2006-06-27 23:53:56 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
This is a popular notion, and it has actually been tried. Two artificial languages were created, one called Esperanto, which is still in use, the other called Ro, which has pretty much died out.
The problem with creating artificial languages, is that you have to make up a grammar to go with it.
Swahili, for example, is a 'created' language. It began as a lingua franca - or a pidgin language, used by traders to communicate with Africans. As such, it had a few basic words. Very basic. And no grammar. Over time, that wasn't enough, and as different people used the language, they contributed to it from their own languages. Today, Swahili is a mixture of five basic languages, Bantu, Arabic, English, French and German. Traces of other languages have been absorbed into it as well. But the complicating factor is that as each bit of language was added, the grammar attached to that language was added as well. So how you decline verbs, for example, depends on which language the verb came from originally. Today, Swahili is a rich and complex language, and people who learn it from childhood assimilate these grammatical rules without even thinking about it. Swahili worked because it was used in a limited area. But think what would happen if you tried to make a language that incorporated most of the world's languages? It would be so cumbersome as to be unworkable. And whose languages would be ignored? Whose languages would be most prominent? These are serious cultural issues.
Esperanto, which was created as a completely artifical language, doesn't evolve well. It has difficulty in including modern concepts. And with no one to monitor it, people in various parts of the globe can add what seem to them to be appropriate words to describe new inventions, new situations, slang terms etc. Look what has happened to English over the past few centuries? People in England, Ireland, Scotland, New York, South Carolina, Australia, India all speak English, but it's very difficult sometimes to understand what they are saying because they use regional accents and regional terminology.
The notion of one language may seem Utopian at the moment, but given that television is breaking down geographic barriers around the world, it may become the medium that truly does permit international communication.
At least, that's my take on it.
2006-06-28 07:35:28 · answer #1 · answered by old lady 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
will be good so ppl can understand each other and bad coz the country wont have there own prievte lang and it may be diff on some ppl
2006-06-28 07:01:24 · answer #2 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be terrible shame.
Can you imagine only having one kind of flower. Do you know what would happen then?
Cultures thrive on diversity.
2006-06-28 17:11:36 · answer #3 · answered by codrock 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is mean Yahoo!Answer will not delete my Bahasa Melayu's Question!
2006-06-28 14:23:03 · answer #4 · answered by lazuardi.sepi 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
they will try and die to discover a second and a third language, I guess that's what happened since many years
2006-06-28 07:03:24 · answer #5 · answered by helpme 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am betting more people could spell happen. And perhaps might learn the word "would".
2006-06-28 06:58:41 · answer #6 · answered by brattiness73 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It will get torn apart as it did in the past.
2006-06-28 07:36:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
everyone will understand each other
no misunderstandings
no war
only peace and love
2006-06-28 07:25:25 · answer #8 · answered by Gianne 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
you may know how to form a sentence in english then
2006-06-28 06:57:07 · answer #9 · answered by The Hit Man 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We'd all lose our identity as individuals
2006-06-28 06:58:30 · answer #10 · answered by franpal_2000 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋