English by no means the 'universal' language
Languages are not only communication tools, but in their diversity and ethnicity they are also integral parts of world culture. Communication and development policies which are not based on respect and support for all languages amount to a death sentence for the majority of languages in the world. It is generally accepted that in the past century the greatest challenge to linguistic diversity has been the spread of English; but, statistics show that no more than ten percent of the world's population speak English as a native language. English is by no means a 'universal' tongue just yet - and in my eyes it is unsuitable as one, along with all other national languages. Personal experience will show that a person talking in a second (non-native) language will never reach quite the same level of fluency as the native. The beauty of national languages is in their differences, their complexites, the subtlety of their turns of phrase - but it is these same treasures that make national languages too difficult and too non-neutral for intercommunication. This is a reason why an easy-to-learn, auxiliary language like Esperanto should be used to solve the language problem - speakers of all languages, large and small, should have a real chance of learning an second language to an expressive, highly communicative level.
Sent by: Gabriel
Comments
Does it not occur to anyone else that the need to learn many languages is a waste of time? If you think learning multiple languages for some purpose other than mental development is a good idea, then why stop at 2 or 3? Why not 50? Why not waste the rest of your life learning languages? We now have the technical ability to communicate with people around the world thanks to the internet, but to use our technical capabilities to the fullest, the next step is to develop our human capabilities.
And stop whining about "your" culture, people. It's not "your" culture unless you personally produced or chose it, and you can do that in any language.
I don't think English should be a universal language because all of the other languages would be lost. Also, we wouldn't have the joy of learning other languages and then travelling to foreign countries.
I believe that English should not be the universal language because I am dutch and if I cannot speak my language then I will lose the culture that the Dutch and other countrys have.
I am from Saudi Arabia this is the first time I share a comment. What I want to say is everyone is proud of his language. I like my Arabic language and find it very rich in meaning. It is difficult to learn although I found it easy to learn other languages myself. I'm now learning English and French. If I have the time I don't mind to learn any other language. I mean it is not easy to find an international language. But I would suggest that the Arabic language is a suitable international language because it is the language of the Quran and all the Muslims around the world read it in Arabic.
With Omalkhair's logic, Mandarin Chinese or Hindi should be the universal languages. Honestly, just because Arabic is used in the Quran doesn't mean that everyone who uses the Quran speaks Arabic. That's like me saying that because the Bible was classically written in Latin, we should rally around Latin.
I strongly disagree with Esperanto, or any other language for that matter, becoming a universal language. Once we have a universal language governing us, then the next step would be to make that language everyone's first language. It will become human nature to learn Esperanto first and then their national language second. Ah, Heather Christie, you should be watching out for what English is doing to the internet! Also, you are staggeringly lucky you have been able to become competent in so many languages. I have struggled with Arabic and French, but even after a full immersion experience I am only able to communicate a little. Cut some slack - the ADVANTAGE is that Esperanto is easy. And watch out for English being forced on everyone else.
English is widely spread all over the world and everybody knows that but I think it's impossible for any language become universal because every nation has its own culture, and native language is the part of the culture, so, English will be the universal language only when all people on the world will speak English like their own.
I strongly disagree with Esperanto, or any other language for that matter, becoming a universal language. Once we have a universal language governing us, then the next step would be to make that language everyone's first language. It will become human nature to learn Esperanto first and then their national language second. This would result in the national language slowly becoming taught to children less and less and then Esperanto would take over. You can already see it happening in parts of Asia and Europe where the tribal peoples are told to learn a common language and are now forgetting the language of their fathers. Also, while the idea of Esperanto is great - an easy language that everyone can learn and no one will be completely native to - it does not have a culture, which is what creates a language in the first place. Esperanto has no way to become original because that is just the point, it isn't supposed to be original. However, a language that is not original, that is simply created where all nouns end the same, the words order can be switched around all over the place and there is a set formula to the language to which no word or phrase is an exception, is not a language at all. The beauty of language comes with the irregularities and the differences in verb conjugation. Languages are amazing because despite obvious differences you can still find a link between Spanish and Russian even though the two languages have been evolving for thousands of years. Language is not supposed to follow a formula. The language came before the rules did and that is the beauty of it, when the language breaks the rules. When you "climb" a bicycle in Indonesian, "mount" one in Spanish and "ride" one in English. Or how "sun" in Indonesian literally means "eye of the day" or "sunny-side-up egg" is litterally "egg like the eye of a cow." Esperanto has no chance of posessing that beauty because all of its expressions and rules have already been spelled out for it. I highly doubt that Esperanto will die out, and I don't think it should, but Esperanto should not be a universal language. A universal language should not be created because it then shows a disregard for the beauty of individual cultures and individual languages. One only has to learn about three other languages to be able to talk to everyone in the world, and with the arrogance of Americans today, most of us expect THEM to do the learning. I am only seventeen and I can speak six different languages. If I can do that at seveteen, then you can learn two or three if you really need to. Also, no one should be proud of being able to learn Esperanto. I have looked at it for one day and am already what one could call "conversant." I have learned all the grammar there is to learn and the only reason I am not fluent is because there is not enough time to learn vocabulary in one day. Part of the challenge of language is being able to predict where it turns off the beaten path and following it wherever it leads. One is technically not biligual if they decided to take the easy way out and learn a "language" that I could easily learn in a week.
Esperanto is a bridge language, not a substitute for national languages which indeed have their unique richness, and (particularly in the case of English) serve as a passport to the elite who are fluent in them. Esperanto on the other hand is useful as an equaliser in international communication. But it is not true that Esperanto has no community or culture. It has an extensive literature, not just in translation.
Comment
Have your say
Send to a friend
© MMIX
I should mention that Esperanto would not become everyone's first language. That's not the point of Esperanto.
Flag this comment