One-World Government and Language?
The Logical Language Group received an email from a gentleman in France who is with L’Union Française Onixienne. An AltaVista babelfish translation of their website yields the following:
The French Onixian Union is an association which has the aim of promoting, adapting, and developing the creation of a federal State, called "Terran Federation", including all the current Sovereign states such as the Eurasiatic, Oceanic, American, African countries ... such as recommends the French author E. Onix in his work entitled "My Utopia: the Terran Federation".
Here is an AltaVista babelfish translation of the email (written originally in French), in which he asks us five survey questions.
Hello,
I present Stephane Corvisier, student in licence of history.
I work on a report/ratio for association UFO: http://fedeter.free.fr/ on what must be the universal language if it were to exist.
I of course made research on all the projects proposed at this time, but I ask you to answer the small questionnaire to you that I attached.
Thank you in advance.
Neutral universal language
In the design of the creation of a world State, one of the fundamental questions is posed: that of a universal language. Universal in its extent with all planet. Neutral to avoid any reserve and any sign of a minority superiority.
In our current world, we will speak rather about international language before even of being able to allot the universal title to him.
However the project can be posed in five questions:
* Is it useful to found an international language?
If the project would be considered:
* Which organization can have legitimacy to make unspecified decisions on the introduction of an international language?
* Does it have to be a natural or built language?
In the possibility of a built language:
* Does it have to take for base an already existing language or to be created by itself?
If an international language is accepted:
* Does it have to be one second language or to supplant the mother tongue?
With these questions, I propose to you to answer to the following address: address deleted for privacy
Cordially.
I personally have very little desire for a one-world government; mainly because if you don't like your government you should be able to move somewhere else. Furthermore, here we see how such an institution would surpress personal freedom in terms of language. Is the concept of one-world government inherently opposed to personal freedom?
There's something to be said for language diversity. I'm very fond of science fiction stories such as Tom Purdom's "Fossil Games" in which technology keeps the characters alive and young for so many centuries that they have time to learn dozens of languages, including artificial ones. I do not savor the prospect of all languages boiling down to one universal monoculture.
Here are my answers to Stephane's questions:
1 It's probably not useful to found an international auxiliary language. Lojban speakers seldom have an interest in this, although they are welcome to. It might be nice if delegates were to speak Esperanto in the proceedings of the United Nations, but the populations of the world's nations will not be interested in learning an auxiliary language. I recommend you read this fascinating essay about "When do people learn languages?"
2 There is no institution with the authority to decide global language changes, and such an institution is unlikely to ever exist.
3 Were an international auxiliary language to be established, it would be unfair if it were to be a natural language, because then whose would it be?
4 Rather than basing an international auxiliary language on a natural language, it would be preferable to start from scratch. Unfortunately, instead of being equally familiar to everyone, the resulting language would be equally strange to everyone. Lojban was created with cultural neutrality in mind and that is what resulted.
5 Were a universal language to be established, it would have to be a second language. It's wrong to forcibly surpress anyone's mother tongue.
What would your answers be?
The French Onixian Union is an association which has the aim of promoting, adapting, and developing the creation of a federal State, called "Terran Federation", including all the current Sovereign states such as the Eurasiatic, Oceanic, American, African countries ... such as recommends the French author E. Onix in his work entitled "My Utopia: the Terran Federation".
Here is an AltaVista babelfish translation of the email (written originally in French), in which he asks us five survey questions.
Hello,
I present Stephane Corvisier, student in licence of history.
I work on a report/ratio for association UFO: http://fedeter.free.fr/ on what must be the universal language if it were to exist.
I of course made research on all the projects proposed at this time, but I ask you to answer the small questionnaire to you that I attached.
Thank you in advance.
Neutral universal language
In the design of the creation of a world State, one of the fundamental questions is posed: that of a universal language. Universal in its extent with all planet. Neutral to avoid any reserve and any sign of a minority superiority.
In our current world, we will speak rather about international language before even of being able to allot the universal title to him.
However the project can be posed in five questions:
* Is it useful to found an international language?
If the project would be considered:
* Which organization can have legitimacy to make unspecified decisions on the introduction of an international language?
* Does it have to be a natural or built language?
In the possibility of a built language:
* Does it have to take for base an already existing language or to be created by itself?
If an international language is accepted:
* Does it have to be one second language or to supplant the mother tongue?
With these questions, I propose to you to answer to the following address: address deleted for privacy
Cordially.
I personally have very little desire for a one-world government; mainly because if you don't like your government you should be able to move somewhere else. Furthermore, here we see how such an institution would surpress personal freedom in terms of language. Is the concept of one-world government inherently opposed to personal freedom?
There's something to be said for language diversity. I'm very fond of science fiction stories such as Tom Purdom's "Fossil Games" in which technology keeps the characters alive and young for so many centuries that they have time to learn dozens of languages, including artificial ones. I do not savor the prospect of all languages boiling down to one universal monoculture.
Here are my answers to Stephane's questions:
1 It's probably not useful to found an international auxiliary language. Lojban speakers seldom have an interest in this, although they are welcome to. It might be nice if delegates were to speak Esperanto in the proceedings of the United Nations, but the populations of the world's nations will not be interested in learning an auxiliary language. I recommend you read this fascinating essay about "When do people learn languages?"
2 There is no institution with the authority to decide global language changes, and such an institution is unlikely to ever exist.
3 Were an international auxiliary language to be established, it would be unfair if it were to be a natural language, because then whose would it be?
4 Rather than basing an international auxiliary language on a natural language, it would be preferable to start from scratch. Unfortunately, instead of being equally familiar to everyone, the resulting language would be equally strange to everyone. Lojban was created with cultural neutrality in mind and that is what resulted.
5 Were a universal language to be established, it would have to be a second language. It's wrong to forcibly surpress anyone's mother tongue.
What would your answers be?