Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Inuktitut

Depends on the nation with the biggest sphere of influence. China is on the rise, so perhaps mandarin. The USA is slowly loosing it's power, people from all over the world speak some english. This mostly has to do with US neo-colonialism, and past UK colonialism.

I like to think it'll be the British form of English, even though it's not my main language. I mean, currently you can get almost anywhere by knowing a few words of English. Chinese, Japanese... these are more country-based, but English is more widespread.

At 9/26/13 09:55 PM, Thor wrote: Once I was reading about a hypothetical universal language that used single letters that represent concepts... Like, say, the letter 'a' represents the idea of fish, with more letters narrowing it down to more specific types of fish. say, 'ab' could mean freshwater fish, 'abc' meaning trout, 'abcd' rainbow trout, etc.

It's interesting concept but I'm not sure how it would work, especially spoken

Thats basically what already happens but with letters instead of words. Not a very interesting concept after all.

It's all going to end up like 1984.

As long as it is not fucking Al Qaeda, I don't give a fuck.

Autotune will be the new language.

Every single language in the world (Chinese, English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, etc.) all mixed into one language. When spoken, it will sound like absolute gibberish, but it's not.

At 9/26/13 09:59 PM, Xenomit wrote: Really, the most efficient possible way to communicate is artificial telepathy; You can't read other people's minds, but other people can transfer entire thoughts and concepts to you in fractions of a second through use of a wireless computer directly implanted into the brain

fucking stupid

Depends. Assuming that we continue to expand, I don't think there will ever be a universal human language. There will definitely be less languages, and a dominant language of trade, and we'll certainly draw influence and vocabulary from each other. But who knows what will happen in the future? Countries could cut off communication with each other, or go to war, and reject foreign languages. Maybe there will be counterculture or language preservation efforts.

If we do have one efficiency will probably be more of less irrelevant. It will be the language of the dominant peoples. I mean look at Esperanto, only a handful of nerds know how to speak it. People just don't care, and the efficiency gained won't be worth it. I don't know about you, but I don't exactly feel hindered by not being able to communicate in an "efficient" language.

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA

Actually fuck america those gorillas sucked at making the language lets all talk canadian they talk real shit not pussy shit.

At 9/27/13 07:08 AM, horatius wrote: You think English is a good language because it's your native language, which was my point.

No, I don't think that's what Xenomit meant. English is the language that is almost universal, especially among world leaders and business giants, and considering that many countries such as Japan have mandatory English classes in school, it simply leads to more credence towards that point. Whether or not it's a good language just because someone speaks it fluently, {or at least enough to get by} is irrelevant.

Do you really think those people admire that? Have you even talked to a immigrant before?

Yes, because we have to sink down to their level just to make them content./sarcasm

Of course it's something to admire, people want to have nice things and have a good time, what's wrong with that? Why do you think so many immigrants come to America for?

You really sound like a redneck right now and it's obvious you are from the south. America is not Earth, having the best military does not mean it's ahead of everything.

When did he ever fucking say that? What he said was America was the most influential nation on Earth, and the benefits of that is having the English language is being heard and taught throughout the world, and before that, the British Empire did the exact same thing. This has nothing to do with the military at all, quit trying to derail the argument.

It has everything to do with America. You sound like a typical American and you should really start thinking for yourself instead of listening to your parents or whatever.

THIS. HAS. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. AMERICA, YOU. JACKASS. The English language has been around far longer than America has been a country, and it just so happens that English was the dominant language of the 2 most powerful and influential nations ever. {British Empire and America respectively.} Seriously, I'm tired of people mouthing off against America because we have a lot more influence and power than you'll ever have, and yet the very same people seem to enjoy the perks of American culture and influence.

Sorry for trying to improve the quality of life around the world, even if it does get a little overboard, fucking ungrateful snob.

You could stop, for once, talking about efficiency when talking about cultures and start considering the cultural and intellectual value of the various languages spoken in the world.

I'm not about to sacrifice my Émile Nelligan, Paul Verlaine and Arthur Rimbaud for some kind of authoritarian philosophy that goes as far as telling me which language I should be speaking.

If you want an humanity that is void of what makes us human and replace it by greedy and mechanical reasoning, you do that alone.

At 9/27/13 11:35 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: If you want an humanity that is void of what makes us human and replace it by greedy and mechanical reasoning, you do that alone.

You realize that people wouldn't be forced to speak English if it did become the dominant language, right? You could still speak whatever language you wanted, but people would look at you like an idiot. I could walk down the streets of New York and speak klingon (not that I know it) if I wanted, but all that'd happen is people would think I was a nerd, because English is the dominant language.

This has nothing to do with authoritarianism, this is just talking about tearing down the cultural borders of the world that keep us a divided species. All of it comes down to the division of resources; as long as we let cultural and economic differences keep us apart, we'll always be fighting each other for resources rather than working together for the better of humanity. Do you realize that if the world unified under a single government, colonizing space wouldn't even be a hard task? Think about the massive jump in technology we would make if all the scientists around the world worked together rather than against eachother.

At 9/28/13 12:02 AM, Xenomit wrote: This has nothing to do with authoritarianism, this is just talking about tearing down the cultural borders of the world that keep us a divided species. All of it comes down to the division of resources; as long as we let cultural and economic differences keep us apart, we'll always be fighting each other for resources rather than working together for the better of humanity. Do you realize that if the world unified under a single government, colonizing space wouldn't even be a hard task? Think about the massive jump in technology we would make if all the scientists around the world worked together rather than against eachother.

Yeah, well... that's authoritarism. We are not divided by difference, we are divided for hatred toward difference. Languages represent cultural richness. Each language has it's own rules, specifities and beauties. Unifying power under one government is even worst of an idea. We have enough problems with our actual governements not to want them to unite under one big oppressive piece of crap. Diversity is what makes us human.

Your logic is like saying that if a kid is getting bullied at school, rather than trying to stop the bullies from being dicks, we should eliminate the different kid to make the others kids stop bullying him. Confront hatred with more respect for diversity, not by making everybody the same and fucking up our cultural richness.

I wouldn't be surprised if English itself changes within the next 500 years

its already changed heaps in the last 500 years and just in the past 100 years its changed in a lot of slight ways

At 9/28/13 12:16 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Yeah, well... that's authoritarism.

No, that's being logical people who don't let retarded reasons keep us divided, if you seriously can't comprehend that you're not worth talking to.

Languages represent cultural richness.

No they don't, they're nothing more than means of communication.

Each language has it's own rules, specifities and beauties.

What's your point? I've already said that no one would be enforcing lingual laws, you can still speak whatever language you want, all I'm saying is there needs to be, and whether you like it or not, will be a dominant human language. All I wanted to know is what you people thought that would be.

Unifying power under one government is even worst of an idea. We have enough problems with our actual governements not to want them to unite under one big oppressive piece of crap.

If you seriously fail to comprehend the concept of unified government, you're genuinely dumb.

Lemme simplify it for someone like you; imagine the United Nations, except it includes all the nations of the world, and each country's president would be more like a senator for the world government.

Like I said, if you really don't understand how that'd be infinitely beneficial to humanity, you're pretty fucking dumb.

Diversity is what makes us human.

Being homosapien makes us human.

Diversity is entirely possible under a unified power, I don't know how some of you are failing to understand this. When you're thinking about a unified species, you're probably imagining everyone being the exact same, thinking the exact same, talking the exact same, etc. Stop fucking thinking that, that's not what it is at all, and the sooner the average person realizes that, the sooner we can stop being fucking retarded and combine our amassed knowledge and resources for the better of ourselves as a race.

Your logic is like saying that if a kid is getting bullied at school, rather than trying to stop the bullies from being dicks, we should eliminate the different kid to make the others kids stop bullying him. Confront hatred with more respect for diversity, not by making everybody the same and fucking up our cultural richness.

That's not my logic at all, that's not even anywhere near my logic.

At 9/28/13 12:55 AM, Xenomit wrote: No, that's being logical people who don't let retarded reasons keep us divided, if you seriously can't comprehend that you're not worth talking to.

I'm not worth talking to because I do not believe that instrumental rationality is not the good approach to languages and culture in general? That's pretty close-minded of you.

No they don't, they're nothing more than means of communication.

No, they are cultural richness. Humans aren't machines. We have feelings, subjectivity, individual and collective symbols, imagination. We have poetry, music, litterature, painting. Does aren't just means of communication. These are arts, these are expressions of what makes us human, subjectivity. Artists, poets and the likes have written masterpieces about contemplation of life, nature, unicity in diversity.

If your world is based on pure mechanical and lifeless instrumental rationality, you world really sucks.

What's your point? I've already said that no one would be enforcing lingual laws, you can still speak whatever language you want, all I'm saying is there needs to be, and whether you like it or not, will be a dominant human language. All I wanted to know is what you people thought that would be.

You've mocked linguistic diversity, first. And second of, not only laws have a coercive effect. Right now, we see individuals abandon their native language and cultural heritage in favor for majorities languages. These people, while they have the choice to live in reclused economical systems, do not really have much choice if they don't want to be poor. Languages are vehicle of cultural specifity. You fuck up languages, you'll hit hard on cultural diversity. Art, history, tradition is vehiculed through language.

If you think that these cultures are not worth respecting, than yeah... you are following a pretty imperialist approach to both cultures and languages. And if that's not physical coercion, it's economical and cultural coercion.

If you seriously fail to comprehend the concept of unified government, you're genuinely dumb.

Good point you have there. Calling me dumb surely proves your point.

And unified governement and generaly centralized powers are dangerous. Think dictatorship.

Otherwise, having a centralized governement would pretty much kill any kind of political weight any population can have if they aren't Chinese, Indian or American. Just think of how hard it is for Native Americans to have representatives in the House Of Representatives and even harder to elect senators.

Lemme simplify it for someone like you; imagine the United Nations, except it includes all the nations of the world, and each country's president would be more like a senator for the world government.

Let me simplify this for you. In the UN there are countries with a veto. The UN can't force any policies upon these nations.

Like I said, if you really don't understand how that'd be infinitely beneficial to humanity, you're pretty fucking dumb.

I like people who pulls stupid ideas out of their asses and genuinely believe that they are smart and that others who have proper knowledge of these subjects are stupid.

Diversity is entirely possible under a unified power, I don't know how some of you are failing to understand this. When you're thinking about a unified species, you're probably imagining everyone being the exact same, thinking the exact same, talking the exact same, etc. Stop fucking thinking that, that's not what it is at all, and the sooner the average person realizes that, the sooner we can stop being fucking retarded and combine our amassed knowledge and resources for the better of ourselves as a race.

Just put a little more on effort on your explanations and a little less on your ad hominem bullshit.

No, I'm not talking about everyone being exactly the same. I took sociolinguistic classes while I was doing my bachelor degree. Languages RIGHT NOW in the world are dying due to the economical pressure of learning languages spoken by majorities (English, French, Spanish, Japanesse, Mandarin, etc.)

I assume you didn't knew there were thousands of dialects and languages spoken all over the world. That's a fact. And some of these are losing ground, some of them have already disappeared.

You spend so much time trying to make me say stuff I didn't say, even though I've pretty much given you concrete stuff to work with. You want to criticize me? Fine, but don't do it on stuff you've pulled out of your ass.

Cocksucking. It'll make conversations so much more pleasing.

I'm not worth talking to because I believe that instrumental rationality is not the good approach to languages and culture in general? That's pretty close-minded of you.*

Fixed that sentence.

At 9/28/13 01:31 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:

Ok, hang on for just a second, I'm gonna go off the fact that this is simply about what language you think will take over in the future for just a second (thanks to both you and that other dickwad derailing the thread with your bullshit) and try to get you to understand not only how simple the idea of a world government is, but how it wouldn't be harmful to culture, and how it wouldn't be communist authoritarian like you think it would be.

What is the United States of America? It's a bunch small governments that have political and legal control over various masses of land, that takes orders from a much larger government that serves them. That's basically all a world government would be. Every nation can still have it's culture, every nation can still have independant states and their own elected presidents/ prime ministers. The only difference, the one and only difference, is that rather than competing, they all work together. That's basically what global government is. All the presidents and leaders of the world come together in one big international senate that takes care of world issues. Rather than trying to hoard metals and food, nations pool their resources and knowledge into one big pot of humanity.

You need to drop all your unintelligent mumbo jumbo about "No we can't work together no we can't unify we have to be separated and we have to continue to compete with eachother and get nowhere technologically" and understand that if humanity is to ever get off this rock, and take to the heavens, we have to learn how to work together as one big unified species. How fucking difficult is that for you to understand? How can you seriously not get that? It's not gonna be the end of cultural diversity when humans eventually speak only one or two languages. There will still be poetry unique to specific cultures, music can and still will be culturally diverse, and you would still be able to tell the cultural difference between humans, we simply work together as one unified race.

If you REALLY don't get that, then please keep your uneducated opinions out of things, it's not hard to understand at all.

At 9/28/13 01:31 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Humans aren't machines. We have feelings, subjectivity, individual and collective symbols, imagination. We have poetry, music, litterature, painting. Does aren't just means of communication. These are arts, these are expressions of what makes us human, subjectivity. Artists, poets and the likes have written masterpieces about contemplation of life, nature, unicity in diversity.

Humans are machines. Feelings, subjectivity, individual and collective symbols, imagination, poetry, music, literature, painting, and language are all programs being run on the human machine. If you can't see that, you're living in a fantasy world which artificially inflates human value.

At 9/28/13 01:47 AM, Xenomit wrote: Ok, hang on for just a second, I'm gonna go off the fact that this is simply about what language you think will take over in the future for just a second (thanks to both you and that other dickwad derailing the thread with your bullshit) and try to get you to understand not only how simple the idea of a world government is, but how it wouldn't be harmful to culture, and how it wouldn't be communist authoritarian like you think it would be.

Are you fucking stupid? I'm pretty tired of your fucking rude attitude towards people who disagree with you. Not only are you a fucking retard when it comes to understanding political and sociological theories, but you are also a self-centered moron.

It's not simple stuff like you are pretending, dipshit. This is political science analysis you are trying to bring down to your retarded douchebag high school dropout logic.

What is the United States of America? It's a bunch small governments that have political and legal control over various masses of land, that takes orders from a much larger government that serves them. That's basically all a world government would be. Every nation can still have it's culture, every nation can still have independant states and their own elected presidents/ prime ministers. The only difference, the one and only difference, is that rather than competing, they all work together. That's basically what global government is. All the presidents and leaders of the world come together in one big international senate that takes care of world issues. Rather than trying to hoard metals and food, nations pool their resources and knowledge into one big pot of humanity.

I've taken various classes on the United States political system and other political systems, and THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF CULTURAL SPECIFITIES.

Not all countries favor a confederation system. In Canada we have a federate system. The central government is bigger, has more powers and more privileges. Do you even understand the magnitude of your pretention? You don't know shit about either international politics or national politics and you still try to teach me your bullshit? Fucking moron!

Plus, having a system with one huge governement and states that would have basically the same fucking powers as they have now, but with a central governement at their top wouldn't change a fucking thing about how regions, specific cultures and ethnical groups or just ANY STATE OR COUNTRY WITH A DIFFERENT POLITICAL TRADITION would act. All countries and populations have specific needs, specific economical, political and social focus, goals, etc. How are you dumb enough to believe that just having another level of governement would wipe this off automaticaly?!

You need to drop all your unintelligent mumbo jumbo about "No we can't work together no we can't unify we have to be separated and we have to continue to compete with eachother and get nowhere technologically" and understand that if humanity is to ever get off this rock, and take to the heavens, we have to learn how to work together as one big unified species. How fucking difficult is that for you to understand? How can you seriously not get that? It's not gonna be the end of cultural diversity when humans eventually speak only one or two languages. There will still be poetry unique to specific cultures, music can and still will be culturally diverse, and you would still be able to tell the cultural difference between humans, we simply work together as one unified race.

No, you fucking a-hole. Diversity is what makes us able to work with each other. Of course if you destroy everything and anything that makes us different (and don't give me that stupid bullshit about how an economicaly more attractive language won't affect the survival of distinct cultures and languages, I already destroyed you on that), than yeah.. IT'S FUCKING EASY TO BE ALL THE SAME.

But no! That's not true! You'll still have people working in different sectors of employment, with different interests and needs (WHICH CAN VERY OFTEN MEAN OPPOSING NEEDS FOR GROUPS WITH OPPOSING INTERESTS). Just thik about ecological matters for just a fucking second.

If you REALLY don't get that, then please keep your uneducated opinions out of things, it's not hard to understand at all.

It's funny you say uneducated opinions, because I'm educated specificaly in that field of study. I've completed my Bachelor degree in political science and I am not working on my Master degree in the same field.

I have totally destroyed your diarrhea argumentation, and the funniest part is that you've just overlooked every single of the facts I have brought to the table. I have DEMONSTRATED that cultures and languages RIGHT NOW AS WE FUCKING SPEAK are threathned. SOME HAVE ALREADY GONE EXTINCT!

List of extinct languages

And when you lose a language, you lose a part of the culture associated to it.

Now if your idea of working together toward a common goal is destroying (AND DESTROYING BY ECONOMICAL PRESSURE ALSO EXISTS) all cultures that do not share the same goal, then you are indeed a fucking moron and one hell of a bastard.

At 9/28/13 02:25 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:

I stopped reading after I got through with the second paragraph and understood that 70% of your argument is making me look like a bad person rather than actually refuting anything I had to say.

Please try harder next time.

At 9/28/13 02:28 AM, Xenomit wrote: I stopped reading after I got through with the second paragraph and understood that 70% of your argument is making me look like a bad person rather than actually refuting anything I had to say.

You have insulted me throughout the whole discussion, trying to make this about me and not about my actual argumentation, and now you use that lame excuse to wimp out of the fight you've worked so hard on starting.

Please try harder next time.

Destroying your piss-poor logic with facts is good enough for me. You are the living proof that ignorance might indeed be bliss.

And to answer your first question. If we were to ever go down that slope, English would most likely be the language we'd keep. Even though you'd have to force it down everybody's throat, with economical or physical means. English is a simple language, and easy to learn.

At 9/28/13 02:34 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:

Call me back when you feel like you want humanity to make actual progress, because as of right now, it's pretty obvious you're one of those idiots who overvalue human abstractions, and the fact that you think politically unifying will destroy culture is almost funny.

At 9/28/13 02:37 AM, Xenomit wrote: Call me back when you feel like you want humanity to make actual progress, because as of right now, it's pretty obvious you're one of those idiots who overvalue human abstractions, and the fact that you think politically unifying will destroy culture is almost funny.

You are always speaking in terms of progress. It's freakin funny because you've never defined that concept. And it's obviously not about respecting cultures that have been built over centuries and millenias. And it's most likely not about making life any better for anybody, because you reject the obvious fact that and unified system will definitely work against the interest of minorities.

Working together implies respect of plurality. Do you seriously believe that if we were to unify the political system and make one language the official language of the humanity there wouldn't be any resistance to that silly project? But hey, I imagine that your messianic project of unilateral "progress" is far more important than what people actually need, believe in, like and love.

Real progress is apparently not about making the world better for people who value stuff that you do not value, it's about colonizing space.

Because forcing ONE idea of what is good and important down everybody's throat isn't an authoritarian ideology.

Death and Wind!