[tags: english, language, thailand]

 This essay will discuss how the English language contributes to globalization.

There are many very good languages that are more suited to become a World Lingua Franca than Esperanto. Spanish is one of them with more that 400 million speakers with more than 300 millions native speakers. French and German also have more speakers than Esperanto, many more. But of all the languages the better positioned is English with more than 500 millions speakers (or closer to a billion according to some sources) with almost 400 of them natives.

Sorry Framptono, Latin was never a neutral language, it dominance started with an Empire and continued with a Church. The same way that Esperanto is not a neutral language, just the vehemence of the pro Esperanto activism makes it not neutral. Activism that in most cases is just a thinly disguised anti British, anti American and anti English activism; if the activism is politically influenced then it is not neutral. Additionally, it will have to be taught to every single person in the planet since there are very few people who already speak it.

But the number of speakers is not the only thing that makes it appealing but the fact that almost all of the World knowledge is already in English, a great deal originally accumulated in that language and the rest having been translated already. With Esperanto not only we will have to teach it to every person in the World but we will also have to translate all the accumulated knowledge to Esperanto since very little of it have already been translated. And please, do not reply that 1,000 or 10,000 or 50,000 books have already been translated because that does not come even close to what would be needed.

The English language is mainly spoken in the U.S and Britain as a first-language.

Of course you do not agree because with Esperanto you ONLY have to teach it to the teachers needed to teach the rest of the World, You have to teach it to the rest of the World, the only difference is that you have to teach it to an additional billion people. And sure, it is irrelevant that everything have to be translated to Esperanto, although it is already in English, and that you will need to train the translators who will do the work. Sorry, I forgot that you are going to do all that so that people could learn many other languages given the propaedeutical properties of Esperanto that make learning another language, after having learned Esperanto, much more easier. (By the way this paragraph is “sarcasm” since you may not understand what I wanted to say given that English is so difficult and illogical)

There is a relationship between language and culture.

But as I told Leo, this is relevant in another debate, not in this one. This one is about “Should English be the only official language in the EU?”

Such as English language that international language in the world.

And the English language is a common language and is spoken in many countries.

Carlos, many thanks for your interesting and thoughtful reactions. I just wanted to clear up a point: nobody I know has ever suggested that Esperanto on its own is enough. Knowledge of languages in general is an advantage. I am not blind to the advantages of English, but if you are lost in the Polish countryside, you need Polish more than any other language. But Esperanto is really good at preparing people for language study in general – the so-called propedeutical effect.

The last problem English language impact in culture people.

It will be good for the language in general and for the individual speaker in particular to try to dispel the misconceptions this person is spreading. Or, is he right?

Why is English important nowadays

I admire your dedication and that of others herein to the Esperanto cause, which in very commendable and probably not without some reason in certain aspects. But if you want to be taken seriously you have to answer the hard questions honestly. And if you do that you will have to admit that Esperanto is of absolutely no help when it comes to making a living nowadays. Ideals are beautiful but nobody eats ideals, as the communist debacle, and many others clearly proved.
If you want to tell people that Esperanto is going to make a better World in the future, that is OK. But do not say that it is of any help presently, nor for the EU nor for any place else.
If you Esperanto advocates were really about freedom of choice and democracy you would have to agree that the best course of action is to take this question to a universal referendum in all the member countries of the EU. Let the people decide. After having been properly informed what are the benefits and the consequences of their vote, today, not one hundred years from now. If English is adopted the US and the Brits might gain some advantage, in addition to whatever advantage they already enjoy, but so will the millions that already speak English, you among them, and the millions already learning English, and the millions who are interested in learning the language but that for one reason or other have not started yet, including the lack of money they are trying to eliminate by learning English. If Esperanto is adopted everybody is screwed, except of course the American and the Brits who will continue with their live as if nothing have happened. Or are you saying that just by adopting Esperanto all the ills of the World will go away, or that the Americans and the Brits and all those other countries that also speak English will have to give in and kneel down and learn Esperanto or die.

English Domain - Why is English important nowadays?

And regarding the question: Why Ignore Esperanto? I thought I have made it very clear with my response but since you did not understand, here it is: Because, it is completely useless. It does not help anybody to improve their standard of living, today. I does not make anybody life better, today. I will not save the EU any money, TODAY! That is why. On the other hand, adopting English will not do away will all the ills of the World either nor make life that much better, but it will save millions, if not billions, of dollars, or euros if you want, to the EU and all the countries involved in any capacity with the EU. Money that in most probability will not all be used in charity, but even if only a tiny fraction is deviated to those who need it most it will do a lot of good. And will make life more bearable to millions of people in addition to saving a lot of money to the EU citizens. Hey! Maybe they will reduce your taxes!