International Language: English?

[En_Fuego]

Naive? Hardly.

You guys are saying what if scenario's, talking about fantasies, and envisioning things the way you want things in the world today. I'm giving you a more realistic perspective.

No you're not. You're just talking about pride, and how tradition won't change. I doubt anyone gives a shit about tradition that actually has the ability to affect whether this would happen or not.

I agree a world wide language would be beneficial, I never said it wouldn't be, so you can all stop repeating your only point to me.

All you've done is talk about how we're killing tradition.

With a world-wide language of English, and then the languages today, other then English, would become sub-languages, would that make the countries that speak the sub-languages, sub-countries? Basically you'd have every country but a select few become sub-countries, in the perspective that their language wasn't the global one.

What do you call those countries now? Super-countries?

Wouldn't that be humiliating to patriots of those countries? Where would pride go? No one would care about where they live, because their country was now inferior, and their language wasn't the "easier one to learn".

What patriots and why would they care if their language changes? 'Oh shit, we have to learn a new language. Damnit, I'm going to kill myself.'

You gave me your views on how a global English language would be good, I just gave you the bad. Shall I continue?

I haven't really seen anything convincing from the posts you've made. So, go ahead, try to prove your point more.

About world peace: It can be achieved. People just need to learn to elect leaders that are truthful/the UN needs to step in when shit happens (think Vietnam/Korea).

I like to compare the leaders of countries to kids. They can disagree with each other and fight like brats, or they can discuss it maturely, like adults.

 

[Callahan]

what religion would be the dominant one?

Don't ask.

 

[Saken]

*Sigh*

No you're not. You're just talking about pride, and how tradition won't change. I doubt anyone gives a shit about tradition that actually has the ability to affect whether this would happen or not.

All you've done is talk about how we're killing tradition.

What do you call those countries now? Super-countries?

What patriots and why would they care if their language changes? 'Oh shit, we have to learn a new language. Damnit, I'm going to kill myself.'


I haven't really seen anything convincing from the posts you've made. So, go ahead, try to prove your point more.

• People die over someone or something trying to change their ways. I guess that's not a big deal to you, eh?

• Wrong, I've said it a couple times to lay way for the point I've been discussing.

• No. I call them as they are, countries. I was showing your lack of in-depth thinking about what you all are wanting to happen. Supplying you "what if'ers" with "what if" consequences.

• People who are overly proud to be American, have you seen them? How ignorant and how the bigotry and hatred flows out of them when something happens that they don't like? Take immigration for example, say so many Spanish speaking people were in America, and say the world as well, and Spanish became the global language instead of English. do you see where I'm getting at? They won't take it all to well, in fact, they won't take it at all. This is what I'm talking about, and you've gone and blown it off like it was nothing. "Big deal, who cares." With that mentality in mind, how can you act so caring and optimistic for your make-believe future?

I haven't really seen anything convincing from the posts you've made. So, go ahead, try to prove your point more.

About world peace: It can be achieved. People just need to learn to elect leaders that are truthful/the UN needs to step in when shit happens (think Vietnam/Korea).

I like to compare the leaders of countries to kids. They can disagree with each other and fight like brats, or they can discuss it maturely, like adults.

• Then don't reply to me, ignore me if you will. You're forcing yourself to not see logic.

• Naieve much. People with power will be corrupt. People with absolute power will be absolutely corrupt. The UN does nothing anymore, they kindly ask countries to stop fighting. Warring countries with years of blood that's been poured between them won't just say, "Okay, you're right." Again, naive.

• Who says all kids fight like brats when they disagree? I've worked with kids for a long time, and they mainly give the silent treatment and pout, singling themselves out from a group rather then fight. It's the adults who fight and argue, rarely does anyone discuss things out maturely.

 

[HINDYhat]

It kinda already is.

QFT. You can go just about anywhere in the urban world and use English. It's already a global language, just not to the ridiculous extent you people seem to imagine, where everyone magically forgets their culture and speaks a flawless English.

 

[Saken]

Not at all. There are people in America who can't even speak English. It's like you all assume everyone already in English speaking countries speaks English. It's not true. I live in Austin, and I come across tons of people who don't speak English all the time who've lived in America for years Hm... I thought the English language was such an easy thing to learn?

 

[En_Fuego]

Just 'cause stuff is easy doesn't mean lazy people want to.

 

[HINDYhat]

There are people in America who can't even speak English. It's like you all assume everyone already in English speaking countries speaks English.

Did I say that "everyone in English speaking countries speak English?"

Take a plane to any modern city and you'll be welcomed in at least the country's native language and English.

 

[TheDivineBoss]

I only say what has been proved by countless before me. Corruption is ever-present, and there is no end to it, no end to wars or fighting. There won't be a global language, a World Wide Union. You cann me cynical, but I'm quite on the line of being cynical, and being optimistic in things. Yet you guys have to draw the line of child-like fantasies and realize the difference between reality and fantasy.


(Here's me being optimistic, but closed with the bitter touch of reality.)

Ban money, like they did in Star Trek.

I really would like for world peace to end, I hope it does.

Good luck on that.

I really would like for all wars, fighting, and violence to stop.

Next to diseases and such, wars and such are the only things that decrease human population.

I really would love to see everyone get along.

You repeated yourself: World peace.

I would love for everyone to be honest, respectful, and understanding.

Go back in time and cut down the Tree Knowledge.

I really want all evils in the world to disappear.

Point of perspective.

Yet none of these will happen.
Some seem more feasible, but people are people, and human nature does not allow this.

Go back in time and kill that mothereffing snake called Satan.

And another thing to mention... if the global language was English, what religion would be the dominant one?

Islam, but instead they convert people, they breed new Muslims. European cultures are literally being fucked away. In order to maintain a culture, you must have more than 2,11 siblings. However, Islamic families tend to have an average of 3,50 siblings.

---

And now for something completely different

1

[On the subject of Adam and Eve]
Stephen Fry: But perhaps, you know, we should believe in Adam and Eve. Geneticists have established that every woman in the world shares a single female ancestor who lived a hundred and fifty thousand years ago. Scientists actually call her "Eve", and every man shares a single male ancestor called "Adam". It's also been established, however, that Adam was born eighty thousand years after Eve. So the world before him was one of heavy to industrial-strength lesbianism, one assumes.

2

Stephen Fry: Welcome to QI, the closest modern equivalent to Lions versus Christians.

3

["What goes 'woof woof boom'?"]
Rich Hall: A terrierist!

4 - Fact about the word "hello"

[On the word "hello", as opposed to "hullo"]
Stephen Fry: It just meant an expression of surprise—"Hullo, what have we got here?" "Hullo, what's this?" And we still use it in that sense.
Bill Bailey: Do we?
Stephen Fry: … Don't we, Bill?
Bill Bailey: Yes, when we live our lives like 1950s detective films, yes. I often go to my fridge, "Hullo, we're out of milk. I say, mother, where's the milk?"
Stephen Fry: You beast, you beast, you utter, utter, beast.

5

Stephen Fry: In 1900 there was a sport where Britain won a gold medal, in which the only other country that competed was France. Can you imagine what that might have been?
John Sessions: Arrogance?

6

[On the original story of Cinderella]
Stephen Fry: The original stories were quite gruesome. When the ugly sisters tried to slip into the slipper, they cut off their toes and their bunions to try and squeeze in, and the slippers filled with blood.
Jo Brand: They probably got that idea from Trinny and Susannah.

7

Stephen Fry: What comes before a German Bite?
Neil Mullarkey: [presses buzzer] A German Bark.
[The klaxon sounds and the words "German Bark" appear on the screen.]
Stephen Fry: You were thinking of J.S., possibly.
Alan Davies: No, they never bark when they're going to attack you. It's when they go quiet, that's when you have to worry.
Stephen Fry: Germans?

8

Stephen Fry: How can you tell that God is a civil engineer? Because when he designed the human body, he put the recreational area right next to the sewage outflow.

9

Phill Jupitus: [on the Bayeux Tapestry] That says 'Wil 6 Elm'.
Alan Davies: Normmano. I like that.
Phill Jupitus: Is that like medieval text speak? They never put the whole thing in. 'We've invaded Britain. lol'
Stephen Fry: O … M … G! Very good.

10

Stephen Fry: The Eiffel Tower. They loathed it. Guy de Maupassant loathed it so much that his favourite restaurant was …?
Alan Davies: The "Eiffel Tower is Crap" Bistro.
Stephen Fry: No, it was in the Eiffel Tower.
Alan Davies: Oh, so he didn't have to look at it.
Stephen Fry: So—exactly. The one place in Paris he couldn't see the Eiffel Tower was inside the Eiffel Tower.
Marcus Brigstocke: Could he not maybe just ask for a chair facing the other way?
Stephen Fry: He was a French writer trying to make a point, and therefore a git.

---

So in short: Cultures, languages and religions are born and die out, but one thing remains in the our world(s): Human nature.

 

[PurplePoot]

I think English has a shot at it.

To the person who expected Esperanto to be: If you seriously don't know why it wasn't accepted, try thinking about it for about 5 seconds.

To the person who wants French to be: Ugh, no. And I speak easily enough French to get by.

--

Hakeem, all languages look like English does. However, English thankfully has far less messy grammar than many of them (it is random but at least it's fairly short compared to any Romantic language really).

--

Chinese is actually pretty nice as well, although they need to modernize their writing.

 

[Saken]

And what is your perspective on the other side of the argument, Divine? I'm basically the only one on the opposing side.

 

[Vampiro320]

If you keep this pointlessness up for too much longer saken, you might make yourself look really stupid. You seem like a generally negative person, you really should try looking at it a different way. I'm sure i know a few guys who could run the world and do it well, with 0% corruption. And if he does start looking a little bad, that's why a lot of countries have people who work close under them, and start doing things right, and if there really Isn't I'm sure if that kind of thing happened, I'm sure we'll make it like that. But hay!? Just couse everyone can speak/understand a language, doesn't mean world peace.

 

[Saken]

If you keep this pointlessness up for too much longer saken,

Pointlessness? I'm discussing the topic at hand, and everyone of you seem to be stuck on the fact that it'd make things easier. You all have one positive side to it, and somehow threw in world peace, and a world wide nation into it. While you all forgot the other consequences of what is being discussed.

you might make yourself look really stupid

I've only given more information none of you ever stopped to think about, you're all just being ignorant against what could and would happen.

You seem like a generally negative person,

Being such the negative person I am, or what you're all making me out to be, I'm giving you those other things none of you thought of, and this has turned into everyone agree against Saken.

you really should try looking at it a different way.

I have. I stated several times that I'd like for things to be peaceful, that I wished people were honest, but you're dealing with so much with what you're all trying to fantasize about, and you can't even bother to put reality into it. I see all of your points that you've expressed, but you've yet to realize your points are fantasy, this isn't happening, not in any of our life times, nor in your childrens' lifetimes.

I'm sure i know a few guys who could run the world and do it well, with 0% corruption. And if he does start looking a little bad, that's why a lot of countries have people who work close under them, and start doing things right, and if there really Isn't I'm sure if that kind of thing happened, I'm sure we'll make it like that.

As I said before, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The leader would have power, he slips up, wait, his advisors, or people below him have power too, what's to say they arn't all in with the corrupt leader? How can you believe what you say when you look at the world leaders today and how corrupt they are?

But hay!? Just couse everyone can speak/understand a language, doesn't mean world peace.

Exactly. Human nature has jealousy, hate, pride, greed, there won't be world peace, despite if everyone in the whole world wanted it; human nature would take over.

 

[Vampiro320]

Pointlessness? I'm discussing the topic at hand, and everyone of you seem to be stuck on the fact that it'd make things easier. You all have one positive side to it, and somehow threw in world peace, and a world wide nation into it. While you all forgot the other consequences of what is being discussed.

Hell, I have no idea how the world would go to peace thing showed up, You got me there.

I've only given more information none of you ever stopped to think about, you're all just being ignorant against what could and would happen.

You sure seem to go a little out there to get some of this information sometimes.

Being such the negative person I am, or what you're all making me out to be, I'm giving you those other things none of you thought of, and this has turned into everyone agree against Saken.

Stubborn aren't we?

As I said before, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The leader would have power, he slips up, wait, his advisors, or people below him have power too, what's to say they arn't all in with the corrupt leader? How can you believe what you say when you look at the world leaders today and how corrupt they are?

More people to have power over, means more people to complain/hire assasins, If they were corrupt, I'm sure it wont last long.


This thread has practically become a war zone. Despite my current disposition for you, I got to give you some credit, you sure can put up one hell of a fight. You got all the odds against you, but you still stick with what you believe. I respect that.

 

[Fussiler1]

And another thing to mention... if the global language was English, what religion would be the dominant one?

Language is just a way to communicate with foreign people. It does not affect culture very much, but yes, if you keep English long as global language you'll take some things of the other culture, but to be honest, wouldn't that be good? It would play a part in peace.

About religion, I personally think global language has nothing to do with religion, so it can't really affect it.

 

[Ghost765]

well, they say that the koran can only be truly understood in arabic.
You are too closed minded to see what's going on.
Patriot willing to lay down their lives for their homeland? why dont they lay their lives down for humanity and the greater good when the world comes together?

He's not really putting up a fight, he's just being a stubborn donkey.

 

[Avex]

れないのはなぜプリンダークマスター？

Do you even know what you said?

I'm taking Japanese as a second language.

Don't use google for Japanese, why? Because you'll end up with mixes of Kanji, Hiragana and Katakana in the same phrase when even the smallest character can change a word. ite is different from itte.. ones hospital and ones beauty parlor.. definantley dont want to mix those up..


I doubt there will ever be a global language, for language is one of the main roots to a culture. If one country looses its language it begins to loose its culture.

Take Japan, if it started teaching Chinese (and I dont mean Katakana where they took a few characters), they'd slowly tear off their culture with it.

Imagine if America taught.. uhm... Arabic.. or some Arcane language instead of english? we'd probobly keep the culture since.. america has like 0 culture anymore because we mixed 50 races and plopped them in one continent and said 'Lets see how this goes!'.

 

[Wraithling]

we mixed 50 races and plopped them in one continent and said 'Lets see how this goes!'.

That is itself, a culture too. The unique culture of 50 races coming together.

 

[Avex]

See how good it's going?

 

[PurplePoot]

well, they say that the koran can only be truly understood in arabic.

That's mostly to excuse themselves from having to justify it to non-Arabs rather than for any real reason.

 

[Mcasdf]

One way to make english or some other language the global language could be to increase the amount you study it in school. So instead of in sweden we study swedish, english and german we instead study swedish and english?

 

[HorizonTal]

I must say, the results of teaching English in every single school here aren't really encouraging: an average italian studies english for 13 years of his/her life, but almost NOBODY can actually use it, because it's thaught in a stupid way. I'm pretty much the only one in my class who can speak for more than 3 minutes in English without needing help.
The teaching method here is just plain wrong, although I can't exactly put my finger on what the problem exactly is :/

The only reason why I speak it decently is the incredible amount of time I spent playing video games and watching "South Park" in English.

 

[Ghost765]

imo, studying in itself does not help you improve foreign language skills. practice does. regular practice with fluent speakers.

technically, blacks, asians, whites, etc are all one race. the human race.

 

[Saken]

You sure seem to go a little out there to get some of this information sometimes.

Stubborn aren't we?

More people to have power over, means more people to complain/hire assasins, If they were corrupt, I'm sure it wont last long.

This thread has practically become a war zone. Despite my current disposition for you, I got to give you some credit, you sure can put up one hell of a fight. You got all the odds against you, but you still stick with what you believe. I respect that.

• I'm only putting likely consequences of what everyone has not even thought of, or what anyone even seems to believe possible, because people seem to have a naive and very optimistic outlook over anything that sounds good.

• I'll agree to being stubborn. I know I am, but that's what makes me who I am. I'm not some push over who just goes along with the flow.

• You now say you have doubt over it even lasting. How could a global language last then? Let me say again, I agree with you all who say it is very beneficial for a global language which would make communicating so much easier, but what I'm saying the likelihood of this happening is a 0% chance.

• If no one faught for what they believed, no matter the odds, where would we be in this world today?

Language is just a way to communicate with foreign people. It does not affect culture very much, but yes, if you keep English long as global language you'll take some things of the other culture, but to be honest, wouldn't that be good? It would play a part in peace.

About religion, I personally think global language has nothing to do with religion, so it can't really affect it.

Religions where the majority of things are based in one specific language, as the example was given, Islam is based in Arabic, not English. We all know already how the majority of people in the world hate America, and now we propose to force our American English on them? Good luck with that.

And as it was said by IamtheRPer, culture is based in language. People's cultures can differ just by a certain dialect used in a language, I can't believe people are arguing against language having anything to do with culture and traditions.

You are too closed minded to see what's going on.

Patriot willing to lay down their lives for their homeland? why dont they lay their lives down for humanity and the greater good when the world comes together?

He's not really putting up a fight, he's just being a stubborn donkey.

Actually I'm the only one opening my eyes to several multiple possibilities, their consequences, and how things would be affected. I've yet to see anyone else put forth another alternate outcome from having a Global Language other then the childish dream of having world peace and the stupid idea of a world wide nation.

Definitions of patriot:

• noun: one who loves and defends his or her country

This is the definition of a patriot. loves and defends his or her country. Not for the humanity of their world. For their country, their homeland, and their people, not the people of other countries. That is what a patriot does, and nothing else. I don't know where you get how a patriot will just change their mind, they tend to be very stubborn like myself. They will fight to the death for their country, nothing else.

Actually I am putting up a fight, a pretty damn good one if I say so myself. I've not lashed out at anyone and used vulgarity or name calling other then what was related to the topic; and I've faught this basically all alone, maybe IamtheRPer is with me on this, I don't know. I do know that I'm not just going to back down though because others choose to call me stubborn, when they too are being stubborn and not seeing the valid points being proven time and time again. Fail to see them if you will, but they've been laid out over and over.

 

[HINDYhat]

I really would like for world peace to end, I hope it does.

Talk about hatred.

Saken, what do you mean by global language? If you mean, to the extent that everyone in the entire world will scrap their culture and language, and learn to speak English and only English, that's pretty much impossible. Where I live, in Quebec, laws have been established to prevent the dissipation of the French language. For example, kids at the pre-university level must study in French schools. There are some exceptions but I don't remember exactly. In addition to that, nearly half of the population of the province wants to separate from Canada and become a sovereign French-speaking nation. My point is that culture does not disappear on its own; the prospect of have such a global language is ridiculous, and evaluating its consequences is even more.

The sort of global language that is possible is basically modern day English. Like I said before, in nearly every industrialized city, you can be welcomed in the native language and English, and I'm guessing that's just about as far as it will go.

 

[Fussiler1]

Religions where the majority of things are based in one specific language, as the example was given, Islam is based in Arabic, not English.


The Islam is not only based on Arabic, and there are enough translated versions. Plus, religions that are world-wide spread cannot be based on one language, because it is not needed to communicate with foreign believers.
Do all Christian People speak Latin? Only priests do, but they do it barely these days.

 

[Saken]

Talk about hatred.

Saken, what do you mean by global language? If you mean, to the extent that everyone in the entire world will scrap their culture and language, and learn to speak English and only English, that's pretty much impossible. Where I live, in Quebec, laws have been established to prevent the dissipation of the French language. For example, kids at the pre-university level must study in French schools. There are some exceptions but I don't remember exactly. In addition to that, nearly half of the population of the province wants to separate from Canada and become a sovereign French-speaking nation. My point is that culture does not disappear on its own; the prospect of have such a global language is ridiculous, and evaluating its consequences is even more.

The sort of global language that is possible is basically modern day English. Like I said before, in nearly every industrialized city, you can be welcomed in the native language and English, and I'm guessing that's just about as far as it will go.

My bad, was a typo. I fixed it.

Others words not mine. I'm against a global language. They were the ones making it seem to be just one language, and now we're in this mess.

Culture doesn't just disappear on its own, your right. But if you change the people so much, and make them adapt to new things, it will eventually disappear, not on its own, but by the mistakes made in the name of the so-called greater good of the world. My standing point is this. Things are fine as they are now.

You may be greeted in industrialized cities, but the smaller cities and towns around them? The small communities of villages? People travel to see sights or go on buisness. If an American left his big city life for a week or so to see another country, he wouldn't want to go to just another big city. And really, you're assuming everyone will know both English and their language? Don't you think the person coming to another country should learn a thing or two about the country's language and not go there expecting everyone to cater to his ears by knowing English. Very rude and selfish if you ask me. Let's say that same person goes on a buisness trip, I'm sure both parties, the aforementioned man, and the buisness partner in another country will both have a general knowledge of English, maybe even both languages, but what then? The common person who is on the streets and you need directions to your hotel? Nope, no English to be found. You're overestimating the growth of English, not everyone knows it, and for those who said it was an easy language to learn, it may be for those who grow up learning it, or are introduced to it frequently on a need to know basis, rather then someone who lives and dies in one country, never interacting with those from another. It's useless to that person to know a language they'll never use.

 

[Joss]

Well, this sure got heated. I read most of the posts, but I'm not going to respond to all of 'em. I'm just gonna post my views:

1. A global language would, naturally, make communication a breeze.

2. I see little affect on culture by the implementation of a global language. Just because you learn it, doesnt mean you simply MUST speak it.

3. We never said the languages would be REPLACED by English, anyway.

4. Please dont bring religion into this thread. Up until Saken threw it out of the blue, this thread was actually doing a fine job of keeping religion out of places where it does not belong.

5. Sub-countries? Patriots? Those are what you come up with? While I agree that some people would be dismayed at the thought of another language becoming a global way of speaking, again, they do not HAVE to speak it.

6. Where in the hell did 'world peace' come from? As if the act of making English the global language would really contribute to world peace. Get real, and stop discussing 'world peace' in here.

 

[HINDYhat]

My bad, was a typo. I fixed it.

I figured as much.

You may be greeted in industrialized cities, but the smaller cities and towns around them? The small communities of villages?

Which is exactly why I said the industrialized cities, not the smaller cities and towns.

And really, you're assuming everyone will know both English and their language?

Did I say that?

Don't you think the person coming to another country should learn a thing or two about the country's language and not go there expecting everyone to cater to his ears by knowing English. Very rude and selfish if you ask me.

I agree. But then again, for example, what if an English family decides to take a trip to France? Would it be selfish for them not to teach rudimentary French to their children, or would it be unwelcoming if it were impossible for the family to understand anything in France? Most cities are already meant to be welcoming for English speakers, so people only take advantage of the fact that everything is advertised in both English and the native language. It's not selfish if everything around you is written in English too.

The common person who is on the streets and you need directions to your hotel? Nope, no English to be found.

I know, that's what I'm saying.

You're overestimating the growth of English, not everyone knows it [...]

I said that it's impossible for everyone to know English. It is possible, though, to orient yourself easily in industrialized cities if you know English.

2. I see little affect on culture by the implementation of a global language. Just because you learn it, doesnt mean you simply MUST speak it.

When a language becomes more used, it becomes more convenient. When it becomes more convenient, others become relatively more inconvenient. When others become inconvenient, less attention is given to them, and thus culture is lost.

3. We never said the languages would be REPLACED by English, anyway.

See above.

4. Please dont bring religion into this thread. Up until Saken threw it out of the blue, this thread was actually doing a fine job of keeping religion out of places where it does not belong.

The religious aspect of this thread is entirely justified and on-topic, and isn't out of hand yet, like most religious talk is on this site.

 

[Vampiro320]

Well, this sure got heated. I read most of the posts, but I'm not going to respond to all of 'em. I'm just gonna post my views:

1. A global language would, naturally, make communication a breeze.

2. I see little affect on culture by the implementation of a global language. Just because you learn it, doesnt mean you simply MUST speak it.

3. We never said the languages would be REPLACED by English, anyway.

4. Please dont bring religion into this thread. Up until Saken threw it out of the blue, this thread was actually doing a fine job of keeping religion out of places where it does not belong.

5. Sub-countries? Patriots? Those are what you come up with? While I agree that some people would be dismayed at the thought of another language becoming a global way of speaking, again, they do not HAVE to speak it.

6. Where in the hell did 'world peace' come from? As if the act of making English the global language would really contribute to world peace. Get real, and stop discussing 'world peace' in here.

This is deffinantly one of the posts that makes the most sense in my mind. I don't know where the world peace thing came from either, so how about we just stay on topic, were talking about a global language. Not world peace.

 

[Saken]

Joss]Well, this sure got heated. I read most of the posts, but I'm not going to respond to all of 'em. I'm just gonna post my views:

Exactly, you didn't even read all the posts, that's why you didn't hear anything about world peace mentioned before me arguing against it. If you're getting involved late, read the discussion as a whole, not just by skimming through and reading most.

1. A global language would, naturally, make communication a breeze.

Already agreed upon by all, but again, it won't happen.

2. I see little affect on culture by the implementation of a global language. Just because you learn it, doesnt mean you simply MUST speak it.

If you don't NEED to speak it, why would one use it? There is no need to use it, if it isn't required to be used. Thus the normal way of life of modern day today would persist, no global language, despite what people tried to implement.

3. We never said the languages would be REPLACED by English, anyway.

As Hindy pointed out already, you've been proven wrong, both by me and him.

4. Please dont bring religion into this thread. Up until Saken threw it out of the blue, this thread was actually doing a fine job of keeping religion out of places where it does not belong.

It is on topic, remember when I say the consequences of a global language, this includes religion. No one is arguing over religion, we are merely stating language boundries with religion. So get off your high horse of smug-ness and don't act like you're right on this one. Hindy already proved religion is related to the topic before this post.

5. Sub-countries? Patriots? Those are what you come up with? While I agree that some people would be dismayed at the thought of another language becoming a global way of speaking, again, they do not HAVE to speak it.

They are consequences that could happen, no one else considered it. I felt oblidged to do so since no one else considers the negative in this thread. Also, see third quote.

6. Where in the hell did 'world peace' come from? As if the act of making English the global language would really contribute to world peace. Get real, and stop discussing 'world peace' in here.

Stop discussing it and be real because it won't ever happen? Or because like I stated in the beginning of my post, you failed to read this thread as a whole, and don't understand where it was even mentioned before me?

I will now await Saken's rediculous and ludicrous claims that the bulk of my post is naive, near-sighted, and unintellectual in general.

I never said anyone was unintellectual. I've called people naive yes, not near-sighted, but optimistic, overly optimistic and stubborn if you ask me. You're just assuming I'm going to be a prick and lash out, eh? I'm much more civilized then that.

I said that it's impossible for everyone to know English. It is possible, though, to orient yourself easily in industrialized cities if you know English.

Possible yes in major cities where it becomes more relevent and practicaly used, but globaly, not happening. Which we both agree on now, I suppose.

Did I say that?

No, but it seemed like the intent of what your saying, sorry, my mistake.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

• I'm only putting likely consequences of what everyone has not even thought of, or what anyone even seems to believe possible, because people seem to have a naive and very optimistic outlook over anything that sounds good.

I think you mean unlikely consequences. Plenty of Canadians learn French in grade-school, how does that change Canadian culture? It doesn't, it's just another class in school. A second language is exactly that: a second language that only takes priority when the first is inadequate. Nobody will be forced to speak the global language except in the presence of people that do not speak their own language, and that is a situation that already happens on a daily basis when businessmen and tourists travel abroad.

• You now say you have doubt over it even lasting. How could a global language last then? Let me say again, I agree with you all who say it is very beneficial for a global language which would make communicating so much easier, but what I'm saying the likelihood of this happening is a 0% chance.

If a language has the tenacity and influence to become used worldwide, nothing short of an angel descending from heaven and telling humanity to speak another language is going to knock that language out of use.

• If no one faught for what they believed, no matter the odds, where would we be in this world today?

If you believe that humanity is so rigid and brittle that cultures crumble at the loss of something as mundane as language, I would fight you over it.

Religions where the majority of things are based in one specific language, as the example was given, Islam is based in Arabic, not English. We all know already how the majority of people in the world hate America, and now we propose to force our American English on them? Good luck with that.

The world hates the American government and stereotype. Rational citizens of other countries can differentiate between politicians and citizens, between stereotypes and reality. I'd also like to mention that the UK speaks English, Canada speaks English, South Africa speaks English, Australia speaks English, a good number of Japanese people speak English (some of them even speak it fluently), etc. English is a language with more than enough money for petty grudges to be set aside, for mild irritation to be replaced with grudging respect.

And as it was said by IamtheRPer, culture is based in language. People's cultures can differ just by a certain dialect used in a language, I can't believe people are arguing against language having anything to do with culture and traditions.

The two of you have that backwards. Languages are based on the culture that they are developed in. Being deprived of acrylic paint would not stop someone from being an artist, being deprived of one specific language would not stop someone from expressing their culture. It wouldn't even stop them from using specific words from their own languages. Look at English dialects around the world, they have their own slang, and plenty of borrowed words from other languages.

Actually I'm the only one opening my eyes to several multiple possibilities, their consequences, and how things would be affected. I've yet to see anyone else put forth another alternate outcome from having a Global Language other then the childish dream of having world peace and the stupid idea of a world wide nation.

People could conceivably just communicate better with each other. I do agree that having a global language isn't going to magically make wars go away, and that the idea a world-wide nation is a completely stupid notion.

Actually I am putting up a fight, a pretty damn good one if I say so myself.

A pretty damn stupid one. This is rhetoric, fantasy; pull the stick out of your ass and let the children have their fun.

 

[Saken]

I think you mean unlikely consequences. Plenty of Canadians learn French in grade-school, how does that change Canadian culture? It doesn't, it's just another class in school. A second language is exactly that: a second language that only takes priority when the first is inadequate. Nobody will be forced to speak the global language except in the presence of people that do not speak their own language, and that is a situation that already happens on a daily basis when businessmen and tourists travel abroad.

Westernized countries don't really have a culture. It's the individual communities and such that practice their traditions in these countries.

If a language has the tenacity and influence to become used worldwide, nothing short of an angel descending from heaven and telling humanity to speak another language is going to knock that language out of use.

If, but not happening. And as it's been said before over time, the languages not used as the primary one will eventually just dissipate in the history books.

If you believe that humanity is so rigid and brittle that cultures crumble at the loss of something as mundane as language, I would fight you over it.

Fight on, because there's already been cultures and languages that have been virtually wiped out to the extent of them only being in books and no one even practicing them anymore.

The world hates the American government and stereotype. Rational citizens of other countries can differentiate between politicians and citizens, between stereotypes and reality. I'd also like to mention that the UK speaks English, Canada speaks English, South Africa speaks English, Australia speaks English, a good number of Japanese people speak English (some of them even speak it fluently), etc. English is a language with more than enough money for petty grudges to be set aside, for mild irritation to be replaced with grudging respect.

Conquered countries in the name of England or dominated by American presence, good examples you just gave there. Also, if rational citizens of other countries can tell these differences, why can't the majority of our own citizens do the same? If you consider yourself rational, why can't you or anyone else here see what is reality? All I hear is, "This is possible", "It could happen", and "what if/but if" situations.

The two of you have that backwards. Languages are based on the culture that they are developed in. Being deprived of acrylic paint would not stop someone from being an artist, being deprived of one specific language would not stop someone from expressing their culture. It wouldn't even stop them from using specific words from their own languages. Look at English dialects around the world, they have their own slang, and plenty of borrowed words from other languages.

I was simply saying the two are intertwined with each other, not one is based on, I said based in. I agree and said before, the dialects are different in languages, but still... bringing this back to the main argument I had that started this all... A global language will not happen. Take a look at this perspective. There will be so many dialects used in English, how would we be able to communicate if one can't even understand the other even when they're using the same damn language? I.E. I can barely understand Australian and British English compared to American English. Also, slang in America, have you tried to decode what's being made up now days as a language within a language that we know as slang? It's rediculous.

Now let me break this down further.

A pretty damn stupid one.

Your opinion so far, no one else seems to think that. Maybe they don't agree with me, but that's because no one's yet to see the light in my words.

This is rhetoric, fantasy;

A lot of your replies seem to be rhetoric, adding to the fantasy that you and the others share.

pull the stick out of your ass

I'm not the one with the stick up my ass. Adjust your position in your chair, you'll be surprised what falls out of your own if you realized what you were talking about.
Seems like you're the only one calling it "stupid".

and let the children have their fun.

So you want me to let everyone just have their fun and play make-believe, is that it? In part of you saying this, you come off as you're agreeing to everything I've said thus far about a global language never happening. Well guess what, I'm crashing this tea party.

 

[Joss]

By 'most', I meant I didnt read the last couple of posts before my own. I read all of them up to those few posts.

High horse? Smugness? You're the one who's smug. I will atleast listen to innovation. You, however, fixate on the negative, and somewhat illogical, if also sometimes on point, reasons against its implementation. You hardly ever seem to consider someone else's views, ans simply ramble on about how they cannot be true in YOUR eyes. Try looking through the glass from its other side, not fogging it up with your own hot air.

 

[Saken]

The majority on one side doesn't make it the right side.

I do fixate on the negative, because no one has thought of the negative consequences, which I've already said.

I did consider others views, but I dismiss bullshit when I see it.

 

[Vampiro320]

I have now read all the posts and have come up with my full, and have gathered all my notes on what i think of all this. First of all the world peace thing.

world peace will happen eventually. eventually, a New World Order will arise, and unite the world. sure it's far fetched, a lot of people might die, but it's pretty much inevitable. Just look at the european union now. once the NWO comes up, im gonna guess that theyre gonna have a single language, for easier communication and such. people will have to sacrifice for the greater good.

This was the first post conserning it and it was just an all of the sudden out of the blue kind of statement. I think he meant that we are slowly (So slowly that some people don't believe it, like Saken.) heading towards world peace, and if something as far out as world peace happends, a global language can happn as well. Besides anything is possible. As for Saken.

I only say what has been proved by countless before me. Corruption is ever-present, and there is no end to it, no end to wars or fighting.
I really would like for world peace to happen, I hope it does.
I really would like for all wars, fighting, and violence to stop.
I really would love to see everyone get a long.
I would love for everyone to be honest, respectful, and understanding.
I really want all evils in the world to disappear.

All good hopes and wishes, but you do seem pretty sure that they will never happen. To me it sounds like the things happening in the world right now have hit you pretty hard. (Bush, His dad, And depending on the kind of guy you are Obama.) I honestly hope that whatever is bothering you at the time Will get better as time goes by. And on the other hand that might not even be the case at all, so if It's not, forgive me.
If we all spoke the same language, and still could hold on to our traditions and languages, it would make life infinitely easier for many people, but I'm sure there are a lot of people who would like for that not to happen and would feel pressured and threatened to turn to all the rest of the world. These people are going to cut in on the global language idea, but I'm sure there are many people who would all the same. I'm unsure what a lot of Indians would think about it, and we can't make anybody speak a language against their will in America. Things like this would make it a VERY popular thing, but that Isn't quite global. But maybe one day, when we all have different leaders, who have an eye on the future, and are all willing to work together such virtues as global language/peace may come to pass.

 

[Joss]

I think you mean unlikely consequences. Plenty of Canadians learn French in grade-school, how does that change Canadian culture? It doesn't, it's just another class in school. A second language is exactly that: a second language that only takes priority when the first is inadequate. Nobody will be forced to speak the global language except in the presence of people that do not speak their own language, and that is a situation that already happens on a daily basis when businessmen and tourists travel abroad.

If a language has the tenacity and influence to become used worldwide, nothing short of an angel descending from heaven and telling humanity to speak another language is going to knock that language out of use.

If you believe that humanity is so rigid and brittle that cultures crumble at the loss of something as mundane as language, I would fight you over it.

The world hates the American government and stereotype. Rational citizens of other countries can differentiate between politicians and citizens, between stereotypes and reality. I'd also like to mention that the UK speaks English, Canada speaks English, South Africa speaks English, Australia speaks English, a good number of Japanese people speak English (some of them even speak it fluently), etc. English is a language with more than enough money for petty grudges to be set aside, for mild irritation to be replaced with grudging respect.

The two of you have that backwards. Languages are based on the culture that they are developed in. Being deprived of acrylic paint would not stop someone from being an artist, being deprived of one specific language would not stop someone from expressing their culture. It wouldn't even stop them from using specific words from their own languages. Look at English dialects around the world, they have their own slang, and plenty of borrowed words from other languages.

People could conceivably just communicate better with each other. I do agree that having a global language isn't going to magically make wars go away, and that the idea a world-wide nation is a completely stupid notion.

A pretty damn stupid one. This is rhetoric, fantasy; pull the stick out of your ass and let the children have their fun.

Pretty much all of this qft.

 

[En_Fuego]

The majority on one side doesn't make it the right side.

Wrong. History is written by those who win. Think of any major war. For example, if the Confederates had won the Civil War then we would still be a Confederation.

I do fixate on the negative, because no one has thought of the negative consequences, which I've already said.

that makes no sense

I did consider others views, but I dismiss bullshit when I see it.

yeah, 'cause what you're defending to death makes sooooooooo much more sense.

 

[Elenai]

No language that exists today will be the global language of tomorrow.

Just as:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L7VTH8ii_8&feature=related

Was once English.

Or for this transition from Middle English, and its translation into the current dialect of Modern.

Syððan wæs geworden þæt he ferde þurh þa ceastre and þæt castel: godes rice prediciende and bodiende. and hi twelfe mid. And sume wif þe wæron gehælede of awyrgdum gastum: and untrumnessum: seo magdalenisce maria ofþære seofan deoflu uteodon: and iohanna chuzan wif herodes gerefan: and susanna and manega oðre þe him of hyra spedum þenedon.

A literal translation, using descendants of the original words where possible (bold words are explanations), might be

"Sith (since) [it] was worthen (had come to happen) that he fared through the towns: God's rich (kingdom) predicating and boding, and he [had] twelve (disciples) [along with him], and some wives (women), that were healed of suffocating ghosts and un-upright-nesses: Mary , Magdalene, out of whom seven devils out-went, and Johanna, Chuza (Herod's steward)'s wife, and Suzanna, and many others that (gave) him of their speeds (things thought of as "fast") "

The typical modern translation is

"And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, and certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance."

—Translation of Luke ch.8 v.1–3, from the New Testament

And from the Modern English form, where now we have dropped Ye, Thou, Thine, Thy.

English in the future may look like this:

Tis ling is prity sweet, for reels.

Our father who is n Hevon, holy is yor nam, yor kingdom com, yor wil b dun, on Irth as it is n Hevon, giv us dis day, our daly bred, an forgiv us our sins, as wii forgiv dos who sin aginst us.

Tha President gav a speech tuday, I found it to b q[qu]ait reveeling.

That is if English deteriorates. It would inevitably take on other languages and cultural exchange would occur. With the internet you may find that internet language will soon find its way into every language.

Internet Lingo is the root language that is forming, that will become the dialogue of the future.

Acronymica de Interneti

lol I saw u thar, n I rofl'd pro.

 

[arafor]

Well seeing how theres too much post to read above me here go mah views....

If were going off of a selected language to be the global language it should naturaly go to the most powerful of the countries and their language. The United States being currently the most powerful country and having English as its main language is the natural choice to have its primary language chosen as a global language.

Speaking off of what I said most business men from around the world have to learn english because well they do business with us and English is a language to know oif in fact you go to any English speaking country.

It is impossible to get the whole world to speak one language because someone always feels "violated" or some thinks their "culture" is being destroyed.

 

[Hakeem]

You expect people to give up their roots in their cultures and abandon everything they've lived their life for? To stop raising their families in their own traditional language? To forget their ancestors and adopt our language?

No. Which is why not every person on the face of the planet will speak English, which I think it your point. People who wish to do anything international, however, are sorta forced to learn English. It's not wishful thinking on my part, because I dislike this aspect. While most people will teach their children their native language, the proliferation of the internet will remain largely English, causing young people to end up learning English, even of their own volition. Some will inevitably choose to use it. To those people, I would wish they would keep their heritage. I want anything but a one world culture.

I think a lot of people are to stubborn to give up their own native language, so probably we're gonna have all sort of languages forever – which I think is sad. >.>

I think it's great. What's bad about it?

According to my english book, 1.5 billion people know english. 350 million have it as their native language.

the stats you give forget to mention the majority of those people don't even know English that well to begin with.

Irrelevant. 1.5 billion people know English. Only 350 million people have it as their native language. This means there are about 1.2 billions people that know English as a second language, broken or otherwise. Granted, these statistics give no other language for a reference point, it sure looks to me like English is dominant in one aspect or another.

With a world-wide language of English, and then the languages today, other then English, would become sub-languages,

Not if patriots and cultured people have anything to say about it:

Wouldn't that be humiliating to patriots of those countries? Where would pride go? No one would care about where they live, because their country was now inferior, and their language wasn't the "easier one to learn".

Warring countries with years of blood that's been poured between them won't just say, "Okay, you're right." Again, naive.

If I had the power, I would force them to do just that.

That's mostly to excuse themselves from having to justify it to non-Arabs rather than for any real reason.

Because all translations have perfect clarity, right? Did you know enough Arabic for that statement to have any basis? I'd like to point out that the Qur'an says, about itself, that it is a written book in Arabic. (Pardon the bad translation/paraphrase.) If you honestly want to question the very fine details of the Qur'an, you'll need to know Arabic, or have a very good translator. Saying that the multitudes of differing English translations can be used, and using them, is not a valid attack.

First of all the world peace thing.

This was the first post conserning it and it was just an all of the sudden out of the blue kind of statement.

Actually, it was this:

not ever going to happen no matter what anyone says. That's like saying world peace will happen eventually.

 

[Yixx]

No language that exists today will be the global language of tomorrow.

Just as:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L7VTH8ii_8&feature=related

Was once English.

This was because at first, there were Picts and Celts. Once the Angles (Angels, whatever), Saxons and Jutes came to England, they took their language with them. And after some time, there was another invasion, by the Norse people, also bringing a part of their language. And finally also some French guys thought they were cool and took some language to England.

Wow i pay such good attention in my English Literature Lessons!

 

[D4RK_G4ND4LF]

• Naieve much. People with power will be corrupt. People with absolute power will be absolutely corrupt.

why should anyone with absolute power need money? he can take anything he wants to!

[...]For some reason, it [,Esperanto,] wasn't "accepted" as a global language for easy communication between people of different cultures[...]

probably because the name sucks

and you should stop arguing about it since somebody will surely start a way cause of it (or has done so already)

anyway at this rate a perfect translation software will be developed much faster than any language can spread

I even don't think that culture is something you need
the best thing which could happen would actually be a global "feeling as humans" instead of religious or cultural or whatever groups

and I'd like to finish with some quote:
"If my theory of relativity is proven correct, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew. " - Albert Einstein

what I'm trying to say is that everything depends on the point of view and
that feeling as "one" is good

......and I vote for french cause of the explanation of some dude who spoke about it in "Matrix" (it sounds very nice...really...unfortunately I can't understand a word and from time to time it sounds gay but it still sounds funny [did you ever watch some movie on french? it's ridiculous if someone tries to sound very evil] )

[excuse me for my english...it's not my mother tongue]

 

[Vosty]

English: Easy to speak because we talk so slow *Mainly because we Americans got food in our mouth.*
Son of a Bitch because it's so hard to learn to spell. Why do letters have to be silent? Why do two letters have to make a sound?

Man, some of those Asians talk fast.

 

[Saken]

why should anyone with absolute power need money? he can take anything he wants to!

They'd need money to have power in the first place. You have money, enough of it at least, you can control whatever and who ever you choose. Hint, hint, corruption right fucking there, even proved by your staement.

anyway at this rate a perfect translation software will be developed much faster than any language can spread

That is possible, but the ability to speak it fluently or to the point of being understood is hard enough for people who didn't grow up learning and speaking English as their primary language. I work with this asian guy named Josh and I understand about half the stuff he says because of his accent and because he doesn't know the language as well as I do. Prime example of the inability to communicate as well as you all seem to think we'll be able to if this were to happen.

I even don't think that culture is something you need
the best thing which could happen would actually be a global "feeling as humans" instead of religious or cultural or whatever groups

So being a one walking mass of non-cultured and uninteresting people is what you want? "Hey what kind of things does your family do/celebrate?" "Oh we just watch TV because we're brain washed and have forgotten our ancesteral roots." That's like everyone shopping at one store and having no style, no one would have their own culture and we'd all be the same. All boring, nothing exciting and new, the feeling of meeting a new person wouldn't be something exotic and interesting by finding out they lived in a different country. I bet one of you will try and say this makes no sense either, so go on ahead and prove how low your understanding and thinking skills are please.

Irrelevant. 1.5 billion people know English. Only 350 million people have it as their native language. This means there are about 1.2 billions people that know English as a second language, broken or otherwise. Granted, these statistics give no other language for a reference point, it sure looks to me like English is dominant in one aspect or another.

Hm, yet there's close to 7 billion people on Earth, doesn't sound so dominant to me. Mandarin Chinese is actually the most spoken language natively, and I believe as a second language as well too, so you can't tell me English is the dominant one. Besides, Spanish is growing rapidly as well, hell, most of the Southern U.S. is becoming where you need to start learning Spanish just to communicate with others.

No. Which is why not every person on the face of the planet will speak English, which I think it your point. People who wish to do anything international, however, are sorta forced to learn English. It's not wishful thinking on my part, because I dislike this aspect. While most people will teach their children their native language, the proliferation of the internet will remain largely English, causing young people to end up learning English, even of their own volition. Some will inevitably choose to use it. To those people, I would wish they would keep their heritage. I want anything but a one world culture.

I'm REALLY glad we see eye to eye on this. People keep saying culture and traditions don't matter. Total bull shit. If it didn't ,atter so much, why do people get killed and why do wars get faught over someone insulting someone's traditions, culture, or heritage? Really? How fucking ignorant can someone be... I guess how you explained the part about children being on the internet more and learning the language there, yeah, I could see maybe a way of spreading it arund a bit easier, but I'm still sticking to the my idea that it won't happen. I know it'd be a good thing, easier communication, relationships can be forged a bit easier, lack of miscommunication to shorten any gaps in foreign relations, but the likelihood of it all happening to me, just seems slim to none, so I see no reason why people should sit here and argue this much with me over it, oh well, it gives me lol'able material seeing people get so worked up just to try and prove me wrong.

I think it's great. What's bad about it?

Nothing, nothing at all.

Not if patriots and cultured people have anything to say about it:

Which is exactly what I stated earlier, people who live and die by what they believe in won't allow their country to adopt some global language. They'll say to hell with them, and knowing the way politics works sometimes, countries will band together, those who feel the same on the subject. They'll just say to hell with it when it's proposed at some convention with the world's leaders. They just wouldn't let it happen. (I was only giving the rest of these people the consequence that they wern't able to think of because they were still in their children's books writing a happy ending instead of considering reality.

If I had the power, I would force them to do just that.

Which sort of goes along with the world leader bit I threw in. "With power comes corruption, with absolute power comes absolute corruption." It'd become a dictatorship government over the entire world.

 

[Joss]

People with power do not necessarily always have to be corrupted. Atleast not entirely or in a dangerous, nation-ending way.

 

[Hakeem]

Hm, yet there's close to 7 billion people on Earth, doesn't sound so dominant to me.

Not dominant in that aspect.

Mandarin Chinese is actually the most spoken language natively,

Seems so. I attribute this to the high population of China. This is also interesting. I suppose if China organized a mass emigration, it could theoretically conquer the linguistic geography map. Right now it looks like it's pretty much locked up in China.

Crap. You made me look it up and now I'm even more annoyed about how widespread English (-like language?) is.

it gives me lol'able material seeing people get so worked up just to try and prove me wrong.

You made me sad. See above.

Which sort of goes along with the world leader bit I threw in. "With power comes corruption, with absolute power comes absolute corruption." It'd become a dictatorship government over the entire world.

Hey, if I'm forcing people to just straight up stop warring, I think I'll have plenty of support.

 

[V.I]

I know I'm late to the discourse, but as a linguist myself, I'll add this:

English already is a second language. It is what Esperanto was meant to be. If you look at most international conferences, events or gatherings, the majority of them are shown in English. Soon, according to new research, the number of English Speakers will outnumber the amount of Non-English Speakers.

Ironic, really, considering the language is 28%~ Norman, 28%~ Latin, 25% Germanic and 14%~ other languages. But that's just it, English is a mongrel language. It will continue to evolve and change with the times until it is a universal language: until the whole of the planets population speaks English.

 

[HorizonTal]

I know I'm late to the discourse, but as a linguist myself, I'll add this:

English already is a second language. It is what Esperanto was meant to be. If you look at most international conferences, events or gatherings, the majority of them are shown in English. Soon, according to new research, the number of English Speakers will outnumber the amount of Non-English Speakers.

Ironic, really, considering the language is 28%~ Norman, 28%~ Latin, 25% Germanic and 14%~ other languages. But that's just it, English is a mongrel language. It will continue to evolve and change with the times until it is a universal language: until the whole of the planets population speaks English.

Even Greek (with Alexander the Great) and Latin (with the Roman empire) have been spread really wide across the world, though they died. Really a LOT of words of many languages come from those two, ok, but despite their success the fall of the main "nation/people" speaking them sentenced their death. Don't you think that English (even leaving a great influence over other languages) will become a lesser language when the power of the U.S. will start to fade?

 

[V.I]

Even Greek (with Alexander the Great) and Latin (with the Roman empire) have been spread really wide across the world, though they died. Really a LOT of words of many languages come from those two, ok, but despite their success the fall of the main "nation/people" speaking them sentenced their death. Don't you think that English (even leaving a great influence over other languages) will become a lesser language when the power of the U.S. will start to fade?

No, not really. I mean, for starters, the Latin in the English language came from French-Latin, not 'pure' Latin. English will continue to evolve by absorbing words from other languages, we'll just have different dialects.

There's going to be more English speakers than none-English speakers soon, so there is no chance of it 'fading', as you have said, simply because of America's 'power' fading.

Oh, and to the person that said Chinese is the most used language, that's not technically true. It is correct that lots of people speak Chinese, but these speakers are then sub-divided into different types of Chinese, such as Mandarin.

 

[Saken]

There's going to be more English speakers than none-English speakers soon, so there is no chance of it 'fading', as you have said, simply because of America's 'power' fading.

If the country fades/loses its power and influence, then yes, the language will fade. Who would want to learn English to communicate with an inferior country if we considered what Hakeem said to be true, which is a reasonable thing. Great nation's stood before us and died off, what's to say we won't?

Oh, and to the person that said Chinese is the most used language, that's not technically true. It is correct that lots of people speak Chinese, but these speakers are then sub-divided into different types of Chinese, such as Mandarin.

I do my research as well, and it is Mandaran, a sub-division of the Chinese language that is the most spoken, not "Chiense" as a whole. Mandarin is the most spoken.

If you look at most international conferences, events or gatherings, the majority of them are shown in English.

True, most are in English, where they have translators for those who don't speak English. So you can't say they all speak and understand the language.

Soon, according to new research, the number of English Speakers will outnumber the amount of Non-English Speakers.

What new research? with the current stats at around 1.5-1.8 total people who speak it as a primary language and secondary language combined, and there being close to 7 billion people on the planet, there is no way 3-4 billion people will suddenly pick up the English language any time soon, I don't see it happening in my life time, my children's life times, and their children's life times.

Ironic, really, considering the language is 28%~ Norman, 28%~ Latin, 25% Germanic and 14%~ other languages. But that's just it, English is a mongrel language. It will continue to evolve and change with the times until it is a universal language: until the whole of the planets population speaks English.

A mongrel language it is. People have said before that it is an easy language, yet to a non-naitve, there are so many rules to the language that make absoultely no sense...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The bandage was wound around the wound.
The farm was used to produce produce.
The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
We must polish the Polish furniture.
He could lead if he would get the lead out.
The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert..
A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
I did not object to the object.
The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
They were too close to the door to close it.
The buck does funny things when the does are present.
A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
After a number of injections my jaw got number.
Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France.
Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat.

quicksand can work slowly,
boxing rings are square and
a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing,
grocers don't groce
and hammers don't ham?
If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth beeth?
One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices?
Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend, that you comb through annals of history but not a single annal?
If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?
Ship by truck and send cargo by ship?
Have noses that run and feet that smell?
How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
How can overlook and oversee be opposites, while quite a lot and quite a few are alike?
How can the weather be hot as hell one day and cold as hell another?
Have you noticed that we talk about certain things only when they are absent?
Have you ever seen a horseful carriage or a strapful gown? Met a sung hero or experienced requited love?
Have you ever run into someone who was combobulated, gruntled, ruly or peccable?
And where are all those people who ARE spring chickens or who would ACTUALLY hurt a fly?

your house can burn up as it burns down,
in which you fill in a form by filling it out and
in which an alarm goes off by going on.

That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.
And why, when I wind up my watch, I start it, but when I wind up this essay, I end it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And I agree partly on the last part. It will continue to evolve and change with the times, but it won't become universal. Look above where I proved you wrong that it isn't even close to being the most dominant language any time soon, not the way the rediculous rules of the language are.