Which language would be the best lingua franca?

[FlatAssembler]

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.

[Angrboda]

Entering English words on a computer is easy, well supported, and English has the largest current adoption. It makes a natural choice.

[polymath257]

Perhaps a form of pinyin simplified chinese.

Alphabetical, but with simple grammar. Also has a large population base.

English is, supposedly, one of the hardest languages to learn. The main difficulty with Chinese, I think, is the symbols. Making it pinyin helps with that (as well as helping typing).

Why restrict to European languages when Asia is going to be dominant in the next century?

[Anomalocaris]

I think the universal language should have only 0 and 1 as its alphabet and these are to be spoken as click sounds found in the Khoisan languages of Southern Africa.

---

There is no doubt that any “universal” language based on the language of particular ethnic, social political or economic groups will fall in and out of favor as fortunes of these groups wax and wane in the larger ebb and flow of economic and political development of the world.

---

Perhaps a form of pinyin simplified chinese.

Alphabetical, but with simple grammar. Also has a large population base.

English is, supposedly, one of the hardest languages to learn. The main difficulty with Chinese, I think, is the symbols. Making it pinyin helps with that (as well as helping typing).

Why restrict to European languages when Asia is going to be dominant in the next century?

Two other difficulty are:

1. Chinese is very context sensitive and relies heavily on a enormous collection of pithy Phases and idioms that relies on cultural historic understanding,   This is an unsuitable trait for a universal language with many users from different cultural backgrounds who would not have the same culture understanding.    So even if they have full grasp the grammar and diction of Chinese they may still have no idea what the native Chinese speaker using these pithy phrases are trying to say.

2. Spoken Chinese is tonal, different tone denoted different words.  the tons are difficult for people who grew upon on atonal language.  Without using the proper tones, spoken Chinese often have ambiguous meaning.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Perhaps a form of pinyin simplified chinese.

Alphabetical, but with simple grammar. Also has a large population base.

English is, supposedly, one of the hardest languages to learn. The main difficulty with Chinese, I think, is the symbols. Making it pinyin helps with that (as well as helping typing).

Why restrict to European languages when Asia is going to be dominant in the next century?

That’s not a bad suggestion, as tonal languages are inherently more flexible than pitch-accent ones.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

Perhaps a form of pinyin simplified chinese.

Alphabetical, but with simple grammar. Also has a large population base.

English is, supposedly, one of the hardest languages to learn. The main difficulty with Chinese, I think, is the symbols. Making it pinyin helps with that (as well as helping typing).

Why restrict to European languages when Asia is going to be dominant in the next century?

That’s not a bad suggestion, as tonal languages are inherently more flexible than pitch-accent ones.

Boru

Also inherently more difficult to learn.   I was told by my Chinese friends that listening to westerner who mastered the grammar and diction of Chinese is still an ordeal because they continue to be unable to make the appropriate tones, which often makes them incomprehensible, or worse.    One gentleman was heard to order a male hooker at a restaurant.


A language intrinsically suitable, as opposed to suitable by scale and cultural influence, to be a universal language should have simple grammar, few or no exceptions to the grammar and any spelling/sound rules, not context sensitive, requiring the mastery of relatively small set of signs and symbols,   Its sounds should be deductible from its signs and symbols, and it should as much possible use only a limited set of sounds, pitched snd tones that would be quite common across most languages, or at least to language spoken by majority of the world’s people.

Another important trait, if the universal language is to be based on an existing language, is its vernacular should be relatively slow to change.   Languages which relies on inscrutable idioms or idiom sets and vernacular that changes quickly are not suitable.

Chinese does not fit the bill.  Neither does English.   Latin oddly does.  Classical Latin probably fit the bill better than Ecclesiastical Latin.

when i jested the universal language should have binary alphabet if 2 letters and express itself as clicks rather than  vowels and consonants, it was mostly kidding, but not entirely kidding.

[arewethereyet]

That’s not a bad suggestion, as tonal languages are inherently more flexible than pitch-accent ones.

Boru

Also inherently more difficult to learn.   I was told by my Chinese friends that listening to westerner who mastered the grammar and diction of Chinese is still an ordeal because they continue to be unable to make the appropriate tones, which often makes them incomprehensible, or worse.    One gentleman was heard to order a male hooker at a restaurant.

Perhaps that's what he was hungry for at the moment.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That’s not a bad suggestion, as tonal languages are inherently more flexible than pitch-accent ones.

Boru

Also inherently more difficult to learn.   I was told by my Chinese friends that listening to westerner who mastered the grammar and diction of Chinese is still an ordeal because they continue to be unable to make the appropriate tones, which often makes them incomprehensible, or worse.    One gentleman was heard to order a male hooker at a restaurant.


A language intrinsically suitable, as opposed to suitable by scale and cultural influence, to be a universal language should have simple grammar, few or no exceptions to the grammar and any spelling/sound rules, not context sensitive, requiring the mastery of relatively small set of signs and symbols,   Its sounds should be deductible from its signs and symbols, and it should as much possible use only a limited set of sounds, pitched snd tones that would be quite common across most languages, or at least to language spoken by majority of the world’s people.

Another important trait, if the universal language is to be based on an existing language, is its vernacular should be relatively slow to change.   Languages which relies on inscrutable idioms or idiom sets and vernacular that changes quickly are not suitable.

Chinese does not fit the bill.  Neither does English.   Latin oddly does.  Classical Latin probably fit the bill better than Ecclesiastical Latin.

when i jested the universal language should have binary alphabet if 2 letters and express itself as clicks rather than  vowels and consonants, it was mostly kidding, but not entirely kidding.

The majority of languages in the world are already tonal. If a tonal language is hard to learn for westerners, then too bad so sad.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

Maybe the majority of the world’s languages are tonal. but it seems except for chinese, most of these tonal languages have only comparative small number of speakers. so the total number of native tonal speakers is only 1.5 billion, out of this 1.3 billion would be speakers of chinese.

So roughly 80% of the world’s 7.8 billion might struggle with a tonal language.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Maybe the majority of the world’s languages are tonal.   but it seems except for chinese, most of these tonal languages have only comparative small number of speakers.   so the total number of native tonal speakers is only 1.5 billion, out of this 1.3 billion would be speakers of chinese.

So roughly 80% of the world’s 7.8 billion might struggle with a tonal language.

Sucks for the 80%, then, dunnit?

It’s moot, anyway. English is going to be the de facto lingua franca for the foreseeable future.

Boru