Should there be an international language? Yes. It makes things so much easier to not always have to have a translator with you. It gives you access to so many more places, much more information, makes science more effective, etc.
Should it be English? Yes, because significant parts of the world already know English, albeit badly. Also, English is very accessible in today's world. So it's by far the easiest route to have people improve their English and hope there children will learn it well, instead of starting all over again with another language.
Lucrece wrote:There's something particularly uncomfortable about seeing little children being taught English as a requirement in Latin American schools.
Definitely not. For small children, learning a language is easier than it will ever be in later years, and learning a language in which you can communicate with significant parts of the world isn't exactly what I'd consider a disadvantage. The earlier, the better. In fact, I think the ultimate aim can only be to add English to the native language list of all people in the world, though this of course requires some infrastructure, and the people in charge are obviously not able to set such up, considering the problems we have with immigrant kids in Europe who get their natural language acquisition messed up by stupid parents, kindergardeners and politicians.
Kaiveron wrote:I am even using the term "lingua franca," which means "Frankish/French language."
No, it doesn't. It means "language used for inter-group communication that everyone is supposed to know" or something like that.
Don't confuse etymology with meaning.
Roĝer wrote:Which is why there should be a neutral international language, which is not anyone's own language.
Learning a language is troublesome, and I don't believe in egalitarianism to the extent that you have to give some people additional trouble to make them equal if you can't take the trouble away from the others to achieve the same.
Second, given the current state of the world, this is simply not an option. We have no such language, and it would be a lot of work to get it off the ground and give life to it. And no, simply constructing something on paper like Esperantists doesn't do because the semantic and lexical nuances of natural languages are just too refined and complicated for us to construct such consciously with our current linguistic knowledge. So we would at least have to have a generation or two of interacting native learners work over the language... I have to admit I don't know how long it really took to get Modern Hebrew off the ground, though.