While English is still the de facto lingua franca, with the US burning bridges to Europe like there’s no tomorrow, and the UK having left the EU, should they adopt an easy-to-learn auxillary language?

I’m thinking of an language like Esperanto, but not necessarily that. I was intrigued by Esperanto and went through the course on lernu.net and found it easy to pick up (though I am by no means fluent yet). While it is constructed, it was developed without any modern linguistic knowledge, so another option could be to construct a new language for this purpose, or adopt another already developed language that would serve the purpose better (I don’t have an overview of what is out there).

I know there are several official languages already, but I imagine that leads to a lot of overhead. An auxillary language could make communication easier, and make it easier for citizens of any member state to participate in the Union, and would to some extent remove any power asymmetry resulting from native mastery of a language.

Good idea? Poor idea? Why? Why not?

  • solbear@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
    2·
    3 days ago

    Languages are tied to people and is a very important part of culture which is why fabricated languages would never even make it, but even if one made it, someone would have advantage in learning it and it’s a powerful tool.

    I kinda think this kind of usage is the only way a fabricated language would make it beyond a small niche language, but it would have to be actively implemented (which is really my question in the opening post: is that a good idea?). And it could be constructed in such a way that it becomes close to equally learnable for everyone that is intended to use it. I think Esperanto, while having some slavic influences as well, lies a bit too close to the romance languages that it might well lead to the situation you describe, but I am far from a linguistic expert and couldn’t say for certain.