Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!flairvax!ellis From: ellis@flairvax.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: What base for an "international language" Message-ID: <178@flairvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Jul-83 01:04:51 EDT Article-I.D.: flairvax.178 Posted: Fri Jul 22 01:04:51 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jul-83 13:04:18 EDT References: fortune.1276 Lines: 59 In response to an article by Glenn (fortune!grw)... English does seem to have come closer to the status of `international language' than anything else around, in spite of the fact that `Chinese' (its `dialects' are actually separate languages) has more speakers. I believe this is clearly because we (we == Americans, British, Canadians and Australians) English speakers, as a whole, are temporarily on top of the heap, and have been for some time. `International' languages have always been unofficially determined by the top dog(s), anyway. Sooner or later, though... Now how long will an international language that achieved its status by power and money remain truly international ? Answer: Until shortly after the power leverage is gone. Since nothing lasts forever, I suspect that our temporary lead must disintegrate, though it may take centuries. When this happens, I hope it will be because other cultures have caught up with, and not destroyed, ours. A genuinely international language should reflect all cultures fairly, not showing bias towards speakers with any particular vocabulary, syntax, or phonetic habits. If this is not the case, then the favored culture will be more proficient and thereby become yet more powerful. Contrariwise, it will be rejected by those to whom it is alien -- and cease to be international. Short of genocide or subjugation, I see no way, in the long run, to establish a stable, voluntarily accepted international language without making major concessions to the languages of India, China, Africa and so on. How can (and why should) English hold its current predominance? As to your comment: "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." We all know that English spelling is quite horrible, probabably the worst spelled language in the world (except Gaelic). But I believe its grammar is far simpler and more logical than anything else from Europe. Not klugy at all, perhaps even elegant. Did you ever see the (`orthogonal') English verb scheme expressed in phrase-structure notation? Or the lack of pointless grammatical gender in nouns? Or the paucity of inflections (word endings like -s and -ed) and inflectional categories ? As far as being easy to learn (to speak, not write) English gets an A+ from me. For real elegance and simplicity, I'd check out the Chinese dialects, though. The worst obstacle I have here is the classifier concept, apparently (?) used to distinguish the many, many homonyms. But talk about being hard to write**!! -michael ** in this case, really a strong point. But that's another topic.