🚀 go-pugleaf

m9548@abc.se (Kjell Rehnstroem) wrote:
>Phil Hunt <philip@storcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Some people think that it would be a good thing if everyone in the EU
>>could talk to everyone else (or at least, if more people than at present
>>could). To do so, they would need to speak the same language. The most
>>efficient way to make this happen, would be if everyone settled on a
>>language designed to be easy to learn (for example Eurolang, or Esperanto, 
>>or Interlingua, or Novial).
>
>>However there is no point in someone learning such a language, unless
>>everyone (or a lot of other people) else does.
>
>>Therefore the best way to settle the issue would be to have a Europe-wide
>>referendum, as to whether the EU should adopt an IAL as its common second
>>language. (The referendum cxould be multi-choice by AV, with the languages
>>mentioned above, and any language nominated by a member state or group of 
>>MEPs considered).
>
>>This would settle the issue democratically. If most of the people of 
>>Europe wanted an easy-to-learn common second language they would get one,
>>if not, they would not.

In the past, some people have argued that , to live together in harmony,
Europeans needed a common religion ; if a vote had taken place, I guess
what the result would have been, : The French, the Italians, the Spaniards
would have at the time imposed theirs on the, then, much less numerous
northern ones.

On such matters, do you think the "dictature of the majority" is the
best way ?

Freedom of speech in one's own language is by far as important as
freedom of thought, given the strong dependances between language
and thought.

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Marc Bonnaud
page TAM-TAM : http://PersoWeb.francenet.fr/u/mbonnaud.html
courrier : mbonnaud@francenet.fr
TAM : Toile d'Araign�e Mondiale
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++