Comment about Tom’s new article.

Guest   Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:30 pm GMT
In time a single language may happen naturally. By the time "every" non-native speaker has learned English as a second language, then people may no longer see the need to hold onto their other language just for the sake of it. Obviously it will be a long while before that happens though.
Tom*   Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:04 am GMT
I speak in English to my grandparents. I don't mind if they don't understand me because they are too lazy to learn English. Come on , English is an universal language , so we have to change our minds and abandon other languages. To achieve this it's better to begin at home. Those parents who talk to their children in their vernacular tongues are spoiling their education.
eeuuian   Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:56 am GMT
<<Come on , English is an universal language , so we have to change our minds and abandon other languages.>>

Are you just pulling our legs -- trying to see how we react to statements like this? For the time being, and perhaps for the next couple of decades, certain highly-educated professionals in certain fields will need to know English, but most folks won't really be required to know it all that well.

After the next few decades, English (and all other Western Languages) will perhaps gradualy become unimportant for most people, except as local languages.

BTW -- if Engish is a "Universal Language", why does the anti-spam question require a French answer.
Lang Help!   Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:13 am GMT
Perhaps Tom is simply playing the devil's advocate. On the other hand, his hero is pushing English, so maybe he really believes this. Since it isn't criminal behaviour, I would just consider it to be personal preference-or quirkiness, but it isn't that odd, really.

It's not completely new. Many people long to be "American", speak English, love American culture. Sometimes, people who long to be American marry people who long to belong to another culture.

So Tom must marry Britney Spears. No, that's a joke and my worst advice ever.
Tom   Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:11 pm GMT
"So what if the parents practise speaking a language second to theirs? The majority will always go back to speaking their mother language which is much easier for them and speak it most of the time with each other."

What a static view of reality. I'm sorry to find you unable to imagine the changes that can occur in societies over dozens of years. What is today a majority can become a minority tomorrow.
Tom   Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:54 pm GMT
"You're contradicting yourself again. If you play the game in English then it is 'working and learning all day', and not 'warding off the blues'."

Who's contradicting himself?

- First you say I am a hypocrite because I advocate practicality while doing something impractical (playing video games).
- I argue that videogames are not impractical (they are a good way to relax after a day's work).
- You say that playing videogames in English is not a good way to relax because it is "working and learning".
- Therefore you are contradicting your first claim, since you admit that videogames in English ARE practical (they are "working and learning").


"Anyway, your dreamland is just a pipe dream and will never happen."

I never argued that it would happen. I only argued that it would be good and that it is possible.


"Why can't you have the best of both worlds?"

I know what is the "best" of a unilingual world -- better communication, less waste, equal opportunities. And what is the "best" of a multilingual world? Diversity? Let me tell you something: People don't really value diversity. What they value is their native languages. Why? Because they were born into them.

If everyone on Earth learned English as a child, do you think people would be saying "Oh my God, it's so boring, let's create some more languages so that we may have diversity!"?? Of course not. Their emotional attachment would be to English.

Now tell me, would there be any disadvantages to such a state of affairs? Yes, you can argue that it's impossible. You can argue that people of today, with their national pride, find the prospect disagreeable. But the people of tomorrow would reap the benefits -- and you know they would not cry for languages of old, just as you don't cry for Latin to come back. Perhaps it would make sense to sacrifice our emotions a little bit and do something for the future generations??

Is the same argument not used when arguing for the conservation of the environment? "Let's restrain our greed for the good of the future generations!" I say, let's give up our linguistic pride and esthetic pleasure for the future generations!
Tom   Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:05 pm GMT
"Do you really think that children all over the world will grow up bilingual by consuming American pop culture and that other languages will just wither away until the whole world is speaking (American) English?"

No, I think something more is needed (I'm not sure what).

"Is that the Utopian society you envision?"

I believe it would be beneficial. I presented my arguments. The only counterargument that was offered was esthetics.

I don't claim it would solve any big problems of humanity, so the world "Utopia" is not appropriate. It's just an obvious optimization, like the Euro currency in Europe (but of course much more important).

I do have a faint hope it would help promote world peace. It is far more difficult for politicians to provoke belligerent attitudes towards another nation if it speaks the same language.
an original name   Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:42 am GMT
<<I know what is the "best" of a unilingual world -- better communication, less waste, equal opportunities.>>

better communication = true, but to what extent? Are communications really hindered that much today?

less waste = the monetary waste is hardly significant relatively. Imagine the costs of switching to English. An army of English teachers, an army of translators to translate everything into English. All official documents, all archived records, all books. Also, isn't it wasteful for people to learn English if they don't need it?

equal opportunities = false. English speakers are no more advanced in science than non-English speakers. Non-English speakers learn English easily in addition to learning other things.
Michael   Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:46 am GMT
Collins as in Michael Collins.
Damian in Dun Eidann   Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:18 am GMT
Personally I think it would be quite a sad day, to put it mildly, if and when the English Language becomes the one and only Language in the entire world at some time in the distant future. I can't see that ever happening - absolutely not - it's too bizarre to even think about it.

It could well be the case that English would be understood and spoken by most people on this planet in a truly global society of the future (and bit by bit society is getting more and more global is it not?) - but surely as a secondary measure it would be ideal, and hopefully necessary, to make concerted efforts to ensure that all other Languages survive such a situation.

As a native born English speaker I admit that it gives me a warm feeling inside me to think of my own Language becoming "supremely global" - THE lingua franca - but if that meant other Languages dying off, no matter which and no matter where in the world, then I would very much hope that English never, ever attains that status.

First and foremost I love my own country of Scotland, and second to that I love the United Kingdom to which it belongs. Thirdly, I am an ardent European and am enthusiastic about my own country being part of the European Union. One of the reasons for this is the great diversity of the European scene - it's varied cultures and, of course, it's varied Languages.

One of the joys of travelling across Europe is the experience of encountering all the different Languages in such a small area, comparative to the other Continents of the world. A journey from the north of Sweden down to the south of Greece, and then back again via Portugal and Spain, with a detour through the British Isles and then straight across to the countries of Eastern Europe before heading up to Finland and back to Sverige again, would take in a breathtaking number of Languages.

It would be great for me personally if everybody, absolutely everybody in all those countries, spoke word perfect English, but if it was at the expense of their own Languages suffering oblivion as a result, then it would not be worth it. In fact, it would be tragic.

But don't worry, guys - it just ain't gonna happen! Have a nice day!
Gues &#8470;897   Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:33 pm GMT
What do you mean by "word perfect" English?
Guest   Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:12 pm GMT
He means the kind of English used in the Corel product of that name.
Caspian   Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:59 pm GMT
Your views are so extreme, unless this is all a big joke, I pity you, if you really think that English should be the only language! It's only because you've enjoyed learning it, and you know it well. Of course, most people aren't gifted at languages, so one can't be expected to force them to speak English (Oh my God, I'm actually fighting from the left wing side!).

If you really believe that a unilingual society would be better, then I don't see what more there is to say to you - only that I'm sorry, and I hope you learn to appreciate diversity and culture one day, and to stop behaving in such a robotic and non-emotive manner - perhaps you've spent too much time with Piotr Wozniak!

<< I don't claim it would solve any big problems of humanity, so the world "Utopia" is not appropriate. It's just an obvious optimization, like the Euro currency in Europe (but of course much more important). >>

Or perhaps with your American English loving views, we should all turn to a nice, stable currency like the USD... (sarcastic tone).

<< I do have a faint hope it would help promote world peace. >>

Yes, I'm sure the whole world would love having their languages obliterated to make way for the all-powerful English. (Again, sarcastic tone).

I can't work out whether you're an extreme Fascist or an extreme Communist - but some argue that there is little difference...
Damian in Edinburgh   Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:13 pm GMT
***What do you mean by "word perfect" English?***

Alright then...f you don't like two words then one will do and the meaning is more clear.........fluent.

***He means the kind of English used in the Corel product of that name***

He means nothing of the sort.
Guest   Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:28 pm GMT
'force them to speak English '

Nobody is forcing English in Tom's world. It's a natural evolution and improvement. In his world. Not a revolution. In this world. I understand him (I think), he wants equal rights and opportunities for everyone. He's a fucking founding forefather of America. In his world.