Should there be a one Universal language ? (42)

Thought that english is the official international language.

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.

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 ???

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.

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?

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