Istead of having at least 2 different dictionaries for the english language. Along with several different accents. Hundreds even. Why not have ONE world standard version of English? That way nobody gets confused anymore regaudless if they call something a flashlight or a torch, a lift or an elevator, a motor or an engine. Why don't we do this? It's feasable is it not? Can't we all pull this off?
2007-07-03 11:47:08 · 14 answers · asked by ev1go 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
Because when a language becomes perfect it dies. That is what happened to Latin.
Good Luck!!!
2007-07-03 11:50:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Heck, no!
English is a good universal language because of its flexibility. It is a veritable garbage can of idioms from many languages, and some made up from scratch.
I've lived on 3 continents in 8 countries, and there is a sort of common vocabulary you could call 'international English' but everyone still feels free to speak whatever words pleases them.
My own daughter made up her very own new word--carnear--which means less than 5 minutes in a car but a half hour or more walking. If you find yourself in downtown Buenos Aires, there are a bunch of people she taught English to who think that's a word in the dictionary!
.
2007-07-03 11:52:18 · answer #2 · answered by nora22000 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Jehovah's Witnesses use any and all bibles but most of the public use the King James version so many of the quotes are likely will be taken from that translation.
2016-05-17 11:11:13 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Impossible!! English has been truly called a most difficult
language to learn. If there was a world standard version of
english, then it would be too simple and everyone would
understand us english speaking americans.
2007-07-03 11:56:23 · answer #4 · answered by slow2grow 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're not saying definitions but synonyms. Those words mean essencially the same things and I use either of the pairs. Besides, people have different styles of speaking and may feel more comfortable saying one word over another. Saying the same things all the time would also be dull, which is also why pronouns were invented
2007-07-03 11:52:48 · answer #5 · answered by • Nick • 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That can never happen. People have to have continuous access to everyone involved. It is not feasible nor possible. We all have a standard English. It is the English that is spoken by the leaders of the society and of the people in the academic realm.
2007-07-03 11:51:34 · answer #6 · answered by Speaking_Up 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not feasible, due to the hundreds of places where English is spoken, and the number of continents that it's had to develop on. It could be feasible for an incoming generation of unborn people, but trying to convert the language of billions of people is just too hard.
2007-07-03 11:49:36 · answer #7 · answered by моя звезда 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And whose English would we use? Who has the "correct" English?
That's the problem--there are so many different forms of English that it would be nearly impossible to say "correct' and "incorrect." We cannot even agree on a form of measurement let alone a standard version of English. Who is correct: "color" or 'colour"?
2007-07-03 11:50:51 · answer #8 · answered by FaZizzle 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because you can't. English is a very broadly spoken language, being the dominant language in countries on three different continents. Languages evolve in isolation, just like anything else.
2007-07-03 11:50:58 · answer #9 · answered by mazdamandan 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a good idea but it will be hard to agree on certain terms. Not to mention a lot of our regional history is stored in our different dialects. What would linguists do?
2007-07-03 11:51:17 · answer #10 · answered by You wish 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I always wondered that myself. An artificial standard, like the pronunciation and sound broadcasters use, might be the best way to achieve that.
2007-07-03 11:50:23 · answer #11 · answered by Danagasta 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋