|
|
Which language should a new country choose?
If by chance someone were to create a new country made for europeans (New Europe), which (european) language would sum up best the European Spirit?
My personal choice would be German, for it sounds very rational and logic and martial too.
I'd probably choose something like Esperanto or Interlingua, rather than a natural European language.
But if constructed languages aren't allowed, I'd probably choose German or French in an ideal situation. But the reality is that they'd probably end up speaking English to each-other most of the time, since that's probably the main foreign language taught in all European countries now (with the obvious exceptions of Britain and Ireland). It would ultimately depend on whether the migrants would represent Europe proportionally, or whether a significant majority were from, say, Germany (or wherever).
Actually Benjamin, English is the main foreign language taught in Ireland as well! ;)
Ben.
Ok, ignore the last comment. I don't want to start a discussion about that.
I'd probably choose Esperanto. Because it's easy to learn, and the most spoken of the planned languages. Of course, it isn't really European. If that wasn't allowed, I agree with Benjamin - English would end up being spoken. Ben.
<<Actually Benjamin, English is the main foreign language taught in Ireland as well! ;) >>
As the vast majority of Irish people are native English speakers, how is it a foreign language? <<I'd probably choose Esperanto. Because it's easy to learn, and the most spoken of the planned languages.>> You really expect that millions of people would start learning such a useless language? Actually, why not - this is such a stupid thread in the first place, that makes perfect sense. If it was up to me, I'd make people learn Ancient Sanskrit, with Icelandic and Navajo as foreign languages. All English words would be illegal, with the death penalty imposed on repeat offenders.
Who said millions of people? We don't know how big this hypothetical country is. And in answer to your question, you should look to my previous post. I said there, that they would probably end up learning English - so no, I wouldn't expect the people of the country to learn Esperanto, I'd expect them to learn English given the choice.
If you think the thread's stupid, then don't post! Regards, Ben.
You said <<I'd probably choose Esperanto.>> Why choose it, if you think most people would end up speaking English?
<<We don't know how big this hypothetical country is.>> Maybe it's as big as India or China.
<<Maybe it's as big as India or China.>>
Yes, maybe. Or maybe smaller than..... Brussels. <<Why choose it, if you think most people would end up speaking English? >> Like I've already said: Because it's easy to learn. Ben.
I'm sure it is, but what's the point (to most people, not people fascinated by languages) of learning something so useless?
So that the people that nation could have a language to communicate in with each other that is easy to learn. Therefore, no matter what their native languages were, they could all communicate with ease with eacht other.
Ben.
Thank you all for your input, I was just sounding the waters here. In fact New Europe could well be the size of today's Europe. I didn't say New Europe was to be in some farway land. Perhaps just a land in the future...
Anyway, what's the difference between choosing a natural language or a constructed one? Usefulness? If that's the only criterium, we would end up with English; surely that cannot be, in the name of fairness.
I would propose Catalan. Latin is like a grandmother tongue of Europe, and Catalan is some kind of middle thing between the bigger sister languages Spanish, French and even Italian. It could also be the Common European language of EU because it wouldn´t favor too much any of the big countries (in the same way as the capital of EU is situated in Belgium that lies between the great ones, Germany, France and Britain).
Moreover, if there would be a new independent country in Europe, it could very well be Catalonia because they are the biggest nation without total independence (if you don´t count the tiny Andorra where Catalan is indeed the official language).
Well, I've thought about that a couple of times. About adopting a common european language. Sometimes I think of Esperanto and other times I think of some latin language. I think it should be:
1) a natural language 2) a language with a large enough number of speakers so to keep the language alive but not large enough to "develop" language pride among it's speakers and/or giving them an unfair advantage (as is the obvious case of english) My proposition would be for romanche/rumantch: it is latin, influenced by germanic (pronunciation wise I guess) and it has less than 100.000 speakers - enough to keep the language alive and not big enough to threaten any other language. On the other hand, Catalan is already the language of 6 million people, who are a rich and VERY proud people. Declaring their language "the" language of Europe would be giving those 6 million an unfair advantage, as they already have the numbers and the money to form powerfull lobbies. What do you think?
Perhaps Occitan would be a better choice, as Greg suggests. It is a suppressed and threatened language in France. If Occitan became a symbol for all languages that have got into troubles because of nationalistic and intolerant policy of the central government of their respective countries, perhaps it could help them stay alive for future generations. Or why not Romanche/Rumantch, a still smaller language, as Viri Amaoro says.
|