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