The response was that it was not the responsibility of just the Baha'i to implement a world auxiliary language, it is the responsibility of all people of all nations.
And that is as obviously true an answer as anything can conceivably be. Unless one is actually proposing that the Bahai Faith ought to establish some form of dictatorship that would miraculously enable it to force other people to learn such a language, but would quite ludicrous for many reasons.
Esperanto was popular back in that time and many Baha'i did try to take that path and some still do, but as the governments of the world have not adopted it, there is no way that it can go global. interestingly, English has become much more of a worldly language, but it is also no good for a universal language.
For political reasons, you mean?
(...)
So what do you think?
Do you see the benefit?
I sure do. It is clearly desirable, if not all-out a moral duty, to pursue such a goal.
If we ever attain enough of a maturity level, it must.
If you regard all religions equally, then you should not have a universal language, because Yahweh will be pissed at you. Source: Genesis 11
You can hardly expect reasonable people to take scripture over common sense, so I do not understand why you say such a thing.
There is very little on these threads that has struck me as more hypocritical than a bahai quoting biblle verses.
.
Why would you say such a thing? Bahais go out of their way to try and validate the Bible, you know.
Jewish verses? It is all the same story, unlike your later unneeded additions.
If you say so. But it is really pointless to lend so much credence to scripture, IMO.
Just out of interest, as you have quoted from both Romans and Matthew how much of those books are corrupt. Is it just the bits that show bahai to be full of crap that are corrupted and anything that works for you is ok.. .. Is that how it works
Not being a Bahai, nonetheless I have to ask if you are aware of a better way of using scripture.
A universal language would have to be the Queens English, as spoken by cricket-playing Gentlemen.
Hardly. I love English, but what you say is simply absurd.
The world, or more precisely, aviation, shipping, international transport, international finance, government, I.e. those who need to communicate with the world have a universal language... English
But international diplomacy still uses French.
Yes, that happened and it is a step in the right direction. But not nearly enough yet.
Methinks you have a somewhat over optimistic view of the influence of 0.1% of the population.
Other religions also teach tolerance and peace. Many of those in power are members of these religions?
Yes i have a cynical view of religion. In thousands of years it has not stopped conflict (in many cases it has been instrumental in aggravating conflict)
All the same, one can hardly be blamed for wanting to promote tools for mutual understanding among people. It is a worthy goal, and one that furthers the goal of global peace.
I think it's just another Baha'i attempt at getting the world to conform to their own agenda.
It certainly is. That is what promoting a language, any language, unavoidably is.
Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the Bahai agenda as a whole, however, some of what they promote and propose is certainly worthwhile. I definitely include the adoption of at least one language with a global reach in that category.
We all should strive to pursue certain goals of common interest even if we must part ways at other points.
For Baha'i? Yes. For me? No.
Really? Why not?
I am surprised at the outlandish, utopian ideas that Bahais harbor.
Why is English not good enough to be the first or second world language?
It may well be that it is. But there are people who will associate it to political or even religious conotations to the point of going out of their way to avoid learning it.
On a more technical level, it is just not nearly perfect. Quite a lot of arbitrary irregularity, and the correspondence between writing and pronounciation sometimes seems to have been chosen with the tongue in cheek. There is definitely room for improvement.
What Abdul Baha said takes out Esperanto from the equation. Why are you trying to propagate it?
'Abdu’l-Bahá Himself': Perhaps that is incorrect English these days.
These are the most widely spoken languages in the world. You can choose one of them.
Mandarin Chinese (1.1 billion), English (983 million), Hindustani (544 million), Spanish (527 million), Arabic (422 million).
Google Search
World language - Wikipedia (Total Speakers)
English (1.5 billion), Chines Mandarin (1.2 billion), Hindustani (697 million, including Urdu), Spanish (577 million), Arabic (570 million, including dialects).
Hindi and Urdu, collectively known as Hindustani, are an interesting study case. If nothing else, they are living evidence of some significant cultural barriers for the universal adoption of a language.
As I understand it, they are literally the same language far as actual speech goes, although the writing systems are very much different from each other (Urdu based on Persian and Arabic, Hindi on Sanskrit) and some of the vocabulary and style changes as well.
Quite literally, they are different languages because their communities want them to be.
As you probably know or can guess, I can understand that to a point. There are certain cultural trends that I see as very much worth resisting, not least among those submission to the expectations of Certain Groups That Value Arabic. That just Will Not Do, far as I am concerned.
On the other hand, there is undeniable practical benefit in having some ability to understand each other even if it is just to tell the other to give up on converting us.
Realistically, it is hard enough even today to teach even a single writing system to enough people.
Even today, well over ten percent of people worldwide are illiterate, and that alone harms their prospects for full integration into society something fierce. Despite the encouraging fact that literacy rates are actually improving worldwide (in very unequall ways), the absolute number of illiterates keeps increasing. That does not bode well to their prospects in life.
That may be a reason to pursue literacy in and of itself, or it may be a reason to pursue literacy in a hopefully widely accepted language that may ease access to wider education and integration. But it sure indicates that it will have to be a deliberate, conscious effort either way. Literacy does not happen spontaneously to any significant degree.
Literacy - Wikipedia
I think that you should watch over the next century to see what happens to block character like what short alphabets use. A lot of effort has gone into making the computers support multiple character sets. Some scripts do not lend themselves to small, rectangular, regular type. To properly fit irregular characters together requires software that solves a math problem called the "minimum weight perfect matching problem in bipartite graphs." Its not simple for programs. You have to program the software to move the letters around, since they fit into each other. For that you need full graphics, so you can't easily get some languages on calculators and many other devices. Block characters are easier to implement.
N. Americans long ago used Sign for continental communication independent of spoken language. I think sign language is a fine idea, and though you can't write it on paper there are ways around that. Computing tech might make that irrelevant. We don't know, yet. Writing sign language is difficult, but having a computer record it is easy. Recently someone has invented gloves which can translate sign into spoken language. If it can be done with gloves then it can be done with cameras. If it can be done with cameras, then it can be represented on screen. The impediment of writing it down disappears. In a society with lots of computers you can have sign as your international language with computers as the scribes. There is no sound involved, and the meaning of the signs may not drift like they do with spoken words.
What you might do is try to build a permanent sign language based on Chinese but not require learning Chinese characters. Instead people could communicate using sign on paper, written with the assistance of smart phones or other camera devices. The charm would be that people could retain our spoken and written languages, and at the same time we might get a permanent language for legal documents, laws and records.
That sure sounds appealling. I understand that at some point we will pretty much have to accept that this is the best practical solution.
