Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec,sci.lang
From: philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!peernews.demon.co.uk!storcomp.demon.co.uk!philip
Subject: Re: A common European language (Re: Languages in the EC)
Distribution: world
References: <3h3ci5$qc8@agate.berkeley.edu> <3h5dv3$8sv@solar.sky.net> <MATTHEW.95Feb10130403@baloo.cpd.ntc.nokia.com>
Reply-To: philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 151
X-Posting-Host: storcomp.demon.co.uk
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 23:51:37 +0000
Message-ID: <792546697snz@storcomp.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <MATTHEW.95Feb10130403@baloo.cpd.ntc.nokia.com>
           matthew@cpd.ntc.nokia.com "Matthew Faupel" writes:
> If a common language were chosen for Europe, you can be assured that
> whatever it was, in a couple of generations (or maybe less) it would become
> a popular choice for non-Europeans to learn too.  The ability to talk to any
> European for business or pleasure would be too good to miss.  Hence, just
> because English occupies a similar position at the moment doesn't mean that
> English has to be the choice.

Yes, but OTOH it is certainly not an argument against English.
 
> JW: Three languages is enough for me, I don't see why I should need to learn
> JW: any others, or why anyone should have to learn a language which is so
> JW: pointless. Why can't we just keep the main three languages, English,
> JW: Frecnh and German, for translation purposes, and announce English as the
> JW: official language? 
> 
> If your only aim is to have a common language for administration
> (i.e. permanent records etc.), no reason at all (other than the fact that
> many Europeans might be a bit iffy about English being used in preference to
> their own language).  When I think of a common European language though, I
> have designs on a much grander scale.  As well as being something to reduce
> translation beaurocracy, I would like it to be something that acts as part
> of the definition of Europe.
> 
>   - The language should be taught as the first "foreign" language in all
>     European schools.
> 
>   - It should be used as the first language of the European parliament and
>     commission (though use of national languages should not be denied if
>     requested or required).

MEPs should be allowed to use their own languages if desired. The EUs
internal business would be conducted in the common language, so employees
of the EU should be required to speak it, as this would reduce translation
costs.

Private companies should be allowed to make their own decisions as to 
whether knowledge of a common language is required for their employees.

>   - It could be used by pan-European media: films, TV, radio, newspapers
>     etc.

In order for the common language to work, it should be widely known. 
People will have a better ability in the language if they use it often.
For this reason it is a good idea if media in the common language are
widely available. IMO 10% of TV programs in the common lanaguage would
be a good idea.
 
>   - It would serve as an enabler of greater job mobility within Europe.
> 
> It would, in other words, be one of the things that could give Europe the
> sense of being something other than a loose economic affiliation of
> otherwise isolated states.

It could help build a sense of European identity and nationhood. But this
must be done sensitively, or there will be a backlash from people who
think their national identities are being undermined. 
 
> Back to why English might not be ideal for this:
> 
>   - English is a national language.  We Brits feel proprietary about it
>     already;

Speak for yourself; I don't. English doesn't belong to any one nation. In
Europe it is spoken by English, Scots, Welsh and Irish. Outside of the EU
it is spoken in many other counties.

>     we at least (and almost certainly other Europeans) are unlikely
>     to ever feel that it is common European property.

If English did become the common language, there is no doubt that different
varieties of English would develop in the different EU countries (this
would happen whatever the common language was), and that some British 
language purists would complain about "Europeanisms". However that is of
no consequence as it is no different from complaining about "Americanisms"
now.
 
>   - English is already the national language of the USA (as well as Canada,
>     Australia, NZ etc.).  Adopting it as the language of Europe too may
>     result in the ability for Europe to form its own identity being swamped
>     by the volumes of US english language output.

Britain, Australia, Ireland all have their own identities despite this
US language output, so I don't think this would be a problem.
 
>   - English is not the easiest of languages to learn or speak.

True. There are ways round this. Firstly the spelling could be reformed.
(IMO this should be done anyway). Secondly, the hardest phonemes in English 
are the "th" sounds in "the" and "thin". The European standard could 
include an alternative sound of /z/ for these. This would be easily 
understood in Britain, since they are used by English people imitating
a foreign accent now.

>     To preserve
>     cultural diversity, the common language has to be a second language and
>     as such will only be spoken as the "language of the home" in a minority
>     of households.

In order for people to have a good level of ability in the common 
language, they must use it reasonably often. So having it used in a 
proportion of TV programs and other media would be a good thing. I agree
that most people would use their national language when talking in the
home, but I think that quite a lot of parents will bring their children 
up to be bilingual.

Also I think that the common language should be used a lot in schools,
with one day per week having all the lessons in the common language.

>     Hence the common language should be as easy as possible
>     to learn so that as many people as possible have a sound grasp of it.

Ease of learning is certainly important.

> The corrolaries of the above points against English are that this common
> language should be non-national,

English is not really a national language now; as with Spanish or Arabic, 
if you know someone speaks it, you cannot guess what country they come
from and expect to be right.

> politically neutral

Whatever language was chosen it wouldn't be politically neutral for long.
Middle class people would use it more, and their children would be in
a home environment where it was used. So an elite with knowledge of it
would probably come about.

> and simple to learn.

English certainly falls down here.

> I'm not particularly partisan about which language is chosen, just so long
> as it fulfills these conditions.  Esperanto would do,

Agreed. Esperanto is certainly easier than English, although IMO it
could be made even easier.

> as would a simplified and regularised Latin, 

With all the inflexions taken out, presumerably?

> or any number of other projects.

How about a simplified and regularised English, similar enough to English
to be mutually intelligible?

-- 
Phil Hunt...philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk
Majority rule for Britain!
