Two questions,
Given that the barriers of translation are decreasing with the vast forms of software and communication, do you see a universial languae (aside from math) being eventuall formed? Is this just a process of globalization?
Finally, do you forsee a world language forming in a free society or do you think concentration on local events will keep customs unchanged?
I typed up and recently submitted a response (which was after you made this thread) in an other thread. It addresses your questions:
so which language is gold and which is silver?
No idea. They probably do not exist right now. In fact, they might each be artificial languages that have not yet been constructed.
French and French.
Although it’s a beautiful language for music and poetry, the grammar is too complicated, and unnecessarily so. So I don’t think it’s going to happen.
Personally, I would be interested in the mixture they had in Firefly, where the spoken language was English (and a little Chinese), but they used Chinese characters for writing. Not sure if it’s possible, but given that Chinese characters only carry meaning, not pronunciation, then it could work.
I could possibly see a new language naturally emerging sort of like what Fred Furash has suggested, but I would highly doubt an artificial language could take much root.
More and more people from different languages doing business together and learning parts of each others language, and no national borders, would seem like a recipe for a dominant language eventually taking over to me.
Given that the barriers pf communication are breaking down(and all else being equal), I see both happening. I see a few dominant languages and people will come to learn them. A universal language could be formed, but that would be as a result of forced globalization and egalitarianism.
I think society will continue to change. As the distant (hoepfully not-so-distant) future comes and people have less and less respect and reliance on the state, society will be able to better express itself and members will be freer to act in their own perceived interests. Today, discrimination is a huge deal. Not liking people who use other languages and have different customs must be accepted, or you face the fury of the state. With less state, there will be less emphasis on egalitarianism. People will become more diverse. There will be more discrimination and it won’t be as big a deal as today. I think the terms “diversity” and “equality” used today by the state and the “left-wing liberals” are terribly abused. The state want uniformity, to have a “one size fits all” method so that they can control us and get from us as much as they can. It’s their job. Diversity means inequality, and diversity allows for the division of labor that allows us to live better lives materially(and possibly psychologically/spiritually). It also means deviating from the norm. And this would be more possible in a freer society.
Some people think that one dominant language is an inevitability, but I don’t think so. It’s the same line of thought that says “in 500 years everyone will be of equally mixed racial makeup”. There will always be change, expression of differences, and diversity. I think we should embrace that and make the best use of it.
What did he suggest?
Why?
Do you hold the same opinion about money? How do you explain the dominance of gold as the global money in the past?
Nah. Money and language are different things.
Did you not read my first post in this thread?
I agree. “Designed” languages tend to reflect more the preferences of the creator than the preferences of the people to use it. There are simply too many variables that are completely up to individual taste: Should its grammatical structure be synthetic or analytic? The phonology simple or complex? Should its case system be Nominative-Accusative or Ergative-Absolutive, if it even has cases at all?
Yeah, and how is that different than any other creation? Your post sounds like a revolt against capitalism.
I think it was more against central planning
Yup. Languages are intangible and can split. Hence different dialects and languages that sound similar, but are different. Languages tend to fork out, while barter tends to turn to gold. Language1 can fork into language2 and language3, but gold doesn’t turn into gold1 and gold2 when it’s split in half and goes with different societies. A common language is a good way to communicate, but that doesn’t call for the elimination of other languages. Different cultures, different languages.
Languages can also “die”. Doesn’t seem like gold can “die”. For a long time, I can see divisions between people called “tribes” or “nations” or “cultures” or w/e, and this will keep people divided and different, and will lead them to have their own languages/variations of languages. Until all cultures are one, we’ll have multiple languages.
I basically agree with I. Ryan* that we’ll see a lot of both diversification and amalgamation. As a professional translator, I know the economic costs of mutual non-communication are very high - it’s what puts food on my table. And it’s pretty obvious from the way that so many people are and have long been learning English because of the economic opportunities it presents, and these are only growing.
I say, “follow the money with a generation’s time lag,” which means to me English (because of the lag) and Chinese (not German, because I think - could be wrong! - most Germans speak English). Japan may be a special case. Most Japanese will probably never learn English or Chinese as long as Japan stays economically strong, but for people from poorer countries I’d imagine there are a lot more benefits to learning English, especially now with the very real possibility of telecommuting via the Internet (even I’m doing it because my office is in another city, and when I go to the US or wherever I continue to work as usual). Still I suppose a sizable portion, especially of older people, will not learn any foreign language and so there will be a lot of languages sticking around.
*EDIT: I’m not in agreement about the artificial language idea. Language works because it arises out of a spontaneous order. Undesired communication tools are naturally eliminated from language by falling into disuse, and new words are coined and become popular memes as needed. Central planning of language would be pointless, except in cases where language is already somewhat centrally “planned” (not really planned per se) in tight communities that have special needs, such as the LvMI, LessWrong, reddit, etc.
Natural language : : Artificial language
Common law : : State-made law
Free market : : Economic intervention
If you design a language, you only get to decide where it starts, not where it will go. It is not central planning to create a product and then see whether people adopt it and what people do with it.
You miss the point. The immension diversity of states creates an immense diversity in language. A decline in the prominence of the state would mean a strengthening of the international community.
Good catch. People not being able to easily cross borders probably has a lot to do with it nowadays, now that transportation is much cheaper and more practical.