It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One....World.... Language?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I was just pondering how it's pretty much accepted that English is the international language of the entire planet (excluding myself as I can make up any language).

Will we see other languages slowly die off as less emphasis is based on them due to people pretty much inhabiting every piece of land available, it's just a matter of time before every person on this planet speaks English.

is language a form of control?

There are rules to language, but who makes the rules? Just like religion, language has 'evolved' and certain words are changed, added, taken away, to fit the present society.


Language is a sensitive political issue. As some languages are more "international" than others, the equality of the 11 languages has, in fact, always been a myth. The existing rights to translation are essential, because documents emanating from Brussels have the force of law in member states. But the right to an interpreter is often restricted, except for senior politicians and members of the European parliament. Working documents are seldom available in all 11 languages.

English is taking over Europe




...with interest in English around the world growing stronger, not weaker — stoked by American cultural influences and advertising, the increasing numbers of young people in developing countries and the spread of the Internet, among other factors — there are some linguists and others who say: why fight it? Instead, the argument goes, English, particularly the simpler form of the language used by most nonnative speakers, should be embraced.

So English is taking over the globe, so what?




posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
i agree english is the most popular language....everyone can talk english even a little



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I once heard that languages were developed to confuse the human race "Blame religion if you like" slow it down if you will. I mean come on if we all spoke the same how many problems would we have overcome.

English and this is my personal beleif is the true language known by all at one point in time we all spoke the same and english was it.

Regard's
Lee



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Never really thought of it... what am I saying?, I know I have...
Even when we went to Quebec for the grad trip, every French person there spoke English. If the frnch have grad trips to come here... English people are probably like "wtf, I have heard this language somewhere... hmmm" lol

sarcasm but.. I don't really think allot of Canadians know french.. maybe a few, counting quebec lol.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Well, I personally believe English has arrived at what seems to be the "global langauge". I believe it stemmed from the era of imperialism and the use of English as a fortitude towards commerce and capitalism. Nowadays, it's the language of "money" and one needs to know it to be a truly successful pioneer if they happen to travel the world and conduct business transactions, which a majority of big business personal do today.

I personally don't agree with h3akalee statement of English being the "first true language" simply for the fact that the English language is derived from many other languages, such as Latin, Greek, French...etc.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by h3akalee
English and this is my personal beleif is the true language known by all at one point in time we all spoke the same and english was it.


That doesn't make any sense at all.

English didn't become codified in any real way until about 500 years ago - and before Magna Carta one could say that the language really didn't exist at all as a unique form.

For the foreseeable future, English will likely be the language of international business (my job depends heavily on that). But quite frankly, as languages go, it`s pretty stupid. Loan words all over the place, bizarre local grammar rules, pronunciations that make no sense at all, and you cant swing a dead cat without knocking befuddling idioms and colloquialisms all over hells half acre. And furthermore, it`s ugly. Horrible to listen to, almost as bad as German. And visually, it`s dull as ditch water. It`s good for business, but if you want to write an epic poem, I suggest you look elsewhere.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Though I doubt it, English could be just another fad "world language". For a while, everyone thought it was cool to speak Latin. Then everyone thought it was cool to speak French. English may be the same, but it seems to have more "staying power" than the previous two.

It seems as though the Islamic world is coming together, however, and I don't think they have much interest in taking up English as the primary language, although it is likely that they would learn it to communicate with the outside world.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Hello vox2442.

HAHAHAHA thanks for the "ENGLISH" lesson.

Regard's
Lee



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I think think that Chinese is the most spoken language in the world but the most widely spoken language is English.

It is the language used by international air traffice control, maritime traffice control and most, if not all database lanaguages.

I have for a international company based in Europe with offices around the world. The common language is English and I can go to most places in the world and find someone who can speak listen.

Is English just a fad, and will be replaced as Latin was? I do not see this. More people speak English today and more widely that Latin ever was.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442

For the foreseeable future, English will likely be the language of international business (my job depends heavily on that). But quite frankly, as languages go, it`s pretty stupid. Loan words all over the place, bizarre local grammar rules, pronunciations that make no sense at all, and you cant swing a dead cat without knocking befuddling idioms and colloquialisms all over hells half acre.

Unfortunately that can be said of almost any language on earth



And furthermore, it`s ugly. Horrible to listen to, almost as bad as German. And visually, it`s dull as ditch water. It`s good for business, but if you want to write an epic poem, I suggest you look elsewhere.


Like where?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   
And most importantly of all, English will be needed for First Contact with Aliens. As we all know all Aliens speak fluent English, just watch any film...



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by quintar
Will we see other languages slowly die off as less emphasis is based on them due to people pretty much inhabiting every piece of land available, it's just a matter of time before every person on this planet speaks English.


I don't think other languages will die off so much as I think they will change over time, similar to the way languages have changed over the course of recorded history. The only way English would permanently supersede all other languages is if one of the English speaking cultures had absolute dominion over all the people of Earth. Even then, I would expect to see regional variations, slangs, pigeons or creoles develop given the lack of technology in many remote areas of the planet.


However, with regard to your question

is language a form of control?



I think language may well be the ultimate form of control. It has even been suggested that our brains function using rules systems similar to those we employ in linguistics. This theory is still fairly problematic and receives a lot of criticism, but it still has much merit (IMO!).

More or less, I am referring to Jerry Fodor's LoT hypothesis:
en.wikipedia.org...

If it just so happens that our brains do operate in a way like this, then thoughts can arguably be created and destroyed based on the limitations of the spoken language used. There is an excellent account of this type of scenario in Orwell's novel 1984.

The use of Newspeak (the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year!) basically limits peoples' permissible thought patterns. The way Orwel has the situation set up in the book, it is fundamentally impossible for humans to conceive of the notion of rebellion, for instance.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by mmmuuuumy]

[edit on 10-8-2007 by mmmuuuumy]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
If history teaches us anything, it's that dissidents will always find a way to express their ideas, regardless of the language.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
In reality there are a few Languages that could be the "one world language" English is probally the most widely used form of communication. Mandarin is spoken by the most people, but bearing in mind the average schooling of these people runs to between 2 and 5 years (read that somewhere a while back - no proof mind!) they're not going to be majorly influencing world politics. And then the dark horses would be Spanish which is very widely across the North American Union! And then there is the Islamic possibility. I don't really want to go there because you need a mouth full of sand to say most of it I'm sure.

Vox - I'm guessing we're doing the same thing. I'm banking on English being needed for the next say 30 years or so, otherwise my life could go right down the bog.

Is language a form of control?

I would say it depends on you: Listen Repeat and Understand.

MonKey

[edit on 10/8/07 by ChiKeyMonKey]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
One world language?

First thing to come to my mind was binary code.
Computers all over the world communicate using just 1's and 0's.

Next thing to come to mind was the Tower of Babel.

Now, if language is a form of control,
and I may be going off the deep-end here,
what are the implications of of our government's
vast investments in uniting or converging technologies?


cyberculture writer Neal Stephenson compares this new digital unity to the biblical symbol of human hubris the Tower of Babel. What made the construction of the Tower of Babel possible was that its builders spoke the same language. As God recognised, because people spoke a single language ‘nothing that they proposed to do would be impossible for them’.
source

Anyone understand what I'm trying to get across?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I found that hand's came in "HANDY" excuse the pun when getting the point across in Iraq.

It worked both ways, i also found that the $ helped. Or DOOOLER as they called it.

You would be shocked how well most of them could speak good english when there was something on offer.

Crazy times...

Regard's Lee

[edit on 10-8-2007 by h3akalee]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
His Master's Voice

When language is used as an instrument of control, the control is usually exercised by restricting access to the language.

When conquering armies overran a country, they brought their language with them. Access to it was, of course, automatic for all those of conqueror blood. But for the locals, the conquered ones, being allowed to learn and speak their new overlords' tongue was a special privilege, to be obtained by collaboration, complaisance and flattery. Such privileged natives were few. The bulk of the population were enslaved and oppressed through their ignorance of the conquerors' language. They could not speak up for themselves in a dispute, defend themselves in court, read the words on a document they were forced to sign, etc. Linguistically disenfranchised, they had no rights.

Some may argue that history shows the opposite. What about all those missionaries teaching European languages (and, of course, Christianity) to their far-flung congregations, the better to fit them for exploitation at the hands of rapacious white capitalists? Don't you believe it; if that was the plan, it backfired spectacularly. By teaching their subjects the language of the conquerors, the missionaries helped liberate them from much of the oppression of colonial rule -- and, in due course, promoted the liberation of the colonies themselves.

It is true that locals who learnt English -- or Portuguese, Spanish, French or Dutch or even German -- at the hands of missionaries and others also absorbed the cultural values of these countries to some extent, which helped make them sympathetic to their overlords and increased their usefulness as part of the workforce required by a thriving colonial economy. And it is true that they were exploited; native workers and officials were invariably paid a pittance compared to their masters, sometimes worked under dreadful conditions and often had to bear humiliating racial slurs and other slights without complaint. All this is true. But think about this from the point of view of the person going through all this. Far from thinking himself duped and exploited, he's thanking his lucky stars. He's got a job, a place in society, a chance to make some money and a reputation. For his cousins, who can't speak the language, things are very different -- they're stuck back on the family farm slowly starving, or else they're sleeping out on the streets of the city, making a living cleaning latrines.

Native middle classes usually considered themselves very fortunately placed and guarded their privileges jealously. Members of this class manned the colonial judiciaries and courts, government bureaux and utilities, the police force and the public services. In countries where marriages are usually by arrangement, 'public servants' attracted plump dowries. Other members of the class went into business and made large fortunes.

And -- in due course -- it was from among the native bourgeois of Asia and Africa that the first serious homegrown opposition to colonial rule emerged in the twentieth century. The call for independence was almost always led by people who were the flower of the colonial bourgeoisie: wealthy young sophisticates who had picked up their radical ideas at British and European universities.

Teaching conquered people English and other Western languages actually made them better off, and eventually helped free them.

Language is not an instrument of control; it is an instrument of liberation.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
While it is true that English is spoken all over the world, it does not mean that all all other languages would disappear. Greek was spoken all over the Near East 2000 years ago, yet now it has retreated to only being spoken in Greece. Similarly, one day America will become less important and English will retreat to corners of the earth from which it came.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
language is not an instrument of control; it is an instrument of liberation.


It's not always used in such a way - the clearest example that comes to mind is the RCC's corruption of Latin. This made it so the commoners and even the more learned class could not read the Bible themselves and had to rely on the interpretations (ahem, "control") of the clergy. Church Latin is to Classical Latin as Olde English is to Modern English - that is, you occasionally can pick out words, but you're pretty much shooting in the dark if you only know one or the other.

Interestingly enough the Gutenberg Bible translation (in German, a vernacular) was also the first widely produced book thanks to the new printing press, and we all know what happened to Christianity once people were able to read the Bible for themselves - from language as a control to another of liberation, as it were.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   
the main reason why almost everyone speaks english is becuase america, britan, and austalia are the main inporters/exporters in the whole world



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join