Make English the universal language.

Fuck your culture, you heard me. Culture is just technology to be hand-picked at the INDIVIDUAL'S discretion, not something you have to indoctrinate your children from birth to believe has value even though it is obviously pointless. You have no right to FORCE your INFERIOR culture on people.

Everyone should speak 1 language to make things easier, if you want to learn other languages go right ahead, but don't let the fact you like shoving things up your ass or whatever you think is so great about your 'culture' interfere with making the world a better place.

I'm not trying to force my culture on you either, I don't give a fuck about English either, language should be totally logical, like equations or something, the simplest method of communicating possible. That way we can concentrate on pushing communication to new levels that were physically impossible with all the drivel we have to learn alongside inferior languages.

Discuss.

ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER! ALL HAIL KING BOOKER!

I think English as universal language would be awesome. It's bitch to learn other languages, so that you can search porn more effectively. If everyone used english that wouldn't be problem. Also cocks & niggers.

bunch of under-achievers

Enlgish is already basically the global lanugage.  A lot of people living in developed countries acan speak at least a little Enlgish. 

true, but english is a horrible choice

almost any european language is more efficient than english

better yet take up korean for maximum efficiency

>>6
No one knows Korean and their language method is stupid an inefficient. Better to have letters that correlate to how we speak than 1 symbol per word. We should change english to make it more simple and logical of course, however it is decided, we will base the new language on english and contort it over time into a new super simple language that allows us to reach new heights of complexity of communication.

Ironically many linguistics professors say Hangeul is very efficiant than Latin alphabet. It is both syllabic and phonetic.

English is just lucky that it was the world's language because of colonialism. Well don't forget just before WWII, English had to compete with French as a global language.

Sanskrit is SUPERIOR.

>>7
Hangul are completely phonetic like our alphabet and contain no meaning by themselves. Do your homework.

>>7
Hanguel requires more than 3*5 pixels to create many of it's symbols and thus is inefficient. The science behind is legitimate, but there is no reason to use this ancient science if we have progressed beyond it. It is logical to use latinesque symbols, english language as a base and up to date phonetic-science.

>>8
"English is just lucky that it was the world's language because of colonialism."
This is correct, but I fail to see the relevance of this. Keep your subjective quibbles to yourself.

English has the most words of any language, is fully versed in science, was alterred during the 19th century to accomodate it's widespread use and of course is a very popular globally used language today. Cantonese and Indians rarely bother learning each other's native languages, a south american travelling Africa will learn english aswell as use spanish/portugese.

Compared to other languages English is no closer than any other language to my idea of a completely logical simple system of language, it has just been selected as the most practical candidate for this new system and it's use as a universal language.

we need more engrish to fuel /b/

"This is correct, but I fail to see the relevance of this. Keep your subjective quibbles to yourself."

I don't see this as subjective. I see this as a historical reason.

English? Fuck your culture, you heard me. Culture is just technology to be hand-picked at the INDIVIDUAL'S discretion, not something you have to indoctrinate your children from birth to believe has value even though it is obviously pointless. You have no right to FORCE your INFERIOR culture on people.

Therefore, stick your silly English language where the sun don't shine and let the elite speak their own languages.

>>14
It's the truth, but it proves nothing related to my argument.

>>15
I have a rational argument against culture and you have a prejudice against english. To me English is just a technology that is the best choice for a universal language because it is the best logical choice. I am an illegally immigrated Chadian black jewish homosexual disabled woman who converted to Islam and who has been the victim of a hate crime. Why would I want to force english on everyone purely for cultural reasons?

>>16
Don't listen to >>15, it's obvious she is a racist.

>>17
No, I will listen to them, because if I censorred people and ignored what they have to say I would be sinking to their level. Even if they are vicious racists as >>15 clearly is.

Would we make an exception for Sign Language?

>>19
An exception wouldn't be needed because sign language isn't actually a separate language of its own.  It just uses symbols to represent the words in the language.  Morse code is just a bunch of dots and dashes, but it uses language for them to actually mean anything.

>>19
I'm sure a few changes might be needed to make sign language easier, it would also be useful to make letters in sign language mandatory in education along with morse code. Sometimes it's just easier to communicate with dots and dashes of sorts.

>>16
Spoiler: you don't have a rational argument for English.

Fuck culture and fuck languages

>>22
Murk loar >>12.

>>23
Languages are logical, we need languages, I wouldn't fuck language.

>>12
>English has the most words of any language

Hardly relevant, but might be a disadvantage anyway.

>is fully versed in science

"Fully versed"?

>was alterred during the 19th century to accomodate it's widespread use and of course is a very popular globally used language today

Other languages were dominant in the past and others might be in the future. Just like with VHS and Beta, this says nothing about quality.

>Compared to other languages English is no closer than any other language to my idea of a completely logical simple system of language

Please elaborate.

>>26
more words = more definitions included in the language

Fully versed as in it already has words and definitions that cover all of modern science.

">was alterred during the 19th century to accomodate it's widespread use and of course is a very popular globally used language today"

Since you have not responded to this, can I assume you agree that English is the best candidate to convert into a universal language?

"Other languages were dominant in the past and others might be in the future. Just like with VHS and Beta, this says nothing about quality."

I agree, whoever thinks that must be an idiot.


"Compared to other languages English is no closer than any other language to my idea of a completely logical simple system of language."
You made it clear that you hate me for being black. As a result I was forced to make a clear unequivocal statement that I realise English is not a perfect language and that my motivations for choosing english are that it is simply the easiest language to alter in order to create my universal language. I hope some day you stop being a racist and grow up and realise that culture is irrelevant and that we need a universal language and the easiest way to do this is to convert english into a universal langauge since most of the definitions are already there and most people around the world know english.

>>27
>more words = more definitions included in the language

Or more redundancy and dialects, more useless vocabulary to learn.

>Fully versed as in it already has words and definitions that cover all of modern science.

So do others. But yes, it obviously would be a prerequisite for a "universal language".

>">was alterred during the 19th century [...]
>Since you have not responded to this, can I assume you agree that English is the best candidate to convert into a universal language?

No, where did you argue that? You'll have to provide more details here.

>You made it clear that you hate me for being black.

What, you're black? Now I can't take you seriously anymore.

>>28
Having more words allows better expression.  Think the opposite of 1984, they were cutting words down in Newspeak so it would almost be impossible to even commit thoughtcrime.  Having more words may seem like just a load of redundancy, but each word does differ slightly from each other.  Hate and angry may have similar definitons but there are subtle differences in their meaning.

"Or more redundancy and dialects, more useless vocabulary to learn."
I have just stated that by "more words " I meant "more definitions" so what's your point? Obviously if my plan were to go ahead, useless dialects would be removed.

"No, where did you argue that? You'll have to provide more details here."
After you quote me you usually respond, except when you quoted "was alterred during the 19th century [...]" you didn't respond to it.

"What, you're black? Now I can't take you seriously anymore."
I expected nothing less.

>>29
The purpose is to create an entirely logical language that can be used universally, even if some words are considerrred useless and left out of the language, people can still use them when they are not making a speech in the european parliament or an international science conference etc..

>>29
>Having more words allows better expression.

Not necessarily. But since there seems to be no data about what these "extra words" actually are, we'll probably never know.

>>30
>I have just stated that by "more words " I meant "more definitions"

Can you prove that though?

>After you quote me you usually respond, except when you quoted "was alterred during the 19th century [...]" you didn't respond to it.

I didn't think that part of the sentence was worth a response. It doesn't give any details anyway. What exactly do you mean by altered and why would anybody care?

>I expected nothing less.

Kekekekeke.

>>32
Your argument has no merit, the universal language will take out any unecessary words with ease and because English is a large well used sensible language it is bound to have all the definitions needed already.

"What exactly do you mean by altered and why would anybody care?"
Why do you care? Do you have something against the English language and black people?

Universal languages (plural) are okay if the world still encourage minor languages.

Universal languages is an oxy moron. What if one person knows one universal language and another person knows another universal language? The 2 different languages do not solve the problem of people being unable to communicate to each other in a complex manner. You can only have 1 universal language and it is logical to BASE it on English.

>>33
>Your argument has no merit, the universal language will take out any unecessary words with ease

No, it would likely lead to more dialects and more redundancy.

>and because English is a large well used sensible language

What does that mean?

>Why do you care? Do you have something against the English language and black people?

I just thought you might actually know what you're talking about.

>>36
Ok? So do you have an argument to back up that statement? I fail to see how getting rid of useless dialects and words somehow increases the amount of useless dialects and words.

English has been used by so many people for so long, in so many situations and in the most complex speaches, books and thesis of humanity's most advanced sciences. You must be extremely apologetic to think that English is not up to date in terms of the amount of definitions it contains.

"I just thought you might actually know what you're talking about."
Once again you make a statement without backing it up. If you can't understand simple arguments you're an idiot, or a troll. Either way I win. The world is at error for not converting English into a universal language and making it mandatory teaching for all children and adults. I am also like god or jesus or something for coming up with such a brilliant idea.

Brilliant ideas suck if they don't work. Bottom line is, you cannot force the world to take up a language, not even the US can wage war against the world on its own.

English is already being slowly absorbed in many countries as the primary foreign language taught in school, and in the future it may slowly become your "Universal language", but such proposals do not work simply because it isn't practical to force things when they are not ready. The world is always slowly shifting towards equilibrium anyways, and accelerating the change might make some people more resistant to it.

>>38
Wrong. Brilliant ideas are not accepted because people believe in fallacies like culture or don't have the intelligence to understand why the idea will work. The point of making a universal language world isn't to shift the world towards equilibrium or any stupid irrelevant bullshit, it's just a good idea that will make things easier, like telephones and human rights.

>>39
communist

a good idea that will make things easier for us English speakers
fixed

>>40
prove it

>>41
Exactly, because everyone will speak the universal language everyone will be better off.

>>42
prove it
go to >>40
fallacies like culture
proof

Universal language is a good idea, but like everyone in the thread said over and over, it's not something that can simply be implemented from the top down.

culture is naat a faalacy

>>37
Dialects will still form because you haven't eliminated cultures/nations/etc by introducing a universal language. How come the English say pavement and the Americans say sidewalk?

>English has been used by so many people for so long, in so many situations and in the most complex speaches, books and thesis of humanity's most advanced sciences.

So have other languages. I don't see how that's something unique to English.

>"I just thought you might actually know what you're talking about."
>Once again you make a statement without backing it up.

You started.

>Either way I win

You lose by default because you're a nigger. Enjoy your AIDS.

>>39
See, if you're going to force millions of people to pick up a new language as their primary language, you might as well give it a little more thought than "DUH, let's use English because it's there".

>>43
1+1=3
Therefore a statement alone doesn't prove something.

>>43
>>44
Culture is a fallacy because even though a few aspects of culture are good ideas, it forces people to accept stupid ass ideas along with it. There is no need logical need or physical barrier to have a culture and not simply choose the best ideas.

>>45
The dialects which emerge would not be the original accepted form of the language. Since the language will be so logical, irrelevant words removed and only one simple logical way to use grammar, there will be only one way to put across an idea or set of information, so dialects cannot form.

>>39
But it won't be english. It will be a converted form of english. It's simple logical scientific construction will make it's need self-evident.

>>47
>The dialects which emerge would not be the original accepted form of the language. Since the language will be so logical, irrelevant words removed and only one simple logical way to use grammar, there will be only one way to put across an idea or set of information, so dialects cannot form.

You cannot stop people from developing their own dialects. What do you want to do, send the language gestapo in?

>>47
>But it won't be english. It will be a converted form of english. It's simple logical scientific construction will make it's need self-evident.

English is neither simple nor logical.

>>47
Since the language will be so logical
ie revised mathematic notation
>>49
Language is neither simple nor logical.
fixed

In the beining, there was only ONE language.
But the people of A and the people of B are different. A has needed to speak about the sea and B about the mountain. So, They created new words, and new grammatical construction for them.

Only one language is impossible.

And English is NOT a neutral politic language. All english land are fucking neo-capitalists who want to fuck the other (USA, GB, Australia, South Africa....)

French is a better and socialist language for all :)

>>51
Spoiler: The laws of physics are the same everywhere.

English is already the "universal language". We just have to make ignorant spanish and french speaking morons to realize that. Beside not many people from spanish speaking countries (south america) have the chance to get to learn English either, but im sure they would if they had the chance.

Let's all speak Esperanto instead.

We should all learn japanese and the 3 japanese types of writing.

>>55


Maybe...just maybe we should go Auschwitz on all the damn Weeaboo fags...for gods sake japanese culture is not superior...DEAL WITH IT!

>>56
Fuck, the West should start producing some decent cartoons so these weeaboo fags will become normal again.

NO

>>53

English is not the most spoken language... ANd maybe the more illogical. And the worst for grat literature

>>59
English is the most popular 2nd and 1st language if you add them up. Please outline the problems with english so they can be alterred to create the simplest logicla language possible. English grammar is no more or less complex than other languages. A phonetic system of letters in which all the letters can be transferred to a 3*5 set of pixels is the most logical method of doing this. This can already be done with roman type. English has the most extensive set of definitions making it easier to compile and organise the new words of the language in which each word has 1 logically defined universal definition.

Everything will be completely scientific it will be awesome. The ability to quickly pass information scientifically and with little use of the brain will increase everyone's intelligence and the speed in which they work. Everyone will be better off.

>>60
>A phonetic system of letters in which all the letters can be transferred to a 3*5 set of pixels is the most logical method of doing this

Actually, the number of pixels the characters can fit in is hardly the most important issue and is becoming more and more irrelevant. I'd first worry about how inconsistend the pronunciation of English is.

>>61
How is it inconsistent and can you name a language with no inconsistencies? You can't. That's why we need a new totally logical language and it should be derived from english since all the definitions are up to date and it is already the most widely used langauge.

English is no different from any oher language other than the fact that it is widely used in the science and is a well known language which uses phonetics.

"Actually, the number of pixels the characters can fit in is hardly the most important issue"

I never said it was. The reason you are so stuck up about small details is because you are pathologically desperate to preserve your culture even though there is no logical reason to do it and you are just making your children's lives less creative and original by indoctrinating them to preserve it.

Angry? Just remember I'm not the one making you angry, reality is.

>>62
>How is it inconsistent

"With no conclusive, internationally recognized standards for English, even the English spoken in different countries can occasionally prove to be an impediment to understanding what is said [...]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_phonology

"The English spelling system is one of the most irregular spelling systems in current use."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_spelling

>and can you name a language with no inconsistencies? You can't.

Well, the amount of inconsistencies would have to be researched. In any case, English is widely regarded as crap in that regard. And you didn't even know that, because you're a lousy troll who doesn't put much effort in his posts.

>That's why we need a new totally logical language

U-huh.

>and it should be derived from english since [old crap which is also true for other languages or not true at all]

No. And we already went over this many times.

>English is no different from any oher language other than the fact that it is widely used in the science and is a well known language which uses phonetics.

Wrong. It's not different from any other language in those regards because that's true for several languages.

>I never said it was.

If you don't think it's important, you shouldn't mention it all the time.

>The reason you are so stuck up about small details is because you are pathologically desperate to preserve your culture

No, the reason is that you continue bringing the irrelevant details up because you lack real arguments.

>Angry? Just remember I'm not the one making you angry, reality is.

Delusional much?

>>63
All of this will be changed when it is converted into a logical language and exist in other languages.

"Wrong. It's not different from any other language in those regards because that's true for several languages."
International science conferences are held in English, English is the most up to date in terms of definitions.

">and it should be derived from english since [old crap which is also true for other languages or not true at all]

No. And we already went over this many times."
Explain the relevance of the amount of times a subject has been discussed.

"If you don't think it's important, you shouldn't mention it all the time."
"No, the reason is that you continue bringing the irrelevant details up because you lack real arguments."
It's all very well repeating everything I say like a 12 year old, but do you have any proof to back up your assertions?

As you can see right in front of your face, where English fails, it is no worse than other langauges and where it succeeds it is unique. Your desperate ploy to discriminate against english has been revealed. Admit the idea of culture is inferior. I don't care if this means admitting that your culture is inferior as it is irrelevant and obsolete. Only individual ideas and technologies are logical classifications.

>>64
>All of this will be changed when it is converted into a logical language and exist in other languages.

There's probably another popular and up-to-date language which would provide a better base for building a universal language on.

>International science conferences are held in English

Science conferences are held in other languages too.

>English is the most up to date in terms of definitions.

Not as much that it would really matter, if at all.

>Explain the relevance of the amount of times a subject has been discussed.

Makes you look like an idiot, bringing the same arguments up all the time and always getting the same answers, then just ignoring them and starting anew.

>It's all very well repeating everything I say like a 12 year old, but do you have any proof to back up your assertions?

What assertions? That you continue to bring up irrelevant details, then whine when somebody responds? You admitted it yourself.

>As you can see right in front of your face, where English fails, it is no worse than other langauges and where it succeeds it is unique.

Actually, where it succeeds it's not unique, as I've told you several times. But where it fails, it fails hard. See my pointers above.

>Only individual ideas and technologies are logical classifications.

And I don't agree with your idea of adopting a crappy language just because it's popular currently. Deal with it. Another language can be popular in just decades. If you want to create a universal language, it better be an elegant and consistent one.

>>65
"There's probably another popular and up-to-date language which would provide a better base for building a universal language on."
*I've checked, there isn't.

"Science conferences are held in other languages too."
*Yes, they use latin to create new words, but most major scientists need only know English to contribute internationally.

"Not as much that it would really matter, if at all."
*Language is composed of words which have definitions. Each definition is unique and will be required by users of the universal language. The more definitions the better. There is no point creating new words in Swahili for multitudes of definitions in english that already exist when you can just use english.

"Makes you look like an idiot, bringing the same arguments up all the time and always getting the same answers, then just ignoring them and starting anew."
*Prove it. What vital argument do you have that I have ignored. Shove it in my face like I shove the fact your culture is inferior in your face. I'm not culturalist, I believe ALL cultures are equally worthless, the definition of culture is illogical, why shouldn't I force you to see the facts that prove your culture is inferior if you refuse to admit your culture is inferior and let go of your idiotic self-harming superstitions?

"What assertions? That you continue to bring up irrelevant details, then whine when somebody responds? You admitted it yourself."
You assertions, here they are again..
"If you don't think it's important, you shouldn't mention it all the time."
"No, the reason is that you continue bringing the irrelevant details up because you lack real arguments."
It's all very well repeating everything I say like a 12 year old, but do you have any proof to back up your assertions?

"Actually, where it succeeds it's not unique, as I've told you several times. But where it fails, it fails hard. See my pointers above."
So you think English is not unique in the fact that it provides more definitions than other languges? Good. The next step is to admit you are making absurd arguments due to the severity of the emotions and your poor mental health. Knowing what the problem is is the first step in any healing process.

">Only individual ideas and technologies are logical classifications.

And I don't agree with your idea of adopting a crappy language just because it's popular currently. Deal with it. Another language can be popular in just decades. If you want to create a universal language, it better be an elegant and consistent one."
So why do you hate english so much? Becuase it is part of another culture and you believe it is your job to hate people who do not share your culture? Culture is irrelevant, all cultures are inferior. You must judge purely by the merits of a language. You have tried to prove English is inferior, but I have crushed all of your arguments and in doing so proved that you hate english. You are exactly like a racist.

>>66
>I've checked, there isn't.

You weren't even aware that English orthography is one of the most inconsistent systems in use. If you don't even know the language you're arguing for, it's safe to assume that you don't know much about languages at all.

>There is no point creating new words in Swahili for multitudes of definitions in english that already exist when you can just use english.

Yeah. Let's just use French instead, it already has all the "definitions".

>Yes, they use latin to create new words, but most major scientists need only know English to contribute internationally.

It's the least common denominator in many cases currently. Scientists still speak their native languages and scientific literature is available in all relevant languages. Might as well teach them German as a second language in the future, who cares?

>Prove it. What vital argument do you have that I have ignored.

I've destroyed all arguments you came up with. (English is simple, English is logical, English is the only language with a decent and up-to-date vocabulary... etc.)

>So you think English is not unique in the fact that it provides more definitions than other languges? Good.

You haven't even proved that English provides "more definitions" than other languages. (hint: word count doesn't say much here)

>So why do you hate english so much? Becuase it is part of another culture

You're trying too hard to bring "cultures" into this. What "culture" do you think I'm part of? All western countries have the same culture anyway. And I'm not a sand nigger or something.

>You have tried to prove English is inferior, but I have crushed all of your arguments

You've failed to come up with a single argument and people in this thread have exposed you as an idiot again and again.

>You are exactly like a racist.

Ha, I forgot. You're a nigger. Might as well argue with a brick wall. But I'll give you extra credits for posting on the Internet instead of raping white women on the streets.

"You weren't even aware that English orthography is one of the most inconsistent systems in use. If you don't even know the language you're arguing for, it's safe to assume that you don't know much about languages at all."
Orthography is a system of writing that can easily be changed or improved. No writing system is perfect or has been scientifically based as of yet, so your claim that English orthography is better or worse is due to your desperation to try to find a believable lie that English is a somehow terrible and awful langauge compared to others.

"Yeah. Let's just use French instead, it already has all the "definitions"."
But English has more definitions. Definitions are important, since what a word means is quite an important part of language. Why did you put "definitions" in inverted commas?

"It's the least common denominator in many cases currently. Scientists still speak their native languages and scientific literature is available in all relevant languages. Might as well teach them German as a second language in the future, who cares?"
A universal language will make it easier to communicate complex concepts.

"I've destroyed all arguments you came up with. (English is simple, English is logical, English is the only language with a decent and up-to-date vocabulary... etc.)"
So what were arguments you used which I have not defeated in debate?

"You haven't even proved that English provides "more definitions" than other languages. (hint: word count doesn't say much here)"
Yes I have. English is the most widely used language and is used extensively in world class universities and scientific institutions. Since you hate me for being black, at least listen to wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language
I would accept the argument that elements from other languages could be transplanted to the new universal language, however according to you English is inferior, whilst all other langauges are better. This is possible related to your racism, but I'm not your psychologist so I won't jump to conclusions.

"You're trying too hard to bring "cultures" into this. What "culture" do you think I'm part of? All western countries have the same culture anyway. And I'm not a sand nigger or something."

>>68
>Orthography is a system of writing that can easily be changed or improved.

Easily? Wrong. In the case of English in particular, many efforts have failed (see Wikipedia).

>But English has more definitions.

Provide detailed proof please. Please don't bother to reply until you can do this. Also, be clear about what exactly you mean by a "definition".

>Why did you put "definitions" in inverted commas?

Because you seem to use the term too loosely and I'm not even sure you know what you mean yourself.

>So what were arguments you used which I have not defeated in debate?

I only needed to falsify your arguments (listed in parentheses) or show that you made them up on the spot.

>A universal language will make it easier to communicate complex concepts.

Of course. But it doesn't have to be English. Are you following the discussion?

>So what were arguments you used which I have not defeated in debate?

Already answered above. Please try to pay more attention.

>English is the most widely used language and is used extensively in world class universities and scientific institutions.

You were asked to provide proof for your "more definitions" mantra here, not to repeat some of your other catchphrases.

>however according to you English is inferior, whilst all other langauges are better

I never claimed that all other languages are superior, however your only (somewhat) valid argument in favor of English seems to be that right now, English is a popular second language for many people. Unfortunately, this says nothing about the quality of the language itself. And since there's no pressing need (in fact it's impossible) to introduce a universal language in the next few decades, we might as well take some time and agree on a language that's not only popular at the moment but also isn't ugly, inconsistent and hard to learn.

>This is possible related to your racism

Racism is a natural and healthy thing. It keeps us whites from breeding with niggers who advocate a language on the Internet they haven't even mastered themselves.

>>69
"You're trying too hard to bring "cultures" into this. What "culture" do you think I'm part of? All western countries have the same culture anyway. And I'm not a sand nigger or something."

"Racism is a natural and healthy thing. It keeps us whites from breeding with niggers who advocate a language on the Internet they haven't even mastered themselves. "

etc..

>>70
?