Which language would be the best lingua franca?

[FlatAssembler]

I would be interested in what you think, which language would serve the best as a global lingua franca? Currently, the de facto global lingua franca is English. Do you like the English language? Or do you think it would be better if some other language served that purpose. I can see four options here:

1) Keep English as a global lingua franca. The pros of that is that it is a global lingua franca already, that languages around the world are full of English loan-words, and that it has a relatively easy grammar (at least until you dig deeper). The biggest con of that is that English has horrible spelling, so much so that you basically need to learn for each word in the language both how it is spelt and how it is pronounced. Another big con of using English as a global lingua franca is that English is a standard language in quite a few countries around the world, so it is far from politically neutral. People in non-English-speaking countries need to put a lot of effort to master the language, which people born in English-speaking countries do not need to do.

2) Start using some constructed language based on European languages, such as Esperanto or Ido. The pros of that would be that written and spoken language match each other perfectly (if you see a word, you already know how it is pronounced and vice versa), that the grammar is relatively easy, or at least very regular and that it is relatively politically neutral (but not completely, as it is Europe-based). Con of that is such languages have very little tradition.

3) Use a carefully constructed language such as Lojban. Pros are that the written and spoken language match each other perfectly, that the grammar is objectively easier than that of any natural or non-carefully-designed artificial language, that it is completely politically neutral (as the vocabulary has been carefully chosen not to be too European), and that it is easy for a computer to parse a text in Lojban and to transcribe spoken Lojban. The con is that, again, such languages have no tradition.

4) Revive the Latin language. The pros are that written and spoken language match each other almost perfectly (as soon as you hear a word, you know how to spell it, however, you cannot reliably guess which syllable will be stressed if you see an unknown word), that it has a very long tradition (imagine speaking in a language that somebody two thousand years ago also spoke), that languages around the world are full of Latin words (either inherited, as in the case of Romance languages, or borrowed), and that it is relatively politically neutral (not being anybodies native language, so everybody has to learn it). Con is that the grammar may be hard at the beginning for speakers of languages without complex declension and conjugation systems.

I personally think reviving Latin would be the best. I have made some YouTube videos in Latin, the latest one being a video about afterlife in Latin. But I am interested in what you think.

[panini]

The problem with your question is that you don't explain the magic steps. Suppose we decide that Slovenian is the best lingua franca. Then what? Do we hire the Russian army to enforce this ukaze? Or do we just leave it at the level of an abstraction with no concern for implementation. If so, we must have some magic technology that effortlessly implants a language in the minds of our victims, no need to learn. Your proposals and reasons seem to suggest some recognition that implementation will be an issue.

And why do we want a "lingua franca"? Is this limited to exactly one language? Like, why can't we make Slovenian and Hungarian be the linguae francae? Is this a global plan, or a regional plan – maybe Slovenian could be the Balkan lingua franca, English could rule in the rest of Europe, Arabic would rule in North Africa over to India, then maybe Sanskrit for South and Southeast Asia, Japanese for East Asia, and Chukchi for Siberia. English for North America, Spanish for South and Central America. Oh, and Swahili for Africa, and Lardil for Australia.

Making up a fake language is the worst solution, 'cuz you need real native speaker teachers. That might be a problem for Sanskrit and Lardil, which don't have a vast number of native speakers.

It's true that English spelling sucks, and yet that never actually causes real problems. There are already so many speakers (and teaching materials) all over the world that no other language comes close.

[Jono5]

I believe that English is an enforced popularity contest. With America and Britain being economical superpowers, many countries in the world are forced to use English as the main business language.

I have studied grammar aspects of many modern languages in the past 10 years, and i personally find English to be a very abstract and inaccurate language. For everyday communication, English sits with any other language in the world. As a business language, it depends on the nature of the business being discussed and the vocabulary needed to converse to others. Approaching vocabulary, English easily has the competency to be an extremely accurate language, but this would mean that one needs to learn a very sophisticated vocabulary: a vocabulary which is unnatural to everyday communication in English and would be difficult to understand by everyday speakers of English.

One of many examples to note the English word 'love'. Love has many aspects in English: the love of friends, the love of family, the love of hobbies/interests; the love of an intimate relationship and many other aspects. In other modern languages, these aspects would have their own lexicon for these specific purposes. 'Love' is just one of many other words that contain many aspects in the English language, and only context can make this clear. However, context isn't always clear in the English language. The problem concerning context of course exists in every language, but some languages deal with it better, far better, than the English language.

Which language could replace English as a lingua franca? Who knows. History shows the height and falls other lingua francas like Classical Greek/Latin, French, ecclesial latin, Classical Chinese, Ancient Egyptian and so many others. English at the moment is the cool, hip language the world wants to learn, that people believe will give them a better quality of life, a language that makes money, art and entertainment. But so does Hindi, Chinese Mandarin, Modern Standard Arabic and Russian (regrettably at the moment).

I'm not a scholar/expert on this matter, so I'm not telling anyone how to think or feel, but I thought I'd share my opinion without debate.

[Daniel]

I believe that English is an enforced popularity contest. With America and Britain being economical superpowers, many countries in the world are forced to use English as the main business language.

That may have been the case a few decades ago, but now English is used by more non-native speakers than native speakers. Business, along with tourism, etc., is conducted around the world in English every day between millions of people who are not native speakers of English. It's the first global lingua franca.

There's nothing better about English than any other language, but at the first language in that position, it's taking on its own role beyond national/political functions. In some ways there's no need to replace it, simply because there is any language in that position. One effect will be that English will become less and less centralized around the US and the UK. Consider India, for example, but also various other places.


As for the original question about "best" lingua franca, I don't think that has an answer. Any language could be a lingua franca, and would be adapted (e.g. with vocabulary) to fit the role, but really, there are no linguistic properties that make one language better than another.

(Sure, you can imagine what properties a constructed language would have to offer, but the fundamental flaw is that basically no one speaks them, so you'd be starting from nothing to get it to catch on. And even if that worked, what would actually happen is that, say everyone started speaking Esperanto, it would become a natural language through usage. It would take on the same irregularities, idiosyncrasies and other features that make natural languages "imperfect", because that's what happens, naturally, through usage. Of course there are a few things we could do to improve the practicality of languages, like making teaching resources widely available, using an orthography that is easier to learn that the irregular spelling of English or the very large character inventory of Chinese, but plenty of languages already have that in place. The fact that the "biggest" languages don't also indicates that it really isn't so crucial to the "success" of a language. Those imperfect writing systems work fine and don't actually pose a practical limitation to the usage of those languages. In the end, there's nothing to "fix".)

In short, it doesn't matter what language is the lingua franca, but given that English is in place globally, it will probably stick around for a long time, regardless of geopolitical situations. Aside from the accidents of history, it could be any other language too. There aren't any linguistic reasons for the success of English.

[waive15]

lingua franca
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lingua_franca

- - -
etymonline (dot) com

lingua franca

Feringhee

- - -

The Big Bang Theory Leslie and Leonard break up -TR ALTYAZI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxNL6fAJYB0

[Forbes]

On the whole, a lingua franca emerges rather than being imposed. There may be compelling reasons for it to emerge, but the basic point is that it arises because people put the need to communicate above other considerations.

I cannot agree that English, or for that matter any language, is "very abstract and inaccurate".  I do not see how any language can be abstract if by that is meant "only deals in, or reduces everything to, abstractions". "Inaccurate" suggests you cannot say what you want to. What does happen though is that languages differ in what they are specific about. If your language requires you to express something it is understandable to think it is necessary to express it and to find any language which does not express it defective. All languages are though capable of expressing what their speakers want and need to say - out of the ordinary experiences possibly excepted. All round the world there are large cities with complex infrastructures and high rise buildings which would not be there if the people who made them could not communicate with the "accuracy" needed. Accordingly, as has been said, any language has the potential to become a lingua franca.

No conlang is suitable for a lingua franca because, as Daniel suggests, they are not a product of human interaction. Apart from that, no one will ever construct one which pleases everyone. Those which are supposed to be "logical" and "consistent" may be fine intellectual achievements, but fail because no known natural language is logical or consistent and the world as humans experience it and need to speak about it is not neatly pigeonholed.