Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But I can already.
Dude, you speak English.
And then how do you lpan to organise this universal language thing. Will it replace all local ones? That would be horrendous. Will it run alongside, and if so how? And since English would always be the weakest language for all the countries that at present don't speak English, wouldn't that mean that the 'true', strongest Englsh speakers would express themselves more incisively, and everybody else speak like children?
I've already answered all these questions. I can do so again, if you like, but I'll direct all criticisms for repeating myself to you.
-
Good lord, I don't think you're a racist, and I wasn't trying to suggest that for a second. I do think your arguments aren't very considered, though. Wrong, even.
Go for it. Say why. You might convince me. I'll take your word for it that you don't think I'm a racist.
-
But you don't need literacy.
You do if you're reading a rutter, or a captain's log. Sure you can do without, and rely entirely upon meeting someone who happens to have committed to memory the entire path and is prepared to take the time to disseminate that information for you to memorize, and are also prepared to take the gigantic risk of forgetting something and being lost at sea. But I would rather not, and I'm sure the Polynesian voyagers would have agreed 100% with me if they'd been lucky enough to have the idea presented to them.
How ironic to hear someone presumaly educated in NZ, at one of the vertices of the Polynesian triangle, bang on about the inadequacy of oral culture mnemonic techniques for navigation.
How diversionary to point it out. The subtle hint, conveyed by signals that I can appreciate, is that somehow makes me a racist. The other signal from that being that I must also be wrong. None of which is said plainly because that would violate the rules of politeness this forum is famous in it's own mind for.
You might have to try to convince me, a native speaker of a different language, of the advantages of learning yours.
Yup. How about "So you can understand, and be understood by, everyone". That is to me a powerful argument. If it isn't to you, then sure, you'll never be convinced.
-
I suspect you might be underestimating the kind of investment (cultural, human, monetary) that introducing a second native language into a country represents.
I think you're underestimating the advantages.
Now I'm confused - isn't this what you have been arguing against, Ben?
No. I've been advocating using simple English with highly tolerant structure right from the start. I've been advocating clarity through simplicity, repetition, dialogue and tolerance the entire time. If you haven't got something about that, please ask. I don't know why you are confused until you tell me.
-
And that wouldn't happen to put native English speakers at a significant advantage in a globalised world, wouldn't it?
It sure would, which has got to be one of the very best reasons for English speakers to actually try to do it. It is an advantage that would dissipate rapidly, though. Then it would just be advantageous for everyone.
-
Yes, they're not mutually exclusive - unless you seek to universally apply rules that only work for one of them. Get it?
Yup. That would be bad, and I'm not suggesting it.
The only language that I see needing such reform is English, and only if people would like it to become the universal language. It would be a gesture of enormous good faith to all other language speakers that we were prepared to change the way we spoke to make it easier for them, and it would be to our advantage to do so, because we would get to be the first native speakers of the universal language.
My hope is that this will actually spontaneously happen, without needing any political body whatsoever, that English will gradually morph into a language that everyone finds easy through introduction of foreign words, structures, ideas, and the widespread tolerance of the simpler ways of speaking as, far from being uncouth, both polite and normal.
-
David, I don't want to wipe out languages, nor would that be a consequence of learning a new language. My learning German did not wipe out my English. In fact, it enhanced it considerably.
If, however, after such a thing happening (the whole world somehow managing to agree on universal language), the usage of the old ones started to decline, I would not be particularly heartbroken, any more than I am heartbroken that Latin is not still spoken by all learned people. I wouldn't see it as monstrous, I'd see it as the dawn of a new age. That doesn't frighten me. It excites me.
-
Actually, it kind of does, insofar as it rests on an ethos that is very pervasive and not always tolerant of difference.
Communicating clearly is extremely tolerant of difference. It's something that people of difference usually prefer.
I would never advocate the death of other languages. I don't think that we should stop studying Latin, just because we don't speak it. Well, most of us don't. Similarly with Maori. But it is a tremendous advantage to Maori that they can speak English as well.
That's a brilliant example of what I'm talking about. We equate information with knowledge, and clear communication with good communication. But there is another word you can apply to communication: rich. And it doesn't always go the same way as clear.
No, and that's when you're welcome to use all old-school techniques you love so much. But when you want to communicate clearly with as many people as possible, that's when the 'universal language' comes in. And that is exactly what I want to do an awful lot of the time. I also like communicating unclearly and poetically, non-verbally, or not at all, too. But these options need not be mutually exclusive.
-
linger, my turn to be a pedant. What do you mean by multiplying referential meaning? I can only see addition. If what you are saying is true then the meaning of a sentence could grow more rapidly than the length. I don't see how this is possible. If I make 3 verbal points, with 3 other signals, I don't get 9 points out it. I get 6. What am I missing here?
I'm not suggesting that language should lose its ability to signal. It's far, far, far simpler than that. I'm suggesting that we could all speak at least one language that everyone could understand in general. Of course we can never speak one language that everyone can understand about everything. The language I speak to my business partner is most likely 30% unintelligible to even my other colleagues, because we have known each other so long that we have an extensive list of private usages of words, phrases, anecdotes etc. These things enable us to communicate very rapidly together. But we all speak English, and can convey even the most complex ideas with 100% precision, if we try, and the listener also tries. These English speakers are scattered around the globe, and many of them are not native speakers. But the ideas get through, and that's good for all of us.
-
And I nominate Ben for "Knowledge Bro"
That's too big a title for one guy who doesn't really know much.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 894 895 896 897 898 … 1066 Older→ First