natural languages, English has got to be on the easier end of the scale. What natural, not constructed, language would you say is much easier than English to learn?

My God, I had to highlight that. You obviously don't believe in God (even if you think you do)

Nope, I indeed do not believe in god.

, and that is the epitome of imperialism!

Nations must look foremost after the interests of their people, not those of other nations. That is the responsibility of a government to its citizens. If English is the universal world language, that increases the competitive advantage of anglophone nations and their peoples around the world, which is certainly to their advantage. These seem relatively simple facts, I don't know what about it outrages you so.

Now I definitely have to agree with the idea that they must stand to protect and defend equality. Some countries have done so, such as Italy, Poland, Hungary and Croatia as mentioned above. In 2004 a vote in the European Parliament in favour of using Esperanto as a default pivot language in the Parliament failed to pass, but got 43% of the vote.

Your advocacy for Esperanto seems quite "unjust" and unequal, considering its origins in European languages. You do realize that it is considerably easier to learn Esperanto for one who has a background in one or more European languages than it would be for say, a Chinese speaker or Hindi speaker, etc? Oh, the injustice! Oh the horror! We must endeavor to construct a new international language that is equally based on every possible language and dialect of the world!

I do agree that, at least to some degree, other countries are responsible for allowing English this unfair advantage. I say to some degree because historical colonialism plays a role too. And native English speakers who don't believe in justice are equally culpable.

Many other nations, with varying languages, had an equal opportunity to colonize as did the English. The English happened to create the most successful colony (the USA), which now far outshines all other former European colonies. It is free competition (on a much broader scale than what we allow today) that got English to where it is today.

Also you keep misusing the word justice. Justice and forced equality are completely different things. Please do use your linguistic skills to properly learn the definitions of these two concepts and how they differ.

Even the UK now allows for more freedom in this regard:
http://www.springboard2languages.org/home.htm

Esperanto schools and programs have been around for a long time. Heck, my father speaks Esperanto (I don't though).

But hey, we don't all believe in justice anyway, so what does it matter, eh?

What "we" don't believe in is your notion of forced equality, where those that excel must give up all their advantages and submit to mediocrity for the benefit of others. This is not justice.

Your train of thought, and the commonality with which it is held throughout the world these days, is precisely the reason why a world government is something reserved for the far future, and is impossible in the near term.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Bonam

GostHacked · July 31, 2009

English is becoming the world language of the elite, no more. It will never become a grassroots language for all. Statistics, even in Canada, have proven how dismal of a success it's been.

I am no elite, and English is my language. The only one I know.

We should be taking a look at what and how languages are taught in schools. One major problem you are finding is shorthand texting. However I do not think it is just exclusive to English. That is driving the quality and value of the english language. This carries over into other aspects of their lives. Many who are texters are using this language/writting in everyday corespondance. Also I am starting to see it in professional emails.

This short hand texting has been in existance for about as long as the Internet has been widely available. I used to use all those shorthand words when using ICQ, MSN and the like. I have now forced myself to type out the real actual word. Everyone should get into the habit of this, it will help the quality of communication and help keep the english language intact.

Hi how r u 2day. <----- I have no problem reading 'l33tsp34k'. I sometimes get these emails and then reply with full proper english (ok as proper as I know it). I sometimes get a response back like 'whut?'

Bonam · July 31, 2009

I am no elite, and English is my language. The only one I know.
We should be taking a look at what and how languages are taught in schools. One major problem you are finding is shorthand texting. However I do not think it is just exclusive to English. That is driving the quality and value of the english language. This carries over into other aspects of their lives. Many who are texters are using this language/writting in everyday corespondance. Also I am starting to see it in professional emails.

This short hand texting has been in existance for about as long as the Internet has been widely available. I used to use all those shorthand words when using ICQ, MSN and the like. I have now forced myself to type out the real actual word. Everyone should get into the habit of this, it will help the quality of communication and help keep the english language intact.

Hi how r u 2day. <----- I have no problem reading 'l33tsp34k'. I sometimes get these emails and then reply with full proper english (ok as proper as I know it). I sometimes get a response back like 'whut?'

I also dislike the mangled way in which some people use English when communicating over these forms of internet media. Personally, even when playing online games or using MSN or IRC, I've always typed out the full words and sentences. In fact, that's how I learned to type, in my earlier years I played a lot of fast paced online games, before voice chat, and needed to communicate quickly. Now I type 100+ words/minute thanks to online gaming. You could always tell the intelligent people from the fools in those games, by the way they wrote.

All that being said, "133t5p34k" is becoming quite the norm in internet communication and is increasingly seeping into other forms of communication. I frequently hear people say LOL in real life (pronounced "lawl"), and OMG is quite common as well. I've actually heard "LOL" at a business meeting once. So perhaps this is just another form of the evolution of the English language, it is, after all, a "living language". Us old fashioned types may not like it, but perhaps such talk will become as common and accepted in English as anything else.

bush_cheney2004 · July 31, 2009

Nothing really new in such "texting" efficiencies, as such practices go back at least to the telegraph, shorthand, and stenotype machines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenotype

GostHacked · July 31, 2009

Nothing really new in such "texting" efficiencies, as such practices go back at least to the telegraph, shorthand, and stenotype machines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenotype

All those devices needed qualified people to know the technology and how the communications worked over those types of media. They are not widely available either. The introduction of home computers and the Internet facilitated in the rapid use and permeation of the new lingo to all aspects of our society.

So you are right, it is not new. But the way it is being used today is new. I am filling out my insurance forms for a used car I bought off my cousin. I am not sure they will accept my form if I use teh leetspeak.

Machjo · July 31, 2009

By learning one of the official languages. Nothing is stopping them from doing so. Or in lieu of that, they can use translators.

Time and money are stopping them.

Any language could have become the official language of air traffic control. It was not some evil decree of an elite few that made it English. The reason English became the universal language of ATC is because it was so prevalent, because so much of the early roots of aviation originated in an English-speaking nation. The free market was there, and one product won out to the exclusion of others. Now it has a monopoly.

I agree that it was not likely some evil plot that made English the language of international aviation, but rather US air superiority immediately after WWII, just when the commercial airline industry was in its critical formative years. Plenty of trained US, British, and Canadian pilots retired from the airforce and were available to fly commercial airlines. That still gives us a distinctly unfair advantage over the rest of the world.

English is dominant internationally because of the success of anglophone nations, not the other way around. The British Empire, and now the USA, have both exported their culture and language around the globe. I do not wonder why English-speaking nations are among the wealthiest, I understand it, and would have it no other way. Should we all debase ourselves to the levels of third world tribesman so that we can claim we have been "just"?

You do realise that you're glorifying British and American imperialism here, do you not. Your comments above are extremely prejudiced to say the least.

I told you what I believe the role of government should be. It is to protect the freedoms of individuals, and to undertake endevors that benefit society that cannot be done reasonably by private means (i.e. military, police, firefighting, infrastructure, large scale science, space exploration, etc). What you call "justice", but what is more commonly known as "equality of outcome" in socialist terms, is not an ideal I at all value, in fact, I find it reprehensible.

Are you for real? So you actually support government-legislated entrenchment of unequal outcomes? That's not very capitalist either. If anything, that comes awfully close to fascism or imperialism. A truly capitalist solution woudl be for governments to have no language policy at all. So even yu oppose capitalism here, but in favour of government intervention to entrench injustices. Now that's repulsive.

I agree, Esperanto is indeed easier to learn. That was, after all, the design intent of the language's creators. But among natural languages, English has got to be on the easier end of the scale. What natural, not constructed, language would you say is much easier than English to learn?

Possibly Turkish. Still not as easy as Esperanto, but it does have a much more rational grammar than most languages.

Nations must look foremost after the interests of their people, not those of other nations. That is the responsibility of a government to its citizens. If English is the universal world language, that increases the competitive advantage of anglophone nations and their peoples around the world, which is certainly to their advantage. These seem relatively simple facts, I don't know what about it outrages you so.

This is unbelieveable. You did state above that you do not beleive in God, yet I've met people saying the same as you who still managed to believe in justice at least. So you actually defend our government adopting policies that benefit Canada on the backs of other countries? That's just sick, repulsive that yuo can actually defend that and still sleep well at night.

Your advocacy for Esperanto seems quite "unjust" and unequal, considering its origins in European languages. You do realize that it is considerably easier to learn Esperanto for one who has a background in one or more European languages than it would be for say, a Chinese speaker or Hindi speaker, etc? Oh, the injustice! Oh the horror! We must endeavor to construct a new international language that is equally based on every possible language and dialect of the world!

I'd be open to any language that the world's nations could agree to as long as it's relatively easy to learn. I speak Mandarin Chinese too by the way, so I certainly don't fear non-European languages. Though I believe Esperanto to be the best among currently existing options, I'd still be open to other languages. But why not go with the best we've got for now at least? Esperanto would still be much easier for a Chinese to learn than even Japanese. That was what a Chinese Esperanto-speaker who'd also learnt Japanese had told me. So that's a pretty high praise for such a language.

Many other nations, with varying languages, had an equal opportunity to colonize as did the English. The English happened to create the most successful colony (the USA), which now far outshines all other former European colonies. It is free competition (on a much broader scale than what we allow today) that got English to where it is today.

So we should benefit from imperialism? Are you a troll?

Also you keep misusing the word justice. Justice and forced equality are completely different things. Please do use your linguistic skills to properly learn the definitions of these two concepts and how they differ.

I'm well aware of the differences. You seem to be suggesting that a neutral second language would mean equality of outcome. By no means. What it would do though is increase equality of opportunity, if you believe in that of course, though somehow I think you're quite happy with the colonial inheritance.

Esperanto schools and programs have been around for a long time. Heck, my father speaks Esperanto (I don't though).

Interesting. Did he learn it by choice, and what are his thoughts on it?

What "we" don't believe in is your notion of forced equality, where those that excel must give up all their advantages and submit to mediocrity for the benefit of others. This is not justice.

We're talking about unfair advantage here. So if my father shuld steal millions so that I may live a life of luxoty, I should feel no responsibility whatsoever to help others with that money?

You do realise that part of our wealth came from slavery (even in Canada for a short time), exploitation of resources of former colonies (though the British were doing it, Canada benefitted indirectly through its ties to Britain), and now the worldwide advantage of English spread by conquest? But, hey, don't loose sleep over that.

Your train of thought, and the commonality with which it is held throughout the world these days, is precisely the reason why a world government is something reserved for the far future, and is impossible in the near term.

Finally something we can more or less agree on. No world government is possible until.

Machjo · July 31, 2009

I am no elite, and English is my language. The only one I know.

Sorry, I should have specified the elites and native English speakers. You do fall into that last category, and so may also potentially benefit unfairly in relation to others worldwide, depending on context. Piloting, for instance, would be one such context where you'd have an advantage. International business, international tourism too.

bush_cheney2004 · July 31, 2009

All those devices needed qualified people to know the technology and how the communications worked over those types of media. They are not widely available either. The introduction of home computers and the Internet facilitated in the rapid use and permeation of the new lingo to all aspects of our society....

Agreed, but even laypersons were readily using such shorthand techniques before the wide adoption of PCs and messaging. We see this in the form of abbreviations, acronyms, and graphics (e.g. "I <heart> Dogs"). Also, the purposeful corruption and syntax of formal language has long been the rebellious darling of sub-culture(s).

Edited July 31, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

Bonam · July 31, 2009

You do realise that you're glorifying British and American imperialism here, do you not. Your comments above are extremely prejudiced to say the least.
Are you for real? So you actually support government-legislated entrenchment of unequal outcomes? That's not very capitalist either. If anything, that comes awfully close to fascism or imperialism. A truly capitalist solution woudl be for governments to have no language policy at all. So even yu oppose capitalism here, but in favour of government intervention to entrench injustices. Now that's repulsive.

This is unbelieveable. You did state above that you do not beleive in God, yet I've met people saying the same as you who still managed to believe in justice at least. So you actually defend our government adopting policies that benefit Canada on the backs of other countries? That's just sick, repulsive that yuo can actually defend that and still sleep well at night.

So we should benefit from imperialism? Are you a troll?

I'm well aware of the differences. You seem to be suggesting that a neutral second language would mean equality of outcome. By no means. What it would do though is increase equality of opportunity, if you believe in that of course, though somehow I think you're quite happy with the colonial inheritance.

We're talking about unfair advantage here. So if my father shuld steal millions so that I may live a life of luxoty, I should feel no responsibility whatsoever to help others with that money?

You do realise that part of our wealth came from slavery (even in Canada for a short time), exploitation of resources of former colonies (though the British were doing it, Canada benefitted indirectly through its ties to Britain), and now the worldwide advantage of English spread by conquest? But, hey, don't loose sleep over that.

Finally something we can more or less agree on. No world government is possible until.

I can only conclude that you are very naive and just beginning to encounter the real world. Just about all the nations of the world that exist today exist because of the imperialistic actions of past generations. All the accomplishments of Western society, our technology and science, our culture and tolerance, all of these have evolved out of our history, which includes imperialism. No less so are the countries of the middle-east or of Asia or of Africa based on long histories of conflict and struggle, with some groups subjugating and dominating others, and benefiting from it, or being overthrown, etc. That is where our world came from, and it is the reality of what it is today.

I most certainly do not lose sleep over these historical facts. I consider myself fortunate to be living in a nation which is among the foremost in the world in the quality of life and economic stability and richness. I would strongly oppose any move by our government to redistribute our wealth to the "less fortunate". It is not our duty to atone for the deeds of our ancestors, who acted as was thought proper at the time they lived. Our nations achieved what we did through our own actions, so too can others around the world, if they are up to it.

Anyone wanna help me out here with this guy? Argus? BC? Perhaps one of you could explain these ideas more eloquently, or more bluntly.

Machjo · July 31, 2009

I can only conclude that you are very naive and just beginning to encounter the real world. Just about all the nations of the world that exist today exist because of the imperialistic actions of past generations. All the accomplishments of Western society, our technology and science, our culture and tolerance, all of these have evolved out of our history, which includes imperialism. No less so are the countries of the middle-east or of Asia or of Africa based on long histories of conflict and struggle, with some groups subjugating and dominating others, and benefiting from it, or being overthrown, etc. That is where our world came from, and it is the reality of what it is today.
I most certainly do not lose sleep over these historical facts. I consider myself fortunate to be living in a nation which is among the foremost in the world in the quality of life and economic stability and richness. I would strongly oppose any move by our government to redistribute our wealth to the "less fortunate". It is not our duty to atone for the deeds of our ancestors, who acted as was thought proper at the time they lived. Our nations achieved what we did through our own actions, so too can others around the world, if they are up to it.

Anyone wanna help me out here with this guy? Argus? BC? Perhaps one of you could explain these ideas more eloquently, or more bluntly.

I'm not suggesting giving them money, but rather not imposing our language on the international stage by promoting a neutral easy to learn second language. This way, all would be on an equal footing. What you seem to be suggesting is that we do all in our power to maintain our privileged position.

Riverwind · August 1, 2009

I'm not suggesting giving them money, but rather not imposing our language on the international stage by promoting a neutral easy to learn second language. This way, all would be on an equal footing. What you seem to be suggesting is that we do all in our power to maintain our privileged position.

I am sorry but your logic makes no sense. Nobody forces people to learn English. They learn it because they think it will bring economic opportunities. No amount of government "promotion" of alternates will change those economics. More importantly, learning a language - even an artifical one - takes a lot of time and if there is no economic incentive they will not do it or they will only do it *after* they learn English or another language that does provide economic opportunities.

Machjo · August 1, 2009

I am sorry but your logic makes no sense. Nobody forces people to learn English. They learn it because they think it will bring economic opportunities. No amount of government "promotion" of alternates will change those economics. More importantly, learning a language - even an artifical one - takes a lot of time and if there is no economic incentive they will not do it or they will only do it *after* they learn English or another language that does provide economic opportunities.

When the British established the Raj in India, the only thing they really did language-wise was to impose English on government institutions. Yet that's all they had to do, because once that was in place, it was natural that any parent who hoped for a government or legal career for his child would learn English.

We see the same in Xinjiang, where the Chinese government has been so 'magnanimous' as to allow children to study in their mother-tongue up to highschool, after which teaching in their language is legally prohibited in university. It's essentially the same principle of giving the appearance of freedom without giving real freedom.

So yes, they try to learn it in the hopes that it will benefit them, but as statistics show, for most, it will be but wasted time and money, and that includes for the poor. It's essentially psychological manipulation.

It's clear that whatever language is at the top of the pyramid is the ones all will gravitate towards. The problem is when it becomes a great big pyramid scheem with the ones at the top (English teachers, English interpretors and translators, English-language book publishers, universities in English-speaking countries where the teachers go to improve their English, etc.) benefit from the poor parents spending much of their disposable income to get their children to learn English, with about the same chance of success as winning the lottery!

In case you didn't know, pyramid schemes are illegal in Canada. Yet we defend them in international language policy.

Riverwind · August 1, 2009

So yes, they try to learn it in the hopes that it will benefit them, but as statistics show, for most, it will be but wasted time and money, and that includes for the poor. It's essentially psychological manipulation.

So you want to replace learning a potentially useful language with a useless one? It makes no sense. In fact pushing a euro-centric language like esperato exactly the kind of cultural imperialism that you claim to oppose.

Languages are nothing without a culture that generates masses of content from newpapers to movies to music. The sheer volume of English language material makes it impossible for a language like Esperato to compete. If English is replaced it will be replaced by a language like Mandarin Chinese - not Esperato.