NationStates Jolt Archive

Basically, if there was one worldwide language, what would you make it?

For me, I think English is good. It's already the, "business language" of the world.

American (North Eastern part) English.

English English

English English
I refuse to add an extra vowel to words like color.

I like the u. I may be American, but I type and write it as, "colour"

Heheh... People think I'm weird.

It would certainly be cool if we had one, and I think if one were to become real it would be English, but I'd rather have it be something cool, like German. Deutsch ist sehr wundebar!

I was actually leaning towards German, but it's only spoken in about 3 countries (mainly).

maybe volapyk?

I refuse to add an extra vowel to words like color.

i refuse to be forced to speak a english , the english cant even speak english

I refuse to add an extra vowel to words like color.

I refuse to omit it. Quit taking the u out of all our french words! In fact, lets change the spelling back to couleur.

i refuse to be forced to speak a english , the english cant even speak english
neither can you, evidently

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here!


This is the war room!

i refuse to be forced to speak a english , the english cant even speak english
True and people who come from another country who can speak English can speek better than actual English people

If we wait long enough, I'm sure some sort of world language will come about. Either american, chinese, japanese or combination thereof.
If on the other hand we can design a language to become the world language, I'd like something superior to those ad hoc languages. Perhaps lojban, or some other such artificial language (I like lojban because it's logical and also because it's not Esperanto)

True and people who come from another country who can speak English can speek better than actual English people

Or, more likely, believe their particular dialect of english to be better, since they have no idea what the language is actually supposed to sound like :p

Bah, we need to combine Mandarin and Cantonese into just plain Chinese, and then require everyone one to speak it. The populations of English speaking countries are dying off anyway.

[liberally sprinkles salt grains around for those who might need them]

I think everyone should have a right to their own language. But that's just me.

kus yopensa tiona prki!
yopenese should be the world language! it's very logical, and in my opinion extremely easy to learn. of course very few people speak it

Gibberish has always been good to me.

I think everyone should have a right to their own language. But that's just me.Naturally, but that doesn't preclude one common language.
There's nothing wrong with being bilingual, and you also tend to live longer and have better cognitive ability into old age (according to certain studies)

Naturally, but that doesn't preclude one common language.
There's nothing wrong with being bilingual, and you also tend to live longer and have better cognitive ability into old age (according to certain studies)

I can't imagine being bilingual, and longevity, are connected via anything other than coincidence.

English, at this point, might as well be the one. And leave the U in, it's classier.

But then again, I'm sure that this will turn out to be an issue for whoever's left standing after the next global conflict to decide.

I can't imagine being bilingual, and longevity, are connected via anything other than coincidence.It's not that hard to imagine. Most bilingual people live in the more develloped parts of the world. (Or some other such socio-economic variable might be involved).
The cognitive aspect has a better basis though. :P

Or, more likely, believe their particular dialect of english to be better, since they have no idea what the language is actually supposed to sound like :p

I don't think it matters one way or another... Language will change with the times and continue to do so. The only Languages which will die off will be French at least (they have laws to prevent changing of their language, which will eventually mean it will fall into disuse) Mandarin (same reason) well, thats all I can think about at the moment.. ;P

Either way, Languages will mingle and evolve as they should, and the only way to stop it would be to put up walls again. But English will likely prodominate for a long long time as the two most powerful nations on Earth and countless others use it primarily or secondarily.

It's not that hard to imagine. Most bilingual people live in the more develloped parts of the world. (Or some other such socio-economic variable might be involved).
The cognitive aspect has a better basis though. :P

Yeah... Right...

Canada and Europe, and... Well.. Most of Africa... And... Most of the Far Eastern Nations...

You know what... Besides the the US and England, everyone is pretty much Bilingual.. And The Dutch have 4 languages and smoke marijuana...

So.. I guess those two countries should "get with the times". Either become worldly and jiving, or become a stogey Imerialist Nation who bombs whomver they dislike.

It's not that hard to imagine. Most bilingual people live in the more develloped parts of the world.

No, then it is coincidence. Longevity isn't connected to bilingualism, but where you happen to live.

No, then it is coincidence. Longevity isn't connected to bilingualism, but where you happen to live.That depends on your definition of coincidence.
It is not a coincidence that bilinguism is more frequent in better develloped countries. Higher welfare and freedom promote both it and longevity. The correlation isn't due to chance, but due to common cause.

True and people who come from another country who can speak English can speek better than actual English people
It's the same as french students speak better french than french people. The reason, you need to think about it. Once it becomes second-nature, you start to make errors etc.

Me personally, english, simply because it is already the dominant language. But really, I don't even like the idea of one language all across the world, it's good to have variety, all we need is skilled translators.

You know what... Besides the the US and England, everyone is pretty much Bilingual.. And The Dutch have 4 languages and smoke marijuana... There may be four recognised language in the Netherlands, but three of those are regional. And most people know only Dutch and perhaps one of the regional ones.
Anyway, the bilingual-longevity claim is from an actual scientific article. Though you should always be sceptic of statistical finds. I was just offering a possible variable that might not have been accounted for. It's safe to say the correlation is above chance level, so there must be some reason for the link. Either in a direct cause, or a common cause.

That depends on your definition of coincidence.
It is not a coincidence that bilinguism is more frequent in better develloped countries. Higher welfare and freedom promote both it and longevity. The correlation isn't due to chance, but due to common cause.

Are you trying to suggest that bilingualism is a cause of longevity?

Because if it isn't, then the fact that bilingual people live longer is a coincidence. That's really all there is to it. Co-incidence. Two things occuring simultaneously, but without one being the cause of the other. Living longer doesn't cause you to be bilingual, and being bilingual doesn't cause you to live longer.

I don't believe it is proven that better developed countries tend towards bilingualism anyway.

Ebonics should be the world language. You opressive bigots never even considerd that. Did you?

Are you trying to suggest that bilingualism is a cause of longevity?

Because if it isn't, then the fact that bilingual people live longer is a coincidence. That's really all there is to it. Co-incidence. Two things occuring simultaneously, but without one being the cause of the other. Living longer doesn't cause you to be bilingual, and being bilingual doesn't cause you to live longer.If that is how you define coincidence, then yes, it's coincidence.
But it is not a 'by chance' sort of coincidence. (Which is what most people mean by coincidence)

I don't believe it is proven that better developed countries tend towards bilingualism anyway.Perhaps you're right.
But I do think it is more common there. Second languages tend to peter out in other countries, either because they're stamped out. Or just give up because socio-economic prospects are perceived to be decreased by it (which is a big reason in some countries why parents don't oass on their language).

I've made a language designed specifically for socialist needs called Teiiipiiiriitee. It has only 10 sounds and about 10 words in it. It uses a slew of prefixes and suffixes to build on those words.

The only Languages which will die off will be French at least (they have laws to prevent changing of their language, which will eventually mean it will fall into disuse)

No, the French have no such laws, since such laws would be ridiculous, and impossible to implement.

What the French do have are laws that mandate the use of French in official government publications, public education, and legal contracts. Advertisements must bear a translation of foreign words. Nothing more, nothing less.

I would be totally against that, but if I had to choose, I'd go with French. It's beautiful, it's alphabet is versatile, it has a small vocabulary, and it's already spoken in a lot of the world.

Oh, and of course it doesn't have the irregularities that I think make English completely impractical as a worldwide language. If you doubt this, look up the poem "Dearest Creature in Creation" on Google...

Igpay atlin oudshay ebay etha ourldway anguagela. Pig latin should be the world language.

The only Languages which will die off will be French at least (they have laws to prevent changing of their language, which will eventually mean it will fall into disuse)

You think just because official French doesn't change means it's not useful? The French already have words for every new invention, etc. that we have in English. We don't have to go outside of our language to name new inventions, do we? So why would the French?

well, out of convenience i would say English, but really i would like French or Spanish, both nice languages

English is crap. For one worldwide language, I'd suggest a conlang* that can fully and acuratly represent human thought.

*Constructed Language, like Esperanto.

Did you all know there are more people learning English in China than there are living in the USA in total?

I knew reading 'Mother Tongue' would come in handy one day.

Basically, if there was one worldwide language, what would you make it?

For me, I think English is good. It's already the, "business language" of the world.
English is so boring and grammatically inconsistant. I'd say, make everyone learn Cree. I mean, how hard is it to say, "Kinihiyawan cl? Ninohti - nihiyawan. Kaya akayasimo, ayiman!" (Do you speak Cree? I want to speak Cree. Don't speak English, it's difficult!") Throw in lots of glottal stops and back of the throat noises and you'll have it! Plus, you get to learn a different alphabet (syllabics, not used here) that was only invented a couple of decades ago, so no one can lord their own alphabet over any other.

Cree rocks!

Possible choices are English becuase of its wide spread international use already and large numbers of people that speak it. Other logical coices would be French and maybe Mandarin (Chinese). But nobody could ever get the eintre world to agree on one language.

A better solution would be to divide the world up into regional languages. Maybe English for Europe, Australia, Africa, India and North America; Spanish for Latin America; Chinese for the Far East, and Arabic for the Middle East. Four world languages for four regions.

I vote Spanglish. Because "Spanglish" is just fun to say. Come on, don't be shy. Say it out loud! Its FUN! :D

Basically, if there was one worldwide language, what would you make it?

For me, I think English is good. It's already the, "business language" of the world.English has to be the most pointless language ever. It's not the "business language" and if it was then businesses would have no use for translators because everyone would waste their time learning our language.

If the English speaking countries keep up economic domination, it will probably end up being English. Not that English is in any way inherently superior, it's just that it's probably more spoken as a second language than any other. So it seems as the easiest jump to make. Especially since Americans rarely seem to learn additional languages.

The linguisitic similarity between so many of the western languages throughout history - from Russian to Greek to Latin to English to Hebrew to Hindi/Indian - implies that many of the peoples now populating Europe, Asia Minor and portions of Southeast Asia can all trace their linguistic, social and anthropological roots to the Indo-European area.

So.. maybe we all once spoke the same language, a long, long time ago? Problem with language is it's always changing. Even if we all suddenly started speaking Babel again, we'd all develop our own slang, our own terms, our own ways of dealing with certain situations... and given a few centuries, we'd be speaking completely different languages again. Such is the nature of the spoken word.

I like spanglish

The linguisitic similarity between so many of the western languages throughout history - from Russian to Greek to Latin to English to Hebrew to Hindi/Indian - implies that many of the peoples now populating Europe, Asia Minor and portions of Southeast Asia can all trace their linguistic, social and anthropological roots to the Indo-European area.

So.. maybe we all once spoke the same language, a long, long time ago? Problem with language is it's always changing. Even if we all suddenly started speaking Babel again, we'd all develop our own slang, our own terms, our own ways of dealing with certain situations... and given a few centuries, we'd be speaking completely different languages again. Such is the nature of the spoken word.

But, if one language would be imposed on the world, it would probably be regulated. Kinda like French is in France. Then it would stay somewhat consistent.

The linguisitic similarity between so many of the western languages throughout history - from Russian to Greek to Latin to English to Hebrew to Hindi/Indian - implies that many of the peoples now populating Europe, Asia Minor and portions of Southeast Asia can all trace their linguistic, social and anthropological roots to the Indo-European area.

So.. maybe we all once spoke the same language, a long, long time ago? Problem with language is it's always changing. Even if we all suddenly started speaking Babel again, we'd all develop our own slang, our own terms, our own ways of dealing with certain situations... and given a few centuries, we'd be speaking completely different languages again. Such is the nature of the spoken word.

From what I can remember, most of the Scandinavian and Germanic languages developed from the Celtic areas around eastern Europe. France, Spain, Italy, and some others, took the development of their languages from Latin, and IIRC are part of the Romance language group.

English is a conglomeration of languages, and this is why we have so many redundant words, like having two words for the same thing. It also leaves us with one of the most descriptive languages in the world. For example, only English speakers can distinguish between house and home.

From what I can remember, most of the Scandinavian and Germanic languages developed from the Celtic areas around eastern Europe. France, Spain, Italy, and some others, took the development of their languages from Latin, and IIRC are part of the Romance language group.

English is a conglomeration of languages, and this is why we have so many redundant words, like having two words for the same thing. It also leaves us with one of the most descriptive languages in the world. For example, only English speakers can distinguish between house and home.

Takumese can.... :D :p

Esperanto rocks. Lernu Esperanto. I hear it takes like 3 months to get it down.

Basically, if there was one worldwide language, what would you make it?

For me, I think English is good. It's already the, "business language" of the world.

I'd have to make it a language in which each word only corresponded to one definition, and vice versa.

It's too great of an opportunity to pass up.

Naturally, but that doesn't preclude one common language.
There's nothing wrong with being bilingual, and you also tend to live longer and have better cognitive ability into old age (according to certain studies)
According to certain studies drinking your own piss can be a substitute for water.

the idea of a universal language has already been thoguht up
i think the language is called maxim
well something with a M i think

No! I like having lots of languages! I'm all for individuality!

Latin is Indo-European in origin, and since English is a conglomeration of Old English, Latin and French, that makes English a descendant of "Indo-European" as well. Since Latin was Indo-European in origin, that makes all the Romance Languages connected to Indo-European as well.

And I don't think language can be regulated like the French do it and still be effective. A regulated language can't keep up with technology, slang and new ideas without sounding ridiculous; French, in this regard, does indeed seem a bit ridiculous. I like English's flexibility.

Either become worldly and jiving, or become a stogey Imerialist Nation who bombs whomver they dislike.

How do you think English got so widespread in the first place?

English speakers settled in empty bits and conquered other bits, introducing English schools as they did so.

Imperialism rulez :-)

According to certain studies drinking your own piss can be a substitute for water.

Which studies would these be?

Latin is Indo-European in origin, and since English is a conglomeration of Old English, Latin and French, that makes English a descendant of "Indo-European" as well. Since Latin was Indo-European in origin, that makes all the Romance Languages connected to Indo-European as well.

English is a germanic language, and since the germanic languages are indo-european in origin, that makes english indo-european anyway, regardless of whether it was stained with latin or not.

Having a common language would kill all cultures.

I am against it.

But having a buiseness language is normal... actually it's English, but from the 1000 to 1800 it was French (or its predecessors). And in 50 years from now, it's going to be Chinese for sure

But having a buiseness language is normal... actually it's English, but from the 1000 to 1800 it was French (or its predecessors). And in 50 years from now, it's going to be Chinese for sure

Chinese is insignificant. It might be spoken by more people, but it's only spoken in one country, and native english speakers are never going to bother to learn it.

Latin is Indo-European in origin, and since English is a conglomeration of Old English, Latin and French, that makes English a descendant of "Indo-European" as well. Since Latin was Indo-European in origin, that makes all the Romance Languages connected to Indo-European as well.

And I don't think language can be regulated like the French do it and still be effective. A regulated language can't keep up with technology, slang and new ideas without sounding ridiculous; French, in this regard, does indeed seem a bit ridiculous. I like English's flexibility.

Hum... wrong !

French has kept up with technology. In fact, it's the one and only language whose word for "computer" is not derived from English.

Chinese is insignificant. It might be spoken by more people, but it's only spoken in one country, and native english speakers are never going to bother to learn it.

Of all times, the most spoken language was the one of the first economic power.

And in fifty years from now, everyone will learn Chinese wether it's difficult or not, wether you like it or not.

English English

I say comprimise between English and American English and speak Canadian English. It's a mix between the two. Except for the spelling, which is all English.

Most people would just vote for the language they already speak, for obvious reasons. English is kind of crappy though. Inconsistencies all over the place, and loads of rules. All of which have exceptions.

Of all times, the most spoken language was the one of the first economic power.

And in fifty years from now, everyone will learn Chinese wether it's difficult or not, wether you like it or not.

Unlikely. I think by now English is too well established. It's the first language of a large number of economically powerful countries. And I don't think there's any particular guarantee that china will become the primary economic power in the world, and certainly not to a sufficient extent to mandate the learning of chinese to an already largely anglophonic world.

Also, their written language is completely impractical.

[QUOTE=Monkeypimp]Most people would just vote for the language they already speak, for obvious reasons.QUOTE]

You're absolutely right. Because language is a major part in cultural identity... no one would accept to change their idioms for futile reasons (when compared to identity) such as market efficiency

Unlikely. I think by now English is too well established. It's the first language of a large number of economically powerful countries. And I don't think there's any particular guarantee that china will become the primary economic power in the world, and certainly not to a sufficient extent to mandate the learning of chinese to an already largely anglophonic world.

Also, their written language is completely impractical.


Short term view, that is.

Most of your arguments could have been said by a franch merchant in the 1500's... English wasn't taught except in England at that time...

In an ideal world, I think Greek would be the best language for everyone to speak. The vocabulary is huge, it has words what some would consider indescriable, and a hundred years ago, every serious student knew it for academic reasons. It's not that hard to learn either. I know it would never happen in this world, but it's a nice thought.

And what is your "largely anglophonic world" ? Don't make me laugh... More people speak Chinese as their first languge than English... concentrated in one region, sure, but capitalism means that those who have money rule, and in 30 years from now, China will be twice as powerful as the good ole US of A.

Best language is French, because it's romantic. Spanish sounds too much like a parrot, german too guterial, slavics have a wierd alphabet, arabic too rhythmic and subtle, the asian languages...well chinese may be cool...but japanese has warped grammar rules.

But english is the best language of all...a cross between french and english would be great. A cross between german and french created english in the first place.

Best language is French, because it's romantic. Spanish sounds too much like a parrot, german too guterial, slavics have a wierd alphabet, arabic too rhythmic and subtle, the asian languages...well chinese may be cool...but japanese has warped grammar rules.

But english is the best language of all...a cross between french and english would be great. A cross between german and french created english in the first place.

If beauty were a factor, I would suggest French or Portuguese.
If precision were a factor, I would suggest French, German or Chinese.
If efficiency were a factor, I would suggest Esperanto or English.

But since none of all factors justifies cultural annihilation, I suggest that we keep things as they are.... and that we let evolution do its work

Chinese is insignificant. It might be spoken by more people, but it's only spoken in one country, and native english speakers are never going to bother to learn it.

Actually, Chinese is an official language in three countries: The People's Republic of China, Taiwan and Singapore, not to mention the fact that some dialect is spoken by millions of overseas Chinese.

And I'm a native English speaker who is learning it because I know the value that knowing Chinese will have. Even if they don't become the biggest economy (it's unlikely, really), they will still likely end up being the biggest trading partner with all of the economies that matter (European Union, India, United States, Japan, etc).

I should mention that having a global lingua-franca shouldn't mean wiping out other languages. Language is a critical element of cultural identity. Take that away and you run the risk of wiping out the culture altogether. There should be a common language for international business and diplomacy, but other than that, nations should keep their own languages and regional dialects.

Firstly, let's clear some things up. "Indo-European" is a very large group that includes Hindi, Russian, Latin-based languages and Germanic languages like English. French, Spanish and Italian are latin-based languages. English is a germanic language, but got (a lot of) additional words from Old French, and Latin (among others).

The most likely language to take over the world is English, judging by how far it's spread (not how many speakers it has), and how influential its countries are. Personally, I think BBC English sounds best, much better than other dialects, but American is more likely to become a lingua franca. I don't think French sounds particularly beautiful. Esperanto sounds bad, and has a few issues (see http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/).

I like the u. I may be American, but I type and write it as, "colour"

Heheh... People think I'm weird.

And any theater worth its salt spells it "theatre."

English is a conglomeration of languages, and this is why we have so many redundant words, like having two words for the same thing. It also leaves us with one of the most descriptive languages in the world. For example, only English speakers can distinguish between house and home.

Bullshit. Maybe you heard that in one language, that distinction is not made. For an Indo-European example, Swedish hemma / hus. For a Fenno-Ugric example, Finnish koti / talo. I'm sure that there are other languages that do make this distinction, but I can't speak them.

French has kept up with technology. In fact, it's the one and only language whose word for "computer" is not derived from English.

Bullshit. Swedish "dator" (which, however, is from Latin), and Finnish "tietokone" (which is native). Again, I'm sure that these aren't the only ones.

English is a simple "blunt instrument" as a language. For example, it has (deliberately?) lost useful grammar. One example are captitive verbs: you can "fish", but you can't "fox", at least not in Britain. Another one is the frequentative: you can "chatter" vs. "chat", but you can't "arranger" vs. "arrange". Also, Old English had a case system, which is only retained in pronouns, like who -> whom and I -> me. Likewise, English can't do perfective sentences except within a restricted set of verbs (drink up, for example).

English is useful as an international business language. Otherwise, it isn't fit for a world language. No language is. I think that in the future, the development will be the exact other way around: more languages will form. Because people know English, and some other international languages, there will be less pressures towards learning some "common dialect". It's already happened between Finnish and Estonian. These languages have a common origin, but today, we usually speak English with each other, if neither knows the other's language. The very small minority languages are better off than before, thanks to the Internet and similar technologies. For example, the Inari Sami language, spoken only by around 400 people in Inari, Finland isn't dying out - just recently, a rapper started rapping in Inari Sami. Distribution has been thru Internet. (Amoc at mikseri.net)

IMHO Midwestern English is the most perfect language ever devised.

English is better than Chinese because the Chinese writing system is extremely inconvenient, especially in scientific notations.

english rocks.

chatter and chat mean the same. We don't need two words for *everything*.

and even if some guy posting above makes ridiculous claims for english, there are still more words in it than any other language. and they all rock.

IMHO Midwestern English is the most perfect language ever devised.

English is better than Chinese because the Chinese writing system is extremely inconvenient, especially in scientific notations.

english is better than chinese because the chinese talking system is extremely inconvenient. only 400 syllables? multiplied by 4 tones? tones? what's that all about?

in the early 20th century, there was a not insignificant movement in china to ban chinese in favour of english.

Proper English is already a global language so to speak..

And any theater worth its salt spells it "theatre."US 'theaters' are UK 'cinemas', anyway... :)

US 'theaters' are UK 'cinemas', anyway... :)

what do they call theatres then?

what do they call theatres then?
I think a cinema is for films and a theatre is for plays.

I think a cinema is for films and a theatre is for plays.

yeah in the UK it is. I mean in America, a theater is a cinema, what's a theatre?

French[...]'s the one and only language whose word for "computer" is not derived from English.
Bullshit. Swedish "dator" (which, however, is from Latin), and Finnish "tietokone" (which is native). Again, I'm sure that these aren't the only ones.I quite like their non-English neologism for 'mail'. [Edit: darned invisible typos, I meant 'email'] 'Courielle', I think it is. Might actually be a French Canadian (i.e. Quebec) invention, but I like the sound of it.

(I got a low grade for French in school, unfortunately...)

English is a simple "blunt instrument" as a language. For example, it has (deliberately?) lost useful grammar. One example are captitive verbs: you can "fish", but you can't "fox"[...]Well, you can 'fox', but it usually applies to books or stupid people rather than to foxes, per se :)



Tongue-in-cheek (or even harder-to-reach places) language suggestions I would like to put forward are (in no particular order)... Welsh Klingon !hosa/Xhosa Perl

english is better than chinese because the chinese talking system is extremely inconvenient. only 400 syllables? multiplied by 4 tones? tones? what's that all about?

in the early 20th century, there was a not insignificant movement in china to ban chinese in favour of english.
Spoken Chinese is pretty simple, and even though the four tones thing may prove difficult to someone who grew up speaking a flat tone language like English, Chinese actually has less syllables than English. The main problem with Chinese is that the writing is unwieldy.

english rocks.

chatter and chat mean the same. We don't need two words for *everything*.

and even if some guy posting above makes ridiculous claims for english, there are still more words in it than any other language. and they all rock.

The problem is that you can't differentiate between the two, and thus as an English speaker, can say less than someone who can. This means that English is less expressive. I can't say you need the frequentative, because it's your language, but I can't praise that choice either. How about another frequentative: crack, crackle? Do these mean the same?

A lot of words is not a good thing. It's quite the opposite, because it's a symptom of an oversimplified, inexpressive grammar. In English, you'll have to either invent "buzzwords", explain a lot or make up RSA's (Really Stupid Acronyms). This is perfect for business types and scientific texts, but not for any other use.

yeah in the UK it is. I mean in America, a theater is a cinema, what's a theatre?
A theater in the US can mean both film house or play house.

One example are captitive verbs: you can "fish", but you can't "fox", at least not in Britain.

you can turn any noun into a verb and people will understand you from the context, and if it works, they'll use the word.

eg the verb for "to put something in a bin" is "to bin"
lots of people will say "i am training" when they mean "i am going on the train"

The problem is that you can't differentiate between the two, and thus as an English speaker, can say less than someone who can. This means that English is less expressive. I can't say you need the frequentative, because it's your language, but I can't praise that choice either. How about another frequentative: crack, crackle? Do these mean the same?


crack and crackle don't mean the same at all, but they are examples of frequentatives, so why are you giving me examples of frequentatives to say that there are no frequentatives?


A lot of words is not a good thing. It's quite the opposite, because it's a symptom of an oversimplified, inexpressive grammar. In English, you'll have to either invent "buzzwords", explain a lot or make up RSA's (Really Stupid Acronyms). This is perfect for business types and scientific texts, but not for any other use.

No, our richness of vocabulary is a symptom of a richness of culture. We have lots of words not because grammarians, scientists and marketeers made them up, but because we have adopted words from many cultures. For instance "shriek" and "screech" are very similar in meaning, but not exactly similar. They both come from Norse, but the softer "shriek" comes via Norman French rather than directly from Scandinavia. In the 17th century, different regions of england, never mind scotland, wales and ireland, spoke very different dialects of english, and much of the words from all of them have been preserved.

We can therefore split hairs using vocabulary. We also have an easily adapted language, which is why nonsense poetry is so popular in English. and why we don't need rules for frequentating verbs.

We have a very simple grammar, that is easy to learn the basics of.

Basically, if there was one worldwide language, what would you make it?

For me, I think English is good. It's already the, "business language" of the world.

I am still very much in favour of everybody learning the same second language. I'd prefer this to be an artificial one - easy to learn, and not spoken natively anywhere. That way you do not get people complaining their culture is being 'Americanised', noone has an advantage over others, and hard-to-learn grammatical oddities developed over centuries are avoided.

Too bad that in reality Esperanto already exists and no one ever bothers to learn it.

you can turn any noun into a verb and people will understand you from the context, and if it works, they'll use the word.

eg the verb for "to put something in a bin" is "to bin"
lots of people will say "i am training" when they mean "i am going on the train"

There is only one method of doing this in English, namely verbing. There could be several.

English, for example, does have inchoative verbs: ripe, ripen - red, redden, and so on. This set is limited to these few words, that is, you don't say "orderen", but explain and explain: "come to order".

The problem is that you can't differentiate between the two, and thus as an English speaker, can say less than someone who can. This means that English is less expressive. I can't say you need the frequentative, because it's your language, but I can't praise that choice either. How about another frequentative: crack, crackle? Do these mean the same?
Actually we can differentiate between meanings. Most English words have extremely nuanced and specific meanings which make the language highly descriptive. "Chatter" carries a slightly negative connotation... "chattering" is generally annoying. Chatting is more pleasant. Also near-synonymous words like "odor", "smell," and "fragrance" all refer to things that arouse one's nose but each word has its own important distinctions and implied meanings which make one word applicable in situations in which the other two words are inappropriate. There is a lot of useful diversity and a huge gradient of nuance in English's enormous and rich vocabulary. A "crack" is a single loud noise while "crackle" generally means a series of short and sharp noises.

A lot of words is not a good thing. It's quite the opposite, because it's a symptom of an oversimplified, inexpressive grammar. In English, you'll have to either invent "buzzwords", explain a lot or make up RSA's (Really Stupid Acronyms). This is perfect for business types and scientific texts, but not for any other use.
There is nothing wrong with buzzwords. They are just new words for newly invented concepts. English has a lot of words but our grammar is as highly expressive and qualified as other languages. Also we English speakers do not use acronyms in normal speech and writing (except for lazy AIM users who use LOL and the such)... most stupid acronyms are coined in jest.

There is only one method of doing this in English, namely verbing. There could be several.

English, for example, does have inchoative verbs: ripe, ripen - red, redden, and so on. This set is limited to these few words, that is, you don't say "orderen", but explain and explain: "come to order".

And this is bad?
Actually you are misusing the rule.
"Ripe" and "Red" are adjectives.
"Order" is a noun
"Explain" is a verb.

So we can add "en" to the end of adjectives, or to the beginning, or to both, to make inchoative verbs. But we don't add it to nouns or verbs. How can you make a verb into a verb?

crack and crackle don't mean the same at all, but they are examples of frequentatives, so why are you giving me examples of frequentatives to say that there are no frequentatives?

Because it's not productive. You can't "arranger" or "arrangle", and "arrange around" sounds just weird. "Play around", on the other hand, cannot be derived from "arrange".

No, our richness of vocabulary is a symptom of a richness of culture. We have lots of words not because grammarians, scientists and marketeers made them up, but because we have adopted words from many cultures.

Why would you adopt words from other cultures? The reason is simple: English cannot generate them. This produces a large vocabulary, which is nonideal for a true world language. The way English works is workable, but it's also the reason why it cannot be effective in some tasks.

We can therefore split hairs using vocabulary. We also have an easily adapted language, which is why nonsense poetry is so popular in English.

Not really. I remember this Mythbusters with "this bullet needs more stay-in-there-dness". The stayintheredness could be a proper word, should English allow it.

We have a very simple grammar, that is easy to learn the basics of.

And the point is, that that's the reason why English can't be an actual world language, but it can be an international business language.

There is only one method of doing this in English, namely verbing. There could be several.

English, for example, does have inchoative verbs: ripe, ripen - red, redden, and so on. This set is limited to these few words, that is, you don't say "orderen", but explain and explain: "come to order".
That just means English grammar is highly irregular. That doesn't mean people have a harder time communicating using English.

Basically, if there was one worldwide language, what would you make it?

For me, I think English is good. It's already the, "business language" of the world.
from a practical standpoint, English is probably the one to go with, since (like it or not) it's already gained such a hold in business, science, and international relations. no other single language is used in such a wide array of situations right now, so it would be "easier" to convert everything to English.

that said, i don't particularly like the English language. i like the way Japanese works because the grammar is simpler and spelling is phoentic. i like Spanish, too, if only for the rolled "rrrr" sounds. Dutch makes me smile every time i hear it. Italian sounds badass and classy at the same time. there are so many languages that are more fun than English, in my opinion, though English does have the dubious honor of being the most "muttish" language there is. i would absolutely HATE to live in a world where only English was spoken, even though it is my first language.

Actually we can differentiate between meanings.
Well, I meant the singular you, not plural you, which is what English can't distinguish =P

Also near-synonymous words like "odor", "smell," and "fragrance" all refer to things that arouse one's nose but each word has its own important distinctions and implied meanings which make one word applicable in situations in which the other two words are inappropriate.
Every language does this. The idea that English is the only one is chauvinistic. Let me guess: you know only English, or took some Spanish in high school?

A "crack" is a single loud noise while "crackle" generally means a series of short and sharp noises.
A run is a single spurt - what is a series of short spurts?

Thesis: English can't produce new frequentatives.

There is nothing wrong with buzzwords. They are just new words for newly invented concepts.

This makes English ideal for a computer development language. When it's actually the rule to pick something that just sounds cool, the language can produce short, in itself meaningless, but useful words. Swapping. Mouse. Bus. Code Morphing.

Esperanto rocks. Lernu Esperanto. I hear it takes like 3 months to get it down.
I agree. Esperanto would be perfect for several reasons.
1. It's noone's native language, so noone can say that MY native language is the most important.
2. It's very simple. And no exceptions.
3. It's written as it's pronounced.

Because it's not productive. You can't "arranger" or "arrangle", and "arrange around" sounds just weird. "Play around", on the other hand, cannot be derived from "arrange".
English grammar is irregular but people understand it perfectly well. After all the small island nation was able to use their language to coordinate the conquest of 1/4 of the world. Productive enough, I'd say.

Why would you adopt words from other cultures? The reason is simple: English cannot generate them.
Wrong. Anyone can generate words just by putting random syllables together. English does not have an official organization which spontaneously generates words like the French do in order to guard against foreign influence. If we wanted to we can appoint an English Academy who makes up arbitrary new sounds. But English is not regulated. There is nothing wrong with borrowing foreign words, and all languages have borrowed heavily from each other. There is no advantage or disadvantage to borrowing foreign words as opposed to making a committee and generating "native-sounding" words.

This produces a large vocabulary, which is nonideal for a true world language. The way English works is workable, but it's also the reason why it cannot be effective in some tasks.
The whole world language thing is stupid anyways. People should preserve their local cultures and speak their local languages. A world business and scientific language is necessary but there probably never will be a time when every single human being speaks the same mother tongue.

Because it's not productive. You can't "arranger" or "arrangle", and "arrange around" sounds just weird. "Play around", on the other hand, cannot be derived from "arrange".

You can arrangle if you want. Please explain to me what you are trying to say, and I'll tell you how to say it. There's a chance that as a native speaker, I might know words that you don't know. "Play around" and "arrange" aren't at all similar in meaning so why would you be able to derive one from the other?

"Play around" has a few meanings, one of which is "to experiment", and while it is possible to play around with the way things are arranged, it is also possible to play around with lots of other aspects of the things.

So "Play around with the cushions" can mean "play around with the way the cushions are arranged" and it can also mean "have simulated sex with the cushions" and it can also mean "balance the cushions on your head". You are simply incorrect in your assessment of the meaning of the words.

As it goes, the frequentative of "arrange" is "arrange".


Why would you adopt words from other cultures? The reason is simple: English cannot generate them. This produces a large vocabulary, which is nonideal for a true world language. The way English works is workable, but it's also the reason why it cannot be effective in some tasks.


No, the reason is we don't want to generate them. For example we adopted the word "pyjamas" from hindi because we didn't have a word for a very thin, unlined jacket and trousers suitable for wearing in very hot weather because we didn't have such a garment because we didn't have the weather to necessitate such a garment.

English could choose the German route and call them thinunlinedtrousersandjacketforhotweather but why use 41 letters where 7 will do? And also we'd have to change the name when we discovered that although they aren't suitable for wearing outdoors in the UK, they're excellent for wearing in bed.


Not really. I remember this Mythbusters with "this bullet needs more stay-in-there-dness". The stayintheredness could be a proper word, should English allow it.

It does allow it. We all understand the words. How does english not allow it?



And the point is, that that's the reason why English can't be an actual world language, but it can be an international business language.

English *is* the actual world language. You and me aren't doing business, but we are using english.

A run is a single spurt - what is a series of short spurts?


Is it? in what context?


Thesis: English can't produce new frequentatives.

This makes English ideal for a computer development language. When it's actually the rule to pick something that just sounds cool, the language can produce short, in itself meaningless, but useful words. Swapping. Mouse. Bus. Code Morphing.


So english is both unable to coin new words, and also very good at coining new words? what a flexible language it must be.

English grammar is irregular but people understand it perfectly well. After all the small island nation was able to use their language to coordinate the conquest of 1/4 of the world. Productive enough, I'd say.

The question about a "world language" is an intellectual question, I think. And that's why I bring up the irregularity. Of course, in reality, it's all different. English is becoming the *inter*national language, but I think no new English-speaking *nations* are founded.

Anyone can generate words just by putting random syllables together.
The question is, that is there a system for this? English doesn't have one. Many synthetic languages do.

There is nothing wrong with borrowing foreign words, and all languages have borrowed heavily from each other. There is no advantage or disadvantage to borrowing foreign words as opposed to making a committee and generating "native-sounding" words.

The question isn't "should" English, but *can* English generate native words. Because it can't, it can't be accepted as is as a world language.

The whole world language thing is stupid anyways. People should preserve their local cultures and speak their local languages. A world business and scientific language is necessary but there probably never will be a time when every single human being speaks the same mother tongue.

I agree. The idea of a single language is something really Communist.

Well, I meant the singular you, not plural you, which is what English can't distinguish =P
And I answer "we" on behalf of all of us - English speakers - who can communicate perfectly well even though you are trying to make English speakers look like apes.

Every language does this. The idea that English is the only one is chauvinistic. Let me guess: you know only English, or took some Spanish in high school?
I never said English is the only language with nuanced words. However you were suggesting that English is the only language without nuance when you said "the problem is that you can't differentiate between the two, and thus as an English speaker, can say less than someone who can." English speakers know perfectly well what each other is talking about when they use specific words and not others. In high school I studied French and Latin (I can read French but I suck at Latin). I also know Mandarin in addition to English.


A run is a single spurt - what is a series of short spurts?
A run is a long flow. A spurt is a short flow.

Thesis: English can't produce new frequentatives.
So? Neither can Chinese, and China is doing just fine. The purpose of a language isn't to be as hyper-inflected as possible. The purpose of a language is to be understood, and English can express science, emotion, logic, ideas as well as any modern day language.

This makes English ideal for a computer development language. When it's actually the rule to pick something that just sounds cool, the language can produce short, in itself meaningless, but useful words. Swapping. Mouse. Bus. Code Morphing.
In language, "useful" is "meaningful." The only purpose of language is to give coherent meanings to utterances.

As it goes, the frequentative of "arrange" is "arrange".
No, the reason is we don't want to generate them.

Yep, that's my point. That's why, on intellectual terms alone, English, as spoken today is unsuitable for a language spoken as "native" by all the world's people. Do we agree?

English could choose the German route and call them thinunlinedtrousersandjacketforhotweather but why use 41 letters where 7 will do? And also we'd have to change the name when we discovered that although they aren't suitable for wearing outdoors in the UK, they're excellent for wearing in bed.
How about "nightsuit"? That's the Finnish term. Isn't too long or anything ("yöpuku").

It does allow it. We all understand the words. How does english not allow it?
Because when Hyneman said that, Savage laughed at him and said it's not a word. Try to write the word in a scientific paper.

English *is* the actual world language. You and me aren't doing business, but we are using english.
No, this is *inter*-national communication. Not intranational, where I'd use Finnish.

Basically, if there was one worldwide language, what would you make it?
For me, I think English is good. It's already the, "business language" of the world.

It wouldnt work, it would change over time. Look at the differences just between British, American, Australian and Canadian English. They have different accents, expressions, spelling etc. and the language has only been separated for a few hundred years.

Though I do admit it would be nice if everyone spoke English. :)

*Having a common language would kill all cultures.

I am against it.

But having a buiseness language is normal... actually it's English, but from the 1000 to 1800 it was French (or its predecessors). And in 50 years from now, it's going to be Chinese for sure

*True, If english was a common language then that woud mean we will always have english food and it will get boring.ect..

Yep, that's my point. That's why, on intellectual terms alone, English, as spoken today is unsuitable for a language spoken as "native" by all the world's people. Do we agree?
I don't agree with your definition of "suitable." You seem to value grammatical regularity above all else. That is not the point of language. The point of language is to allow people to communicate and understand each other. The point of language is not to quibble over "frequentatives" and other unnecessary grammatical disputes. There wouldn't be any difference between using English or French or whatever, as long as the speakers understands each other. English is as suitable as Finnish, Arabic, or Esperanto for a "native" language.

And I answer "we" on behalf of all of us - English speakers - who can communicate perfectly well even though you are trying to make English speakers look like apes.
It's not that I'd be criticizing English, English speakers, or any other aspect of them, but the simple idea that "English is/can be /should be the world language".

I never said English is the only language with nuanced words.
Good, so we don't have a disagreement.

However you were suggesting that English is the only language without nuance when you said "the problem is that you can't differentiate between the two, and thus as an English speaker, can say less than someone who can."
If it can be understood as such, I'm sorry. Never meant that.

So? Neither can Chinese, and China is doing just fine. The purpose of a language isn't to be as hyper-inflected as possible. The purpose of a language is to be understood, and English can express science, emotion, logic, ideas as well as any modern day language.

English is highly expressive in some specific areas. My point is, that this doesn't mean it's as expressive everywhere, and as such, isn't "everyone's new mothertongue" material.

It wouldnt work, it would change over time. Look at the differences just between British, American, Australian and Canadian English. They have different accents, expressions, spelling etc. and the language has only been separated for a few hundred years.

Though I do admit it would be nice if everyone spoke English. :)

Just because English has many different expressions, accents doesn't mean that the language isn't understood by people from those countries. Given the rate at which internet, IM, phone communication is bringing the neighborhood even closer it seems to be only a matter of time before one language becomes dominant. Think about how diffucult it would be to fly on international flights if the pilots spoke one language and the airport control spoke a different language. So in a sense we already have one language in the areas where we have to have it. It is only a matter of time before it becomes universal. One could still keep the native tongue and learn the universal language in school.

So english is both unable to coin new words, and also very good at coining new words? what a flexible language it must be.

English can coin words with a mechanism ("making up words") that is good for areas like computer science and business. To be a genuine "world language", it should coin systematically. This has been one aspect of my point, that English is not synthetic enough to be a true *world* language, even if it can be an *international* langauge.

Yep, that's my point. That's why, on intellectual terms alone, English, as spoken today is unsuitable for a language spoken as "native" by all the world's people. Do we agree?

no. if you can't use it properly, learn dam you!
(j/k)


How about "nightsuit"? That's the Finnish term. Isn't too long or anything ("yöpuku").

the finnish is *Nightsuit* implying that it is worn at night. I don't know the etymology of "yöpuku" but the english "pyjamas" would be made less useful if it was "nightsuit" because "pyjamas" doesn't just mean clothes that you wear at night. It means a very very light suit that you might wear at night or you might wear on a very hot day. It comes from a hindi word for clothes that they wear in the day. British people encountered them as daywear, not nightwear, so calling them a "nightsuit" would be ridiculous.

What's the finnish for the very light suit that northern indian people wear all day? The hindi is "pajama" or "kurta-pajama". In english we call it "pyjamas". If you call it "yöpuku" you're calling it a nightsuit, which it isn't. If you call it "pajama" you have both adopted and invented words for basically the same thing.

Of course it is always possible that Finland being so damn cold, Finns invented the nightsuit, whereas brits did not.

I don't agree with your definition of "suitable." You seem to value grammatical regularity above all else. That is not the point of language. The point of language is to allow people to communicate and understand each other. The point of language is not to quibble over "frequentatives" and other unnecessary grammatical disputes. There wouldn't be any difference between using English or French or whatever, as long as the speakers understands each other. English is as suitable as Finnish, Arabic, or Esperanto for a "native" language.

Certainly English is suitable to be a native language. The problem is, that in order to become a language like the Esperantists dream of (the only language of the world), it has to be actively accepted by peoples speaking their own languages. To do this, it has to be inheritly *better* than the next language. English is inheritly *better* in some specific areas, but it isn't that in all areas. This is why it can't become a true world language. We both think it shouldn't: that would mean it'd replace the other cultures along with their languages.

How about we go back to the original - SANSKRIT. Not only was it the first (written) language, but linguists today still refer to it as the most logical language ever used. And it's similar, in some capacity, to all the Euro/Aryan/Indian languages which the majority of the world speaks today, in addition to some filtering into the Semetic tongues and others due to it's incredible history.

I remember reading of one (now)-conscientious objecter, a marine who finally realized he was playing the psychopathic goon when after "lighting up" an errant vehicle at a checkpoint in Iraq, heard from the bloodied (and still buckled-in) survivor of the wreckage - "Why did you kill my brother? We didn't do anything!". It was those words in English, the goony marine's own language, that made him finally realize "My god, these are people after all!". That's the power of a shared tongue, at least to those who aren't already thinking-feeling human beings.

Additionally, usage of sanskrit might cause Western philosophers to finally study Indian philsophy in its entirety, instead of stealing an idea or two every few hundred years and still being wrong about everything else :headbang: Though they'd even do well to hear out the great Western mystics...

no. if you can't use it properly, learn dam you!
(j/k)
At some point, you realize you'll have to resort to ridiculously long explanations.

What's the finnish for the very light suit that northern indian people wear all day?
Kurta. The apple won't fall very far from the appletree...

Gee, how pointless is this thread? English is the language of the vast majority of all international business corporations when interacting with people of different nationalities and languages, it is the international language of science, it is the language spoken at international forums such as this one.

The most important point is the last one; Everyone here uses English to communicate no matter where they come from. This is like asking in a Bible discussion group: "Which faith is the best? Christianity or Islam?"

Ban verbal language and have everybody learn how to sign! Would make the world quieter at least.

Gee, how pointless is this thread? English is the language of the vast majority of all international business corporations when interacting with people of different nationalities and languages, it is the international language of science, it is the language spoken at international forums such as this one.

The most important point is the last one; Everyone here uses English to communicate no matter where they come from. This is like asking in a Bible discussion group: "Which faith is the best? Christianity or Islam?"

Thats funny, every meeting Ive had with foreign investors was conducted with the use of translators. Science journals are published in all major languages, and the UN has a complex system of translators so that speakers can choose whatever language they want to use.

Your last point, however, I fully agree with. Its not a very good question to ask in an English language forum.

I think that every country can have their own language however everyone should be taught one common language...though it is debatable, as of now the most common language around the world is English....

Short term view, that is.

Most of your arguments could have been said by a franch merchant in the 1500's... English wasn't taught except in England at that time...

The current situation is in no way comparable to the 1500s.

I think that every country can have their own language however everyone should be taught one common language...though it is debatable, as of now the most common language around the world is English....

That is incorrect, the most common language in the world is mandarin, spoken by 17.53% of the world population compared to the 8.46% that speaks english.

That is incorrect, the most common language in the world is mandarin, spoken by 17.53% of the world population compared to the 8.46% that speaks english.
Most common mothertongue is Mandarin. Most common language people can communicate with is English.

And what is your "largely anglophonic world" ? Don't make me laugh... More people speak Chinese as their first languge than English... concentrated in one region, sure, but capitalism means that those who have money rule, and in 30 years from now, China will be twice as powerful as the good ole US of A.

The number of people who speak chinese is irrelevant, if the majority of them live in China. The number of countries that speak english as a native language, in addition to all those that speak it as an official language, means that english has a much larger head start than chinese. Unless the Chinese somehow manage to implement a global policy of sinification, English is here to stay.

Most common mothertongue is Mandarin. Most common language people can communicate with is English.

Because it isn't as hard as other languages that have a totaly different way in speeking it.
Take French, every object they say is always put in Masklin/Feminin/Plural or in any other way they pronounce it as.
This happens to most languges but English don't take it that way.

I think English is fine, it is already widely spoken by native speakers in England, the US, Canada, and Autralia. Also tons of people know how to speak English because as someone mentioned earlier its used for business. So English is a solid choice, not only is it widely spoken but its easy. I mean some say that Chinese is spoken the most but its too complicated.

That is incorrect, the most common language in the world is mandarin, spoken by 17.53% of the world population compared to the 8.46% that speaks english.

Yeah but many have English as a second language, that is very rare for Mandarin, and not to mention it has way too many symbols making it too hard and a waste of time to learn (as I mentioned earlier.)

So English is a solid choice, not only is it widely spoken but its easy. I mean some say that Chinese is spoken the most but its too complicated.
How exactly is Chinese complicated? In China even the children can speak it.

(lame, i know)

Given the size of the ex-Soviet nations and the amount of natural resources they have, I'd say we shouldn't forget about Russian.

In a vaguely related way...

Students in England suffer a distinct disadvantage to those on Continental Europe, just because those in Europe often speak 2 or 3 languages, compared to those in England who speak English (in some cases very badly) and a few phrases in either French German or Spanish.

When Europe becomes a "Superstate" the English will have qualifications but be less good (see? I can't even think of the proper way o put that, in my mothertongue :S) at communicating with others.

IMO English is overly spoken. But yeah...

In a vaguely related way...

Students in England suffer a distinct disadvantage to those on Continental Europe, just because those in Europe often speak 2 or 3 languages, compared to those in England who speak English (in some cases very badly) and a few phrases in either French German or Spanish.

When Europe becomes a "Superstate" the English will have qualifications but be less good (see? I can't even think of the proper way o put that, in my mothertongue :S) at communicating with others.

IMO English is overly spoken. But yeah...

Question: Is there a demand for multilingual (English, French German, Dutch) secretaries or office workers in the UK and in Canada?

Not necessarily. But employers will always choose someone multilingual over someone who is not. It shows you can apply logical thinking and other desirable skills, and you never know when they might come in handy.

And in Canada doesn't half the coutry speak french (slight exaggeration)?

It shows you can apply logical thinking

Er... how does it do that?

Er... how does it do that?

Ugh... use of a foreign language often requires logical thinking, and applying of rules you already know, to comprehend or reply. People who speak languages other than their own also oftendisplay a greater understanding of thier own language too.

use of a foreign language often requires logical thinking

I really don't see how it does.

I think English is fine, it is already widely spoken by native speakers in England, the US, Canada, and Autralia. Also tons of people know how to speak English because as someone mentioned earlier its used for business. So English is a solid choice, not only is it widely spoken but its easy. I mean some say that Chinese is spoken the most but its too complicated.
English is the hardest language to learn because we have barely any order and so many exceptions to phonetic rules not to mention multiple meanings for the same word.

What about ghetto English?
"Fo shizzle my nizzle! Word up, dawg."

"Now, kids, how do you call your pet animal?" "Dawg. D-A-W-G." "That's correct, Johnny."

English is the hardest language to learn because we have barely any order and so many exceptions to phonetic rules not to mention multiple meanings for the same word.
Not harder then most languages and English has a plus thanks to American (and British) television shows and movies.

Not harder then most languages and English has a plus thanks to American (and British) television shows and movies.

Try teaching it as a foreign language. Then you will have a little more respect for just how difficult it is to master English.
Other languages generally have grammar rules, guides as to how to construct sentences. English simply does not have these. There is no inviable rule in English that I know of.
Then you have the big problem, spelling. There is absolutely no relationship in English between the orthography of a word and its pronunciation.

However, as a basic tool for communication it is much much easier than most structured languages. Don't even think about Finnish, for example, as an easy language to start using.

I think a new language is already evolving thanks to the internet. This new language is obviously English since it is the dominant language on it, but as time goes by, more and more words and possibly even structure will slide in from other common internet languages. Especially chinese and japanese. Some of you may have already noticed some of this.

Then you have the big problem, spelling. There is absolutely no relationship in English between the orthography of a word and its pronunciation.
A fruitful approach is to learn to write it first, and then only secondarily find out how it should be pronounced. In this way, English is no worse than the next language, if you don't consider pronunciation.

However, as a basic tool for communication it is much much easier than most structured languages. Don't even think about Finnish, for example, as an easy language to start using.
You should hear Helsinki immigrant Finnish... The advantage for both Finnish and English is that they're error-tolerant languages. Especially Finnish is such that even if you knew next to no grammar, you'd be understood. English is a bit less error-tolerant, and I absolutely hate it when people confuse "your" and "you're".

pa epsa ta yopensa?

pa epsa ta yopensa?

Me desculpe, não entendi

Then you have the big problem, spelling. There is absolutely no relationship in English between the orthography of a word and its pronunciation.

I wouldn't say that. The letter p can generally be depended on to make the p sound or at least the f sound. It is rare for m to make any sound but m. Still, the vowels are pretty much off the wall. We really could use some restructuring there.

I think a new language is already evolving thanks to the internet. This new language is obviously English since it is the dominant language on it, but as time goes by, more and more words and possibly even structure will slide in from other common internet languages. Especially chinese and japanese. Some of you may have already noticed some of this.

I'd say that's mostly anime fans.

I like those clicking Southern African dialects. Those are cool!

a language is thinking!!!in that language......i'm french i can think in english and dutch ..but i will never undertand the difference between the contexts(hence) cultural (hence)education.....zie guei te

I wouldn't say that. The letter p can generally be depended on to make the p sound or at least the f sound. It is rare for m to make any sound but m. Still, the vowels are pretty much off the wall. We really could use some restructuring there.
I once got to see a book written in English... but written as pronounced, in phonetic notation. Turns out that the English vowels are totally insane. They aren't the regular "standard European" pure vowels (aeiouæø) but weirdly shifted German vowels. (Some Englishmen still pronounce "judges" as "dzhudzhis", close to how it's spelled, but particularly Americans say "dzh/\dzhis", where /\ is an A sound.) To a degree, the same goes for some consonants (like in "debt").

Because of this, I've made up a theory that the English-speakers don't *want* to write their language phonetically, because they know subconsciously how ugly it'd turn out to be.

(If that spelling "dzhadzhis" looks weird, just think it thru. D, ZH as in "pleazhure", and a shorter A than in "car". The spelling might look ugly or Slavic-style. This is my point.)

For aviation, ATC all around the world will communicate in english.

Spanish or Chinese.

Less peoples need to learn a new language that way. USA are becoming Estados Unidos, unless they turn nazis, this is innevitable.

Spanish is much easier then Chinese, so I would vote for Spanish.

*stop been logical and become selfish like 90% peoples*

French, it gotta be French!!! ;) (about 1/4 of Canada speak French)

Peoples saying English are sticking to the past glory as the French do all the time! Sorry to break your bubbles, but most companies in the USA offer a fully working spanish version, and it will become the standard in a few years, especially with the developpment of South America.

German would be nice, I'm saying this probably because I speak some. English would be nice but not Hickish ( Hick English). Spanish seems to be rising in number but isn't Mandarin the most spoken language? Weiss ich nicht.