Universal Language: Yay or Nay?

[Senatus Populusque Lundensis]

Linguae francae crop up organically when the situation demands it. There's no need to impose one from 'above'.

Excellent point. But if one were to be imposed from above, I think English would be best, because most of the western world already study it as their second language (if it isn't their native tongue). And as for the argument "it should be an invented or dead language so no one will have an advantage", that's just not a good argument. First off, no language, invented, dead or alive, will be equally hard for everyone to learn, because it will always be more similar to one language than to another. Secondly, shouldn't you be happy for the people who won't have to spend all that time learning a new language; time which could be spent doing something more constructive?

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Linguae francae crop up organically when the situation demands it. There's no need to impose one from 'above'.

Excellent point. But if one were to be imposed from above, I think English would be best, because most of the western world already study it as their second language (if it isn't their native tongue). And as for the argument "it should be an invented or dead language so no one will have an advantage", that's just not a good argument. First off, no language, invented, dead or alive, will be equally hard for everyone to learn, because it will always be more similar to one language than to another. Secondly, shouldn't you be happy for the people who won't have to spend all that time learning a new language; time which could be spent doing something more constructive?

English got stupid orthography, stupid phonology, stupid grammar and sounds like gibberish.

There I said it.

EDIT: why do you assume we're all natives of English?

[Senatus Populusque Lundensis]

Excellent point. But if one were to be imposed from above, I think English would be best, because most of the western world already study it as their second language (if it isn't their native tongue). And as for the argument "it should be an invented or dead language so no one will have an advantage", that's just not a good argument. First off, no language, invented, dead or alive, will be equally hard for everyone to learn, because it will always be more similar to one language than to another. Secondly, shouldn't you be happy for the people who won't have to spend all that time learning a new language; time which could be spent doing something more constructive?

English got stupid orthography, stupid phonology, stupid grammar and sounds like gibberish.

There I said it.

I'm not a native speaker of English, and I disagree. As far as I'm educated (To be fair, I'm not that good at English), English grammar is a lot more clever and regular than the grammar of my native language. As for the phonology, I'm all with you. I am, however, very fond of English, and I often find it easier to express certain thought in English.

EDIT: why do you assume we're all natives of English?

I don't. Not as far as I'm aware, at least.

[The Legion of War]

I think making a new one would be best, but also I feel that it'd be the hardest one to practically do.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I'm not a native speaker of English, and I disagree. As far as I'm educated (To be fair, I'm not that good at English), English grammar is a lot more clever and regular than the grammar of my native language. As for the phonology, I'm all with you. I am, however, very fond of English, and I often find it easier to express certain thought in English.

Same opinion.

It's wonderful reading and writing.

Listening to songs, speaking and hearing voice, though, it is amazingly useless (even native speakers will mishear it very commonly) and complex.

[Senatus Populusque Lundensis]

I'm not a native speaker of English, and I disagree. As far as I'm educated (To be fair, I'm not that good at English), English grammar is a lot more clever and regular than the grammar of my native language. As for the phonology, I'm all with you. I am, however, very fond of English, and I often find it easier to express certain thought in English.

Same opinion.

It's wonderful reading and writing.

Listening to songs, speaking and hearing voice, though, it is amazingly useless (even native speakers will mishear it very commonly) and complex.

I do suppose you have a point there. However, I don't think English is very "mishearable" as long as the speaker speaks clearly and without any distinct dialect. Of course, that could be said about more or less every language, I suppose.

[Shaggai]

Morse code simply transcribes letters into a binary form. It's not a language. The different sign languages, however, have actual words. As such, they are languages.

Does it matter if it a language? It is communication, whether or not it is language.

It can't be a universal language if it isn't a language. Morse code requires a language to transcribe.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Same opinion.

It's wonderful reading and writing.

Listening to songs, speaking and hearing voice, though, it is amazingly useless (even native speakers will mishear it very commonly) and complex.

I do suppose you have a point there. However, I don't think English is very "mishearable" as long as the speaker speaks clearly and without any distinct dialect. Of course, that could be said about more or less every language, I suppose.

No.

Portuguese is perhaps the fastest Romance language.

We mishear speakers from the most terrific fast accents in a conversation. Mostly because of a lack of exposition. But never in songs. NEVER.

[Senatus Populusque Lundensis]

No.

Portuguese is perhaps the fastest Romance language.

We mishear speakers from the most terrific fast accents in a conversation. Mostly because of a lack of exposition. But never in songs. NEVER.

Well, I have very little knowledge of Portuguese, so I just have to take your word for it. Nevertheless, I do think English is the best candidate, since it is already so well known.

One could, of course, propose a spelling reform of the English language to make it easier to learn, but I think that would kill the most beautiful part of English -- the written language.

One very good thing about English, from an easy-to-learn perspective, is that fact that grammatical genus doesn't exist. Of course, that makes the language all the more boring.

[Sun Wukong]

Yes, but only Dirty Hungarian.

Ah yes. My favorite sexual position.

[Jachucz]

Nay,

But if there has to be universal language, I think it should have anal implosives and glottal nasals:D

[Zaldakki]

Nay,

But if there has to be universal language, I think it should have anal implosives and glottal nasals:D

Anal?

[Jachucz]

Nay,

But if there has to be universal language, I think it should have anal implosives and glottal nasals:D

Anal?

Yes:D

[Napkiraly]

I think Old Norse should become the universal language personally.

Obviously it should be Proto-Finnic.

Why would be speak the language of those conquered by the sons of Odin? *nod*

[Meryuma]

Korean hangeul and the Inuktitut syllabic system are both way more elegantly designed and rational than the European alphabets.



I think the ideal "neutral" language would have a CV or CV(C) syllable structure like Japanese, a non-inflecting grammar, a vowel system like Spanish, no distinction between l and r, and probably a mix of Latin, Arabic and Chinese roots. Sentence structure would be SVO or SOV.



It's not neutral at all, though. It's a colonizing force.

It doesn't have to be neutral or non-colonial to be a universal language though, it just has to be used as one.

I know, but I'm talking about how a universal language should be, not how one is approximated in the world now.

I think the ideal "neutral" language would have a CV or CV(C) syllable structure like Japanese, a non-inflecting grammar, a vowel system like Spanish, no distinction between l and r, and probably a mix of Latin, Arabic and Chinese roots. Sentence structure would be SVO or SOV.

Portuguese is potentially one such, and maybe the only one, European language. I'd make the lexicon of a Portuguese-based conlang more influenced by other Iberian Romance languages, most strongly the ones but Spanish, so that it'd help to promote them, other than that meh.

The syllable structure, the vowel system like Spanish and the Eurocentric minimal pairs would be all I'd have to work on.

I think our distinction between ê and é would become ēā vs āē/āēā (open before the e, schwa after), if stressed (yes, I'm writing the stressed vowel as macron because it seems the most obvious; people would figure out to repeat the vowel in keyboards without it in the case they use e.g. chat room), and e vs ae, if unstressed; same between ô and ó. Luckily, this distinction is rare, and is only phonemic in stressed vowels. Except nasal vowels, that when carrying a tilde wouldn't need a macron in the first place (though I plan greatly reducing it through using ão > om, to indicate an "ohng" pronunciation for it is acceptable).

In pre-stressed environment, I'd have ů instead of o where I wish it pronounced u, the accent would be optional and just for reference of etymology. Same stuff for Ȋ (upper case) or ȋ (lower case) for e > i.

Though I'd open spaces to allow even more vowels than standard Portuguese currently has, it just wouldn't be phonemic. So that, for example, ēū being pronounced [ø] and [ew] wouldn't cause a minimal pair. Same for ū, ü or ui resulting in [y] or [u]/[uj]/[iw]

Taking care with the Sinocentric phonological system it could acquire, I'd recommend further vocalizing all Brazilian /l/ into [w] even in the syllable onset (right now it's always in the coda, even if the following word is vowel-initial, but never in the onset) to allow soft r being pronounced [l] by Chinese speakers and the sound they use in Japan and Korea when it comes to them, though European and other speakers would pronounce them the same as Brazilians. Hard r is not an issue, because it can be pronounced [h] or [x] (in fact, it is the majority option in all Brazilian states, and in all state capitals but Rio de Janeiro, and even in ours the French r use is dying in favor of them).

All coda s and instances of si in Portuguese would be written ſ, ʃ or ʆ (in hand-writing, a lower-in-line version of a symbol you use for S, in the case it's stylized) to make sure to point out that its pronunciation is a very variation of whatever but /r/ you can find (sibilants, fricatives, glottal transitions - [h] is the voiceless one -, and even glottal stops or long vowels) to use as coda. It would also be used before whatever t before i or in coda, to point out that its supposed to be palatalized, to the exception of the end of a word where it would be instead tx if meant to be palatalized, except cti that would be a replacement to qui/ki meant to make room to speakers of languages without these sounds, such as Mandarin (it would be pronounced as velar stop, palatal stop, palatal affricate or the same tx sound of ti, your taste, giving preference to the latter two).

Same stuff about ȷ, ʓ or ʝ without the dot replacing voiced coda s (yes it'd phonemic rather than etymological), zi and after d, except that they could be used at the end of a word so it'd be dȷ, dʓ or dʝ in all cases but gdi. It'd make things very easy for speakers of various Oceanian, Amerindian and African languages with an absence of t/k distinction, I imagine.

Example: actinídeos > aktʃinīdʝuʃ (Sinocentric pronunciation would sound like atʃitʃinīdʝuʃɨ, speakers would incorporate a more European-like pronunciation with contact rather than obligation) BUT marquise > marctīʝȋ and the only scary part for East Asians would be the coda /r/, that they would figure out individually what fits best (even that Chinese tonal vowel that goes up and then down is already convincing enough).

It seems like these symbols above letters are scary, but my system would make the current Brazilian one, that looks less scary at first but is much worse, obsolete. I wouldn't use acute versus circumflex, and etymological stuff like ss vs s, ss vs ç, s vs z, g vs j and many other Portuguese things that for many centuries confused natives and foreigners alike. In fact, the use of the letters c and q would be mostly abolished in favor of more logical k vs s. When qüi/güi vs qui/gui was abolished in Brazil in 2009-2012 for qui/gui (used until then in Portugal), many people complained; now we'd have qui/gui (with a [w]) vs. cti/gdi (without a [w]), and gui vs gi vs ji would be replaced with gui vs gdi vs ji, way more instinctive.

Absence of coda /l/ = [l] would be sure (l > w is centuries-old in Brazil) what would avoid lots of confusion when people who speak the Eurocentric and Sinocentric phone systems of the languages (or something intermediary/alternative) communicate, and coda [r] would be super-avoided by various alternative vocalization and vowel-inserting methods... I'm thinking in, for example, falar become falāre, as in Italian; militar in the sense of political activism being militāre, militar in the sense of military forces becoming milīku, that is based on our slang for them, milicos (not to be confused with milícia > milīʃia). In the case all that fails, one can insert a schwa after the vowel, as they do in German.

To finish, simplifying its grammar and syntax making it more akin to a creole, like Nheengatu, and turning it into something analytic and gender-neutral as English, would also be all a big plus.

You've put a lot of thought into this, and it's a lot more comprehensive in some ways than many auxlangs' attempts at neutrality. However, the heavy focus on Portuguese seems kinda biased (not that it would be much of an obstacle for speakers of non-European languages, it just feels a little arbitrary to a non-Brazilian such as myself). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're picturing a language with a medium to large fricative inventory and I think that's unnecessarily complex. I'd just have a couple fricatives, probably.

Korean hangeul and the Inuktitut syllabic system are both way more elegantly designed and rational than the European alphabets.

I think the ideal "neutral" language would have a CV or CV(C) syllable structure like Japanese, a non-inflecting grammar, a vowel system like Spanish, no distinction between l and r, and probably a mix of Latin, Arabic and Chinese roots. Sentence structure would be SVO or SOV.

It's not neutral at all, though. It's a colonizing force.

Korean hangeul is just mind-boggling, though. At least to me it is. An abugida like Ge'ez really interests me, because those are largely if not wholly phonemic. I think an abugida might be the most rational system, but I am not sure about that.

I'm interested in that ideal neutral language that picks roots from Latin, Arabic and Chinese and has a simple grammar + a vowel system like Spanish (well, I'm not so sure about that).

I also agree, English is not neutral, not in any way or form.

Well, hangeul isn't exactly easy for a Westerner (I can't personally read it, though I used to know some stuff) but it is both rational and nice-looking. The concepts behind it are amazing. The Inuktitut system is an abugida and it is pretty much entirely rational. Here is a page about it.

By a Spanish vowel system I meant a e i o u without additional vowels, also found in Japanese (though their u is unusual) and IIRC Italian. I guess you could collapse it into a i u but I think having an e and an o could probably work just as well. For consonants, I'm picturing something like this:

Stops: b,p t,d k,g
Fricatives: s,z
Liquids: m,n (w maybe?)
Flap: ɾ

Sample possible sentence:

O (or wo) ama kitaba.

(I love the book.)

They're not symbols. They're blocks of letters put together.

Gap, gum, gun, gif, and so on aren't different symbols you have to learn in English. They're combinations of letters such as "g," "u," and "m." There's only 24 Hangul, or 40 at most if you add letters like ㄲ, ㄸ, and ㅚ

필 (pil), for example, is ㅍ (p), ㅣ (i), and ㄹ (r, l). 팔 (pal) is ㅍ(p) ㅏ(a) and ㄹ(r, l).

There actually is a proper stroke order for kana. If you're ignoring it, you can ignore it for Hangul as well. Proper stroke order really only helps in your ability to write quickly and neatly.

It never looks symmetrical.

And I know it is an alphabet.

But the letters should be separated, I don't know.

Putting them all together into a same place looks like scary confusing endless little sticks DDDD: *kanjiphobic*

That's part of what makes it cool, though.

Linguae francae crop up organically when the situation demands it. There's no need to impose one from 'above'.

Excellent point. But if one were to be imposed from above, I think English would be best, because most of the western world already study it as their second language (if it isn't their native tongue). And as for the argument "it should be an invented or dead language so no one will have an advantage", that's just not a good argument. First off, no language, invented, dead or alive, will be equally hard for everyone to learn, because it will always be more similar to one language than to another. Secondly, shouldn't you be happy for the people who won't have to spend all that time learning a new language; time which could be spent doing something more constructive?

How the hell is learning a new language not constructive? Also, you're ignoring that the predominance of English is a direct result of centuries of imperialism.

No.

Portuguese is perhaps the fastest Romance language.

We mishear speakers from the most terrific fast accents in a conversation. Mostly because of a lack of exposition. But never in songs. NEVER.

Well, I have very little knowledge of Portuguese, so I just have to take your word for it. Nevertheless, I do think English is the best candidate, since it is already so well known.

One could, of course, propose a spelling reform of the English language to make it easier to learn, but I think that would kill the most beautiful part of English -- the written language.

One very good thing about English, from an easy-to-learn perspective, is that fact that grammatical genus doesn't exist. Of course, that makes the language all the more boring.

How is English spelling beautiful? It's pretentious nonsense. They added an 's' to "island" to make it look more like the Latin word, even though it's not actually Latin-derived. It's bullshit.

[Zaldakki]

English got stupid orthography, stupid phonology, stupid grammar and sounds like gibberish.

There I said it.

EDIT: why do you assume we're all natives of English?

How does it sound like gibberish?

[Senatus Populusque Lundensis]

Excellent point. But if one were to be imposed from above, I think English would be best, because most of the western world already study it as their second language (if it isn't their native tongue). And as for the argument "it should be an invented or dead language so no one will have an advantage", that's just not a good argument. First off, no language, invented, dead or alive, will be equally hard for everyone to learn, because it will always be more similar to one language than to another. Secondly, shouldn't you be happy for the people who won't have to spend all that time learning a new language; time which could be spent doing something more constructive?

How the hell is learning a new language not constructive?

Learning a new language is constructive if it'll be useful in any way. If everyone speaks your native fluently, learning a new language would not at all be constructive unless it's for research or science purposes.

Also, you're ignoring that the predominance of English is a direct result of centuries of imperialism.

I don't see that as a problem. Just like you shouldn't judge an artwork by the artist (e.g. Wagner might have had horrible opinions, but he still made damn good music), you shouldn't judge a language by it's native speakers. I may not be so fond of the people of my country, but I love my language more than almost everything in the world.

Well, I have very little knowledge of Portuguese, so I just have to take your word for it. Nevertheless, I do think English is the best candidate, since it is already so well known.

One could, of course, propose a spelling reform of the English language to make it easier to learn, but I think that would kill the most beautiful part of English -- the written language.

One very good thing about English, from an easy-to-learn perspective, is that fact that grammatical genus doesn't exist. Of course, that makes the language all the more boring.

How is English spelling beautiful? It's pretentious nonsense.

That is, by its nature, a very subjective topic. I personally find great beauty in the English language. I can't explain it.

They added an 's' to "island" to make it look more like the Latin word, even though it's not actually Latin-derived. It's bullshit.

Source, please? I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Right, I looked that up and it turned out you are right. Although, I'd like you to prove that they did it specifically to make it "look more like a Latin word".

[Diopolis]

It's less pronounceable- there are too many glottal stops. And it is less learnable for people speaking a western language- I can't speak for others, though it seems reasonable that a fictional language designed specifically to be difficult to learn would be more difficult to learn than latin. Then again, I never found latin as hard as some people seem to think it is.

I am sure it is more pronounceable than latin...seeing as there is no official pronunciation of latin.

I was speaking as to the classical pronunciation, but that statement would also apply to the ecclesiastical pronunciation. On another topic, why do you seem to dislike Latin so strongly?

[Diopolis]

Obviously it should be Proto-Finnic.

Why would be speak the language of those conquered by the sons of Odin? *nod*

We should use proto indo-european, as soon as it can be reconstructed. The ancestor of Old Norse, Latin, Sanskrit, Greek, etc. *nods*

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I am sure it is more pronounceable than latin...seeing as there is no official pronunciation of latin.

I was speaking as to the classical pronunciation, but that statement would also apply to the ecclesiastical pronunciation. On another topic, why do you seem to dislike Latin so strongly?

The classical pronunciation is no more than a reconstruction, and the ecclesiastical pronunciation is little more than Italian. Latin is a dead language, and an heavily inflected one, which, burden by its association with the European elites and the Catholic Church, has no business being an international language- it isn't even fit to be a medium of impersonal communication, stale as it is.

[Port Charlotte]

I SPEAK AMERICAN, AND ONLY AMERICAN.

[Haraguva]

I'm for an international language. Not just for trade, but the whole world speak the same language. Imagine the peace it could bring.
I would nominate Pidgin to be the Universal language, it's already an established universal business language.
Pidgin is a mash of English, Spanish, German, French, Mandarin, Arabic and a few other languages.

[Communist Winnipeg]

Mime. Everyone must mime.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I don't see that as a problem. Just like you shouldn't judge an artwork by the artist (e.g. Wagner might have had horrible opinions, but he still made damn good music)

One doesn't ever seperate the artist's opinion from the artist himself. We no longer view Wagner's ring as some sort of beautiful and apolitical piece of opera, we now recognise it for what it is, tunes for his anti-semetic german nationalism. Just as we are able to recognise fascism in the art of the Italian Futurists, we recognise the politics of art and the artists- therefore you hackneyed 'Wagner is a good musician if not a good person, therefore lets seperate the art from the artist' holds no weight.

, you shouldn't judge a language by it's native speakers. I may not be so fond of the people of my country, but I love my language more than almost everything in the world.

We should, the language will always be tied to the culture of its speaker, and English only dominates because of both British and American imperialism, therefore, even the context in which it is used (say, by an Indian man) is inherently imperialistic.

That is, by its nature, a very subjective topic. I personally find great beauty in the English language. I can't explain it.

Beauty is relative, English orthography being insensible is not.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Mime. Everyone must mime.

How can you tell 'Pull the rope in' from 'Come here and wank me off'.