28. A Universal Language

Would it be a good thing to have a single language for the people of the world to communicate in? Assuming for a moment that this is what everyone wants—indeed an ambitious assumption—would it be useful and would it solve the problems that we have today? If we consider the ills of the world, we see that some of them are centred around communication. Having a universal language would certainly solve or help to solve some of them.

If there were to be a universal language, people from far off lands would be able to get closer to each other and to understand each other better. The immediate value would be that the several disputes that break out because of lack of understanding will cease and not arise again. Books and other reading materials will be available to all the world and there will be cost savings because there would no longer be any need to translate. Similarly, radio and television programmes would be intelligible worldwide. The world's people would be able to understand each other's literature easily and appreciate each other's cultures far better than they do today. We can anticipate that there could even be some euphoria.

However, there is reason to believe that this euphoria will not last. The people of the world are divided by more than the lack of a single language. The cultural differences between countries go far beyond language. The proof of this is that even now we can see distinct differences among countries which speak the same language. Just comparing the countries which speak English as a first language, we can see that the differences among them are considerable. The English language of England, Singapore, the United States, Australia and New Zealand are noticeably different from each other and getting more and more different as time passes. Distinct styles are appearing in both the written and spoken forms. One may well anticipate that in a century or so, they will all be different languages.

Considering another example, we see that in China, there are millions of people using the same language but even they have been divided by several dialects. Perhaps, they began centuries ago by speaking the same language but the people of each region, inevitably, developed their own dialect and in time, spoke languages which are understood only in their communities. From these two examples, it seems likely that even if we begin with a universal language, chances are that after a century or so, several dialects or forms would have developed and we would be back where we started—with several languages. This seems inevitable when we consider that different communities have different needs—often dictated by the environment. For example, the Eskimos have eleven words for snow but none for donkey.

We could see a powerful central body—like the United Nations—seeing to it that no one modifies the language too much. Perhaps, this could give it the value that would benefit the whole human race in the long run. Such a measure will not be possible in a democratic situation. First of all, it is highly unlikely that the peoples of the world will be willing to allow another language—other than their own—from becoming a universal language. Human nature—at least as it is today—is such that we are all race and language proud at least to a certain extent. We have arrived where we are today through centuries of evolution and changes in cultures and languages. To want to change all that would be ambitious indeed.

Anyway, the world seems to be running well enough with all the diversity in language, race and religion. It is doubtful if any really great advantage will be gained by having a universal language. The other differences are serious enough to keep the people apart. Meanwhile, another possibility is apparent. We all can see that indeed the peoples of the world are getting nearer and nearer to each other in a variety of ways. Perhaps, a natural evolution of this will be the evolving of a universal language—in decades or centuries to come. Such a development has to be natural and cannot be "implement". Current opinion is that, at least at the present time, a universal language is neither valuable nor practical.