I would be interested in what you think, which language would serve the best as a global lingua franca? Currently, the de facto global lingua franca is English. Do you like the English language? Or do you think it would be better if some other language served that purpose. I can see four options here:
1) Keep English as a global lingua franca. The pros of that is that it is a global lingua franca already, that languages around the world are full of English loan-words, and that it has a relatively easy grammar (at least until you dig deeper). The biggest con of that is that English has horrible spelling, so much so that you basically need to learn for each word in the language both how it is spelt and how it is pronounced. Another big con of using English as a global lingua franca is that English is a standard language in quite a few countries around the world, so it is far from politically neutral. People in non-English-speaking countries need to put a lot of effort to master the language, which people born in English-speaking countries do not need to do.
2) Start using some constructed language based on European languages, such as Esperanto or Ido. The pros of that would be that written and spoken language match each other perfectly (if you see a word, you already know how it is pronounced and vice versa), that the grammar is relatively easy, or at least very regular and that it is relatively politically neutral (but not completely, as it is Europe-based). Con of that is such languages have very little tradition.
3) Use a carefully constructed language such as Lojban. Pros are that the written and spoken language match each other perfectly, that the grammar is objectively easier than that of any natural or non-carefully-designed artificial language, that it is completely politically neutral (as the vocabulary has been carefully chosen not to be too European), and that it is easy for a computer to parse a text in Lojban and to transcribe spoken Lojban. The con is that, again, such languages have no tradition.
4) Revive the Latin language. The pros are that written and spoken language match each other almost perfectly (as soon as you hear a word, you know how to spell it, however, you cannot reliably guess which syllable will be stressed if you see an unknown word), that it has a very long tradition (imagine speaking in a language that somebody two thousand years ago also spoke), that languages around the world are full of Latin words (either inherited, as in the case of Romance languages, or borrowed), and that it is relatively politically neutral (not being anybodies native language, so everybody has to learn it). Con is that the grammar may be hard at the beginning for speakers of languages without complex declension and conjugation systems.
I personally think reviving Latin would be the best. I have made some YouTube videos in Latin, the latest one being a video about afterlife in Latin. But I am interested in what you think.
1) Keep English as a global lingua franca. The pros of that is that it is a global lingua franca already, that languages around the world are full of English loan-words, and that it has a relatively easy grammar (at least until you dig deeper). The biggest con of that is that English has horrible spelling, so much so that you basically need to learn for each word in the language both how it is spelt and how it is pronounced. Another big con of using English as a global lingua franca is that English is a standard language in quite a few countries around the world, so it is far from politically neutral. People in non-English-speaking countries need to put a lot of effort to master the language, which people born in English-speaking countries do not need to do.
2) Start using some constructed language based on European languages, such as Esperanto or Ido. The pros of that would be that written and spoken language match each other perfectly (if you see a word, you already know how it is pronounced and vice versa), that the grammar is relatively easy, or at least very regular and that it is relatively politically neutral (but not completely, as it is Europe-based). Con of that is such languages have very little tradition.
3) Use a carefully constructed language such as Lojban. Pros are that the written and spoken language match each other perfectly, that the grammar is objectively easier than that of any natural or non-carefully-designed artificial language, that it is completely politically neutral (as the vocabulary has been carefully chosen not to be too European), and that it is easy for a computer to parse a text in Lojban and to transcribe spoken Lojban. The con is that, again, such languages have no tradition.
4) Revive the Latin language. The pros are that written and spoken language match each other almost perfectly (as soon as you hear a word, you know how to spell it, however, you cannot reliably guess which syllable will be stressed if you see an unknown word), that it has a very long tradition (imagine speaking in a language that somebody two thousand years ago also spoke), that languages around the world are full of Latin words (either inherited, as in the case of Romance languages, or borrowed), and that it is relatively politically neutral (not being anybodies native language, so everybody has to learn it). Con is that the grammar may be hard at the beginning for speakers of languages without complex declension and conjugation systems.
I personally think reviving Latin would be the best. I have made some YouTube videos in Latin, the latest one being a video about afterlife in Latin. But I am interested in what you think.
