Hacker News Reader

Comment by wilg | Hacker News Reader

In the very long term (hundreds of years) it seems like it will really be optimal to have a single shared language for people of Earth to communicate with each other easily and effectively. Not sure how to balance this with the cultural value of language. But it just seems like it can't be helpful to understand people less well. Seems like translation is a stopgap on this journey. Also seems dangerous for AI to be intermediating all human communication – who knows how it might subtly adjust your words?

View on HN

>In the very long term (hundreds of years) it seems like it will really be optimal to have a single shared language for people of Earth to communicate with each other easily and effectively.

I disagree. I'd argue that a monolingual species is harmful for the same reason monocultures are harmful in general.

Language diversity facilitates cultural diversity. It's a "memetic speed bump" that enables the isolation needed for cultural divergence.

On a hundred-year timescale, I'd much rather see hundreds of new, diverse cultures bloom than some sort of bland Facebook-y monoculture where everyone is communicating with everyone else all the time. I'm hoping in the very long run, space travel will help facilitate cultural diversity. E.g. Mars is ~10 light-minutes away, meaning Earth/Mars phone calls aren't really feasible. But until then, we should preserve the cultural diversity we have, and fight homogenization.

But cultures don't have to be aligned with language. We have many internet subcultures and such that are geographically distributed but able to form because of shared language.

And, rightly or wrongly, that shared language will likely be English. It is already the language of commercial aviation, and it is the language that people in Europe (any other places presumably) use to talk to each other when they don't share a native language. And sometimes even when they do.

It is in some ways a bit peculiar, with a simple grammar but extensive vocabulary (much of which thieved from other languages). It is on the face of it quite ugly, however great poetry and works of literature have been created using it. Some non-native speakers say they feel freer using English instead of their native tongue, but of course that is a somewhat nebulous proposition hard to substantiate, even if there is a little truth to it.

The relatively simple grammar is a huge advantage. The major complaint I’ve heard from learners is about the spelling. It would be nice to reform the orthography, like the Academia Real in Spain did

Is spelling still a problem now that almost all writing can be spell-checked?

I suppose there's still the issue of inconsistent phonetics when reading an unfamiliar word...

The term thieved is too strong here. Languages borrow words all the time, like how various English words have made it into other languages.

Many of the French words came about due to England being invaded by he Norman French. A lot of food words come about due to using the native terms for those -- this is why the meat words are French based and the animal words are Norse/Germanic.

In Florida, you see a lot of Spanish words entering English due to the cultures co-existing and mixing. This happends a lot near country borders where you see languages blend together as the different speakers mix.

Do creole languages (of which there are many) steal the words from their parent languages?

> The term thieved is too strong here.

Probably why technical term is loanword :)

... it's not like the word gets used up in the original language [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Wouldn't_Steal_a_Car

There’s always pressure towards a shared language for commerce/law (and this varies with political winds) but everyday communication is just negotiated among the people you encounter regularly.

Humans are way too clever and adaptable to receive and reify one language and will always be tuning in to accidental quirks and personal optimizations. There will always be many languages, some old and some new, because people will always live within the practical little social bubbles that get them from today to tomorrow.

I think this would be a net loss for humanity. If the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is true, there would be less variety of ideas and less creativity in a world where everyone speaks one language.

On a funny side note, I recently overheard one Spanish speaker casually comment to another about how people's personalities seem to change when they switch which language they're speaking. It was wild to see someone who's never heard of that hypothesis just invent all on their own.

I don't think that's necessarily Sapir–Whorf at work. It could just be behavioral conditioning -- the same way you might have a different personality at work, vs when visiting your parents for the holidays.

Sapir-Whorf seems like mumbo-jumbo to me. I think the second thing you are describing is called code switching.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com