Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site fortune.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabs!hpda!fortune!grw From: grw@fortune.UUCP Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: What base for an "international language" Message-ID: <1276@fortune.UUCP> Date: Tue, 19-Jul-83 18:48:11 EDT Article-I.D.: fortune.1276 Posted: Tue Jul 19 18:48:11 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Jul-83 16:31:09 EDT References: <439@mit-eddie.UUCP>, <3088@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: Fortune Systems, San Carlos, CA Lines: 26 First point: I don't think Esperanto was ever meant to be a world-wide international language, just a language for speakers of indo-european tongues. Is that true? I'm not sure how much my opinion is based in chauvanism, but it seems to me that an international language really ought to be based in English. My reasoning is as follows: English and Chinese are tied for first place in terms of number of native speakers, it's true, but: 1) Chinese is spoken only in a limited geographic area, whereas English is spoken on every continent, and a lot of islands. 2) English is far and away the most common "second language" in the world -- most people who speak two languages speak enlish as at least one of them. 3) English is unofficially the standard language in international trade. Do these arguments hold water, or not? Admittedly, English is a very kludgy language and thus not very easy to learn, and the spelling rules are even worse, but an international language could be built by using English with phonetic spelling and fixed-up grammar. Yes or no? -Glenn