Since it's confusing and inconvenient to have more than one language, should the UN require everyone on the planet to use the same language?
2006-12-20 09:59:49 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
it's clear you speak gibberish
2006-12-20 10:02:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well, this will come as a surprise to those who have read my stuff, but I don't think there should be an official, one world language at all.
I fully endorse Esperanto as an auxiliary (second) language, which was it's intention at conception. But NOT to be the ONLY language (or any other for that matter).
The intent of Esperanto is to provide a quick, easy, effective means of communicating with those of another tongue without forcing anybody to give up their mother tongue, traditions and culture. The big bonus is that now no one person has the linguistic advantage when you meet. You each had to do a little work to get there. We saw this in the 20's with the French and the 50's with the Americans when they each in turn shot down Esperanto as a working language at the UN, because at each respective time they were considered the international language of diplomacy and didn't want to loose that advantage.
There is NO need for anybody to learn another language if they have no intention of leaving their cushy hidyhole. But should you wish to travel and communicate with the outside world, then Esperanto is your cheap, easy, robust and consistent answer.
Oh, and don't let anybody tell you nobody speaks it. You don't have to look too hard to find anybody to communicate with, sometimes even in your own backyard.
2006-12-20 22:41:50 · answer #2 · answered by Jagg 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, the UN has no law-making power, so they can't require anything. Other than that, yes, it would be more convenient if everyone spoke one language. But that doesn't mean that it's right to _force_ people to do it. In a large part, English has become a common international language. Air traffic control is done in English all over the world. Anyplace that wants tourism to grow needs to make sure they have English-speaking staff. And pretty much all scientific conferences are conducted in English. But that's because people _choose_ to speak English because they see the benefits, not because they're forced to do so by law.
2006-12-20 18:05:57 · answer #3 · answered by Faeldaz M 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This is a wonderful idea, but the UN has no power to make decision on this matter.
We can hope that the mature humanity will seek consent to establish soon a world government which will deal with this issue of language as well as of other urgent matters such as human rights, education, poverty everywhere in the world...
2006-12-20 18:47:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think we should have one English first, the varieties are confusing enough.
spelling: (colour, color, centre, center, labor, labour, defense, defence...)
And the vocabulary? A lot of American terms are offensive to Brits, and vice versa.
More people speak Mandarin Chinese than all kinds of "English" combined, but that's just almost all in one country. Then there's arabic and Hindustani.
If we did have an official language, it should be one that absolutely no one speaks yet, to be fair to everyone. We could draw straws, and every thousand people get to vote on one word or gramatical rule for the new language. Then, we could have a global referendum on whether we approve of the new world order language.
Nah Yate dim, keep things as they are. I like speaking a few words of Welsh or Navajo and no one understanding what I'm on about.
2006-12-20 18:16:23 · answer #5 · answered by dude 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A single language would be much more convinient, yes. But dificult for everyone one the entire planet to learn fluently. Actually, years ago, this was tried. It was a language meant for everyone to learn. I was called Esperant. Unfortunately, only about 1,000 epople every mastered it. Besides, if everyone had the same language, that would detract from the diversity of other cultures, although it would obvioulsy make traveling much easier.
2006-12-20 18:13:20 · answer #6 · answered by ciajway1213 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nah, I don't think they could force people to do that, but it would be a good suggestion for all countries to try to encourage the teachings of one certain language in schools, if it did happen, the language chosen would peobably be English. Still, if everyone spoke English, it would be pretty boring for some people, like me who likes learning languages with the hope that I'll be able to use them.
2006-12-20 18:05:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
well it would promote a better world union, intelligent debate, voting, we would be able to understand the terrorists threats from their own mouths, but the UN could never and shouldn't force the entire world to. America on the other hand, to succeed one much know English
2006-12-20 18:10:11 · answer #8 · answered by rightwing 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Mathematics
The universal language, also chosen by NASA to place on our first extra-solar probe with a friendly message to all who find it.
2006-12-20 18:03:39 · answer #9 · answered by wolf560 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That would be impossible. Anyhow, the UN isn't in control of the world last time I checked.
2006-12-20 18:06:00 · answer #10 · answered by ? 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
yes, it would boost travel - because if you don't speak the language then it might deter you from going there and really enjoying yourself.
2006-12-20 18:04:58 · answer #11 · answered by Caitlin 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋