Re: Dividers and all.

Roland Hoensch wrote:
> Shouldn't a world language capture more than... what is it with
> current figures... 1/12th to 1/16th of the world's speakers?
If English is not a world language, then what is?  Obviously nothing.
What use is it to have a term that describes something that doesn't
exist?  So, I'd say that a good definition would be "a language which is
understood in most of the world", which English certainly fills.  Every
continent (except, of course, Antarctica) has English-speaking nations,
nations wherein English is a national tongue, either de facto (as in the
US) or de jure (as in India)

> And if and when English becomes a world language, it will
> no longer be driven by the US, Canada, and Britain.
> A world language is used to communicate with the world.
> English is used to communicate largely with mono-lingual
> English-speakers.  Not completely, I'm not saying that;
> but largely.
It's used by a LOT of non-native English-speakers amongst themselves,
frequently as a sort of lingua franca.  It's not uncommon to hear about,
say, a Japanese company and an Egyptian company doing business in
English.

--
"Old linguists never die - they just come to voiceless stops." -
anonymous
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Conlang/W.html
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor