NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know from where you get that I'm faulting the language. I've been talking, all the time, about those who faultily use Spanglish instead of the proper language in itself. (ie. English or Spanish)
AH, right. Sorry about that.
And these are?

Something along the lines of never needing to translate anything again, being able to communicate with everyone on earth. That's all I can think of.

AH, right. Sorry about that.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Something along the lines of never needing to translate anything again, being able to communicate with everyone on earth. That's all I can think of.

It could prove useful. But it's hard to do.

They also speak French in Tunesia. And if you can't communicate with them, you need a translator. Which isn't always possible, expensive and time consuming. That's partly the whole point of the one-language-for-all.

No problem, I can gather some french, too. (Tunisia btw!) Also I bet that 1 out of 20 people I would be meeting there will understand at least one between italian, french, english, german and russian.

The obvious choices are:

Sumerian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language) Good: It'ss the oldest written language on the planet, thus re-introducing it on a large scale maintains a tradition of scholarship, science and literacy; besides, since nobody except a few scholars speaks it, these days, it's an equal start for everyone

Bad: Clay tablets are kinda heavy; people used to alphabetic writing systems may be annoyed with having to deal with several hundred signs

Proto Indo-European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language) Good: The (Main) source of languages spoken over 80% of the globe; Also, PIE is one tasty acronym

Bad: Since it's a reconstructed language, nobody seems to agree on what it actually sounded like; plenty of arguments (Rather like between French linguists, but worse) are preprogrammed

Nicaraguan Sign Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language) Good: One of the youngest, if not the youngest language on the planet; Noise-pollution substantially reduced; No substantial relationship with extant languages, so a fresh start for everyone; Finally people can talk while eating

Bad: Table manners deteriorate

It could prove useful. But it's hard to do.

Very. Cost of billions and years spent getting every country to agree to try, designing a language they all agree on, and getting people to learn and use it and maintaining it.



Screw that, just genetically engineer Babel fish.

Screw that, just genetically engineer Babel fish.

I rather like that. :D

And maybe all deaf people should use the same sign language, too.

How about Hebrew or one of the other oldest languages?
An Israeli poem about Hebrew:

Risen from the dead,
To its own surprise,
It wobbles from mouth to mouth,
A language once used to say God, Love, Peace,
Now commonly used to say Car Bomb

[shalom "peace" and karbom rhyme in Hebrew]

Everyone should learn sign language.
Nicaraguan Sign Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language) Good: One of the youngest, if not the youngest language on the planet; Noise-pollution substantially reduced; No substantial relationship with extant languages, so a fresh start for everyone; Finally people can talk while eating
What about the people that don't have hands, you heartless bastards!

What about the people that don't have hands, you heartless bastards!

They have feet... maybe...

They have feet... maybe...
What if they don't have feet either?
And before you say, "Well that's just stupid," let me introduce you to someone.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a36/Fiddlebottoms/2609300039_0e9c833cd3.jpg
His name is Mr. Watch for Pedestrians, and though he was born with neither hands nor feet, he has tirelessly worked to protect those people who wander out into the street for no reason whatsoever. Are you going to reward a lifetime of service by telling him to shut up and go home? ARE YOU?!

What if they don't have feet either?
And before you say, "Well that's just stupid," let me introduce you to someone.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a36/Fiddlebottoms/2609300039_0e9c833cd3.jpg
His name is Mr. Watch for Pedestrians, and though he was born with neither hands nor feet, he has tirelessly worked to protect those people who wander out into the street for no reason whatsoever. Are you going to reward a lifetime of service by telling him to shut up and go home? ARE YOU?!

OK Fiddy, you win.:fluffle:

What if they don't have feet either?
And before you say, "Well that's just stupid," let me introduce you to someone.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a36/Fiddlebottoms/2609300039_0e9c833cd3.jpg
His name is Mr. Watch for Pedestrians, and though he was born with neither hands nor feet, he has tirelessly worked to protect those people who wander out into the street for no reason whatsoever. Are you going to reward a lifetime of service by telling him to shut up and go home? ARE YOU?!

Probably.

Probably.
You, sir, are a terrible person. And though he is a saintly figure, I'm sure Mr. Watch for Pedestrians would agree with me. Unfortunately he, and the handless masses, can't speak up against anti-hand prejudice on the internet because they don't have any hands to use their keyboards.
The best they can do is bash their faces mindlessly on the desk and hope that the letters produced convey their emotional turmoil.

I don't like the idea of introducing the same first language for everyone, but I do see the benefits of giving everyone a common second language. However, I would want it to be as easy and cheap as possibly, which is why from what I can see the most sensible choice would indeed be one of the many forms of English. I don't really mind if it's American, British, Irish, Indian, Caribbean, Australian or any other form or even a pidgin or creole. It's possible to understand each other in any of those, with a bit of patience.

what she says.

gotta be English, a) because i'm english, and lazy, and b) because it is a very widespoken language that most of the world powers already use extensively.

wikipedia estimates total speakers of english to be 500 million–1.8 billion

which, on the highest estimate puts it at world #1. on the lower estimate, its behind chinese, but the latter includes all dialects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers

wikipedia estimates total speakers of english to be 500 million–1.8 billion
1.3 billion people possibly speak English? Wouldn't that be pretty easy to figure out? Just have somebody go around shouting,
"All your mothers are whores! They put out for me last night in an enormous orgy, and then I rubbed their faces in my feces!" and count the mob that chases him out of town.
which, on the highest estimate puts it at world #1. on the lower estimate, its behind chinese, but the latter includes all dialects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers
The part about Chinese always annoys me. With English, if you know one variant (British, Scottish, American, whatever), you can figure out what other English speakers are saying pretty easily. It is just a matter of accents and slang.
Different dialects of Chinese, however, are different fucking languages.

It would be better if the entire world would speak one single language.

Think about the advantages:

* No translations needed anymore.
* Writers, documentary makers, movie directors, newspapers etc., will have a bigger forum
* It would improve education around the world.
* You can pick-up chicks easier around the globe.

Don't start moaning about Esperanto, which is European oriented and not fit for the entire world (by instance, it's using 'r' and 'l' which is hard to use for Chinese and Japanese people).

So what do you think?
Now I've met Chinese, Japanese and Korean people, and have had no trouble chatting with them in Esperanto. The 2007 UK (World Esperanto Congress) was held in Japan. If you want a non-Eurocentric language, try Lojban.
I favour one neutral international language, but keep existing languages.
Nu mi renkontis Chinajn, Japanajn kaj Koreajn homojn, kaj babilis kun ili sen malfacileco Esperantlingve. La Universala Kongreso de 2007 okazis en Japanio. Se vi petas maleuxropabazan lingvon, provi Loghbanon. Mi favoras unu neuxtralan internacian lingvojn, sed nunaj lingvoj dauxru.
see www.lernu.net

An Israeli poem about Hebrew:

Risen from the dead,
To its own surprise,
It wobbles from mouth to mouth,
A language once used to say God, Love, Peace,
Now commonly used to say Car Bomb

[shalom "peace" and karbom rhyme in Hebrew]

I really like that.

Now I've met Chinese, Japanese and Korean people, and have had no trouble chatting with them in Esperanto. The 2007 UK (World Esperanto Congress) was held in Japan. If you want a non-Eurocentric language, try Lojban.
I favour one neutral international language, but keep existing languages.
Nu mi renkontis Chinajn, Japanajn kaj Koreajn homojn, kaj babilis kun ili sen malfacileco Esperantlingve. La Universala Kongreso de 2007 okazis en Japanio. Se vi petas maleuxropabazan lingvon, provi Loghbanon. Mi favoras unu neuxtralan internacian lingvojn, sed nunaj lingvoj dauxru.
see www.lernu.net

That sounds retarded.

The best they can do is bash their faces mindlessly on the desk and hope that the letters produced convey their emotional turmoil.
df h bk mmjnjm frf gxc juy.hoKi'/ylj rsgbwgvbsw

Translation: I sympathize with your plight, handless ones - we shall overcome!

Screw that, just genetically engineer Babel fish.

Ah, but that would Disprove God, thereby denying people's religion, which, of course, Is Unconstitutional...


*poofs away in a puff of logic*

gotta be English, a) because i'm english, and lazy, and b) because it is a very widespoken language that most of the world powers already use extensively.


Uuhh... most of the world power use it extensively, NOT. Widely accepted, yes.

Let's see...

UN Security Council permanent members:
US (english), UK (english), France (french), Russia (russian), PRC (chinese)

G8 countries:
USA (english), Japan (not english), Germany (not english), UK (english), Russia (not english), France (not english), Italy (not english), Canada (mostly english).

GDP top 20: (cia factbook)
1 World $ 65,610,000,000,000 2007 est.
2 European Union $ 14,430,000,000,000 2007 est.
3 United States $ 13,780,000,000,000 2007 est. (english de facto)
4 China $ 7,099,000,000,000 2007 est.
5 Japan $ 4,272,000,000,000 2007 est.
6 India $ 2,966,000,000,000 2007 est.
7 Germany $ 2,807,000,000,000 2007 est.
8 United Kingdom $ 2,130,000,000,000 2007 est. (english)
9 Russia $ 2,097,000,000,000 2007 est.
10 France $ 2,075,000,000,000 2007 est.
11 Brazil $ 1,849,000,000,000 2007 est.
12 Italy $ 1,800,000,000,000 2007 est.
13 Spain $ 1,361,000,000,000 2007 est.
14 Mexico $ 1,353,000,000,000 2007 est.
15 Canada $ 1,271,000,000,000 2007 est. (mostly english)
16 Korea, South $ 1,206,000,000,000 2007 est.
17 Turkey $ 853,900,000,000 2007 est.
18 Indonesia $ 843,700,000,000 2007 est.
19 Australia $ 773,000,000,000 2007 est. (english)
20 Iran $ 762,900,000,000 2007 est.


Then again, if you're lazy, you're not even likely to cross the Pas de Calais, so why worry?

Ah, but that would Disprove God, thereby denying people's religion, which, of course, Is Unconstitutional...

Babel fish just for secular countries, then.

Uuhh... most of the world power use it extensively, NOT. Widely accepted, yes.



Well, fact is that English is already taught in many if not most countries in the world, and it is spoken by most poiticians, journalists, businessmen and others involved internationally.
As a second language, it's more prominent than any other language on the planet.

Leave language the way it is. Governments are involved in everything. Can't people ever decide on what they want themselves?

Babel fish just for secular countries, then.

Awwwww, but I wanna babel fish. St00pid Ireland.

Leave language the way it is. Governments are involved in everything. Can't people ever decide on what they want themselves?

No, this forum favors authoritarian solutions to everything ;)

Uuhh... most of the world power use it extensively, NOT. Widely accepted, yes.
Err to do anything at all important, yes.

Oil? English. Stocks and banking? English. Flying planes and going anywhere by boat? English.
Then again, if you're lazy, you're not even likely to cross the Pas de Calais, so why worry?
I can speak quite a lot of French and German. Is it necessary? Not at all, most people there speak English. Is it polite? Yes. Which is why I bothered.

You can get on almost anywhere with English.

Err to do anything at all important, yes.

Oil? English. Stocks and banking? English. Flying planes and going anywhere by boat? English.

I can speak quite a lot of French and German. Is it necessary? Not at all, most people there speak English. Is it polite? Yes. Which is why I bothered.

You can get on almost anywhere with English.

And, its not something new either...Before WWII French was done that way, before that Spanish, before that, Latin...there's always a common trade language going on depending on the Preeminent power of the time...

What about... scat language?

If we look at the native speakers, English isn't used the most.

1) Chinese (1.1 billion)
2) Hindi (360 million)
3) Spanish (340 million)
4) English (322 million)

Now, I don't care. My idea is about constructing an entire new language.

Binary?

Actually, I think one language is a terrible idea; it would eradicate to much rich culture.

What about... scat language?

Isn't that contrary to the idea of scat? I thought it was meant to be expressive but unintrelligible.

If you're too stupid/lazy enough to learn another language or two, you don't deserve to have a language invented for your convenience. If I insulted anyone, good. Hopefully you'll be motivated to learn a language before you advocate replacing others.

Isn't that contrary to the idea of scat? I thought it was meant to be expressive but unintrelligible.

This is much funnier if you use a different definition of scat.

If you're too stupid/lazy enough to learn another language or two, you don't deserve to have a language invented for your convenience. If I insulted anyone, good. Hopefully you'll be motivated to learn a language before you advocate replacing others.

lol, the real question is though, If they did construct an entirely new language for them...

Would they bother learning it?

I wouldn't have a problem with doing everything within reasonable constraints to encourage people to learn a different language (well, there is one but it isn't relevant), the hard part is, people will almost always speak the language most familiar to them with family and friends who speak that language, so they won't have a lot of exposure to the new language. If I could wish that everyone on Earth just woke up one morning and everyone was speaking the same language, that would be awesome and I wouldn't really care what was damaged culturally (but there are some jokes that don't make sense in other languages that I'll miss. ;) )

lol, the real question is though, If they did construct an entirely new language for them...

Would they bother learning it?

/threadwin

If you're too stupid/lazy enough to learn another language or two, you don't deserve to have a language invented for your convenience. If I insulted anyone, good. Hopefully you'll be motivated to learn a language before you advocate replacing others.

The second one I agree with. People who are too lazy to try shouldn't really matter.

But now we're taking shots at people who aren't smart enough? As if inherent intelligence is somehow a personal decision of some kind? Really?

The second one I agree with. People who are too lazy to try shouldn't really matter.

But now we're taking shots at people who aren't smart enough? As if inherent intelligence is somehow a personal decision of some kind? Really?

I don't think you and I define stupidity the same way. I'm speaking of a lack of common sense and ignorance of reality.

And everyone who's able to speak is also able to learn a second language. See the majority of migrants (excluding China -> Chinatown migrations).

And these are?

You are too smart to ask such questions, my dear. ;)

You are too smart to ask such questions, my dear. ;)


Oh, don't you worry. I do not doubt about my intelligence. I would like you, though, to name them for me regardless. I want to weigh in your answers.

Let's bring back Latin :D

Let's bring back Latin :D

Perhaps I could go for that.

Latin died for a reason. Let's have our new universal language have just a few verb tenses, not 18 (SPANISH, I'm looking at you! There does NOT need to be a verb tense for when someone says something to you about someone else but you're not sure if its happened yet!).

Latin died for a reason. Let's have our new universal language have just a few verb tenses, not 18 (SPANISH, I'm looking at you! There does NOT need to be a verb tense for when someone says something to you about someone else but you're not sure if its happened yet!).

Latin, for those with a semblance of education, no more died than did medieval English; indeed, testament to its vitality is that three romance languages exist, 1500 years after the fragmentation of the west, that still bear sufficient resemblance to be mutually intelligible. For that matter, in academic circles, Latin is still used in writing.

No offence, but I'd suggest you learn your late Antiquity.

Latin, for those with a semblance of education, no more died than did medieval English; indeed, testament to its vitality is that three romance languages exist, 1500 years after the fragmentation of the west, that still bear sufficient resemblance to be mutually intelligible. For that matter, in academic circles, Latin is still used in writing.

No offence, but I'd suggest you learn your late Antiquity.

No offence, but you're an idiot. (See how silly that sounds!)

I speak Spanish, and I don't understand Latin. Which romance language do you speak that you can understand Latin? Maybe it goes one way, but it doesn't go the other. Certain Latin phrases have been co-opted into the English language in certain specialized disciplines, but unless the "academic circles" you are referring to are those involving the study of Latin, or linguistics, I defy you to point to a discipline that writes entirely in Latin.

Also, I believe the discussion is on a universal language. So we're talking about more than just writing.

For that matter, in academic circles, Latin is still used in writing.


Citation? (This century please... )

No offence, but you're an idiot. (See how silly that sounds!)

I speak Spanish, and I don't understand Latin. Which romance language do you speak that you can understand Latin? Maybe it goes one way, but it doesn't go the other. Certain Latin phrases have been co-opted into the English language in certain specialized disciplines, but unless the "academic circles" you are referring to are those involving the study of Latin, or linguistics, I defy you to point to a discipline that writes entirely in Latin.

Also, I believe the discussion is on a universal language. So we're talking about more than just writing.

The development of the Romance languages from Latin was a linear process from one to another; of course knowledge of Latin permits a better insight into any of the Romance languages than they do into Latin. Personally, I speak French, and am proficient with Latin, and, frankly, your inability to comprehend Latin from Spanish might as readily represent the limitations of your intelligence, or your having learnt some bastardised form of Spanglish, as much as it might the relationship between Latin and Spanish.

Latin can be spoken, in any case. If the Romance languages can be spoken, so too can Latin.

Moreover, your first admonition was childish; a knowledge of Late Antiquity would have enriched your understanding of Latin greatly.

Citation? (This century please... )

"a priori", "inter alia", "prima facie", "in toto", "prima inter pares"?

Everyone should learn sign language.
What about the blind?

Latin, for those with a semblance of education, no more died than did medieval English; indeed, testament to its vitality is that three romance languages exist, 1500 years after the fragmentation of the west, that still bear sufficient resemblance to be mutually intelligible. For that matter, in academic circles, Latin is still used in writing.

No offence, but I'd suggest you learn your late Antiquity.
There are five Romance languages (French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian), not three. If you're going to try to make others feel stupid, you should get your own facts straight. Further, not taking a course in Latin does not make one uneducated. It is very likely that I have more education than you do and I haven't taken any such classes.

Also, please cite full papers written in Latin. As far as I know, the most Latin in scientific papers is "et al", "et c", "a priori", "ab initio", no full papers. You might as well be suggesting that most papers are written in Greek because occasionally a delta or a sigma is used.

The development of the Romance languages from Latin was a linear process from one to another; of course knowledge of Latin permits a better insight into any of the Romance languages than they do into Latin. Personally, I speak French, and am proficient with Latin, and, frankly, your inability to comprehend Latin from Spanish might as readily represent the limitations of your intelligence, or your having learnt some bastardised form of Spanglish, as much as it might the relationship between Latin and Spanish.

It really wasn't that linear and took quite a long time for vulgar Latin to develop in to these new languages. Spanish and the other Romance languages all had a huge number of shifts in pronunciation and grammar and were heavily influenced by the Germanic languages from the Gothic migrations throughout Europe during and after the fall of the Roman Empire. Spanish was also later influenced to a degree by Arabic, Basque, its local dialects and even other Romance languages, giving it even more variation than what you'd get if it were a straight development from Latin.

I mean, understanding Latin from Spanish is probably about as easy as understanding Frisian based on knowing English or German.

"a priori", "inter alia", "prima facie", "in toto", "prima inter pares"?

Those are just expressions leftover from the fact that Latin *was* the defacto standard language in acedemia fro 100's of years. The language itself hasn't been used in academia for years.

How do you say "movin' the goal posts" in Latin?"

In general, I like that many languages exist. Each language is beautiful in its own way and it's nice to walk down the street in some places and hear a variety of languages as you pass by different people. To replace all that diversity and beauty with one standardized language would be a crime. Especially when it is possible for everyone to learn a large number of languages, it's just a matter of starting early enough.

And I love girls with cute foreign accents :p

And I love girls with cute foreign accents :p

Oh hell yeah!

The English are cultural spoken different as the Americans or Australians. Their own culture isn't blocked by their shared language.

As I said : My real opinion is to leave it alone, all of it. There are nuances within languages that would simply be lost as they are beyond simple translations.

The prior text was sarcasm.

Why would anyone particularly want to go with an old language?
And why do some people think it's a good idea to try and resurrect dead ones? I live in Ireland, I can tell you that even trying to revive a dying language is prohibitively expensive and frustratingly pointless. Why even bother with one that's dead already?

I don't like the idea of introducing the same first language for everyone, but I do see the benefits of giving everyone a common second language. However, I would want it to be as easy and cheap as possibly, which is why from what I can see the most sensible choice would indeed be one of the many forms of English. I don't really mind if it's American, British, Irish, Indian, Caribbean, Australian or any other form or even a pidgin or creole. It's possible to understand each other in any of those, with a bit of patience.


As I said:
My real opinion is to leave it alone, all of it. There are nuances within languages that would simply be lost as they are beyond simple translations.

This is much funnier if you use a different definition of scat.

Oh my yes.

Sounds authoritative and boring.

Latin, for those with a semblance of education, no more died than did medieval English; indeed, testament to its vitality is that three romance languages exist, 1500 years after the fragmentation of the west, that still bear sufficient resemblance to be mutually intelligible. For that matter, in academic circles, Latin is still used in writing.

No offence, but I'd suggest you learn your late Antiquity.

Indeed, besides it being the 'lengua de facto' spoken in the Vatican City, studied by priests and kept alive in law jargon.

Spanish was also later influenced to a degree by Arabic, Basque, its local dialects and even other Romance languages, giving it even more variation than what you'd get if it were a straight development from Latin.

True, that. That's why the richness of dialects spoken in Spain is so varied. You have dialects like Gallego and Asturian, heavily influenced by Portuguese. You have dialects like catalá and, to an extent, valenciá which were influenced by French. The only dialect that wasn't, at all, influenced by Latin and its Romance language counterparts was Euskera, from Euskal Herriá (Basque Country). For that, it is believed Germanic dialects were the one who influenced it.

Latin died for a reason. Let's have our new universal language have just a few verb tenses, not 18 (SPANISH, I'm looking at you! There does NOT need to be a verb tense for when someone says something to you about someone else but you're not sure if its happened yet!).

Actually, tenses aren't for that. MOODS are for that.

You fail. :p

There are five Romance languages (French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian), not three.
Eh what about Catalan?

There are five Romance languages (French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian), not three. If you're going to try to make others feel stupid, you should get your own facts straight.
Actually, afaik, the Romance languages that have official status (de iure or de facto) in some place are:
French, Italian, Spanish, Català, Sardinian, Portuguese, Occitan, Ladin, Lingua Gritschuna, Romanian. (this amounts to 10).
Then there are the Romance languages that are spoken but don't have official status, like Friulian, Piedmontese, Emilian, Venetian, Western Lombard, Eastern Lombard, Sicilian, Neapolitan...
You should really get your facts straight.

Also, please cite full papers written in Latin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica

Well, fact is that English is already taught in many if not most countries in the world, and it is spoken by most poiticians, journalists, businessmen and others involved internationally.


You don't want to hear Berlusconi or Sarko speaking english. Trust me.

Has anybody mentioned Globish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globish) yet?

Eh what about Catalan?

Catalá is considered a dialect, not a language.

Catalá is considered a dialect, not a language.

Apparently it's the official language of Andorra.

Apparently it's the official language of Andorra.

Andorra is a principality of France.

Andorra is a principality of France.

Well wikipedia calls it a language, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_language.

Catalá is considered a dialect, not a language.

It is considered a dialect... by whom?

You could also say that it is considered a language. The question again is by whom?

We know blood has been spilled for this. :(

Catalá is considered a dialect, not a language.

Català isn't a dialect of spanish (castellano), though. Català is a gallo-romance language (like western lombard, french and occitan), while spanish is an ibero-romance language.

The same happens here in Italy, where many people think call "italian dialects" languages that aren't part of the italo-dalmatian family, like western lombard, or piedmontese.

You don't want to hear Berlusconi or Sarko speaking english. Trust me.
It's great. Sarko has a very charming accent, and Berlusconi sounds almost exactly like Mussolini did in his broadcast to the US :)

... and in the darkness bind them...

Well wikipedia calls it a language, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_language.

Not in Spain. Spain classifies it as a dialect.

Català isn't a dialect of spanish (castellano), though. Català is a gallo-romance language (like western lombard, french and occitan), while spanish is an ibero-romance language.

The same happens here in Italy, where many people think call "italian dialects" languages that aren't part of the italo-dalmatian family, like western lombard, or piedmontese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_language#History
It shares features with Gallo-Romance and Ibero-Romance, and started as a dialect of Occitan (or of Western Romance).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_language#Classification
Catalan shares several similarities with other Romance languages as well.

It is considered a dialect... by whom?

http://web.ku.edu/idea/europe/spain/spain.htm

You could also say that it is considered a language. The question again is by whom?

We know blood has been spilled for this. :(

The catalá consider it a language de facto of Catalunya, but although the Spanish government recognizes its officiality, it's thought of as a dialect in Spain.

Indeed blood has been spilled, because of Franco's prohibition of it and other dialects. It is still a problem.

... and in the darkness bind them...

I was thinking of that as well.
clearly we need a new spoof of LOTR with languages instead.

...seven for the Spaniards, on their peninsula of separatists...

...four for the Swiss, in their banks of gold... :D

...seven for the Spaniards, on their peninsula of separatists...

:rolleyes:
La ignorancia hace maletas de memorias.

One for the US President in his White House
In the Land of America where the Freedom lies.
One Language to rule them all, One Language to find them,
One Language to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of America where the Freedom lies.

Not in Spain. Spain classifies it as a dialect.

We've been over this before. The fact that the Spanish word "dialecto" sounds like the English word "dialect" does not mean that the words are referring to the same concept; "entiendo" doesn't mean "I intend".

We've been over this before. The fact that the Spanish word "dialecto" sounds like the English word "dialect" does not mean that the words are referring to the same concept; "entiendo" doesn't mean "I intend".

Oh, for the love of God! It means the same, ''dialecto'' or dialect, in Spanish and in English, so spare me the language course.

We've been over this before. The fact that the Spanish word "dialecto" sounds like the English word "dialect" does not mean that the words are referring to the same concept; "entiendo" doesn't mean "I intend".

Except that dialecto translates to dialect. I don't know if you were aware but Nanatsu speaks Spanish?

Except that dialecto translates to dialect. I don't know if you were aware but Nanatsu speaks Spanish?

I think he just conveniently forgot or thinks I don't know my own language and English.:rolleyes:

Oh, for the love of God! It means the same, ''dialecto'' or dialect, in Spanish and in English, so spare me the language course.
NO. The way that "dialecto" is used in Spanish encompasses radically different languages. Basque is no more a "dialect" of Spanish (in the English sense of the word) than Chinese is a "dialect" of English, but the Spanish word "dialecto" is applied to it.

NO. The way that "dialecto" is used in Spanish encompasses radically different languages. Basque is no more a "dialect" of Spanish (in the English sense of the word) than Chinese is a "dialect" of English, but the Spanish word "dialecto" is applied to it.

I am using the word in my cultural context, Tmutarakhan. And for your knowledge, Euskera isn't considered a dialect of Spanish. Catalá, Gallego, Extremeño, Andaluz, Asturian, Mallorquino, those are, in my country, considered dialects. Esukera is a ''lengua de facto'', which bears no resemblance to any of the dialects of Spain nor of France, Italy, Portugal and Romania.

If in English you consider a dialect something else, it has nothing to do with the employ I give the word. Dialect or ''dialecto'', in my country translate as the same thing. You, here, are, sadly, wrong.

I am using the word in my cultural context, Tmutarakhan. And for your knowledge, Euskera isn't considered a dialect of Spanish.
YOU told me that it was, and when I said that in English we would never call it a "dialect", you told me, well, in Spain we do.
THAT is where I got the impression that in Spain you use "dialecto" very differently from the way "dialect" is used in English.
Catalá, Gallego, Extremeño, Andaluz, Asturian, Mallorquino, those are, in my country, considered dialects. Esukera is a ''lengua de facto'', which bears no resemblance to any of the dialects of Spain nor of France, Italy, Portugal and Romania.

Catalan is considerably further from the others, and I have never seen it called anything but a separate "language"; although, of course, it is within the Romance branch of the Indo-European family, unlike Euskera which is an isolate with no close relatives.

YOU told me that it was, and when I said that in English we would never call it a "dialect", you told me, well, in Spain we do.
THAT is where I got the impression that in Spain you use "dialecto" very differently from the way "dialect" is used in English.

Pray tell, what then is a dialect, in the English context?

Catalan is considerably further from the others, and I have never seen it called anything but a separate "language"; although, of course, it is within the Romance branch of the Indo-European family, unlike Euskera which is an isolate with no close relatives.

Catalá is considered a language only in the Principality of Andoraa, an autonomous region of France. In Spain it's considered nothing more than a dialect, one with recognized officially, but a dialect nonetheless. The catalá don't like it, but that's the way the government lists it.

Euskera is in a league all its own because of the inability to place it in the Indo-European family. It's the oldest existing language of the Iberian Peninsula. It's been the same for the past 2,000 years, and the Romans encountered it in all its purity. It's been the same ever since.

Oh, don't you worry. I do not doubt about my intelligence. I would like you, though, to name them for me regardless. I want to weigh in your answers.

Some are already explained in the initial posting.

* Translating issues (which are costing money, time and resources) will disappear

* Learning several languages is time consuming. Time is limited, we could use it for learning stuff which really matters.

* It will broad education. Some (small) countries use a language which is used by 'few'. They will have an enhanced entrance to all kind of knowledge and their specific knowledge will be easier accessible to the world.

* Currently English is dominating all kind of cultures and in the same time 'small' languages are discriminated.


I am aware that my idea will never happen, I'm not such a fool, but it doesn't mean it's a bad concept.

Some are already explained in the initial posting.

* Translating issues (which are costing money, time and resources) will disappear

* Learning several languages is time consuming. Time is limited, we could use it for learning stuff which really matters.

* It will broad education. Some (small) countries use a language which is used by 'few'. They will have an enhanced entrance to all kind of knowledge and their specific knowledge will be easier accessible to the world.

* Currently English is dominating all kind of cultures and in the same time 'small' languages are discriminated.


I am aware that my idea will never happen, I'm not such a fool, but it doesn't mean it's a bad concept.

I don't think anyone would call you foolish for suggesting the world should have a common language. You won't be the first or the last.:wink:

I don't think anyone would call you foolish for suggesting the world should have a common language. You won't be the first or the last.:wink:

And if they call me a fool, I don't think I care ;)

I forgot another advantage:

* If we have one single language, we will be able to communicate better with each other. It could solve or minimize all kind of nasty problems like war or the integration of foreigners, etc...

And if they call me a fool, I don't think I care ;)

I forgot another advantage:

* If we have one single language, we will be able to communicate better with each other. It could solve or minimize all kind of nasty problems like war or the integration of foreigners, etc...

But it would make us too homgeneous and that's not too fun.

But it would make us too homgeneous and that's not too fun.

I don't think so. I don't feel I am just like my neighbor.

Also, if there would be One Language For All, no one is telling you can't learn "ancient" languages like English, French, Spanish or whatever. :)

If you propose something new and unordinary, they'll first make a fool of you, later they will kill you, again later they'll say "I'll always have thought it should be like this or that".

People do not like new concepts, they feel really unsecured and will build resistant, even if the idea is having clear advantages.

I don't think so. I don't feel I am just like my neighbor.

But you and your neighbor probably share a common language, ne?

Also, if there would be One Language For All, no one is telling you can't learn "ancient" languages like English, French, Spanish or whatever. :)

But these languages, which are at the moment spoken widely, would lose supremacy.

If you propose something new and unordinary, they'll first make a fool of you, later they will kill you, again later they'll say "I'll always have thought it should be like this or that".

Please, oh please, the age of martyrs has already passed. Don't strive to become one.

People do not like new concepts, they feel really unsecured and will build resistant, even if the idea is having clear advantages.

Once again, a common language has pros and cons. All of these have already been stated, time and time again on this thread.

But you and your neighbor probably share a common language, ne?



But these languages, which are at the moment spoken widely, would lose supremacy.



Please, oh please, the age of martyrs has already passed. Don't strive to become one.



Once again, a common language has pros and cons. All of these have already been stated, time and time again on this thread.


I like this thread and so do other people. What's the alternative? Moaning once more about "Israel vs. Palestine" or "USA is evil" or "God doesn't exist" ?

I like this thread and so do other people. What's the alternative? Moaning once more about "Israel vs. Palestine" or "USA is evil" or "God doesn't exist" ?

I'm not saying this thread is bad nor that I don't like it.

Nah, let's get something awesome and fun:

Make everybody learn Gaelic! (Irish forms, specifically).

Nah, let's get something awesome and fun:

Make everybody learn Gaelic! (Irish forms, specifically).

An bhfuil cead agam dul go dtí an leithreas?

An bhfuil cead agam dul go dtí an leithreas?

If you have to use the john, seriously, go. I remember once in fifth grade when a teacher refused to let a kid use the bathroom, and he ended up pissing his pants. He got sent home, and the next day she nearly got canned. Besides, that smell is nigh impossible to get out.

An bhfuil cead agam dul go dtí an leithreas?

I like Gaelic.

Gael, mo ghrá thú!:fluffle:

It would be better if the entire world would speak one single language.

Think about the advantages:

* No translations needed (which are costing money, time and resources) anymore.
* Writers, documentary makers, movie directors, newspapers etc., will have a bigger forum
* It would improve education around the world. Some (small) countries use a language which is used by 'few'. They will have an enhanced entrance to all kind of knowledge and their specific knowledge will be easier accessible to the world.
* You can pick-up chicks easier around the globe.
* Learning several languages is time consuming. Time is limited, we could use it for learning stuff which really matters.
* Currently English is dominating all kind of cultures and in the same time 'small' languages are discriminated.
* If we have one single language, we will be able to communicate better with each other. It could solve or minimize all kind of nasty problems like war or the integration of foreigners, etc...



Don't start moaning about Esperanto, which is European oriented and not fit for the entire world (by instance, it's using 'r' and 'l' which is hard to use for Chinese and Japanese people).

So what do you think?

I think you are wrong.

A bigger forum is not necessarily a good thing. It certainly does not mean you will make more money or sell more books, etc.
To be a truely global phenomenon, you will need more than just a one world language. You have cross cultural and religious barriers too. Even with one language, the world will remain divided.

Funny about education. That never stopped the West Europeans from learning the Islamic sciences during the middle ages. Look at the diversity of languages they had back then.

Chicks prefer guys who speak different languages from them. It's all about guys from different lands being more sexy than the men in your own country.
Face it, women prefer men who speak diverse languages. It has sex appeal. American women prefer male Latins. Just go to Korea, South America, even the middle east. The women in those places love Americans because American males are considered exotic in those places just as in the US, Latin Males are considered exotic.
I just hope women don't take it too far and set up a zoo to put men on display. J/K


yes, learning languages is time consuming but several studies have shown that people who take the time to do it are more enlightened. Learning different languages also helps prevent alzheimers and other brain diseases. It also helps you learn other subjects such math and science and retain the information longer. Learning a foreign language enhances your memory, you can recall more details for a longer period of time.

English is the biggest language group on the earth but only geographically. The number one language is Chinese. It has more speakers. don't worry though, English is a close second. But there are a lot places where english is not spoken. Spanish, for example, is the major language in South America.
French is a major language in Africa. Russian is spoken throughout Eastern Europe. Etc.

having one language won't stop wars. Consider how many wars there have been between nations that share the english language. The American Revolution, War of 1812, the Boar War.
Look at the middle east. A lot of those countries speak the same language. It is not stopping them from going to war against each other.
It certainly didn't stop the military confrontation between Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador a year back.

Integration of foreigners? We already require them to speak english if they want to be citizens or get permanent residency rights. But mandating english does not make them any more likely to become integrated. It's about the cultural differences and those amount to more than mere language differences.

Pray tell, what then is a dialect, in the English context?
Dialects are "mutually intelligible", while separate languages aren't. It isn't a black/white line (compare: "subspecies" or "varieties" are mutually interbreedable, while separate species aren't, but there are all kinds of blurry-line cases of partial interbreedability). A person who knows only Euskara and a person who knows only Espanol (of any dialect) will have to start resorting to hand gestures when the words fail.

Catalan is considered by linguists to be a dialect of the "Occitan" language, whose other major dialects were Provenc,al and Gascon before French pretty much wiped those out. Occitan is not particularly closer to either French or Spanish; since medieval times it was regarded as the "langue d'oc" as opposed to either the "langue d'oil" (old French) or "langue de si" (named for the "yes" words). The county of Barcelona used to be dynastically attached to the county of Toulouse and that could have become the nucleus of a separate nationality, but after the Albigensian Crusade against "heretics", Barcelona became attached to the kingdom of Aragon and thus eventually Spain.

How difficult is it for speakers of Catalan and Spanish to understand each other, without resorting to what they know of each other's language or to hand gestures? You would be better positioned than I am to tell. I think, however, that if the government of Spain counterfactually calls Catalan a "dialect" of Spanish, then this is a political relic, like the government of Turkey pretending that Kurds are ethnically "Turkish".

Latin. Just because.

I still say it should be the language of flowers - and if you don't agree with me you can all go lime blossom yourselves.

It's great. Sarko has a very charming accent, and Berlusconi sounds almost exactly like Mussolini did in his broadcast to the US :)

You have the power to make me feel better... NOT. :(

*snipped wikilinkies*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallo-Iberian , though.

Andorra is a principality of France.

A "principality" is a country ruled by someone with the title of "Prince" or equivalent. Andorra is a sovereign state with a split monarchy of two co-princes.

One co-prince is the President of France while the other is the Bishop of Urgell. The two of them collectively act as head of state, although in practice the PM of Andorra has the authority usually attributed to a head of state.

Actually, afaik, the Romance languages that have official status (de iure or de facto) in some place are:
French, Italian, Spanish, Català, Sardinian, Portuguese, Occitan, Ladin, Lingua Gritschuna, Romanian. (this amounts to 10).
Then there are the Romance languages that are spoken but don't have official status, like Friulian, Piedmontese, Emilian, Venetian, Western Lombard, Eastern Lombard, Sicilian, Neapolitan...
You should really get your facts straight.
There are five major romance languages. Considering that the other poster included three, my statement is more accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica

A recent paper. I can find a tonne of physics papers written in German and French more recent than that.

A "principality" is a country ruled by someone with the title of "Prince" or equivalent. Andorra is a sovereign state with a split monarchy of two co-princes.

One co-prince is the President of France while the other is the Bishop of Urgell. The two of them collectively act as head of state, although in practice the PM of Andorra has the authority usually attributed to a head of state.

Andorra has the same status as the Principality of Asturias, where I live. The head of state is the Prince of Asturias, co-head being PM José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, head of state of Spain, joint with King Juan Carlos I. The only difference is that Andorra is not on French territory. Asturias is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra

Dialects are "mutually intelligible", while separate languages aren't. It isn't a black/white line (compare: "subspecies" or "varieties" are mutually interbreedable, while separate species aren't, but there are all kinds of blurry-line cases of partial interbreedability).

Which is not the definition given to 'dialect' in Spain.

En lingüística, la palabra dialecto[1] hace referencia a una de las posibles variedades de las lenguas[2] ; en concreto, un dialecto sería la variante de una lengua asociada con una determinada zona geográfica...

Hay dos acepciones principales de dialecto. Una es la que lo considera como lengua derivada de otra. Así, el francés es un dialecto del latín, el cual a su vez es un dialecto del indoeuropeo; o bien el castellano, el catalán, el francés, el italiano, etc. son dialectos del latín, mientras que el latín, el griego, el persa, el /sánscrito, etc. son dialectos del indoeuropeo. Esta acepción suele funcionar en el ámbito del historicismo y, por tanto, dialecto es un término técnico de la lingüística históricocomparativa. La otra acepción de la palabra lo define como variedad geográfica dentro de una misma lengua.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialecto

A person who knows only Euskara and a person who knows only Espanol (of any dialect) will have to start resorting to hand gestures when the words fail.

The Esukadi, contrary to what you may believe, speak Euskera, French and Spanish. It doesn't apply.

Catalan is considered by linguists to be a dialect of the "Occitan" language, whose other major dialects were Provenc,al and Gascon before French pretty much wiped those out. Occitan is not particularly closer to either French or Spanish; since medieval times it was regarded as the "langue d'oc" as opposed to either the "langue d'oil" (old French) or "langue de si" (named for the "yes" words). The county of Barcelona used to be dynastically attached to the county of Toulouse and that could have become the nucleus of a separate nationality, but after the Albigensian Crusade against "heretics", Barcelona became attached to the kingdom of Aragon and thus eventually Spain.

And still catalá has a lot of similarities to both French and Spanish. I can follow it, especially it's variant, valenciá.

How difficult is it for speakers of Catalan and Spanish to understand each other, without resorting to what they know of each other's language or to hand gestures? You would be better positioned than I am to tell.

I can, because of the linguistical variations, follow a Valenciá in a conversation better than a Barcelonés, from Barcelona, Catalunya. But what you fail to comprehend is that a Catalonian knows Spanish, and many people in Spain understand several of the dialects (including catalá) so there's no need to resort to hand gestures or misunderstanding.

I think, however, that if the government of Spain counterfactually calls Catalan a "dialect" of Spanish, then this is a political relic, like the government of Turkey pretending that Kurds are ethnically "Turkish".

The Spanish government calls catalá a dialect because this is one of many sub-languages or 'dialectos' spoken in the country like gallego, mallorquino, extremeño, asturiano, eonavian and menorquino. The name has nothing to do with it being a dialect of Spanish, because it's well known that it is not. Catalá didn't evolve from Spanish. But both Spanish and Catalá evolved from vulgar Latin.

Actually, afaik, the Romance languages that have official status (de iure or de facto) in some place are:
French, Italian, Spanish, Català, Sardinian, Portuguese, Occitan, Ladin, Lingua Gritschuna, Romanian. (this amounts to 10).
Then there are the Romance languages that are spoken but don't have official status, like Friulian, Piedmontese, Emilian, Venetian, Western Lombard, Eastern Lombard, Sicilian, Neapolitan...
You should really get your facts straight.
Catalan is a dialect of (not a separate language from) Occitan. Ladin, Lingua Gritschuna, and Friulian are all dialects of Rhaeto-Romansch. Piedmontese, Emilian, Venetian, Lombard, Sicilian, Neapolitan etc. are all dialects of Italian. Sardinian is sometimes called a dialect of Italian, but is sufficiently alien that it is usually called a separate language.
There are five major Romance languages (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Rumanian) which are the sole national languages of their native countries, and three minor ones (Rhaeto-Romansch, Occitan, and Sardinian) with varying degrees of legal status.
Which is not the definition given to 'dialecto' in Spain.
Fixed. The SPANISH word "dialecto" and the ENGLISH word "dialect" are cognates (derived from the same root) but do not have the exact same meaning. Similarly, "entiendo" is cognate to the English verb "to intend", but in that case the meanings have seriously diverged.
The Euskadi, contrary to what you may believe, speak Euskara, French and Spanish. It doesn't apply.
What I was meaning was: IF someone speaks Euskara ONLY, and was encountering Spanish or French (or German or English...) for the first time (never mind whether this situation would actually happen, or is purely hypothetical), knowledge of Euskara alone would not confer any significant degree of comprehension of the other, which is why it is called a separate "language". Contrast: if you had been raised on Castilian only, and had never heard any other variety of Spanish, you would still have little trouble comprehending Estremaduran on first encounter with it.
And still catalá has a lot of similarities to both French and Spanish. I can follow it, especially it's variant, valenciá.
Well, I can vaguely follow Spanish, if it's written down rather than spoken, or is spoken very slowly, based on my knowledge of French and the occurence of many of the roots in English. But my impression was that Catalan is not any closer to Spanish than to French.
But what you fail to comprehend is that a Catalonian knows Spanish, and many people in Spain understand several of the dialects (including catalá) so there's no need to resort to hand gestures or misunderstanding.
I understand that perfectly. What I am trying to convey is that what makes two varieties of speech "different" languages, or just different "dialects" of the same language, is the hypothetical question of what happens if a person has knowledge of ONE ONLY, and is trying to understand the other without any previous knowledge of it.
The name has nothing to do with it being a dialect of Spanish, because it's well known that it is not. Catalá didn't evolve from Spanish. But both Spanish and Catalá evolved from vulgar Latin.
OK then. That is the only point I was trying to make. Calling Catalan a "dialect" means, in English usage, that it is not independent of Spanish; that would be a factual error. If nonetheless you call it a "dialecto" in Spanish, that just means that the words "dialect"/"dialecto" are fausses amis (words in two languages which look very much alike but are not the same).

I don't think so. By restricting the languages in the world, we would have fewer examples through which to understand language as a concept.

Furthermore, I have heard that learning multiple languages is good for the brain. While I have not done so myself (not to anything approaching fluency anyway), this would look like a superior path to follow.

If we were to have only one language, then pretty soon, there would be more than one.

Let's say, for instance, that every country speaks the same language. Now, at this point, people do different things and have different ways of speaking. Sometimes, this can get into society, and society isn't part of the whole world. While changing a language naturally takes a lot longer if there's only one language, it would still happen, such as if one place starts to talk in a certain way, but then they're ostricised, and then they revolt and become their own nation with their own identity. Their nation's dialect will evolve to the point of not even being the same language.

As well, it's good too that we have more than just one language, because it's good for your mind, expands it the more languages you know, and shows you how different things can be.

Hell no. I'm with Sestros.

Language shouldn't be treated simply as a barrier to global uniformisation. Each language corresponds to a unique culture and way of thinking.

Yes, language is a barrier to globalisation and world cultural uniformity. But if you ask me, that's a good thing. Having a distinct language helps maintain the traditions, customs, and identity of a culture. It provides members of that culture with a vehicle for describing and communicating ideas which is not readily accessible to those outside the culture. Adopting another language leads to assimilation, and loss of differing perspectives and cultural attributes.

Fixed. The SPANISH word "dialecto" and the ENGLISH word "dialect" are cognates (derived from the same root) but do not have the exact same meaning. Similarly, "entiendo" is cognate to the English verb "to intend", but in that case the meanings have seriously diverged.

You're taking the grammatical nuances of Spanish to an elemental level. Anyone with enough knowledge of the language would be able to tell you that "entiendo" means "to understand". Intend and Understand are completely different words, so the comparison has no value. You would fare better comparing modern English to French.

English doesn't present that advantage, which is why the comparisons you're making are senseless. An English speaker cannot understand German or Dutch, and these 3 langauges come from the same root, Germanic tribes. But a Spanish speaker can somewhat understand, although not completely, the other 4 Romance languages and the dialects.


What I was meaning was: IF someone speaks Euskara ONLY, and was encountering Spanish or French (or German or English...) for the first time (never mind whether this situation would actually happen, or is purely hypothetical), knowledge of Euskara alone would not confer any significant degree of comprehension of the other, which is why it is called a separate "language". Contrast: if you had been raised on Castilian only, and had never heard any other variety of Spanish, you would still have little trouble comprehending Estremaduran on first encounter with it.

Once again, Tmutarkhan, the comparison is irrelevant. The part of Euskal Herriá that is in Spanish territory, although keeping Euskera's officiality, has Spanish as the first language. What does that mean? The Euskadi speak Spanish. Aside from that, you're using a dialect that has no resemblance to ANY of the Indo-European languages, including Spanish. Actually, no one knows from whence and how did Euskera developed.

Well, I can vaguely follow Spanish, if it's written down rather than spoken, or is spoken very slowly, based on my knowledge of French and the occurence of many of the roots in English. But my impression was that Catalan is not any closer to Spanish than to French.

Languages that evolved, like Spanish and Catalá did, from vulgar Latin, bare a lot of similiarities. I know, I speak Spanish, I speak French, I understand Italian, I understand Portuguese, plus I speak Asturian and can follow Valenciá, which is a variant of Catalá. A person that has no knowledge of Italian and speaks Spanish can sustain a coherent conversation with an Italian without having to resort to hand gestures. I've done it, speaking Spanish while the other person speaks to me in Italian.

I understand that perfectly. What I am trying to convey is that what makes two varieties of speech "different" languages, or just different "dialects" of the same language, is the hypothetical question of what happens if a person has knowledge of ONE ONLY, and is trying to understand the other without any previous knowledge of it.

I already answered that.

OK then. That is the only point I was trying to make. Calling Catalan a "dialect" means, in English usage, that it is not independent of Spanish; that would be a factual error. If nonetheless you call it a "dialecto" in Spanish, that just means that the words "dialect"/"dialecto" are fausses amis (words in two languages which look very much alike but are not the same).

Agreed.

It would be better if the entire world would speak one single language.

Think about the advantages:

* No translations needed (which are costing money, time and resources) anymore.
* Writers, documentary makers, movie directors, newspapers etc., will have a bigger forum
* It would improve education around the world. Some (small) countries use a language which is used by 'few'. They will have an enhanced entrance to all kind of knowledge and their specific knowledge will be easier accessible to the world.
* You can pick-up chicks easier around the globe.
* Learning several languages is time consuming. Time is limited, we could use it for learning stuff which really matters.
* Currently English is dominating all kind of cultures and in the same time 'small' languages are discriminated.
* If we have one single language, we will be able to communicate better with each other. It could solve or minimize all kind of nasty problems like war or the integration of foreigners, etc...



Don't start moaning about Esperanto, which is European oriented and not fit for the entire world (by instance, it's using 'r' and 'l' which is hard to use for Chinese and Japanese people).

So what do you think?


First of all, they already tried back in the 60s and 70s, to do just that. It failed MISERABLY. Secondly, I'd never support it. I'm partial to my language. If they want to make a global language, it'd better be the Queen's English or I'm NEVER going along with it. Another thing: doing so might lead to one single, global, unitary society. I do not want to see this.

EDIT: I really need to explain something. Back in the 70s, a language institute in Europe attempted to create a new language that would replace all others and create, basically, a language which would act as at least a lingua franca for all people, if not a main language period. I don't remember its name, my freshman Human Geography teacher mentioned it in passing, but I have no other details. I'm sure its already been mentioned, so I'm beating a dead horse, but if anyone has the name I'd rather like to know.

EDIT: I really need to explain something. Back in the 70s, a language institute in Europe attempted to create a new language that would replace all others and create, basically, a language which would act as at least a lingua franca for all people, if not a main language period. I don't remember its name, my freshman Human Geography teacher mentioned it in passing, but I have no other details. I'm sure its already been mentioned, so I'm beating a dead horse, but if anyone has the name I'd rather like to know.

Esperanto. I think.

Esperanto. I think.

That was it, thanks. :hail:

That was it, thanks. :hail:

No problem.:)

Anyone with enough knowledge of the language would be able to tell you that "entiendo" means "to understand". Intend and Understand are completely different words, so the comparison has no value.

I'm not making myself clear. I am speaking from the standpoint of an English-speaker who DOESN'T have enough knowledge of Spanish (I have never taken any Spanish, and know zero Spanish-speakers in real life): I can only puzzle out Spanish with difficulty based on shared words, and I would certainly have misread entiendo as "I intend" if I had not previously encountered entendre in French. While puzzling out your text on dialecto, when it said there were dos acceptiones I naturally misread that as "two exceptions", until the context made it clear that it had to mean something more like "two accepted usages".
Apparently in Spanish the two "acceptions" for dialecto are: a historical derivation from another language, which would be termed "daughter language" in English (we do not say French, Spanish, Italian, etc. are "dialects" of Latin, rather we say they are "daughters" of Latin); or, any regional speech, regardless of whether it has relationship or not to some other regional speech (but in English, "dialect" refers to a *present-day* rather a historical relationship, of mutual comprehensibility).
Aside from that, you're using a dialect that has no resemblance to ANY of the Indo-European languages, including Spanish. Actually, no one knows from whence and how did Euskera developed.
Which is why, in English, IT IS NOT CALLED a "dialect", at all. Whether a hypothetical Basque who really doesn't any other language except Euskara would or would not be likely to exist is beside the point: IF, in theory, you know Spanish only, would that help you understand someone speaking Euskara (who, theoretically, speaks nothing else)? No? Then Euskara is not a "dialect" of Spanish. Knowing English, only, would also be of no help; likewise, knowing Russian, only; or knowing Mandarin Chinese, only-- therefore, Euskara is not a "dialect" of English, Russian, or Chinese either; it is not a "dialect" of any language.
A person that has no knowledge of Italian and speaks Spanish can sustain a coherent conversation with an Italian without having to resort to hand gestures. I've done it, speaking Spanish while the other person speaks to me in Italian.
It can be a blurry issue when "mutual comprehensibility" does and does not exist. If you were listening to someone speaking to a crowd in Italian, or eavesdropping on a conversation in Italian, you would be in a different situation than in a one-on-one encounter where both sides are TRYING to make themselves understood.
In Yugoslavia as a young hippie backpacker, I had a Serbo-Croatian of doubtful utility, and the advantage of two years of Russian, from which I was able to conjure the bogus sentence gde dom spava? "where is house of sleep?" and obtain directions to the youth hostel: it turns out that the Slavic roots gde "where?" and spav "sleep" also exist in Serbo-Croat, although dom is not used; but the context, of an obviously lost foreigner, was key to conveying the meaning.

I'm hearing a lot of Spanish right now. I got a haircut for 80 pesos. And I just saw a cop arrest another cop.

The arresting officer had a black ski mask on, a helmet, a big assault weapon of some kind, and a big army truck full of buddies. The arrested officer appeared to be local and just had a revolver.

If I spoke Italian, I might know more about what happened.

That was it, thanks. :hail:

It can't have been, Esperanto's much older than that.

...seven for the Spaniards, on their peninsula of separatists...

...four for the Swiss, in their banks of gold... :D

What would be the Middle-earth races equivalent European nations?

It can't have been, Esperanto's much older than that.Esperanto was invented early in the 20th century, but there was a big push for it in the '70s (came to nothing, of course) which must be what Wanderjar was thinking of.

It can't have been, Esperanto's much older than that.

It is Esperanto.

The movie Incubus, from the 1970s, starring William Shatner, is in Esperanto.

I'm not making myself clear. I am speaking from the standpoint of an English-speaker who DOESN'T have enough knowledge of Spanish (I have never taken any Spanish, and know zero Spanish-speakers in real life): I can only puzzle out Spanish with difficulty based on shared words, and I would certainly have misread entiendo as "I intend" if I had not previously encountered entendre in French. While puzzling out your text on dialecto, when it said there were dos acceptiones I naturally misread that as "two exceptions", until the context made it clear that it had to mean something more like "two accepted usages".
Apparently in Spanish the two "acceptions" for dialecto are: a historical derivation from another language, which would be termed "daughter language" in English (we do not say French, Spanish, Italian, etc. are "dialects" of Latin, rather we say they are "daughters" of Latin); or, any regional speech, regardless of whether it has relationship or not to some other regional speech (but in English, "dialect" refers to a *present-day* rather a historical relationship, of mutual comprehensibility).[QUOTE]

You have a point and I stand corrected. But you do realize the meaning of ''dialect'' changes from one language to the other.

[QUOTE]Which is why, in English, IT IS NOT CALLED a "dialect", at all. Whether a hypothetical Basque who really doesn't any other language except Euskara would or would not be likely to exist is beside the point: IF, in theory, you know Spanish only, would that help you understand someone speaking Euskara (who, theoretically, speaks nothing else)? No? Then Euskara is not a "dialect" of Spanish. Knowing English, only, would also be of no help; likewise, knowing Russian, only; or knowing Mandarin Chinese, only-- therefore, Euskara is not a "dialect" of English, Russian, or Chinese either; it is not a "dialect" of any language.

Hypothetically speaking, you have a point. Theoretically speaking, you're wrong. The Euskadi know both Spanish and Euskera, or both French and Euskera. The only reason why Euskera is considered a dialect of Spanish is because there are several words that seem to have a Latin resonance to them and because it's a sub-language spoken in Spain.

It can be a blurry issue when "mutual comprehensibility" does and does not exist. If you were listening to someone speaking to a crowd in Italian, or eavesdropping on a conversation in Italian, you would be in a different situation than in a one-on-one encounter where both sides are TRYING to make themselves understood.

Not really. Italian and Spanish are quite close cousins. It's easy to follow, no matter what situation. The problem would be if in the crowd you encounter speakers of Floretinian or Sardo, then and only then, because one encounters the sub-languages of Italy, that one can be a cause for confusion.

In Yugoslavia as a young hippie backpacker, I had a Serbo-Croatian of doubtful utility, and the advantage of two years of Russian, from which I was able to conjure the bogus sentence gde dom spava? "where is house of sleep?" and obtain directions to the youth hostel: it turns out that the Slavic roots gde "where?" and spav "sleep" also exist in Serbo-Croat, although dom is not used; but the context, of an obviously lost foreigner, was key to conveying the meaning.

There is something peculiar about this. The word ''dom'', you say, means ''sleep'' in Serbo-Croat? It seems quite similar to the word ''domus'', from Latin for 'house'. But you know this one better than I do.

There is something peculiar about this. The word ''dom'', you say, means ''sleep'' in Serbo-Croat? It seems quite similar to the word ''domus'', from Latin for 'house'. But you know this one better than I do.

If I read that correctly, dom means "house" in Serbo-Croat. Considering Cyrillic was developed by Saint Cyrill as a Latin-based language for all those poor uncivilized folk to the East, I'm not too surprised.

If I read that correctly, dom means "house" in Serbo-Croat. Considering Cyrillic was developed by Saint Cyrill as a Latin-based language for all those poor uncivilized folk to the East, I'm not too surprised.

Which perhaps adds to what I was saying. Domus, dom, domicile, domicilio, all mean the same thing: house, and I don't think one would need to know either Serb-Croat, Latin or Spanish to understand the correlation between langauges.

But you do realize the meaning of ''dialect'' changes from one language to the other.
Of course *I* realize that. It is the point I am trying to explain to YOU. It is the ONLY point I have been making to make.
Hypothetically speaking, you have a point. Theoretically speaking, you're wrong. The Euskadi know both Spanish and Euskera, or both French and Euskera.
Which has nothing to do with what I was saying. When you told me that "English speakers can't understand Dutch and German", should I have pointed out to you that almost everybody I met in the Netherlands knows English anyway???
The only reason why Euskera is considered a dialect of Spanish
En Espan~ol, se puede appelado "uno dialecto", but in English it is NOT, repeat, NOT, repeat, NOT a "dialect" of Spanish or of anything else. Entiendo me repetar despuis... "I intend to repeat myself until...."
There is something peculiar about this. The word ''dom'', you say, means ''sleep'' in Serbo-Croat? It seems quite similar to the word ''domus'', from Latin for 'house'. But you know this one better than I do.
Am I writing everything in Basque??? Or are you deliberately trying to drive me crazy? I thought I was perfectly clear: spav is "sleep" in many Slavic languages, including Serbo-Croat; dom is "house" in Russian, but that word is NOT used in Serbo-Croat (kucha is "house" in Serbo-Croat) although, as you point, it is a very widespread Indo-European root.

Of course *I* realize that. It is the point I am trying to explain to YOU. It is the ONLY point I have been making to make.

Which has nothing to do with what I was saying. When you told me that "English speakers can't understand Dutch and German", should I have pointed out to you that almost everybody I met in the Netherlands knows English anyway???

En Espan~ol, se puede appelado "uno dialecto", but in English it is NOT, repeat, NOT, repeat, NOT a "dialect" of Spanish or of anything else. Entiendo me repetar despuis... "I intend to repeat myself until...."

Am I writing everything in Basque??? Or are you deliberately trying to drive me crazy? I thought I was perfectly clear: spav is "sleep" in many Slavic languages, including Serbo-Croat; dom is "house" in Russian, but that word is NOT used in Serbo-Croat (kucha is "house" in Serbo-Croat) although, as you point, it is a very widespread Indo-European root.

Read further down the thread and cool off. You're the one who keeps missing the point. We all know English is not a dialect of Spanish, no one has tried to say otherwise. But Gallego, Asturian, Catalá and Extremeño ARE considered dialects of Spanish. No matter what you want to think.

As for the Sebo-Croat thing, read further down the frigging thread.

And please, please, I beg you. Quit massacring my language. It's pretty clear you don't know it so there's no need for you to murder it grammatically or in usage.

Am I typing in tongues? I didn't think anything I was saying was that difficult to construe. At any rate, this thread proves that even if everyone DOES speak the same language, it is possible to have zero mutual comprehension.
You're the one who keeps missing the point.
Admittedly, I don't have a clue what your point is.
MY point was: I get peeved when someone uses a term incorrectly; when you referred to Euskara as a "dialect" (it also peeves me that you consistently mis-spell it as "Euskera", though to a lesser degree), I assumed that this must arise from a Spanish word of near-identical spelling but unfortunately different meaning. You have confirmed this, and keep on saying that you get the point: and then you keep on misusing the English word as if it meant the Spanish word. It is as if you were trying to teach me Spanish, and had explained to me a dozen times that entiendo does NOT mean "I intend" and acceptiones does NOT mean "exceptions", and I keep saying I get it, and then keep using those Spanish words with the meanings of their English sound-alikes.
We all know English is not a dialect of Spanish, no one has tried to say otherwise.
??????????? I have never come remotely close to imagining that anyone was saying "English is a dialect of Spanish". I cannot imagine what it is that I have said that you are construing in such a manner. I keep wondering if maybe there is some unfortunate cross-link between parallel universes here, where you receive, not the posts I send, but the posts sent by some alter-Tmut who is holding a totally different conversation with an alter-Nanatsu.
But Gallego, Asturian, Catalá and Extremeño ARE considered dialects of Spanish.
All of those, plus Euskara, are called "dialectos" in Spanish. But Catalan is not included among the "dialects" in English, because that word "dialect" means something other than what you think it does.
As for the Sebo-Croat thing, read further down the frigging thread.
Yes, as I go down the thread I found, after you reading me to say "dom = sleep in Serbo-Croat", Virginian reading me to say "dom = house in Serbo-Croat" and then you reading me to say "dom = house in every language" (I was quite clear, I thought, that dom doesn't mean ANYTHING AT ALL in Serbo-Croat).
The point of my little story, which obviously I failed to convey to anyone, is that it is possible for two people to have some degree of "mutual understanding" even when one side or the other is totally butchering the language (if there is mutual good will to understand, and contextual clues to help fill in gaps in understanding): but this is not the same thing as "understanding" each other's language.
And please, please, I beg you. Quit massacring my language. It's pretty clear you don't know it so there's no need for you to murder it grammatically or in usage.
It was intended as a demonstration of how I feel when you keep misusing English terms under the misapprehension that they mean the same thing as Spanish sound-alikes.