It would save a lot of resources and trees in translations and make things move a lot smoother, I think.....
2007-02-06 10:54:53 · 6 answers · asked by simba 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
The idea of a common planetary language, especially if it is arbitrarily chosen, would be next to useless. Each linguistic group would resent the fact that any other language was forced on them, and NOBODY would AGREE on ANY language since they would all want their own. Esperanto is making headway in becoming an AUXILIARY language, yet people reject it out of hand because they all fear the loss of their tongue and a single language spoken by all, which is exactly what Esperanto is trying NOT to do.
Esperantos' purpose is to provide a common SECOND language so that you and you and you don't need to sink years into study of a language that you will most likely NEVER fully assimilate like a native. With Esperanto you can be comfortable talking to your neighbour in your native tongue and just as comfortable talking to Ming Lu across the waves on an equal footing in this easily learnt language.
So will it some day become universal (which by the way doesn't mean that EVERYBODY in the world speaks it, just those that want it / need it)?
Well, the $600 million USD spent yearly on translation services at the UN and likewise in the EU says, sooner or later something is going to change, and this is the cheapest and most effective (proven) alternative.
In short... YES!
Research and draw your own conclusions.
Gxis!
2007-02-06 14:28:32 · answer #1 · answered by Jagg 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good idea to have one language. Though didn't the bible state there was one (tower of babel story) and God decided to mix things up a bit by destroying it? Not really religious but I reckon it has to be a language everyone agrees on - maybe a world language, a mixture of the good of all languages.
2007-02-06 19:06:54 · answer #2 · answered by Nicky C 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Since I do speak English and I am a tad biased, than yes English should be the world's official language. Well, at least in the USA it should be.
2007-02-06 19:05:32 · answer #3 · answered by Polynomial 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope b/c it discriminates against poor immingrants that can't afford translation also blind people that read brail and deaf people that read sign laungauge. Only if the governmnt pays for translations, the launguage should be english.
2007-02-06 19:27:12 · answer #4 · answered by I'm here for now 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bad
2007-02-06 19:02:27 · answer #5 · answered by bigfred1954 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
bad you are robbing , cultural diffences,
like the ambiance of french, and italian
2007-02-06 19:15:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋