I don't think English will stop being EU's lingua franca any time soon. Agreeing on a replacement would be politically impossible (the Germans wouldn't accept French, the French wouldn't accept German, the Spanish would have good arguments to make in any of both cases); and having several languages in equal status would just be not practical (you cannot realistically expect every EU citizen to know their native language, French and German, for example).
A "neutral" language like Esperanto is a nice idea, and I would also like Latin as the EU language, as it can be argued to be the language that historically shaped Europe the most. But let's not fool ourselves, no one is going to stand for learning a new language from scratch (even if it's easy) when English pretty much Just Works(tm), and provides a lot of utility also outside the EU.
Personally, I'm from Spain and I'm not annoyed or upset about English being the lingua franca. I think we should abandon the idea of English "belonging" to its native speakers. When I talk to people from Germany, from China, or from Vietnam, for example our common language is almost always English, even if neither of us are natives. English is useful for us and belongs to us, as much as to someone from
Gloucestershire.
French here, I absolutely agree. Specifically, American English would be preferable because it is what’s spoken widely outside Europe, and its spelling is somewhat more regular (as well as historically accurate!).
I wonder to what extent coming up with a new name for it would help adoption.
and having several languages in equal status would just be not practical - Sorry but I have to disagree here. Look at UN, they have Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish as official languages.
Why is there an absolute must to only have one official language? Why not chose several most widely spoken ones, including English, and let each speaker chose the one that suits them best?
I live in a country where we have 4 national languages and 3 official ones. Our members of parliament can express themselves in the language of their choosing and their speech/intervention is translated for the rest. That way people can express themselves in the language they are most comfortable in (that is often not English, unless it's their mother tongue) and that does not put older generations (who never learnt English) at a disadvantage.
Having one single language in a multicultural setting can be tricky.
> Personally, I'm from Spain and I'm not annoyed or upset about English being the lingua franca. I think we should abandon the idea of English "belonging" to its native speakers. When I talk to people from Germany, from China, or from Vietnam, for example our common language is almost always English, even if neither of us are natives.
A few years ago I was in a group of people using English to talk. I was the only native speaker,and honestly had more trouble communicating as a result. I have a strong west country accent and people are not used to it. And there are lots of colloquialisms that you use without thinking about it.
It reminds me of this anecdote [0]: "Outraged by English, Chirac storms out of summit"
> After a brief introduction in French, M. Seillière, the [French] president of the EU employers' federation, said he would speak in English because it was the international business language. Without saying a word, the French President left with the French foreign minister and finance minister. He only returned when the president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, began speaking in French.
I think that by now everyone realizes that there are EU skeptics in all member countries. There will always be.
Around 25 percent of Americans want their state to secede (1). A lot of Italians want Northern Italy to part with Southern Italy. Spain has Catalan and Basque separatists. The UK has Scotland, and perhaps even Northern Ireland.
There are many people in many places that think they would be better off in a more (formally) independent state.
For now, the EU skeptics are a small minority in most EU countries. I for one hope it stays like that. The EU has shown remarkable unity when met with Brexit.
The British position was special for at least three reasons:
- British state doctrine has always been: We are the empire, the natural rulers of the world. We only live by chance near the rest of Europe, so we have to interact with the continent at bit more
- Britain was a net payer. We may strive for that to not be relevant, but if you pay you have influence
- Britain got many exceptions to the usual rules that allowed them to further their position
No other country has that combination, so the EU "skepticism" of others countries is less important, though there's still danger. We'll see how that plays out in the end, but still: GBs position was in many ways unique. Even if GB rejoined in a few years it probably wouldn't be the same.
Even among very pro-EU political parties and countries across Europe, there has been no appetite for a new EU treaty since the Lisbon treaty. I'm willing to bet that there will be no further EU treaties for a decade or more.
And without a new treaty, there is little or no scope for further EU integration. The EU is a highly legalistic construct where powers are strictly defined by its multi-lateral treaties.
The idea that the EU civil service (commission) can just grab powers from national governments is anti-EU fud. Even within areas judged to be within the competence of the EU, the principle of subsidiarity (that power should remain with national governments unless absolutely necessary) is explicity a general principle of EU law.
You probably don't know that 'u' in colour is a more recent British development than the standard US English is based on. US English is more original than the current British one.
I'd be in favor of Hiberno English being adopted. It's not much different to other forms of English and wouldn't allude to the EU being "Americanized" or further flatter a country leaving the EU on acrimoious terms.
What confuses me most is the why chose American English? Considering that British English is already a working language of the EU, why go for a new one? That's just going to mean more work. If you are going to promote efficiency, a continuation of what we already have (that works) should be the goal, not open a whole other can of worms.
Living in working in the Berlin tech world, English is already the official working language in most companies. Even as I german i have no problem with this, my only gripe is that it makes it very hard for my non-german colleagues to learn german.
I have the same issue in Paris, I know some coworkers who have been living in France for more than 8 years, and still can't speak a reasonable French : barely able to order at a restaurant for exemple, definitely not able to hold a conversation.
I'm not sure it is actually an issue, it just feels weird as a French person to discover that French is not even required in your own country.
Why exactly is this? Are there really that many non Germans speakers that you need to use English? And would you use English to have a chat at the water cooler, or down the pub (or locally relevant alternative).
The language of our time is English. There's just no disputing that. You can argue that it's because US won the cold war, and then indoctrinated the world via music and movies, and so on, and so on, but it doesn't change that fact.
We should adopt English and move on; majority of people know it and study it. Why regress?
The point of using a language in the first place is to understand each other.
Everyone learning a new language that will just substitute English would be an immense waste of time.
I'm sorry, but this opinion piece sounds pretty dumb. It almost reads like a troll post. The fact that so many in this comment thread seems to be concurring with its suggestion is troubling enough.
If you really want to alienate the EU from the average EU citizen, make English its official language. And adopt a version only a tiny minority really speaks too, just to salt the wound! I'm not sure whether to be scared or laugh.
The fact that the EU has 24 official languages isn't meant to make its proceedings cumbersome or to necessarily facilitate national pride (although, it's certainly also that!), but to make it available to the general public. The official nature of all the member states' languages means you can submit documents in all those languages.
Everyone on Hacker News speak English, but it's not a majority in the EU who speaks or understands English comfortably. But it's easy to forget our privilege. Even as younger generations get more and more accustomed to learning, reading and speaking English around Europe, most are still more comfortable reading technical, political and legal texts in their own language.
They may understand the dialogue in Game of Thrones well enough, but can an Estonian farmer understand an EU agriculture subsidy determination, if it was written in English?
Absolutely, and the EU was founded on principles of federation and preserving cultural heritage and differences. Most definitely the EU hasn't given power to sacrifice even a single language for the convenience of EU institutions and nobody in the EUP/EUC wants to change that in the slightest.
Great idea, and I'd be more interested in EU English Locale. I'm Ukrainian, and whenever I choose to have an English UI, I have a problem because U.S. and GB are using a non-metric system. Canadian locale works, but it would be nice to just have a common EU English one.
UPDATE: just checked, Ubuntu's United Kingdom uses Metric system actually, no idea why was I thinking it'd be Imperial before.
What problem is this trying to solve? Is it the cost of language interpreters? That will probably soon be solved by technology. Is it the lack of a "demos"? That would only be solved if everyone in the European demos also learned English and all local politicians only spoke English, which is, ahem, unlikely to happen ever.
This is brilliant! Finally there's the opportunity to adopt an equalizing language that will also help free us from national culture isolationism:
- a language that is nobody's mother tongue: YEEEY!
- language that is not attached to any one culture: 10x YEEY!
Think about it! This could help global not just European unity: all the people of Asian and African origin who already speak fluent English could instantly embrace and join in and start building the new pan-European culture that will grow into a new and rich global culture. Freed from the tyranny of national-language-culture, this could be the first truly global culture Humanity has the chance to produce!
One thing Globalism 1.0 did wrong was trying to destroy culture. We know now that this leaves a void that attracts trash like racism, xenophobia and isolationism to get filled by these - culture too abhors vacuum! Now Globalism 2.0 can start right in the EU by constructing a new culture around a language that is nobody's own, at least on the cultural front. If this would ever work it will coagulate around it a new literature, then media etc. And finally we'd have a non-trash global culture that will be able to keep us united enough to properly address global issues like pollution and climate change!
Pick a language, any language, but adopt it as official. It won't happen though. Germany, France, Spain, Italy and even Belgium are all way too proud. I am, for instance, a big fan of the Flemish language and the German language, but it is just not practical to keep them if you want to promote a united EU. But being Dutch I am for cooperation/trade; many people do not think like that and think their language and ways are vastly superior and should be adopted instead.
Fellow Dutch speaker here. Why in the world are you a big fan of our language? Just because it's your own? And German, just because it's so close? Both languages are horrible to learn compared to English.
Adopting English as the main working language would save a lot of costs in EU from translations. Also one could have German, French and Spanish as side languages.
The smaller EU countries will have to accept English as main working language.
In many international business settings in Europe English is the norm. Why should
politics be different?
There are many reasons why using English makes sense, but saving costs on translation is just not that.
Unless you are bilingual the lost productivity of having to use non native language in business context would easily dwarf any cost savings, due to misunderstandings, miscommunication, not "Punkt genau" documentation etc ...
Heck, anyone can just try to do an IQ test in non-native language and see how the score drops.
Because politics is not business. Business is done with the criteria of efficiency, politics use the criteria of fairness. You should be able to speak to the EU institutions with whatever language you want. Not everybody speaks English.
Also, I don't know how many times you actually did business in an international context, and especially consumer facing stuff: you need to master the local language and good localization are often the key to success.
For example, the Spotify team did a great job customizing their product in different contexts, creating playlist that are clearly made by natives with the help and the insight of their data.
So it is absolutely not true that international business just happens in English: it might at a high level, but you need translations and cultural awareness to make it work.
If we want to use only one official working language, it should be Esperanto. This would be neutral for any country (including Ireland and Malta). This would not be a threat to other languages and cultures.
Esperanto is easier to learn than any naturally evolved language. Its benefits are clear, it only needs a political support to thrive.
Man, I would vote for life whoever proposed to fix english spelling. The fact I can't use in conversation many words I have learned reading because I have no idea how are spelled is my biggest grudge with the language.
I was raised to use British English spelling. Honestly, without any offence intended, whenever I see words like 'color', 'organize', 'oriented' and so on my mind sees it as a lazy (for lack of a better word) interpretation of the original word's spelling that has evolved in the US. I don't think the content has any less merit because of it, the authors are following the American convention. Just saying that because I'm curious as to what American's think when they read British spelling?
Also, whenever I write CSS and type 'color', I think, this was developed in America so they have complete right to spell it however they damn well please.
-ize is correct in British English as well; if anything it is more "original" as it comes from the Greek -izo (iota, zeta, omega), which is the origin of the suffix. In fact Oxford English Dictionary (OED) spelling, and the Hart's Rules guide, are for organize, not for organise. (On the other hand, analyze is American while analyse is British.)
I usually stick to the British spelling as well, but I also love variety and I wish there were more "written dialects" of English that are widely accepted. I hate it when people react to different ways of talking or writing as if the other person was a child who hasn't learned the _proper_ way of doing things yet. As to the counter-argument of normalizing language use for the sake of the maximum number of people being able to easily understand each other: I think this argument underestimates peoples' capacity to communicate even when they can't understand 100% of the references or language, and it underestimates the negative effect an inflexible language has on the culture.
In some ways, it's a dilemma of where to draw the line between "this is a person who hasn't experienced enough language and therefore is deficient in its use" and between "this is a person who's language has adapted to his micro-cultural/social/etc. context".
I could go on and on about this. I think it's a fascinating, relevant subject.
Better to stick with Irish English, which is ready the transition point. We could rename it European English jf that helps, but creating a new one would not be in anyone's interest and practically impossible: e.g. who would be the "European English" trainers? And would the EU just adopt the English dictionary and grammar the same way the UK adopted all EU legislation as own legislation for post-brexit? Just doesnt make sense.
Looking into the history of American English hints at why it's so powerful. It was designed for pragmatism over elitism, to favor a broad adoption of a writing system for a population of then recent immigrants, many of whom were not native English speakers or had had little access to education. Its original purpose is practicality. It only gradually became considered a viable intellectual alternative to British English with the output of American literature, from writers who were educated with it.
Most of that revolution is attributed to Noah Webster. To give some example of how it just made sense, he favored "or" over the British "our" in words such as "color" and "odor", "ter" over "tre" in "theater" and "center", "z" over "s" in "civilization" and "analyze", "e" vs "ae" in "archeology" (Brits write it "archaeology") and "paleontology" ("Palaeontology"). And many more.
I don't understand why they didn't try to unify the English language across the borders. Why are there different official variants of the same language?
I'm from Belgium and speak Flemish, our neighboring country is the Netherlands. We officially speak the same language. We have the same spelling, same rules, etc. Of course there are dialect variations, but the official language is exactly the same.
I always wondered why other countries don't try to do the same. For example Slovakia and Czech Republic. It almost is exactly the same language, and I know Slovaks were able to understand Czech. But it seems newer generations are unable to do that. So it's weird that these languages evolve away from each other, instead of towards each other.
The world is becoming smaller every day, so why not try to standardize at least the English language, which is mostly used in international settings?
But I guess it's also an ego thing, where neither UK or US (No idea which official variant they use in Australia/New Zealand) want to adopt the other countries rules.
[+] [-] Al-Khwarizmi|6 years ago|reply
A "neutral" language like Esperanto is a nice idea, and I would also like Latin as the EU language, as it can be argued to be the language that historically shaped Europe the most. But let's not fool ourselves, no one is going to stand for learning a new language from scratch (even if it's easy) when English pretty much Just Works(tm), and provides a lot of utility also outside the EU.
Personally, I'm from Spain and I'm not annoyed or upset about English being the lingua franca. I think we should abandon the idea of English "belonging" to its native speakers. When I talk to people from Germany, from China, or from Vietnam, for example our common language is almost always English, even if neither of us are natives. English is useful for us and belongs to us, as much as to someone from Gloucestershire.
[+] [-] achamayou|6 years ago|reply
I wonder to what extent coming up with a new name for it would help adoption.
[+] [-] born2discover|6 years ago|reply
Why is there an absolute must to only have one official language? Why not chose several most widely spoken ones, including English, and let each speaker chose the one that suits them best?
I live in a country where we have 4 national languages and 3 official ones. Our members of parliament can express themselves in the language of their choosing and their speech/intervention is translated for the rest. That way people can express themselves in the language they are most comfortable in (that is often not English, unless it's their mother tongue) and that does not put older generations (who never learnt English) at a disadvantage.
Having one single language in a multicultural setting can be tricky.
[+] [-] nabla9|6 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AtDEbHOcd8&t=12
[+] [-] 0815test|6 years ago|reply
Agreed. The EU should do the needful.
[+] [-] 7952|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barking|6 years ago|reply
It would be like deja veni vidi vici all over again.
[+] [-] schuke|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peteretep|6 years ago|reply
It really won't, especially the French.
[+] [-] isolli|6 years ago|reply
> After a brief introduction in French, M. Seillière, the [French] president of the EU employers' federation, said he would speak in English because it was the international business language. Without saying a word, the French President left with the French foreign minister and finance minister. He only returned when the president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, began speaking in French.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/outraged-by-...
[+] [-] tluyben2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peteretep|6 years ago|reply
Anyone who thinks that EU skepticism is exclusive to the Brits is in for a nasty nasty surprise.
[+] [-] flexie|6 years ago|reply
Around 25 percent of Americans want their state to secede (1). A lot of Italians want Northern Italy to part with Southern Italy. Spain has Catalan and Basque separatists. The UK has Scotland, and perhaps even Northern Ireland.
There are many people in many places that think they would be better off in a more (formally) independent state.
For now, the EU skeptics are a small minority in most EU countries. I for one hope it stays like that. The EU has shown remarkable unity when met with Brexit.
1: http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four...
[+] [-] sgift|6 years ago|reply
- British state doctrine has always been: We are the empire, the natural rulers of the world. We only live by chance near the rest of Europe, so we have to interact with the continent at bit more
- Britain was a net payer. We may strive for that to not be relevant, but if you pay you have influence
- Britain got many exceptions to the usual rules that allowed them to further their position
No other country has that combination, so the EU "skepticism" of others countries is less important, though there's still danger. We'll see how that plays out in the end, but still: GBs position was in many ways unique. Even if GB rejoined in a few years it probably wouldn't be the same.
[+] [-] derriz|6 years ago|reply
Even among very pro-EU political parties and countries across Europe, there has been no appetite for a new EU treaty since the Lisbon treaty. I'm willing to bet that there will be no further EU treaties for a decade or more.
And without a new treaty, there is little or no scope for further EU integration. The EU is a highly legalistic construct where powers are strictly defined by its multi-lateral treaties.
The idea that the EU civil service (commission) can just grab powers from national governments is anti-EU fud. Even within areas judged to be within the competence of the EU, the principle of subsidiarity (that power should remain with national governments unless absolutely necessary) is explicity a general principle of EU law.
[+] [-] Jonnax|6 years ago|reply
For example removing the 'U' from words like Colour.
Ireland is also an English speaking country in the EU.
And I don't know how much of the sentiment of "Let's Americanise!" Would be popular.
[+] [-] bitL|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s_dev|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Svip|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jobigoud|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kayoone|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Majestic121|6 years ago|reply
I'm not sure it is actually an issue, it just feels weird as a French person to discover that French is not even required in your own country.
[+] [-] 7952|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rofo1|6 years ago|reply
We should adopt English and move on; majority of people know it and study it. Why regress?
The point of using a language in the first place is to understand each other.
Everyone learning a new language that will just substitute English would be an immense waste of time.
[+] [-] Svip|6 years ago|reply
If you really want to alienate the EU from the average EU citizen, make English its official language. And adopt a version only a tiny minority really speaks too, just to salt the wound! I'm not sure whether to be scared or laugh.
The fact that the EU has 24 official languages isn't meant to make its proceedings cumbersome or to necessarily facilitate national pride (although, it's certainly also that!), but to make it available to the general public. The official nature of all the member states' languages means you can submit documents in all those languages.
Everyone on Hacker News speak English, but it's not a majority in the EU who speaks or understands English comfortably. But it's easy to forget our privilege. Even as younger generations get more and more accustomed to learning, reading and speaking English around Europe, most are still more comfortable reading technical, political and legal texts in their own language.
They may understand the dialogue in Game of Thrones well enough, but can an Estonian farmer understand an EU agriculture subsidy determination, if it was written in English?
[+] [-] tannhaeuser|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oytis|6 years ago|reply
Also, I would rather propose using Irish English as an official EU English dialect after Brexit. Not as boring as the American one.
[+] [-] k_bx|6 years ago|reply
UPDATE: just checked, Ubuntu's United Kingdom uses Metric system actually, no idea why was I thinking it'd be Imperial before.
[+] [-] rwmj|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nnq|6 years ago|reply
- a language that is nobody's mother tongue: YEEEY!
- language that is not attached to any one culture: 10x YEEY!
Think about it! This could help global not just European unity: all the people of Asian and African origin who already speak fluent English could instantly embrace and join in and start building the new pan-European culture that will grow into a new and rich global culture. Freed from the tyranny of national-language-culture, this could be the first truly global culture Humanity has the chance to produce!
One thing Globalism 1.0 did wrong was trying to destroy culture. We know now that this leaves a void that attracts trash like racism, xenophobia and isolationism to get filled by these - culture too abhors vacuum! Now Globalism 2.0 can start right in the EU by constructing a new culture around a language that is nobody's own, at least on the cultural front. If this would ever work it will coagulate around it a new literature, then media etc. And finally we'd have a non-trash global culture that will be able to keep us united enough to properly address global issues like pollution and climate change!
</dream>
[+] [-] Thimothy|6 years ago|reply
"Thanks for giving us this tongue that has allowed us to transcend as humans, now GTFO"
[+] [-] pjc50|6 years ago|reply
Could you expand on this, I'm not sure what you're referring to?
[+] [-] tluyben2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lucb1e|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NotPaidToPost|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acd|6 years ago|reply
In many international business settings in Europe English is the norm. Why should politics be different?
[+] [-] levosmetalo|6 years ago|reply
Unless you are bilingual the lost productivity of having to use non native language in business context would easily dwarf any cost savings, due to misunderstandings, miscommunication, not "Punkt genau" documentation etc ...
Heck, anyone can just try to do an IQ test in non-native language and see how the score drops.
[+] [-] kome|6 years ago|reply
Because politics is not business. Business is done with the criteria of efficiency, politics use the criteria of fairness. You should be able to speak to the EU institutions with whatever language you want. Not everybody speaks English.
Also, I don't know how many times you actually did business in an international context, and especially consumer facing stuff: you need to master the local language and good localization are often the key to success.
For example, the Spotify team did a great job customizing their product in different contexts, creating playlist that are clearly made by natives with the help and the insight of their data.
So it is absolutely not true that international business just happens in English: it might at a high level, but you need translations and cultural awareness to make it work.
[+] [-] afiori|6 years ago|reply
This is exactly the reason why English (nor any other language) can be the EU official language.
That cannot happen and wont happen for at least a couple generations.
[+] [-] Zrdr|6 years ago|reply
Esperanto is easier to learn than any naturally evolved language. Its benefits are clear, it only needs a political support to thrive.
[+] [-] singularity2001|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_entities_w...
Please also combine anglic with a conservative spelling reform: color, beautyfull, burocracys, enouf, allready...
Basically look at the most common spelling mistakes and chose those variants which are more logical than the current spelling.
The language should be called Anglic/Anglish, after the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles
It's already more of an ethnonym than a loconym. And ethnonym more in the sense of shared language and culture than common genes.
[+] [-] Thimothy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] new_here|6 years ago|reply
Also, whenever I write CSS and type 'color', I think, this was developed in America so they have complete right to spell it however they damn well please.
[+] [-] seszett|6 years ago|reply
Well just so you know, it was mainly developed on the Franco-Swiss border (at CERN) by Norwegian, Dutch and English citizens.
The largest role of America in CSS is influencing the spelling because of its cultural weight, but not developing the language.
[+] [-] tspiteri|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmos62|6 years ago|reply
In some ways, it's a dilemma of where to draw the line between "this is a person who hasn't experienced enough language and therefore is deficient in its use" and between "this is a person who's language has adapted to his micro-cultural/social/etc. context".
I could go on and on about this. I think it's a fascinating, relevant subject.
[+] [-] pergadad|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] viach|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mekoka|6 years ago|reply
Most of that revolution is attributed to Noah Webster. To give some example of how it just made sense, he favored "or" over the British "our" in words such as "color" and "odor", "ter" over "tre" in "theater" and "center", "z" over "s" in "civilization" and "analyze", "e" vs "ae" in "archeology" (Brits write it "archaeology") and "paleontology" ("Palaeontology"). And many more.
[+] [-] koonsolo|6 years ago|reply
I'm from Belgium and speak Flemish, our neighboring country is the Netherlands. We officially speak the same language. We have the same spelling, same rules, etc. Of course there are dialect variations, but the official language is exactly the same.
I always wondered why other countries don't try to do the same. For example Slovakia and Czech Republic. It almost is exactly the same language, and I know Slovaks were able to understand Czech. But it seems newer generations are unable to do that. So it's weird that these languages evolve away from each other, instead of towards each other.
The world is becoming smaller every day, so why not try to standardize at least the English language, which is mostly used in international settings?
But I guess it's also an ego thing, where neither UK or US (No idea which official variant they use in Australia/New Zealand) want to adopt the other countries rules.