Far more people understand it than things like Esperanto. Quite a lot of people know it a bit. I did it at school. My kids learned some (their choice to do it up to GCSE level).
That said, in practice, English is the international language. It is what is most likely to be used at an international conference in most fields, or when people with two different native languages speak.
It's not going to change again. Not even if the US and UK both sank into the ocean.
> Not even if the US and UK both sank into the ocean.
Lots of English speakers in other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-s...
I think its likely that list greatly undercounts the number of people who speak English as a first language because of difficulties around the data about things such people who are bilingual and (cultural, not necessarily on the part of the people conducting surveys) assumptions about ethnicity and language, sources of numbers etc.
Nah, it's just because that particular institution tries very hard to be internally consistent, for historical reasons. They immediately publish translations of such documents into "common" languages as well, and that's what non-clerics will actually read.
I disagree with some grammatical choices made for Interlingua, but in any case it had a simple grammar and the vocabulary was well chosen among the words that are common to the greatest number of European languages. Thus I could read and understand Interlingua without knowing anything about it before that.
Interlingua has a vocabulary bias towards Romance languages, but that is due to the fact that Romance words, mostly coming from Latin or French, are also widespread in English, and also in other language groups like Germanic or Slavic, while much less Germanic or Slavic words are found in languages from other groups. Therefore when selecting the words that are found in most European languages, there are more Romance words than from the other groups.
It would be more practical, if everyone spoke the same language, but the EU does deliberately not want that. The EU wants to preserve language and culture of its member states and regions. "United in Diversity" is an important idea of the EU.
While that might make sense from a legal standpoint, it seems like it makes it risky to hire patent lawyers in Europe who are not native English speakers, which in turn, along with many other similar inconsistencies, does in practice create an EU-preferred language.
One advantage of it being "dead" is that the meanings of terms are much more stable. They don't undergo the usual slippage and mutation of spoken languages. This advantage would be lost if it were to replace existing vernacular languages.