Will the EU ever have a common language?

Question

What should it be? e.g. (in alphabetical order!) English, Esperano, French, German, Italian, Spanish, etc.?

Sorry if I've offended anyone by not including their language, hence the "etc.".
I think the list would have gotten too long adding Manx, Cornish, Basque, Polish, Catalan, etc, etc, etc ;-)

Answer 1

First, let me be very clear about this.
The idea of a common language, especially if it is arbitrarily chosen or worse, would be next to useless. This is assuming by 'Common', you mean the sole language.
If however, you refer to an AUXILIARY language, intended to bridge the gap between cultures by providing an easily learnt method of communication then yes. It would open the EU and indeed, the world up to far more in the way of understanding.
Let's exam the first example where 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 of course is exactly what Esperanto is trying NOT to do.
As a common SECOND language you and you and you have no need to sink years into study of a language that you will most likely NEVER fully assimilate like a native. The choice would be yours. 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. It's like a neutral handshake, because each participant invested an equal amount of effort to learn this easy language. (16 gramatical rules... NO exceptions!)
Believe it or not, Esperanto represents the best chance for the survival of the multitude of dying languages since it's purpose is to forestall the monopoly of any one National tongue to the disadvantage of another.
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 (six official languages) and a similar amount in the EU says, sooner or later something is going to change, and this is the cheapest and most effective, proven alternative.

Further, if you don't think Esperanto is making headway, check this.
In a recent reprint of the Unua Libro (first book), editor Gene Keyes said that when he first started the project in 2000, he did a search for Esperanto on Google and it yielded over 1 million hits. At the completion of his task in February of 2007, the same search yielded over 34 million hits. Out of curiosity, after I had read that I did the same search and it yielded over 39.2 million hits. That's up over 5 million in two months. So it's growing. Slowly (or maybe not so slowly!)
Obviously not everyone will find a use for it, and that's fine. However for those that take the time and bother to search out the other users, it's worth it. Of course searching out other uses gets easier with each passing day.
Personally I have friends all over the world. Friends I wouldn't have had with out Esperanto.

Let's answer some specific concerns that many people have raised but not bothered to research.
The language is Impractical and awkward?
The two million plus (as of 1995) people that use it says it's not Impractical. Two million was considered the functionally fluent level (IE: able to get by in the necessary elements when travelling) in 1995. Since 1995 the Internet has grown by leaps and bounds, and Esperanto right along with it.
Wikipedia hosts around 250 different languages. Esperanto ranks 15th in the most numerous articles category.
More than these languages to name a few.
16 Turkish
17 Slovak
18 Czech
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias

NOBODY has to give up their mother tongue, nor should they.
Esperanto as an auxiliary language however would be wonderful.

I encourage everybody to research and draw their own conclusions.

Ĝis!

Answer 2

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where! more komplikated changes are possible.

Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.

Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as
replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensi bl riten styl.

Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.

If zis mad you smil, pleas pas on to oza pepl

Answer 3

I actually learned Esperanto, it is not really biased towards Europeans, and has a following in China and Japan too. If they have to learn new roots for words, then the natural organic languages of Europe are even MORE inaccessible.

One year of Esperanto study is like fluency gained in 10 years of learning any other language because of the simplifications. For Orientals or others with no familiarity with Indo-European roots, 5 years, which is still better off than learning anything else. It is NOT an organic language, it is proudly man-made, and cuts out useless grammatical features that just complicate things. It has agglutinative word-formation, which is something the Orientals will understand. It also has absolutely regular spelling, regular verbs and a few other useful grammar features best demonstrated in the language itself.

Some kind of language will have to be used in the EC and the UN which is both neutral AND time-tested and living and not just some academic blackboard project. So why not Esperanto? The costs of translation in UNESCO, for example, consume 25% of the budget, which means that if 4 African babies could be inoculated with the money, in practice 3 are inoculated and the 4th one dies. So STOP THE INSANITY of diverging languages. Human beings are not stuck in what they are born with; they can learn a language thoroughly and well in their lifetimes, and Esperanto shows them how to do it.

Answer 4

No, and why would you want to have one? That is what makes each country in the EU special and sets it apart from another country. I believe Switzerland has four official languages, one of the reasons it stands out for me. Having one common language would be firstly difficult to decide anyway because unlike where I live in North America, passions run deep in Europe. Secondly, Europeans could never decide on one official language. Too many to choose from.

Answer 5

No. Language is too tied up with culture to be eliminated in individual countries.

Nor does the EU have any plans to institute a single, common language.

Answer 6

No. While the EU is unified, it's comprised of numerous countries. And these countries most likely want to keep their language. For example, while a Luxembourger is able to speak French and German, they probably don't want to forfeit their native tongue for that of another country's.

Answer 7

There never was any talk about a common language in the EU. If there's anything the Brussels officials know, it's the fact that every country has its own language and that's how it should and will remain.

Answer 8

Esperanto is very badly designed, too flawed (check out 'Ranto': http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/ ), and biased towards the languages of some of Western Europe. I notice this patricianism in the suggested languages all being from the West. Why not a Slavic language, which would unite more people than a Romance or German one? - because Eastern Europe is, due to ignorance of its cultural past, not seen as part of the European cultural heritage by most.

As for natural languages, to have one member state language be the common language above another would be preferential treatment and unacceptable.

The motto of the EU is 'united in diversity.' The linguistic policy reflects that. The EU will never set a common language; it does, and will carry on, though, to promote the learning of other member states' languages, and I feel that we are the richer for it.

Best wishes,

C.s.

Answer 9

Actually it already does. A couple of weeks ago the EU decided to use English as the official language (the choice was between English and German). So I suppose now that this will require non-English speaking people to have to learn the language.

Answer 10

I don't believe the EU will ever be united in such a way. Bible prophecy in Daniel 2:43 says i that the countries of modern Europe will never "cleave one to another", just like iron is not mixed with clay.
They can say on paper that "Europe is united" (as in the EU), but in reality it is not united, neither by the people or by language.