Hehe, I get that. However, if adopted properly, it would be a practical language skill, as it would be a language officially in use. Besides, if those studies described above are to be trusted (not sure if they are), it would facilitate additional language learning. But that argument is what you are getting at with your comment on Latin?
That is what sounds so inefficient to me. It probably works fine at the bigger assemblies, but within smaller agencies located around Europe? I don’t know, but my guess is that they adopt a small subset of official languages as the working language (do you know?) which I think becomes a barrier to participation for citizens of member states who do not speak those languages natively.
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.
Since the UK left (and Ireland and Malta being the only ones left speaking English natively I think) this problem got less problematic. If it is a foreign language almost for all, the differences are not that big.
Good point, but I am not so sure the UK (or even England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland separately at some point) won’t rejoin in the future.
Artificial languages have the problem that they will end up being spoken only by an elite, which would be highly problematic for the EU, which is already seen as an elite project by all too many people in the EU.
Yes, that is definitely a danger, but of course - the easier it is to learn, the more likely anyone could pick it up. However, I do think it would have to be learned in schools across the entire Union for it to work. Learning Esperanto first allegedly increases a student’s ability to learn other foreign languages, so it would not necessarily come at the expense of other foreign languages. I suspect that has to do with getting used to learning a language, and if that is true, than any sufficiently easy language could serve the same purpose. And something that could strengthen multilingualism in Europe in general (more language-savvy people = more people picking up additional European languages and to a higher proficiency).
I’m curious, what language would you consider being easy to learn
A language with no grammatical irregularities for starters. And one where the phonetics are consistent. Constructed languages can offer this. Whether any existing ones are sufficiently easy, I’m not sure.
And then some mechanisms that facilitates vocabulary building. For instance, I like the affixes in Esperanto, as understanding the root word and then the affixes allows you to pick up all kinds of words you never explicitly learned. And example is -ejo, which indicates a place, could be combined with a root word such as the verb forĝas (to forge, root: forĝ-), yielding forĝejo = place where one forges. Or monero (money, root: moner-) + -ejo yields monerejo = place where one stores money (= monero).
I’m sure with modern linguistic knowledge a much easier language than Esperanto could be constructed.
However, it’s not that you can dictate a language
The question was whether an auxillary language would be a good idea. It would necessarily be dictated. Every citizen would learn it in school. The proposed benefit having a a common language easily learned and spoken equally well by all member state citizens, that could be used to cross language barriers (like English is today), and that could be used within EU (i.e. all institutions) as an official language.
For the record, I am intrigued by the idea, but I am very open to this being a bad idea, which is why I made the thread to hear people’s opinions.
Are there live translators between all pairs of languages?
Interesting point that I did not consider, and not sure I fully understand. How would it lead to discrimination do you think?
How does this work? Is everything live translated?
Hehe, that one is often suitable, and I think it fits nicely here.
I don’t count English as a particularly easy language to master. Do you not think there are some problems that arise from assymetry in ability to learn English? Not just thinking about legal documents, but debates, discussions, negotiations etc.
And is this massive amount of translation not just very inefficient? Although I suspect at best a new language would come in addition, so we’re back to the xkcd-strip and nothing was solved there.
What is the main reason this is a poor idea to you?
Does translators not just lead to inefficient communication?
“1kW within 1hr” isn’t power. That’s energy.
The watt is always power, not energy. I’m assuming OP here got some prepositions mixed up and meant 1 kW delivered for 1 hr. That amounts to an energy of 1 kWh.
The second is like hell hole, tons of energy but still only a little bit of power.” No. They are both precisely the same energy.
No, they are the same power. The energy in the case where 1 kW of power is delivered for 1 hour is 1 kWh. The energy in the case of 1 kW delivered for 1 s is about 0.28 Wh.
If instead 1 kWh was transferred over the course of 1 hour, that is an average power of 1 kW (but does not have to be uniform, without more information we can’t know the power profile). If 1 kWh is transferred over the course of 1 s, that is an average power of 3.6 MW which is the example I think OP was getting at (ref. hell hole comment).
The idea being that eventually (though that would need to be far in the future) you would not need to translate as it is a common language among all member states.
Because it is a difficult language to master and it puts many non-native speakers at a disadvantage. As pointed out above, there are only two countries who do speak English natively now, but depending on your native language, some citizens still have an substantial easier time learning English.