- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 462 Hour
- Reading permission
Originally posted by joeching at 2009-1-16 10:48
let me just restrict to asia.
i m talking about a cultural language with a technological subset. the cult language should be reduced from the combination of han characters, korean and jap ...
Your link seems to suggest a computer language based on English. This would not allow for the full range of human communication and cannot truly be defined as a human language.
Now as for a cultural language restricted to Asia, what do you mean by 'Asia'? Do you mean the Far East which would include China, Japan and Korea? I'm asking because you used the term 'Asia' but made no reference to Middle-Eastern languages in your list of languages. If you do mean 'Far-Eastern languages', then in the name of justice (i.e. to make sure that the average educated Far-Easterner can build relationships with neighbouring countries on an equal footing and not have this privilege restricted to the elite classes), it would make sense to create a language that all Far-Easterners could learn to fluency in the shortest amount of time possible, but that is also a complete language capable of literary devices and poetry. This would have an advantage in that foreigners who wish to communicate with any Far-Easterner could simply learn this common language in a shorter time than he could learn any other of your languages. It could also be a first step towards Far-Eastern cultural unity. But better yet, why not create a language that would be easy for anyone in the world to learn, but again one that is complete and capable of anything any other language is capable of.
And as for your comparison to Europe. You said that Europe can't establish a deeper cultural union, only a material one, whereas 'Asia' (which I take to mean the Far East) can. I'd say you're partially right, but it needs more elaboration. Right now in Europe, there is quite a language debate going on. English has become the de facto leading language of the continent, which many oppose owing to the privileged position it gives native English-speakers and the elite classes. This opposition to English leads to a lack of unity beyond the political and material. Some Europeans do support English, but the facts that English is difficult for many and that many have begun to oppose English prevent English from serving as the vehicular language for a common European culture. A few countries have started to promote Esperanto (mainly linguistically more disadvantaged countries such as Italy, Poland, Croatia, and Hungary) while England allows it in its schools, but other countries such as France and Germany officially discourage Esperanto (France has in fact expliciely prohibited schools from granting any credits for knowledge of Esperanto), so at least for the moment, Esperanto cannot serve this purpose either (though it does have the advantage of being learnable for the average educated person, so if attitudes towards it change, it might have a chance in future). Some countries, such as France, even oppose having any common European auxiliary language, intent on limiting European unity to the political and material, and opposing any unity beyond this. So for the forseeable future, it appears that you are correct that European unity will remain limited to the material and political. But I believe that a change of attitude is possible, and if that should happen, then we could witness the birth of a common European auxiliary language and culture in future.
In the Far East, you do have the advantage of less (though still present) opposition to English, and a general acceptance among many that English ought to be used as the common language between Far-Eastern countries. This certainly puts all your countries on an equal footing, though since English is too difficult for the average Far-Easterner, it also dcreates a news linguistic class divide between the elites and the common people in each of your countries. In this sence, we could say that English is creating an ethnic and class divide in Europe (by giving native English speakers and the English-speaking elite an unfair advantage in the European job market) and a class divide in the Far East (by giving the English-speaking elite an unfair advantage over the general population).