Is the Tower of Babel still affecting us or something?
Edit:
We have 8 billion people, yet the best we could muster for the most total speakers of a language is under 2 billion, including non-natives...
- English (1,452 million speakers) First language: 372.9 million Total speakers: 1.4+ billion According to Ethnologue, English is the most-spoken language in the world including native and non-native speakers.
https://www.berlitz.com/blog/most-spoken-languages-world#:~:text=1.,English%20(1%2C452%20million%20speakers)&text=According%20to%20Ethnologue%2C%20English%20is,native%20and%20non%2Dnative%20speakers.
There's like 1.2 billion English speakers, including non-native speakers, tho? the OP asks for like 3.5 billion or somethin'.... since population globally is 8 billion...
Erm erm, one sec.
~Love is the Universal language~
Ok you can crucify me now xD
You need a reason for a large group to choose to maintain a single language over over smaller groups creating their own.
Look at Latin, it stayed mainly cohesive due to the Roman Empire and splintered off as the empire collapsed and the necessity for commoners to maintain communication across thousands of miles dwindled.
English is the current lingua francia because the dominant nation has been speaking English for the past two hundred years and created a pop culture market that is both large and rich, creating a positive feedback loop making the market larger and richer.
English is the current lingua francia because the dominant nation has been speaking English for the past two hundred years and created a pop culture market
Cute that you think it's the U.S. and it's little movies that are responsible for English being widely spoken, and not the bloody history of British imperialism being forced on half the planet
I mentioned the bloody imperialism in the first half of the sentence.
I didn't know the USA was a dominant nation two centuries ago.
Every time this was attempted we chose the language of the worst colonizer at that time
"chose". learning the language of the worst colonizer of your time's always been economically advantageous
You as a 8.1 billion population have to come together and decide as a group and the enact it. If we couldn’t even stop Covid which is still around you think we can do something like this?
I really like esperanto as a project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto
It had a lot of support with early 20th century anarchists who saw it as a way to make people less nationalistic and prone to their domestic propaganda.
Maybe it's Interlingua. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua Most people who speak a latin based language already understand interlingua. That would be the best chance of getting a majority of the world on the same language. It would include a big part of Europe, all of South and Central America and half of North America
Interlingua: Da nos hodie nostre pan quotidian,
Esperanto: Nian panon ĉiutagan donu al ni hodiaŭ
English: Give us this day our daily bread;
We have our choice between Spanish Latin, Romanian Latin, or super complicated Latin that contradicts itself and absorbed things from everywhere at random.
For a tiny language, I really like toki pona, but it's meant to be a minimal artistic language, more than an IAL (international auxiliary language).
Last I checked tho, Globasa looks really interesting. The way that they add new vocabulary, and have a good representation of world languages, seems to work well.
Esperanto is also good, but when my partner tried to learn it, they were weirded out by some of it's quirks, like noun declinations based on whether it's a subject or object, that seems unecessary.
Yeah I feel that for better or worse Esperanto hasn’t reached a large enough mass to justify accepting its quirks and indo-eurocentrism, when we know we can do better now.
For sure. A dissapointing number of IALs have nearly all their vocab from european languages, but there are a few that try earnestly to source their vocab from a wide set of language families. Any global initiative for an IAL needs to have a global vocabulary set to have any hopes of being introduced.
If you choose vocabulary that is culturally neutral, then that vocabulary is not easily recognisable.
There's no workaround for that trade-off.
Recognizeable for whom, is the question. The majority of IALs to date have had a highly eurocentric vocabulary, so they can't be recognizeable to even a plurality of the world.
Correct reasoning, incorrect facts.
46% of the world speak Indo-European languages as a mother tongue.
Can't do better than that. No other option comes close.
Aren't you Irish? You know the English colonizers did their best to wipe out the Irish language and replace it with the one you're advocating for right???
know the English colonizers did .... right???
Nooo I didn't actually know that and needed an enlightened person such as yourself to tell me 🙄🙄
Tá mé tinn de bheith ag glacadh comhairle stráinséara. Imagine some blan started lecturing you about haitian history and how it should affect your opinions, wouldn't you at least tell them to fuck off?
Kind of wild that you use Haiti as an example here, considering the european genocide of the Taino people, as well as the european importation of african slaves, two groups that didn't speak european languages, and had their languages erased by the same process you're advocating for.
So why are you advocating for the displacement of the majority of the world's language families based on european languages popularity it gained through colonial displacement?
The majority of the world don't speak european languages.
So why are you advocating for the displacement of the majority of the world’s language families based on european languages popularity it gained through colonial displacement?
Same reason you are advocating wife-beating (i.e. I never said anything like that)
The majority of the world don’t speak european languages.
Correct. That's was our starting point: there's no language that the majority of the world do speak.
Indo-European is spoken by a 46% minority.
About 19% of the world's population speak the Indo-Iranian branch alone. It's by far the largest of the 8 branches by number of speakers. By number of languages (which includes tiny languages) it comprises about ⅔ of the family –
Show
For example there are 884 million speakers of Hindi/Urdu + Bengali + Marathi + Gujarati + Odia + Punjabi in India, and Pakistan is almost all Indo-European (Indo-Aryan and Iranic).
Agus in theannta sin, tá Gaeilge (teanga Ind-Eorpach/Ceiltís) ag 0.0002125% den daonra domhanda!
I never said anything approaching the words your putting in my mouth.
When I was a teen I really wanted to learn Esperanto but never got around to it. Globasa seems extremely interesting though, maybe I’ll finally give one of these languages a try.
Is that the default situation is it??
You dreamed up a scenario and now are asking why it is not the case.
It is a somewhat naïvely-framed question, but also you could have just clicked downvote and moved on with your day.
Tell me, where is this global language where it has 3.5 billion speakers, if not half? You've indicated it's not the case...?
Do you think I ask in bad faith, or do you ask in bad faith?
English (1,452 million speakers) First language: 372.9 million
This is already wrong, which means your entire premise is prob wrong
anglozone population = 510 million. I'm pretty sure more than 72% of that population speaks english fluently
In a weird way, the development of advanced communications and coordination technology has only made it harder for anything to change in a significant way .
I would imagine that there would have to be a really good reason to happen, and the default is millions of different (albeit slightly) languages amongst an equal number of small communities. It takes empires and states to force a unified linguistic project, which is not necessarily pursued in all cases. If you've ever had a group of friends sort of develop their own cant, imagine how quickly it could change if it was 150 people who only contacted outside traders five times a year.
Language and politics is a huge part of linguistics (e.g. "a language is a dialect with an army and navy"). Certainly, since nationalism began there has been concerted efforts to unify languages around the powerful members of a nation (France explicitly does this with a legal structure, English has elitism in social structures). The borders of languages are forced categories of fuzzy culturally evolved systems. Who decides the line between German and Frisian?
The short answer is "Why would there be such a broad language?". The default case is diversification, being able to talk to someone across the world might be convenient every now and again compared to being able to talk to your local community every day.
