Should there just be one language in the world?

[Valmy]

The lack of an alphabet would seem to make it somewhat inflexible.  Harder to add new words into the language.

If the rest of the world got ahold of it we would shape it to our needs.

[Valmy]

It is difficult for, say, English native speakers to learn. 

But easy for, say, Hindi speakers to learn?

[Valmy]

Anyway there will eventually be a lingua franca for the entire world.  Heck we practically have one already.

[Ideologue]

I'd rather not have to learn Chinese.  From what I understand it's a fucking nightmare to learn.

If it were used all the time I would consider it.

But it is not like you are bombarded by Chinese all the time.  I am not tempted to learn it so I can enjoy the latest popular movie in the original or just must read the latest amazing book in the original or be among the elite in world culture.  Chinese is spoken by alot of people but is not really a big cultural presence, at least not visibly from where I sit.

Slaves don't produce a lot of culture.

[viper37]

No. Humans are perfectly capable to learn multiple languages. You can gain all the advantages you name by just teaching everybody English as a second language.

If *everybody* knows English other languages will die out naturally, as the Gaelic languages are doing.

not really.  At one point or another, lots of people were learning a second language.  Most haven't died.

[viper37]

And of course, no, we do not need only one language, nor is it desirable.  It's been proven that bilingual or trilingual people have more brain power than unilinguals:
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/brains-of-bilingual-people-wired-differently-study-says/3444

You lose a lot by having only one language.  And you don't gain much.  We could also all be white with blond hairs and blue eyes.  Some say it's better that way.

[Malthus]

What you guys are missing is that while there is a natural tendancy for language to spread and become common, there is an equal and opposite tendancy for groups to develop their own versions of it, less and less comprehesible to outsiders.

The elites have always had some sort of commonly understood language - whether it be the Latin of the Church, or the French of diplomacy. The commoners have always made do with some sort of lingua franca, or some type of pidgin, made up of a mixture of the dominant language of the day with all sorts of other expressions from a variety of local languages. Meanwhile, the dominant language gets divided by slang, by local variants, etc.

You will never, bar force, get everyone speaking one common language, for the simple reason that language is always changing. Even if everyone in the world spoke perfect English tomorrow, the day after the language would start to develop local variants ...

My prediction: English will indeed become both the dominant (though not sole) language of the international elite, and in a form highly infected with neologisms as seen on the Internet, the lingua franca of the mass for purposes of international communication; meanwhile, languages will go on merrily developing as they always have, with local variants - see the Indian version of English. 

Moreover, there are benefits to being multi-lingual, and none to being unilingual. So this state of affairs is both natural and desireable.

[Valmy]

And of course, no, we do not need only one language, nor is it desirable.  It's been proven that bilingual or trilingual people have more brain power than unilinguals:

Wouldn't that mean it is better everybody know their local language plus a universal lingua franca?

You lose a lot by having only one language.  And you don't gain much.  We could also all be white with blond hairs and blue eyes.  Some say it's better that way.

Yeah I fail to see how looking the same has anything to do with people being able to communicate with each other.  How is looking the same useful?

[Valmy]

You will never, bar force, get everyone speaking one common language, for the simple reason that language is always changing. Even if everyone in the world spoke perfect English tomorrow, the day after the language would start to develop local variants ...

Sure if everybody was isolated from each other and there was no world culture to go with it.  I have not noticed each town in the US developing its own language.  I mean they might to some extent but not enough to prevent people from freely moving and communicating with each other.

[jimmy olsen]

What you guys are missing is that while there is a natural tendancy for language to spread and become common, there is an equal and opposite tendancy for groups to develop their own versions of it, less and less comprehesible to outsiders.

The elites have always had some sort of commonly understood language - whether it be the Latin of the Church, or the French of diplomacy. The commoners have always made do with some sort of lingua franca, or some type of pidgin, made up of a mixture of the dominant language of the day with all sorts of other expressions from a variety of local languages. Meanwhile, the dominant language gets divided by slang, by local variants, etc.

You will never, bar force, get everyone speaking one common language, for the simple reason that language is always changing. Even if everyone in the world spoke perfect English tomorrow, the day after the language would start to develop local variants ...

My prediction: English will indeed become both the dominant (though not sole) language of the international elite, and in a form highly infected with neologisms as seen on the Internet, the lingua franca of the mass for purposes of international communication; meanwhile, languages will go on merrily developing as they always have, with local variants - see the Indian version of English. 

Moreover, there are benefits to being multi-lingual, and none to being unilingual. So this state of affairs is both natural and desireable.

Television, Radio, Film and mass transit greatly retard the spread of dialects on a subnational level. There's a reason that 50-90% of the world's languages are expected to go extinct in the next hundred years and that reason is the vastly increased urbanization and inter-connectivity of global society.

[The Brain]

Everybody knowing English with optional local tongue seems fine to me.

[Neil]

And of course, no, we do not need only one language, nor is it desirable.  It's been proven that bilingual or trilingual people have more brain power than unilinguals:

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.  How's that for trilingual?

You lose a lot by having only one language.  And you don't gain much.  We could also all be white with blond hairs and blue eyes.  Some say it's better that way.

You don't really lose anything.

[Malthus]

You will never, bar force, get everyone speaking one common language, for the simple reason that language is always changing. Even if everyone in the world spoke perfect English tomorrow, the day after the language would start to develop local variants ...

Sure if everybody was isolated from each other and there was no world culture to go with it.  I have not noticed each town in the US developing its own language.  I mean they might to some extent but not enough to prevent people from freely moving and communicating with each other.

Mass communications mean that it is not locale that determines dialect, but socio-economic class, ethnicity, interests, etc. etc.

Try listening to some ghetto kids.

[Razgovory]

I'd rather not have to learn Chinese.  From what I understand it's a fucking nightmare to learn.

If it were used all the time I would consider it.

But it is not like you are bombarded by Chinese all the time.  I am not tempted to learn it so I can enjoy the latest popular movie in the original or just must read the latest amazing book in the original or be among the elite in world culture.  Chinese is spoken by alot of people but is not really a big cultural presence, at least not visibly from where I sit.

Slaves don't produce a lot of culture.

In the US they did.

[Malthus]

Television, Radio, Film and mass transit greatly retard the spread of dialects on a subnational level. There's a reason that 50-90% of the world's languages are expected to go extinct in the next hundred years and that reason is the vastly increased urbanization and inter-connectivity of global society.

Media and interconnectivity means that you can speak perfectly well with that teacher over in Hong Kong, but find it difficult to understand the kids hanging out at the mall next door.