Response to Recent Post Comments

Steve:

You make some great points and I agree that imperial roots played a major role in English becoming the most dominant language. My thoughts rest along the lines that English is spoken all over the world. It is expected by 2025, every Chinese person under 25 will speak English. There is debate whether future presidents of Taiwan should be required to speak English. It seems every high-impact position in today's economic/political sphere requires English of some kind - either spoken or interpreted.

My response to "simple and harmonious" is yes, it is easier for those who already speak it. It is also easier for those who don't speak it because there are major incentives to learn it economic, socially, and politically. It is also easier because there is more of a global distribution in English speakers (vs. pure numbers in which China wins...) It is also easier because we only produce one set of instruction, versue one for every major language (put that at around 15). We don't spend money in translation (or lost in translation.) It is also easier life or death situations, such as ambulances, emergencies, and hospitals. So, my question is, so what if it's simpler and more harmonious for those who already speak it? Don't we have greater issues to worry about?

Nana:

I liked your comments and regardless of what I said in my response to Steve, I still find it deeply respectful to learn the language of the country I am entering. While I think we should all learn a language, especially one that is specific, roots-based, and logical (for mostly scientific purposes), I feel that it should be just as accessible for people to learn other languages.

Joe:

I think learning a single language on a national and global level is extremely important. My question to you is, why doesn't it feel right? Because of my beliefs (as presented in the response to Steve) it feels wrong not to have everyone speak a common language.

I agree that it is important to consider the major changes in which language has been dominant. The major problem I see with this argument, though, is that there has never been a time in history where there is so much momentum in favor of a specific language. How many books are published in English? How many scientific discoveries are made and discussed in English? How many billions, if not trillions of dollars are managed through English-dominated corporations? Sure, much of this can change, but A LOT has to happen for this to occur, and I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.

The logic of our alphabet system rests in the fact that it consists of 26 letters. No more, no less. Sure, we make goofy words with those letters, but we don't make up new letters. To me, pronunciation and meaning are completely independent of the alphabet. Composition of words, and how those words are pronounced, are major issues in English - something I feel also has to be taken care of (by no means am I saying English is perfect). The argument I was trying to make is that Chinese is not consistent with an alphabet. If I were to say a word and spell it to the best of my ability, 99 times out of a 100, you could figure out what word I meant. With Chinese, I believe this number is dramatically lower.