Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Should the European Union create a...

AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 11:12:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Constructed international auxiliary language for communication between each of its countries? Should they if the EU becomes closer than it is now? Why/why not? WHat would happen? Do you think it would just flop?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 11:23:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 11:15:17 AM, PrivateEye wrote:
Chinese

Because?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 11:24:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Don't most people in European countries already learn english as a second language?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 11:58:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 11:12:38 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Constructed international auxiliary language for communication between each of its countries? Should they if the EU becomes closer than it is now? Why/why not? WHat would happen? Do you think it would just flop?
I don't think that will help as much as hinder unification. But if one had to, I'd say Castillian Spanish, as it's headed to be the most spoken language in 20 years or so.

Anyways, most EU citizens already speak 2 to 3 languages on average. Heck, in Spain alone there are 5 different official co-equal languages!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 1:11:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 11:24:17 AM, drhead wrote:
Don't most people in European countries already learn english as a second language?

A few, badly. I think they learn the basics out of necessity, but grow resentful because of it. I think it would create greater unity if there was a new language that didn't come from a particular nation state. Plus I think we can create better languages.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 1:14:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 11:58:29 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/17/2013 11:12:38 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Constructed international auxiliary language for communication between each of its countries? Should they if the EU becomes closer than it is now? Why/why not? WHat would happen? Do you think it would just flop?
I don't think that will help as much as hinder unification.

Maybe, maybe not.

But if one had to, I'd say Castillian Spanish,

So a specific national language?

as it's headed to be the most spoken language in 20 years or so.

Source?


Anyways, most EU citizens already speak 2 to 3 languages on average. Heck, in Spain alone there are 5 different official co-equal languages!

It's a tough life. How fluent are these "speakers"? Sure they know 5 completely different languages in Spain...
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 1:14:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 11:12:38 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Constructed international auxiliary language for communication between each of its countries? Should they if the EU becomes closer than it is now? Why/why not? WHat would happen? Do you think it would just flop?

It's called English.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 1:23:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think so.

Now mind you--I'm not a nationalist, I honestly wouldn't mind a worldwide government in theory. That being said, creating a new language just seems...not good. It sounds like something that, for the sake of European unity, straight-up seeks to wipe out individual nationality differences. Recognizing that kind of difference and working with it seems like a much better attitude than trying to eliminate it. To quote the EU motto: Unity in diversity.

Further, with things like the Council of Europe, or Europarl, or whatever institution you're dealing with, people simply communicate better in their native language, or whatever language they prefer. The system doesn't seem broken at all--sure, you have scores of translators to pay salaries to, but it works. By creating a new language, not only is that a new language for EVERYONE to learn, but it has the potential to get so muddled, because there's another step in translation there. A person has to translate their ideas in their native language to the universal language. Then, the other person has to translate that universal language differently to fit their own native language's understanding of that the other person said. It just wouldn't work, and miscommunication would probably be a lot more common than the system we have now--with a fluent speaker of both languages, an expert, translating for both parties.

Basically, not only is it symbolically or morally questionable, but it's just very inefficient, and would take up too much time. Why take the time to invent a whole new language when there are already 23 acceptable ones?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 1:25:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sorry. EU motto is UNITED in diversity. Not unity. Oops. Still, same difference.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 1:52:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 1:14:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/17/2013 11:12:38 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Constructed international auxiliary language for communication between each of its countries? Should they if the EU becomes closer than it is now? Why/why not? WHat would happen? Do you think it would just flop?

It's called English.

That's what a lot of English people like to say. I don't feel it is that way, I don't feel English would keep its growth and/or size, and I don't believe English is the best language we can have.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 1:58:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 1:52:54 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/17/2013 1:14:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/17/2013 11:12:38 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Constructed international auxiliary language for communication between each of its countries? Should they if the EU becomes closer than it is now? Why/why not? WHat would happen? Do you think it would just flop?

It's called English.

That's what a lot of English people like to say. I don't feel it is that way, I don't feel English would keep its growth and/or size, and I don't believe English is the best language we can have.

Not the best language, but what has converged to the language for globalization. Consider how many wealthy nations know english.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 2:00:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 1:23:27 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I don't think so.

Now mind you--I'm not a nationalist, I honestly wouldn't mind a worldwide government in theory. That being said, creating a new language just seems...not good. It sounds like something that, for the sake of European unity, straight-up seeks to wipe out individual nationality differences. Recognizing that kind of difference and working with it seems like a much better attitude than trying to eliminate it. To quote the EU motto: Unity in diversity.

Well it's to help communication and identity, where instead of possibly forcing English, French or German as the language as choice, it's a neutral language.


Further, with things like the Council of Europe, or Europarl, or whatever institution you're dealing with, people simply communicate better in their native language, or whatever language they prefer. The system doesn't seem broken at all--sure, you have scores of translators to pay salaries to, but it works. By creating a new language, not only is that a new language for EVERYONE to learn, but it has the potential to get so muddled, because there's another step in translation there. A person has to translate their ideas in their native language to the universal language.

Until they're fluent, then they may be able to communicate well. It's about the people, not just the leadership. Also most of the documents are just written in English, French, German, Spanish or Italian, ignoring all the other 15 or so languages.

Then, the other person has to translate that universal language differently to fit their own native language's understanding of that the other person said.

If you know a language you don't have to translate it to your original language to understand it.

It just wouldn't work, and miscommunication would probably be a lot more common than the system we have now--with a fluent speaker of both languages, an expert, translating for both parties.

If they're fluent in the language, they won't "translate it back" to their original language. It's not just for the leaders, and a lot of documents aren't translated into all the languages.


Basically, not only is it symbolically or morally questionable,

It's symbolically questionable? ...

It's morally questionable? How is it morally questionable to consider the idea... ?

but it's just very inefficient,

The languages could be far more easy to learn than say English, and would promote communication and identity. I know it may not work like that in theory. How is it "very inefficient"?

and would take up too much time.

Way more time then the mess of languages now?

Why take the time to invent a whole new language when there are already 23 acceptable ones?

Esperanto has already been done. It doesn't necessarily take too long. Plus countries aren't going to be crazily excited to use other country's languages over theirs. It's a neutral ground, and honestly, it could be an improvement.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 2:03:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 1:58:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/17/2013 1:52:54 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/17/2013 1:14:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/17/2013 11:12:38 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Constructed international auxiliary language for communication between each of its countries? Should they if the EU becomes closer than it is now? Why/why not? WHat would happen? Do you think it would just flop?

It's called English.

That's what a lot of English people like to say. I don't feel it is that way, I don't feel English would keep its growth and/or size, and I don't believe English is the best language we can have.

Not the best language, but what has converged to the language for globalization. Consider how many wealthy nations know english.

And how many don't know it too well, and will backlash against it, just like we would if we all had to learn German. I don't think choosing English would be an acceptable solution. Especially since it seems the whole of our country wants to leave the EU.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 3:18:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 2:00:51 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/17/2013 1:23:27 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I don't think so.

Now mind you--I'm not a nationalist, I honestly wouldn't mind a worldwide government in theory. That being said, creating a new language just seems...not good. It sounds like something that, for the sake of European unity, straight-up seeks to wipe out individual nationality differences. Recognizing that kind of difference and working with it seems like a much better attitude than trying to eliminate it. To quote the EU motto: Unity in diversity.

Well it's to help communication and identity, where instead of possibly forcing English, French or German as the language as choice, it's a neutral language.

False dilemma. The official languages of the EU are catered to the member states. In essence, everyone's language in the EU is an official language already. There's no forcing in the status quo.

Further, with things like the Council of Europe, or Europarl, or whatever institution you're dealing with, people simply communicate better in their native language, or whatever language they prefer. The system doesn't seem broken at all--sure, you have scores of translators to pay salaries to, but it works. By creating a new language, not only is that a new language for EVERYONE to learn, but it has the potential to get so muddled, because there's another step in translation there. A person has to translate their ideas in their native language to the universal language.

Until they're fluent, then they may be able to communicate well. It's about the people, not just the leadership. Also most of the documents are just written in English, French, German, Spanish or Italian, ignoring all the other 15 or so languages.

So you're saying we should tell people to learn an entirely new language because--"Oh don't worry, once you're fluent, you'll be okay," when chances are people who are adults already will never become fluent. As for the documents not being translated, that's the fault of the EU--it doesn't necessitate a whole new language.

Then, the other person has to translate that universal language differently to fit their own native language's understanding of that the other person said.

If you know a language you don't have to translate it to your original language to understand it.

I suppose that's TECHNICALLY true, but not really. When you learn a language, you learn it through the lens of a language you already know, usually your native language. So, when you know a language, you understand it with the tint of your native language--if that makes sense? For instance, I can speak Spanish semi-fluently. However, the words I know I learned by connecting them with an English understanding of the word. When I see "la manzana roja," I know it means a red apple. At the same time, I do still unconsciously "translate" the phrase into English. THAT'S what I mean when I say translate.

It just wouldn't work, and miscommunication would probably be a lot more common than the system we have now--with a fluent speaker of both languages, an expert, translating for both parties.

If they're fluent in the language, they won't "translate it back" to their original language. It's not just for the leaders, and a lot of documents aren't translated into all the languages.

See above.

Basically, not only is it symbolically or morally questionable,

It's symbolically questionable? ...

Yes. It contravenes the whole attitude of the EU: United in diversity.

It's morally questionable? How is it morally questionable to consider the idea... ?

The idea itself is questionable in that you want to increase communication by making all communication happen in a language no one knows. It makes EU citizens less engaged with the Union because half of them won't ever be able to be fluent.

but it's just very inefficient,

The languages could be far more easy to learn than say English, and would promote communication and identity. I know it may not work like that in theory. How is it "very inefficient"?

No one needs to learn any language. Again, there is no problem in the status quo.

and would take up too much time.

Way more time then the mess of languages now?

Yes, in terms of what it'll take to set it up.

Why take the time to invent a whole new language when there are already 23 acceptable ones?

Esperanto has already been done. It doesn't necessarily take too long. Plus countries aren't going to be crazily excited to use other country's languages over theirs. It's a neutral ground, and honestly, it could be an improvement.

The countries can use their own languages. That's why there are TWENTY THREE official languages.

There is no inherent problem, again.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 3:26:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It seems to me that English is non-problematic. Easiest to learn for any ethnic group considering its usage everywhere (esp. the Internet). What's important is to preserve the local languages of the various states -- even if they all become unified into a single European country.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 3:33:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 3:18:04 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/17/2013 2:00:51 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/17/2013 1:23:27 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I don't think so.

Now mind you--I'm not a nationalist, I honestly wouldn't mind a worldwide government in theory. That being said, creating a new language just seems...not good. It sounds like something that, for the sake of European unity, straight-up seeks to wipe out individual nationality differences. Recognizing that kind of difference and working with it seems like a much better attitude than trying to eliminate it. To quote the EU motto: Unity in diversity.

Well it's to help communication and identity, where instead of possibly forcing English, French or German as the language as choice, it's a neutral language.

False dilemma. The official languages of the EU are catered to the member states. In essence, everyone's language in the EU is an official language already. There's no forcing in the status quo.

False dilemma because we have 20 or so official languages?


Further, with things like the Council of Europe, or Europarl, or whatever institution you're dealing with, people simply communicate better in their native language, or whatever language they prefer. The system doesn't seem broken at all--sure, you have scores of translators to pay salaries to, but it works. By creating a new language, not only is that a new language for EVERYONE to learn, but it has the potential to get so muddled, because there's another step in translation there. A person has to translate their ideas in their native language to the universal language.

Until they're fluent, then they may be able to communicate well. It's about the people, not just the leadership. Also most of the documents are just written in English, French, German, Spanish or Italian, ignoring all the other 15 or so languages.

So you're saying we should tell people to learn an entirely new language because--"Oh don't worry, once you're fluent, you'll be okay,"

We say that to people about English all the time with aviation and science.

when chances are people who are adults already will never become fluent. As for the documents not being translated, that's the fault of the EU--it doesn't necessitate a whole new language.

Even though the new language could help alleviate the problem?


Then, the other person has to translate that universal language differently to fit their own native language's understanding of that the other person said.

If you know a language you don't have to translate it to your original language to understand it.

I suppose that's TECHNICALLY true, but not really. When you learn a language, you learn it through the lens of a language you already know, usually your native language.

You should be learning the meaning of the words, not the words they correspond to in your language. If you're fluent enough, you can think in either language.

So, when you know a language, you understand it with the tint of your native language--if that makes sense? For instance, I can speak Spanish semi-fluently. However, the words I know I learned by connecting them with an English understanding of the word.

Words don't have meaning because of the original sounds and shapes they had with your first language.

When I see "la manzana roja," I know it means a red apple. At the same time, I do still unconsciously "translate" the phrase into English. THAT'S what I mean when I say translate.

It doesn't mean you will have mistranslations, any more than we misunderstand each other in English, if you're very fluent.


It just wouldn't work, and miscommunication would probably be a lot more common than the system we have now--with a fluent speaker of both languages, an expert, translating for both parties.

If they're fluent in the language, they won't "translate it back" to their original language. It's not just for the leaders, and a lot of documents aren't translated into all the languages.

See above.

You're semi-fluent. You should think in terms of meaning instead of shapes and sounds. Rouge (if that's right) should be the colour red, not the sound of the word and its appearance. You can see the colour and think rouge.


Basically, not only is it symbolically or morally questionable,

It's symbolically questionable? ...

Yes. It contravenes the whole attitude of the EU: United in diversity.

It allows them to remain united in diversity, they can keep their languages, remaining diverse, while being able to communicate and identify in a common language, united.


It's morally questionable? How is it morally questionable to consider the idea... ?

The idea itself is questionable in that you want to increase communication by making all communication happen in a language no one knows. It makes EU citizens less engaged with the Union because half of them won't ever be able to be fluent.

This is true, people wouldn't like it. But constructed languages can be created to be easier to learn than natural languages, and can be very similar to European languages so that they can pick it up relatively easily. It's not as if we're creating a new Russian language, it can be created easy to learn. Just because people don't know it now doesn't mean wanting people to be able to communicate with each other, with a better language, is morally questionable. If it won't work, then forcing it is morally questionable.


but it's just very inefficient,

The languages could be far more easy to learn than say English, and would promote communication and identity. I know it may not work like that in theory. How is it "very inefficient"?

No one needs to learn any language. Again, there is no problem in the status quo.

Except communication is a good thing. Don't you like improvement?


and would take up too much time.

Way more time then the mess of languages now?

Yes, in terms of what it'll take to set it up.

How do you figure that? English is a very complicated language, there would probably be time saved if a better language is made. Not to mention the communication barrier will be getting removed.


Why take the time to invent a whole new language when there are already 23 acceptable ones?

Esperanto has already been done. It doesn't necessarily take too long. Plus countries aren't going to be crazily excited to use other country's languages over theirs. It's a neutral ground, and honestly, it could be an improvement.

The countries can use their own languages. That's why there are TWENTY THREE official languages.

Can I talk to anyone in the EU in English. I would rather be in a team of people who I could all talk to. Would you rather be in a team in which you couldn't communicate with most the members?


There is no inherent problem, again.

Really? Because it seems that sooner or later, the smaller, less used languages, will be under pressure to not be used. I think a form of Irish and another language, at least, has had to admit defeat, not being able to be an official language. You think the less used languages will be able to stay forever? French, English and German will probably be pushed to the forefront, with other languages removed, and this would just cause resentment. This may not be the case, but I also don't see why we shouldn't consider being able to communicate with each other. Are you anti-globalisation?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 3:35:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 3:26:58 PM, Mirza wrote:
It seems to me that English is non-problematic.

Most learn it because they have to, but don't want to. Non-problematic?

Easiest to learn for any ethnic group considering its usage everywhere (esp. the Internet).

Easiest to find material to learn from does not mean easiest to learn, apparently it's quite difficult to learn.

What's important is to preserve the local languages of the various states -- even if they all become unified into a single European country.

I agree. The local languages should be preserved.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 3:40:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 3:35:29 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Most learn it because they have to, but don't want to. Non-problematic?
Yes, non-problematic. People dispute it because many Europeans tend to be proud of their cultures, especially the Slavs -- which doesn't create problems for learning the language. Making it official is the issue.

Easiest to find material to learn from does not mean easiest to learn, apparently it's quite difficult to learn.
Sure, it depends on the culture. What I mean by easiest to learn is the amount of resources available for learning a given language. Single English is widely spoken already, used in media (movies, Internet, etc.), I don't see why a new language has to be created other than for solving cultural disputes. Perhaps there are good reasons, but someone will have to present them.

I agree. The local languages should be preserved.
The threat of a unified Europe is that local cultures can slowly vanish. It's not a problem narrowed down to language, unfortunately.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 3:47:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 3:40:31 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/17/2013 3:35:29 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Most learn it because they have to, but don't want to. Non-problematic?
Yes, non-problematic. People dispute it because many Europeans tend to be proud of their cultures, especially the Slavs -- which doesn't create problems for learning the language. Making it official is the issue.

Yeah, learning it isn't necessarily problematic, though it could be made a lot easier with a constructed language. Most don't learn to fluency though, and it's not neutural ground, so most pull away from it.


Easiest to find material to learn from does not mean easiest to learn, apparently it's quite difficult to learn.
Sure, it depends on the culture. What I mean by easiest to learn is the amount of resources available for learning a given language. Single English is widely spoken already, used in media (movies, Internet, etc.), I don't see why a new language has to be created other than for solving cultural disputes. Perhaps there are good reasons, but someone will have to present them.

Well there are reasons. Spelling phonetically, having words that only mean one thing, grammar with no exceptions etc. A lot of people would probably say "they aren't huge differences", but considering every person needs to learn a language from scratch, it could definitely be worth it to teach them a better, commonly-spoken constructed language as a second language. Obviously the idea and the practice don't always work out the same though.


I agree. The local languages should be preserved.
The threat of a unified Europe is that local cultures can slowly vanish. It's not a problem narrowed down to language, unfortunately.

Well that is a threat, I guess. Cultures have vanished many times over, all over the world. The English, American, French, Egyptian, Japanese and Chinese culture etc. have changed many many times, and will probably keep changing.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 3:49:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 3:41:01 PM, Mirza wrote:
Eh, "Since English" not Single.

Wut?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 3:53:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 3:47:20 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Well there are reasons. Spelling phonetically, having words that only mean one thing, grammar with no exceptions etc. A lot of people would probably say "they aren't huge differences", but considering every person needs to learn a language from scratch, it could definitely be worth it to teach them a better, commonly-spoken constructed language as a second language. Obviously the idea and the practice don't always work out the same though.
So it's easier to grasp. And?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 3:57:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 3:53:20 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/17/2013 3:47:20 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Well there are reasons. Spelling phonetically, having words that only mean one thing, grammar with no exceptions etc. A lot of people would probably say "they aren't huge differences", but considering every person needs to learn a language from scratch, it could definitely be worth it to teach them a better, commonly-spoken constructed language as a second language. Obviously the idea and the practice don't always work out the same though.
So it's easier to grasp. And?

Less miscommunication. Possibly better communication with voice recognition / computers. Less space to write words? Faster communication?

But who cares about advantages right? It's not like we have to teach kids languages... oh wait!
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 4:02:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How is a simpler language necessarily the "best for communication"? I require proof. Advanced language is HIGHLY advantageous for communication. Say a language is so simple that philosophy and science are the same word. Easier to learn and communicate with -- does it mean communication is more EFFECTIVE? No.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 4:08:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In essence, the argument boils down to whether a newly constructed language has a net benefit. Perhaps it can be overall better -- in terms of learning and communicating the grammar, spelling, etc. -- but getting everyone to learn it (one's language-learning ability decreases over time), translating literature, [etc etc], could be a burden. There should be some very strong arguments for constructing such a language rather than using a widespread one.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 4:21:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 4:02:13 PM, Mirza wrote:
How is a simpler language necessarily the "best for communication"? I require proof. Advanced language is HIGHLY advantageous for communication. Say a language is so simple that philosophy and science are the same word. Easier to learn and communicate with -- does it mean communication is more EFFECTIVE? No.

Did I say simpler? In any case, it could be more simple in some ways, but more advanced in others. I'm not talking about having a small vocabulary. Just consistent rules etc. see above.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 4:26:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 4:08:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
In essence, the argument boils down to whether a newly constructed language has a net benefit. Perhaps it can be overall better -- in terms of learning and communicating the grammar, spelling, etc. -- but getting everyone to learn it (one's language-learning ability decreases over time), translating literature, [etc etc], could be a burden. There should be some very strong arguments for constructing such a language rather than using a widespread one.

I think all the above enhancing communication is worth it. If the language is better and easier to learn people may naturally gravitate to it. The better the language, the easier to translate the literature. Also, people may often refuse to learn other languages because they don't see why they should change, they think everyone should learn their language. So if the language belongs to no one, it could encourage them.

Very strong arguments? I don't see what argument would be strong enough for you. A language, so amazing, that it accelerates science, mathematics, art and politics at twice their normal advances? I'm not saying everyone alive has to learn it, it can be slowly rolled out and adopted in line with other languages, you know?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!