RE AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE

BENEFITS

An international language would enable us to understand each other clearly and completely.  No longer would differences in meaning and implication among the various languages cause misunderstandings, problems, and disputes.  No longer would translators and translations be required when people dealt with one another.  Furthermore, as pointed out earlier, the translation process frequently produces distortions, exaggerations, and misunderstandings, as well. 

If one were to ask a hundred different parents, from a hundred different places, each of  whom spoke a different language,--in their own respective tongues--what they desired most for their children and the future of the world, it is likely that each would say more or less the same thing in their respective dialects:  that their children should have an opportunity to grow up free, happy, productive, and healthy, in a just, peaceful, and stable world.  It is likely that many other questions being put to such diversified groups of speakers would similarly elicit like responses that were all not far different from one another.  Thus, in actuality, we're all already speaking the same language--we're merely expressing it by resort to different words.  It therefore seems clear that a single universal language would serve to underline our universal kinship as members of the human race--because people who understand and agree each other naturally feel akin to each other.

It is a proven fact that where frontiers are crossed by common languages, this constitutes an aid to greater cooperation within the region in general.  For example, upon Julius Nyere's rise to power in Tanzania during the mid-1960s, his establishment of Swahili as the official language of public life helped unite the country's ethnic and linguistic groups more effectively than elsewhere on the African continent.

Of course, as aforesaid, a single worldwide language would be of great benefit to business, commerce, and trade.  It would enable the participants to deal directly, clearly, and accurately with one another.  There would be no misunderstandings and consequent disputes arising out of differences in the way something was stated, or quoted, or understood.  Moreover, a participant would be enabled to pursue his or her activities more readily anywhere in the world--and thus not be limited or thwarted by a lack of comprehension, or accurate interpretation, in certain places.

A single method of communication, whereby all could be understood by all the rest, seems to be particularly needed in the scientific community.  These activities frequently constitute a process of building upon the prior work of others--which would seem to be much more readily accomplished if all who were engaged in a particular field of endeavor could speak to, and otherwise communicate with, each other in a common tongue.

There are some who object to the adoption of a universal language of the constructed type, because they presume that such a language would necessarily be lacking in the literary grace and style that many of our current languages have come to possess over long years of development and usage.  But it should be remembered that all of our current and classic languages began as simple tools for rudimentary communication among hunters, warriors, and farmers.  Examples would include Greek and Latin.  Only over time did they assume grace and style, and evolve into the vehicles for great literary expression that they have become.  It is submitted that this would eventually come to pass as well for any constructed language that should be created and put to use as a worldwide idiom.  Moreover, its literature would be available to, and understood by, everyone--without the need for translations--which translations are sometimes themselves lacking in grace or style.

                                                                * * * * *



ENGLISH

It is my obvious purpose to urge the pursuit of a number of universal objectives, including a universal language.  However, it is not a purpose to recommend the type of language that it should be (existing or constructed), or which of these languages should be chosen.

Of course, being a speaker of English--and only English--I would personally tend to favor the choice of English as it is spoken today as a worldwide language.  Moreover, it is noteworthy to realize that English has already sort of evolved into a kind of global tongue.  English is presently spoken by many residents of many non-English-speaking countries.  It is probably the most popular second language among the younger people of Europe and Asia; and particularly as a choice of language as a school subject for high school and college students abroad.  As a result of this, more and more European universities are offering courses in English as the accepted global "lingua franca" of today.  Furthermore, English has at the same time come to be widely used as the language of international commerce. 

Nevertheless, this is not meant to be a claim that English is the most grammatically superior, or the easiest to learn, or the most efficient to use, of all the existing and proposed, evolved and constructed, languages that have appeared in our world thus far.  For this reason, such judgments and decisions regarding an international language shojuld be left to experts in linguistics, and fields related thereto, from across the world,

                                                                   * * * * *



METHOD

A Gallup poll conducted during the mid-1950s in Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United States resulted in a finding that nearly eighty percent of the people thus polled favored the teaching of an international language in their elementary schools. (Mario Pei, One Language for the World)  Today, with such greatly increased globalization in our world, it seems likely that this would rise to an even higher percentage. 

It has been conjectured that if all the world's children began today (during 2012) to learn a universal language together with their own, there would be little need for interpreters or translators by 2040.  More realistically, if such a program went into operation in, say, 2020, the then-kindergarten generation would be adults by 2040.  By 2060, they, and those born after them, would comprise a probable majority of the world's population.  Thus, before the end of our twenty-first century, a universal language could indeed be in place.

The first step would likely be the setting up of a commission composed of experts in the linguistic fields from every corner of the globe.  Its role would be the choosing and/or creation of the language which would become the eventual worldwide tongue, and setting of a proposed timetable for effectuating this plan.  If an existing national language were chosen, it would likely be necessary to "tidy it up" with phonetic spelling and standardized pronunciation.  This new language would become a required subject for all students enrolled in elementary school (years one to eight) in addition to the basic lessons in their respective native tongues that are usually taught to children of this age group.  The teachers who would introduce this new language to our children would be required to themselves know it and speak it quite fluently.

Students who were at this time of "high school" (years nine to twelve), or college (years thirteen to sixteen) level, would be able--and strongly encouraged--to study it as well.  In these grades, it would be taught much like the foreign languages that are today taught in high school and college.  These latter foreign languages could continue to be taught in college.  But it might be arranged that the new international language would be a "required" subject, both in high school and in college; and the aforesaid "other" foreign languages becoming elective "third" languages, available only in college.  In addition, for people already out of school, there would be available lessons in the new language, in anticipation of its future increasing proliferation as the years rolled on.

Competence in this new language would be necessary for all, after a time, for the transaction of business, as well as for communication with our younger people.  Books, periodicals, and newspapers would for a while be published in the native languages of the places of their publication, in addition to the new language.  The same would apply to radio broadcasts, which might be simultaneously broadcast in the original native language and the new language as well.  Television shows could be "dubbed" and/or "captioned" in one or the other language (depending upon the language in which it were originally produced); and thus simultaneously available both ways.  The same could apply to motion pictures, and even live theater (wherein earphones, or streaming caption--as is offered today in some opera houses--would need to be resorted to, as necessary, by part of the audience).  And, of course, access in two languages would be available to users of the Internet.

It is likely that all of this would take place for a relatively brief period of time--perhaps twenty years or so--until the new language became the basic language of mankind.  Once this occurred, the original languages would likely be considered charming vestiges of our past.  They could, and possibly would, continue to be studied in high school and college--now as a second language rather than a third--much like Latin is studied today.  They would be still used for reaearch, where resort to as yet untranslated texts were required.  And there might remain some elderly folk who refused to learn the new language, and thus speak only in their original tongues--much like some elderly immigrants in a number of places today. 

Of course, this is merely a suggested method for initiating the introduction of such a universal language.  It is probable that experts in the fields of education and communication could and would devise even better methods for accomplishing the goals set forth herein.

                                                                 * * * * *