The dominant language always drives smaller languages into irrelevance and eventually extinction. The more broadly dominant the language, the faster and more aggressive this process is. A universal language would therefore do this to the extreme.
International communication functions just fine as is even with language barriers, so it's not really solving any problems.
No language can remain universal, as language change over time would lead to divergence and eventual unintelligibility. Only an oppressive enforcement apparatus could even hope to stop this, and it would likely fail.
Shared languages don't historically do anything to stop violence or conflict anyways. The Nazis could understand their Jewish neighbours just fine.
They share opinions of equal nonsensity about areas that share a language. Talk to a Republican in a far-out suburb about "the city" and it makes as much sense as their opinions on China.
Yes, language is an integral part of culture and identity. Losing it a loss of that culture and a homogenization of humanity. Ask any indigenous person how they feel about this.
These barriers are more political than linguistic.
I dont have personally anything against homogenization of humanity, and besides these identities are completely arbitrary, what does it matter what sort of identity one has?
The fact that i for example cant understand more than a majority of people in the world is purely a lingustic problem though fixing it would be political
I presume there wouldnt be anyone's version, rather it would be a joint project by all the nations in the world
For example right now i could understand only ~11% of human population i would say it would be much better if everyone could understand 100% of human population
I dont know, i wouldnt mind losing my national identity, though thats just my opinion, besides my idea of a universal language presumes that all the nations agreed to it so im not advocating for anything forceful
The dominant language always drives smaller languages into irrelevance and eventually extinction. The more broadly dominant the language, the faster and more aggressive this process is. A universal language would therefore do this to the extreme.
International communication functions just fine as is even with language barriers, so it's not really solving any problems.
No language can remain universal, as language change over time would lead to divergence and eventual unintelligibility. Only an oppressive enforcement apparatus could even hope to stop this, and it would likely fail.
Shared languages don't historically do anything to stop violence or conflict anyways. The Nazis could understand their Jewish neighbours just fine.
Looking at insanely ridiculous opinions people have about other countries, it is not functioning fine at all.
They share opinions of equal nonsensity about areas that share a language. Talk to a Republican in a far-out suburb about "the city" and it makes as much sense as their opinions on China.
It's orders of magnitude less nonsensical, even if still monumentally stupid.
Is that a bad thing?
There are still problems of people not understanding each other
Having one agreed upon version that is taught in schools would prevent divergence.
There are other benefits
Yes, language is an integral part of culture and identity. Losing it a loss of that culture and a homogenization of humanity. Ask any indigenous person how they feel about this.
These barriers are more political than linguistic.
Whose version?
Such as?
I dont have personally anything against homogenization of humanity, and besides these identities are completely arbitrary, what does it matter what sort of identity one has?
The fact that i for example cant understand more than a majority of people in the world is purely a lingustic problem though fixing it would be political
I presume there wouldnt be anyone's version, rather it would be a joint project by all the nations in the world
For example right now i could understand only ~11% of human population i would say it would be much better if everyone could understand 100% of human population
deleted by creator
I dont know, i wouldnt mind losing my national identity, though thats just my opinion, besides my idea of a universal language presumes that all the nations agreed to it so im not advocating for anything forceful
deleted by creator
Even if its not simple scenario i would say the benefits are worthwhile
deleted by creator
Yeah i dont think that its some pressing concern but rather a project that could be undertaken far into a socialist future