European Common Language - The Poll

[Rethel]

"English has become a universal language. There are many reasons for its dominance: the heritage of the British Empire, and the post-world-war economic hegemony and cultural influence – ranging from Mickey Mouse and Marilyn Monroe to Elvis Presley and Snoop Dogg – of the United States.

Angela, noone is questioning that.
We are not talking about:
WHY english is international language,
but
WHICH language would be the best for Europe
(as one state or nation, I guess, for the benefit of all).

There are very few things that can’t be expressed in English,

As in any other language I guess... otherwise noone could do any transaltion of any book.

In Palestine, in the days of Jesus of Nazareth, Latin was the language of the military and government. But to be considered educated you had to speak Greek; if you were Jewish you also had to speak Hebrew; and the language of the masses was Aramaic. In the Europe of the late Middle Ages, Latin was the language of the erudite, Italian the language of trade, and blossoming cultures used their own respective languages..."

This sample is only showing, that international language, do not must be primirtive, and that about that which
language is international did not decide his internal wonderfullness, but political and cultural circumstances.

 

[Rethel]

They will change and it already happens everywhere, and that's the worse part of it.
Especially when the mental change follows linguistic change - thinking pattern simplification.

 

[Rethel]

Yes, but 60 years ago technological developments did not affect people's lives as much as today. One of the main reasons why English has become so widespread all over the planet in the last decades has to do with technological developments, like computers for example, which took place mostly in the United States and from there spread to the rest of the world. The very fact that people from all over the planet are on Internet forums like this one conversing and communicating in English and not another language more than sufficiently illustrates the impact that this technology developed in an English-speaking country alone has had on the popularity of and acquaintance with the English language worldwide. Learning at least basic English has become practically a necessity for millions of people in the non-English-speaking world. Had a French-speaking (or of any other language for that matter) country developed these technologies and then spread them all over the globe, it would have retained more of its previous status and popularity.

Yes Darc, of course.
But the reason why english is most popular language in the world does
not change the fact, that it isn't the best choice for language for Europe.

 

[Rethel]

On the contrary, because of its varied vocabulary it can be extremely subtle, and it has great expressive power. "No other language can boast such a rich vocabulary..In addition, the richness of the English vocabulary continues to be enhanced as words acquire new shades of meaning as the language is used in novel situations. The expressive power of English is also enhanced by its great adaptability, as words, roots, affixes and prepositions can be easily combined to make new words. This makes it a very productive language and well suited to be applied to new concepts and in new situations. It is a powerful tool in the hands of writers."

As I showed before, fusional languages are much more adaptable.
Writer can create new words, but it does not mean, that some one
can understand thise words or they will be used.

I would go further and say that it's an incomparable language in the hands of writers. Of course, you have barely educated people, even native speakers, on whom most of this richness is lost.

:grin:

just a small example...all these words have to do with the refraction of light. There are many, many more. The meanings are all different. You can't substitute one for another: dazzle, shimmer, glimmer, glint, glisten, sparkle, twinkle, spark, flicker, flash, glow. Just because a foreign speaker doesn't know the precise meaning of these words doesn't mean there isn't a precise meaning.

In other languages are the same. In one language some things have more synonimous in another less...

For examle, in ancient greek you had minimum four words which are translate as love,
in polish minimum three (which has totaly different menaning as this in greek), in english
two (love and like), but in russian this two are translated as only one.

So in russian it is very difficult to say: I like you...

So, which one of thise languages in that particular case
are more developed, and which are more primitive?
The answer is obvious,

As to your second point, there is no up side to being passive and accepting in the face of life's challenges, either for individuals or nations. Saying it's God's Will and leaving it at that is counter-productive. Wallowing in depression is self-defeating. Believing that there is a solution and you can find it is how human society progresses. Do I like everything about modern culture as it is developing? No, I don't. I'm actually quite conservative on social matters, but most decidedly not in terms of science and technology. If some groups or countries want to retreat from the modern world, hugging to themselves ancient modes of living, of being, of thinking, refusing to learn the international language, then that's their choice. I think that in part that's what's going on in the Near East. I suppose on one level it just leaves more of the prosperity for others. It's not what I want for me or mine.

etrified:

What all of this has to do with the question: which language is better, or wich language is the best for Europe?

Ed. For what it's worth, I love my native language. I read it and hear it spoken (through the computer, and television, and radio) every day. I also still try to read French authors in French. That doesn't change anything that I said.

But that what you like, doesn't change the fact, that some languages are better than others.
If you know this three languages, than I guess, that italian and french are more primitive than
english, becasue you fighting for betterness of english. But on my knoladge it doesn't should be
like that... but if know them and are telling us such a thing...

 

[Rethel]

You somehow don't understand it.
It's not the number of words, or adjectives.
Yes, english is rich in them, but i'm not talking about that.
The enormous vocabulary english has got may be very subtle,
but the language itself is not.

YES, THIS IS THE EXACTLY THE POINT!

 

[Rethel]

Ike, I am very attached to my central heating, my washing machine, my stove, my bursting supermarkets, my quality medications should I need them, a wonderful education system for my children, media presenting every possible point of view, my car. my laptop, my I Phone, my silk blouses and high heels. I want them for my children too...well, so far it seems as if my son will pass on the high heels.

And only english, if he will be claiming as the best language of all, can do that? etrified:

 

[Rethel]

The concept of "kindergarten" could be expressed as "the school year immediately preceeding US first grade",

Maybe preschool?
In polish we call it like that
But it is, as in fusional language should be, a little changed.
Przed as pre + szkoła as schooll = przedszkole.
So, you cannoot be confused, what it means.
In speaking version it even evolved much more, because is pronaucing incorrectly as pshechkole - so you have totally new word.
This is the beauty and possibilites of any 100% fusional language.

"zeroth grade", or "the very first year of schooling for small children who have not yet advanced to the numbered school year system",

In fusional language on this particular year you can say for example: zerówka

 

[Rethel]

There are three critical concepts to consider here:
1) grammar
2) semantics
3) culture
You need at least the first two, if not all three, to "make sense" in any language. You may know, as Noam Chomsky observed, that colorless green ideas sleep furiously. You can't, in any language, simply take words and mash them up together and expect them to be understandable. Human language is about people communicating about complex, nuanced, and often vague human concepts, not about computers specifying a unique and unambiguous mathematical expression.

Yes I can - in fusional or semi-fusional

O! I know, now how to show this.

Compare this:

1. Bible God
2. Bible's God
3. God of the Bible

Which version is more primitive and less understandable, and which is not?

For me and Ike, first version is like "Bible, God, etc..."
So it is gibberish.

Like...
Paris Boston Rome Warsaw - what this four words mean?
Nothing - exept, that every one has a different menaning.
If you want put them together as meaningfull unity in this
form, this will be something, what Neanderthals would do.
I'm seriously... it seems like that - maybe english speaking
person cannot see this, but every one else, can.

 

[Rethel]

if you exclude english because it includes confusing grammar such as "bible god", then you would have to exclude german as a candidate as well because it has the same grammatical concept. The german form of the concept is arguably even more confusing to non-native speakers because it mashes up all of the nouns, omitting all spaces between them. English at least tries to let you know where the boundaries of each component word are.

No! No! No!

German is very precise language, even if he is semi-fusional.

You have ther still forur cases, couple of numbers and times, so, it is much better language than englisch.

Of course, things something like Hottentottenstottertrottelmutterbeutelrattenlattengitterkofferattentäter
could be see as primitive if they are overexploid, but the semi-fusional structure, make him still not so bad.

It was very good language for philosophers, so...

 

[Rethel]

Here, http://claritaslux.com/blog/polish-hardest-language-learn

I find very interesting blog about slavic languages.

This blog is a good exaple about what are the fusional languages indeed.
The comentators of this blog form many backgrouds are making good points too.

The author, made some intersting mention; he had wrote:

When it comes to pronunciation, I remember when I first started to study Polish, my own family, who understood
the context could not make out what I was saying. They were use to me still could not understand me. The Polish
ear is not accustom to foreigners speaking their languages so they reject any sound that is not precisely native. This
was not the case when I attempted to speak other languages like French, Spanish, Chinese with strangers.
Basically when you try to communicate with a Pole and your pronunciation is off by an increment, you will
be shut down. Therefore, pronunciation is interdependent on the cultural aspect of language. (...) Grammar
in Polish is hard but what makes it harder is similar to the above, if your grammar is less than exact you get a wall. It is
less so than with pronunciation, but think about how many foreigners speak English poorly and no one bats
an eye. Well in Poland you miss a case than you get a smirk. They are just not use to foreigners speaking Polish.


I cannot say that it is true, but it can explain, why one indoeuropean language going to be primitive, and other not.
My mention about slaves on plantation was similiar to that circumstances described by blogs author. If natives dont
care how foreigners speak, then they themselves are going to speak like they - this could be the cause of pidginisation.

And this picture is very accurate:

...and could be more. In english it would be only one form: polish.
So, which one is more sufficient and developed: fusional of analitic?

Compare to this: analitic: http://claritaslux.com/blog/easiest-language-learn/

I quote:

For similar reason to grammatical evolution, words in English are short. If you have the
average number of letters of in the English language it is like 3.8. That is a short language.
English is a one or two-syllable language and if you can use a three syllable Latin based word
than you are part of the intelligentsia.

 

[RobertColumbia]

Here, http://claritaslux.com/blog/polish-hardest-language-learn
...
The author, made some intersting mention; he had wrote:

When it comes to pronunciation, I remember when I first started to study Polish, my own family, who understood
the context could not make out what I was saying. They were use to me still could not understand me. The Polish
ear is not accustom to foreigners speaking their languages so they reject any sound that is not precisely native. This
was not the case when I attempted to speak other languages like French, Spanish, Chinese with strangers.
Basically when you try to communicate with a Pole and your pronunciation is off by an increment, you will
be shut down. Therefore, pronunciation is interdependent on the cultural aspect of language. (...) Grammar
in Polish is hard but what makes it harder is similar to the above, if your grammar is less than exact you get a wall. It is
less so than with pronunciation, but think about how many foreigners speak English poorly and no one bats
an eye. Well in Poland you miss a case than you get a smirk. They are just not use to foreigners speaking Polish.
...

You are right about English. Over here in the USA, dealing with people who speak poor, but understandable, English is a fact of daily life and the cultural expectation is that proficient speakers will be patient and understanding. This even happens at the official level sometimes. A close friend of mine passed the English test for US citizenship (and subsequently became a citizen), despite the fact that his grammars in the Englishes is horribles atrociousing.

 

[RobertColumbia]

...
For me and Ike, first version is like "Bible, God, etc..."
So it is gibberish.

Like...
Paris Boston Rome Warsaw - what this four words mean?
Nothing - exept, that every one has a different menaning.
If you want put them together as meaningfull unity in this
form, this will be something, what Neanderthals would do.
I'm seriously... it seems like that - maybe english speaking
person cannot see this, but every one else, can.

You are correct, the phrase "Paris Boston Rome Warsaw" is gibberish in English. You could, however, speak of a "Paris photographer" (a person who takes photographs in Paris and/or a person from Paris who is a photographer), the "Boston Massacre", the "Warsaw Ghetto", and other things like that.

One way to see if a hypothetical "compound noun" is likely to make sense is to convert it into an equivalent Romance-type phrase using "of". For example, a "Paris photographer" is a "photographer of Paris", which makes sense. A "Paris Boston Rome Warsaw" is a "Warsaw of Rome of Boston of Paris", which doesn't relate to anything in the real world and is likely nonsensical.

 

[Rethel]

Rethel: I don't think English is better. There is no such thing as one language being better than another. All languages are equally the same as long as they serve a function, and that is to allow communication between peoples. The real reason why one language dominates over others is power. It's all about power. Power determines which language will dominate the world.

Let's look at history: Greek became the dominant language in the 5th century BCE because the Greeks defeated the Persians and they eventually dominated the eastern Mediterranean. The Greeks also created a great culture; and during the Hellenistic Era, they conquered all of the known world at the time (except Western Europe, but had Alexander the Great not died so young, I am sure the Macedonians and Greeks would have conquered it). Then the Romans came in and conquered everyone in Western Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Thus Latin became the dominant language in both commerce and administration. Greek was still used in cultural matters and in administrating the eastern territories. Latin lasted for over 1500 years and Greek for about 2000 years. Both languages were dominant because of the power of their civilizations. If the Greeks and Romans had not become super powers then another language would have been used. During the Middle Ages Latin was used as an international language because people spoke different languages and they needed to communicate. Greek was used in the Eastern Roman Empire until the Turks conquered Constantinople. During the Renaissance nations in Europe began to feel that their languages were just as good as Latin and Latin was eventually replaced and relegated to religious matters. Spain then became the first modern super-power. Spain built such a huge empire and its power was such that everyone in Europe began to copy Spanish customs, dress, manners, and even began to learn Castilian. For example, Emperor Charles I, Queen Mary and Queen Elisabeth of England, Francis I, and Mary Queen of Scots all spoke Spanish. The reason for this was that Spain was not only a military but also an economic and cultural power. After Spain declined the French took over the number one position, and guess what? French became the dominant language in Europe for the next 150 years. When France lost almost all her colonies to England, then English started to become the dominant language, but Britain was always on shaky ground, and it took the defeat of Napoleon to secure English as the number one power. Thus English began to rise as the dominant language of the world. But French was still considered an important language in international diplomacy and culture. However, English did begin to be used more and more in commerce throughout the world. Germany should have taken over the number one spot and German would have become the top language in international relations and trade (even culture). However, Germany was too arrogant and was defeated twice and thus lost its potential number one position. Finally it took the rise of American power to make English the secure number one language of the world.

Thus it does not matter if "fusional" languages are superior to English. It is the power of the nation that determines what language will be the dominant language in the world. If Poland or Russia had become number one major world powers then most people today would be speaking Polish and/or Russian. But alas it never happened. There is also no explanation as to why one language becomes dominant over others. There is no teleological explanation. It just happens by chance. So even though most Europeans might not like English, they will have to learn it in order to do business. There is no other choice.

It is all true Johannes, what you wrote above, but, we were and are (I am constantly convinced of that) talking not about WHY
one language is more spred among others, but which language will be better for Europe as one country. So I supose, that the
reason WHY some language was/is more popular than other is not important.

Try another way. Suppose you are living in the world, were every language has the same popularity, the same number of users,
and you are knowing noone or every one of them. There is no such thing as dominant language or several popular international
languages. There is no such a thing. And you must make a choice - which language would you chose to make him one for all?

 

[RobertColumbia]

You are right about English. Over here in the USA, dealing with people who speak poor, but understandable, English is a fact of daily life and the cultural expectation is that proficient speakers will be patient and understanding. This even happens at the official level sometimes. A close friend of mine passed the English test for US citizenship (and subsequently became a citizen), despite the fact that his grammars in the Englishes is horribles atrociousing.

One of the features of human languages (as opposed to computer languages) is a built-in tolerance for error and variation. Some arguably "required" details can be omitted (or even misstated) without losing much, if any, actual meaning. For example, if someone walked into a clothing store in Florida, picked up a shirt, showed it to a clerk, and asked "What is this shirts is it credit card buying?", the clerk could reasonably conclude that the person wants to know if they can buy that shirt with a credit card and answer that question (as opposed to trying to obsessive-compulsively analyze the formal grammar and semantics of the question in order to answer a question other than what the customer intended).

 

[RobertColumbia]

...
Try another way. Suppose you are living in the world, were every language has the same popularity, the same number of users,
and you are knowing noone or every one of them. There is no such thing as dominant language or several popular international
languages. There is no such a thing. And you must make a choice - which language would you chose to make him one for all?

That's an interesting question! If we can assume that the population is not 100% uniform, then I could see myself choosing a language that is associated with a culture, geography, economy, or political system that I am sympathetic toward. For example, if I like tropical beach weather, I could select whatever language is most common on tropical islands.

 

[Rethel]

One of the features of human languages (as opposed to computer languages) is a built-in tolerance for error and variation. Some arguably "required" details can be omitted (or even misstated) without losing much, if any, actual meaning. For example, if someone walked into a clothing store in Florida, picked up a shirt, showed it to a clerk, and asked "What is this shirts is it credit card buying?", the clerk could reasonably conclude that the person wants to know if they can buy that shirt with a credit card and answer that question (as opposed to trying to obsessive-compulsively analyze the formal grammar and semantics of the question in order to answer a question other than what the customer intended).

Ok, but the thing is, that there was some factors, which changed very good PIE,
quite good pra-germanic language into present day english, which is something
like "Friday's" language from Robinson Crusoe compere to his predecessors...

 

[Rethel]

That's an interesting question! If we can assume that the population is not 100% uniform, then I could see myself choosing a language that is associated with a culture, geography, economy, or political system that I am sympathetic toward. For example, if I like tropical beach weather, I could select whatever language is most common on tropical islands.

Yeah, that would be condition for Europe - and obvious choice is one from IE
languages or new one who based on that languages. I wanted mention this,
but I had thought, that it could be to complicate. So, if we are taking only
languages for consideration, which one? Analitic or fusional? Aglutinative?

 

[Johannes]

It is all true Johannes, what you wrote above, but, we were and are (I am constantly convinced of that) talking not about WHY
one language is more spred among others, but which language will be better for Europe as one country. So I supose, that the
reason WHY some language was/is more popular than other is not important.

Try another way. Suppose you are living in the world, were every language has the same popularity, the same number of users,
and you are knowing noone or every one of them. There is no such thing as dominant language or several popular international
languages. There is no such a thing. And you must make a choice - which language would you chose to make him one for all?

OK Rethel: then in your opinion what language will be the best for Europe? Polish? Slavic languages have very little power. I doubt it anyone will accept them. How about French? What about German? It's the most powerful economy in Europe? What about Italian or Spanish? What will be a good compromise?

I have a question: If German is a fusional language, then why is English primitive? I know English made a change in the 19th century into a more analytical form. So why did it become "non-fusional" or primitive in your opinon??? I am still not convinced that English is so primitive as you state.

 

[Johannes]

Hmmm.... so... which is more difficult to learn: more primitive or more complicated language?

First of all I dont know where you got this pyramid. It is probably from Poland? From what I know Chinese is the most difficult language, followed by Russian (which will include most Slavic languages), then Greek, Arabic, and Scandinavian. I would imagine Hungarian, Estonian, and Finnish are next. As far as "primitive" I think all Slavic, Hungrian, Japanese, and Chinese languages sound very primitive. So why are they so advanced?

 

[RobertColumbia]

First of all I dont know where you got this pyramid. It is probably from Poland? From what I know Chinese is the most difficult language, followed by Russian (which will include most Slavic languages), then Greek, Arabic, and Scandinavian. I would imagine Hungarian, Estonian, and Finnish are next. As far as "primitive" I think all Slavic, Hungrian, Japanese, and Chinese languages sound very primitive. So why are they so advanced?

They probably sound "primitive" to you because you do not understand them.