- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 462 Hour
- Reading permission
ur line of thinking is similar to what many of the asian countries took, when they were convinced that they are "backward" by the kinds of westerners'-arrsss-kissers like sun yat sen and meijin. in a way, the reason i bud into this area of language of which i know nothing about is to debunk this myth -- both of asia being backward and a cultural language need to be modified to accomodate tech development.|
As for language being modified to conform to technology, I have two answers to this. If we are talking about a people's national language or their mother tongue, that is the business of that people. I as a non-Chinese have no say in whether the Chinese language is to be modified; and if so, in what way, any more than a non-Anglo has a say in whether the English-language is to be modified and how. A national language belongs to the nation that speaks it.
If we are talking about a universal auxiliary language, a common second language that all will have to learn, then I have a different answer. Such a language would be our common language, upon which a common international culture is to be developed. That being the case, we all have a right to a say in what language it ought to be, whether we ought to adopt one among the already existing ones, whether to revise one, or whether to create a new one. This language is one that must be acceptable to all nations, and that being the case, all nations must agree to it. We must consider traditional values in the formation of this language too. Just as King Sae Jong the Great had created the Korean script not out of any interest in material profit, but out of lover for his subjects, so the representatives of various nations, once come together to deliberate on a universal language, must likewise acknowledge that English is out of reach to the common people, and adopt or create a language out of love for their fellowmen, brother hood and justice and not out of simple market forces and material profit.
the reason we got all sucked into tech was because whoever doesn't will get beat up. so, this right off the start is an anti-cultural notion.
I can agree with this. Many native English-speakers, though not all, claim that it's only right to let the languages fight it out on the free market, oblivious of the fact that English already got a headstart through historical imperialism. And when we consider that language is a collective commodity, it becomes clear that once one language has a headstart, its advantage can only grow regardless of the social inequalities it may leave in its wake.
WE MUST HAVE SEPARATION OF CULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY.
I disagree with this. I would say that technology must be put to the service of man, and not the other way around. In this respect, technology ought to be an extension of culture.
this goes also for language. and as for my part, the tech language that came out of my struggle to hold up the nuclear industry(3-miles island, radwaste storage and space nuclear reactor) in the 80's is intended to salvage the chinese traditional characters. i just though if they have my solve-it all(including computer analysis of a pingpong match) tech language, they dont have to simplify for tech catchup.
Perhaps, but again you seem to know much more than I do about machine languages, so I'll leave that up to specialists in that field to decide on that.
as to my big mouthing about FUTURE OF LANGUAGES, i do want to get language expert like u to help out in promote unification of countries thru culture by way of languages, which is the embodiment of the culture.
Oh you're asking alot from me here. I have no interest in creating a whole new language on my own. I have learnt Esperanto as I believe that it has all the potential qualities of becoming the international auxiliary language fo the future, but at the same time I would not oppose another language from taking its place if it could prove to be as concerned for the ability of the poor and less educated to communicate with their fellowmen.
i think ur contribution in this discussion is to show us that unification of language is not all whistling dixie. this converge with my theory that language, not weapon or money, should be the chief instrument for world peace and eventual unification.
I would say that a common moral foundation is most important, and that could be achieved by exploiting whatever resource at our disposal. In China, teaching the Confucian classics; in Christian countries, the Gospel; in Arabia, Islam, etc. Whatever works to bring about this common moral foundation. After all, all of the world's major religions have taught peace, justice, love, brotherhood, etc. Confucianism too.
I would say that the second most important thing after that is the adoptin or creation of a common language. Yet in a way that is also an extension of the moral foundation above. After all, if I truly love you, if I truly want to make friends with you, if I truly want to establish a common bond between you and me, first we need a common moral foundation, we cannot do this without a common language. So in this respect, a common language can be viewed as an extention and manifestation, or proof, of the moral foundation.
all my senses tell me that the han characters is a branding iron for the brain. with that in mind, or brain, the chinese government should get all chinese kids to learn korean and japanese for 10 years and then let nature take it's course as to what's the next asian language for the asian family of nations.
Well, I could see the government giving schools the freedom to choose what second language to teach their students instead of forcing them all to learn English. Some schools might prefer Korean or Japanese to English, and have the resources to teach them. In such cases, I'd say the Chinese government should let them teach those languages instead. This I think could be a reasonable start.