Connecting Singles^® EU Forums100% Free Online Dating

More than six billion people on this world speak thousands of the languages. So, there is always a communication problem between persons of 2 different locations and also results in miscomunication.

Should we have one universal language which is spoken throughout the world ? If yes, then what should it be and probably why as well.

Ain't we using one on here right now????

Thought that english is the official international language.

no no no

I'd be out of business

[quote] More than six billion people on this world speak thousands of the languages. So, there is always a communication problem between persons of 2 different locations and also results in miscomunication.

Should we have one universal language which is spoken throughout the world ? If yes, then what should it be and probably why as well. [quote]

I think English is more or less universal, although French is in a way the official (diplomatic) but I don't think we should. First, it would-in the long term at least-turn local languages obsolete, which is something bad and useless. Each language carries its own richness, idioms and elements that come from local tradition and express the lives and actions of the people who speak it. Moreover, nations that don't have their autonomy or territorial integrity use language as a definition of their individual character. Why should they be deprieved of it?

Second, it's practically a very difficult thing to do. What sort of infrastructure should China for example establish to teach all the chinese English? And to what end? It would be even worse in African countries where people are affamated to create the conditions for them to learn English (....while at the same time we can't provide them bread and milk )

In another...better world .....

...maybe...

Body language ???

[quote=kirip][quote] More than six billion people on this world speak thousands of the languages. So, there is always a communication problem between persons of 2 different locations and also results in miscomunication.

Should we have one universal language which is spoken throughout the world ? If yes, then what should it be and probably why as well. [quote]

I think English is more or less universal, although French is in a way the official (diplomatic) but I don't think we should. First, it would-in the long term at least-turn local languages obsolete, which is something bad and useless. Each language carries its own richness, idioms and elements that come from local tradition and express the lives and actions of the people who speak it. Moreover, nations that don't have their autonomy or territorial integrity use language as a definition of their individual character. Why should they be deprieved of it?

Second, it's practically a very difficult thing to do. What sort of infrastructure should China for example establish to teach all the chinese English? And to what end? It would be even worse in African countries where people are affamated to create the conditions for them to learn English (....while at the same time we can't provide them bread and milk )

Could'nt disagree with you more on this one.
A language is a tool for comunicating.
It is not an advantage that the world has thousands of languages and dialects. It is a big disadvantage. Only people with the same language can comunicate together to the detriment of the rest.

I would love to see one universal language. At one time Esperanto was meant to be that language. Ideally the universal language should be totally new, but since English is often taken to be the universal language, I would be happy to adopt it as the world's language.

For what purpose conserve idiomatic expressions and all the individual language expressions, when they don't help comunicating?
What is the use of so many languages in a world with no boundaries?

[quote=antcus][A language is a tool for comunicating.
I would love to see one universal language. At one time Esperanto was meant to be that language. [/quote]

having spent 23 years of my life circumnavigating the globe as a navigator and then living "permanently" in 3 different European countries with 3 different languages I am all for a standard language!

Esperanto did not work the first time around because there was no way to spread it......

Now we have radio,TV,DVD internet.Ideal tools for the job.

But governments are not interested.A language is a tool for communicating.And they don,t want us to do that!

It´s the mushroom thing......Keep them in the dark and feed them on bullshit.

I think that the value each one attributes to own language is self-perceived. It can be interpreted in many ways, each of which can be considered right or wrong. In my opinion, turning the "native" language obsolete is more important than achieving a universal form of communication. As we can all see, what is here discussed is to a wide extent served by the English language without any measures taken. On the other hand I don't think everybody in this world needs it.

Moreover I think it's technically very difficult to achieve.

I find your opinion very interesting though

Hope this isn't a Vote for "GLEICHSCHALTUNG" again!!

No Conrad. The Nokia slogan is "connecting people". But it becomes useless if after connecting these people, they cannot speak to each other because of the language barrier. My motto "one people (the whole world population) one language!!

[quote=gongman][quote=antcus][A language is a tool for comunicating.
I would love to see one universal language. At one time Esperanto was meant to be that language. [/quote]

having spent 23 years of my life circumnavigating the globe as a navigator and then living "permanently" in 3 different European countries with 3 different languages I am all for a standard language!

Esperanto did not work the first time around because there was no way to spread it......

Now we have radio,TV,DVD internet.Ideal tools for the job.

But governments are not interested.A language is a tool for communicating.And they don,t want us to do that!

It´s the mushroom thing......Keep them in the dark and feed them on bullshit.[/quote]

Do you really think that governments are not interested in establishing universal comunication?

I thought it was simply our stupidity, or our disinterested attitude to learning.

I like the way you use "permanently". That means forever. Moreover you did it in three different countries. So were you forever in three different countries at once? Pardon me, if I am curious about what you actually meant to say.

Yes well I did put the "permanently" in parenthesis!

I thought I was going to live in France for ever,but then you know what thought did.Planted a feather and thought it would grow into a chicken

Upward and onward,as they say.Now living in Spain....No use learning Spanish though.They speak Andaluz here in Andalucia!

EsperantoEsperantoEsperantoEsperanto!!!!!

yes

--- the worlds people commuicate with each other very well, if its not broken why try to fix it , it works as it is leave it alone---

Why ? What's wrong with the english language ?

...or also the body language and gestures... they are little tricky sometimes, but it's OK ...it's work....
If there is a will there is a way... some guys just don't want to communicate with the other because they are afraid of something... possible communication breakdown, for example.
What do you think ?

you are official international language ....
nobody made a declaration for this.... but UNOFFICIALLY.... this is different story.

..... yes the last one was related with qanqel's explanation about the languages

What's wrong with it???

I guess it's an ok language for global simple communication, but that's it. The english language is too poor in it's grammar and expressional context to accomodate a lot of people's need of expression. Ever thought why not one great philosopher was english?