I doubt it, I think there will be a dominant language, and probably a large consolidation of languages, likely arround the current the current writing systems, and I feel it will be a loss to the world, but I am wiling to hear push back on that.
I dunno the thought just came to me. Or a better description is it rose to the surface. I know that we have the ability to translate written articles and comments decently enough in the the big languages, which will get better. But how will we speak to each other, or how will we be able translate through a picture, or how do we know these translators are in the right hands (what if they get so advanced, they can lie to you about what the other language is saying? Now normal this would be easily disproven, but libs are too sinophobic to second guess)
I think under a world socialist system, humanity could build a synthetic global language. I’ve heard that there is a international phenetic alphabet, though I don’t know too much about or how “international” it is.
The international phonetic alphabet is mostly used as a transcription tool for phonetic notation. It’s not really used for communication purposes but more for representing sounds made at the various positions considered possible by the human mouth, to varying degrees of specificity (you can be more or less specific with it depending on what you are using IPA for). Most of the characters it uses are based in latin script but its purpose is mainly to make phonetic notations rather than be used for general writing purposes, generally each language benefits from having a writing system that suits its own particular qualities and using the IPA to write would not be very practical.
As for constructed languages, I think there is a lot of resistance to them among people in general at the moment, for a multitude of reasons, but I think they are an underexplored field that could benefit people some day. At the very least they are interesting to create, study, and speak. I do think natural languages are going to continue to be predominant for the foreseeable future and constructed languages will probably remain in the realm of idealists and niche hobbyists for a long time.
Oh thanks for the details. I am sorta getting into conlangs, and I think the future potential of them could be incredible (either as a communication tactic to avoid surveillance or as I said a global human language. And honestly just to nerd out about .)
I think there will be a lot of local languages, with large regions (united by broad economic/political interests) each having a single lingua franca – say German or French or Russian or Mandarin. That was the model within the Soviet Union. Local languages were protected, and you went to school and conversed in the language of your particular ethnicity. But everybody also learned Russian, so that people from the various republics could communicate with each other. Liberals call this “cultural imperialism,” but really, it was just practical. In many regions of the Soviet Union, such as the Caucasus, you had a stunning variety of local languages, each of them highly complex and developed; for economic reasons, there had to be a single language everybody understood. To have this be Russian, the language most widely spoken in the USSR, simply made sense, and moreover – because a utilitarian argument could be made for it – was the closest thing to a politically neutral decision.
I doubt it, I think there will be a dominant language, and probably a large consolidation of languages, likely arround the current the current writing systems, and I feel it will be a loss to the world, but I am wiling to hear push back on that.
I dunno the thought just came to me. Or a better description is it rose to the surface. I know that we have the ability to translate written articles and comments decently enough in the the big languages, which will get better. But how will we speak to each other, or how will we be able translate through a picture, or how do we know these translators are in the right hands (what if they get so advanced, they can lie to you about what the other language is saying? Now normal this would be easily disproven, but libs are too sinophobic to second guess)
I think under a world socialist system, humanity could build a synthetic global language. I’ve heard that there is a international phenetic alphabet, though I don’t know too much about or how “international” it is.
The international phonetic alphabet is mostly used as a transcription tool for phonetic notation. It’s not really used for communication purposes but more for representing sounds made at the various positions considered possible by the human mouth, to varying degrees of specificity (you can be more or less specific with it depending on what you are using IPA for). Most of the characters it uses are based in latin script but its purpose is mainly to make phonetic notations rather than be used for general writing purposes, generally each language benefits from having a writing system that suits its own particular qualities and using the IPA to write would not be very practical.
As for constructed languages, I think there is a lot of resistance to them among people in general at the moment, for a multitude of reasons, but I think they are an underexplored field that could benefit people some day. At the very least they are interesting to create, study, and speak. I do think natural languages are going to continue to be predominant for the foreseeable future and constructed languages will probably remain in the realm of idealists and niche hobbyists for a long time.
Oh thanks for the details. I am sorta getting into conlangs, and I think the future potential of them could be incredible (either as a communication tactic to avoid surveillance or as I said a global human language. And honestly just to nerd out about .)
I think there will be a lot of local languages, with large regions (united by broad economic/political interests) each having a single lingua franca – say German or French or Russian or Mandarin. That was the model within the Soviet Union. Local languages were protected, and you went to school and conversed in the language of your particular ethnicity. But everybody also learned Russian, so that people from the various republics could communicate with each other. Liberals call this “cultural imperialism,” but really, it was just practical. In many regions of the Soviet Union, such as the Caucasus, you had a stunning variety of local languages, each of them highly complex and developed; for economic reasons, there had to be a single language everybody understood. To have this be Russian, the language most widely spoken in the USSR, simply made sense, and moreover – because a utilitarian argument could be made for it – was the closest thing to a politically neutral decision.