Every time this was attempted we chose the language of the worst colonizer at that time
this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
61 points (82.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43853 readers
1775 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I would say there is. Body language. Just about any human you meet can understand body language.
I suppose, though very poorly in comparison to what we usually mean by language.
This sparks an interesting question though: can two human strangers communicate with each other better than any other animals can, even when those two people have no language in common? I don’t think it’s so easy a question to answer. Probably they can in many cases but not in some others, depending on what is to be communicated. Whether there’s a bear nearby? How to coordinate an attack on tasty prey?
Edit to add: Unlocking secrets of the honeybee dance language – bees learn and culturally transmit their communication skills
Astonishingly, honeybees possess one of the most complicated examples of nonhuman communication. They can tell each other where to find resources such as food, water, or nest sites with a physical “waggle dance.” This dance conveys the direction, distance and quality of a resource to the bee’s nestmates.
I would argue yes, but not by a massive degree in my opinion. Every animal has body language and several things are shared amongst many of us, especially mammals. But yeah, I think our whole species would understand things like pointing at something or laughing or offering something with an outstretched arm, or a surprised face or a scowl.
load more comments
(2 replies)
In a weird way, the development of advanced communications and coordination technology has only made it harder for anything to change in a significant way .
That's not how language or communication work. Humans develop language in real time and in small cohorts. You are lucky if you can understand youth slang by the time you hit 40 and you want to force an artificial lingua franca on four billion people?
Plus, who said language uniformity is a positive? Linguistic diversity is a feature, not a bug. Language is tied to culture, identity and a whole bunch of antrhopological elements. Entire ethnicities are defined by their language. It's bad enough that US cultural imperialism has forced half the planet to watch the same movies and TV shows, why would we do the same with language? If you ask me, there's way too much English out there as it is.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Is that the default situation is it??
You dreamed up a scenario and now are asking why it is not the case.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Erm erm, one sec.
~Love is the Universal language~
Ok you can crucify me now xD
I really like esperanto as a project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto
It had a lot of support with early 20th century anarchists who saw it as a way to make people less nationalistic and prone to their domestic propaganda.
Maybe it's Interlingua. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua Most people who speak a latin based language already understand interlingua. That would be the best chance of getting a majority of the world on the same language. It would include a big part of Europe, all of South and Central America and half of North America
load more comments
(2 replies)
Wasn’t there a language created called Esperanto that was supposed to be the world language.
Kial ne esperanto?
I'd argue that by your own criteria, English is that language.
There's like 1.2 billion English speakers, including non-native speakers, tho? the OP asks for like 3.5 billion or somethin'.... since population globally is 8 billion...
Less then a quarter of people speak English, so not even close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_world
Including people who speak English as a second language, estimates of the total number of Anglophones vary from 1.5 billion to 2 billion.
So you’re right: one quarter of people at most. Nonetheless that’s remarkable. Too bad it’s due more to subjugation than cooperation.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Well fuck me sideways I thought it was more than that.
Because for most of modern history, we were very isolated from the "outside world".
Other than the last 200 years, the best "internet" was a dude on a horse. Since groups of humans developed quite independently of each other, they developed their own languages. However in the modern age this is changing rapidly, with many languages and dialects coalescing into one, consistent, language. Additionally many countries have tons of English speakers which is a defacto "universal language". Most big cities will have english translation for many signs and important documents.
geography is a bitch