pheonixduprese

Does anyone here speak Esperanto? I speak a good bit of it, and Abdu'l-Baha hailed it, even requested teachers to send to Persia to teach it to the children.

I believe that it has potential, but perhaps not as the international language required, because of it's lack of Asian influences. A mix of Esperanto and Mandarin would probably be ideal.

Also, perhaps an international council of people could be set up to develop this language? I know, concepts that have been pondered again and again, but still.

arthra

I do hope you keep your facility using Esperanto.. Unfortunately I allowed my use of it to dwindle.

I believe there are many Esperantists in China.. They used to have a free Esperantist magazine.

There's an Esperanto section on Facebook..:wink

whine of astonsihment

My biggest problem with this is the resources it would require on a practical level. Ever since the EU chose English as its 'official' language, I can honestly say my soul has burned with the desire to see it taken to the next level and make it a global standard, with or without some minor and easy modifications.

It's already well-recognized as the unofficial international language of commerce, which is extremely important because this is what historically drives change in society. It's because of this that 'English as a second language' is already the most widely-taught in the world. The 'systems' to make it as easily accessible as possible to everyone are already in place - and I think the timing to make this happen will never be better than it is right now.

Baha'u'llah left the door wide open on 'how' humanity should go about achieving the goal of an 'international secondary language' because 'the spirit' of His message as I read it is: "DO this - do it NOW - it doesn't matter HOW"

The reason Esperanto never made it any further was because of the academic, political, and other ego disputes that prevented it from achieving any further progress as a viable principle. Abdul-Baha had no reason not to promote it for its value as just an expression of the spirit of this principle - perhaps in order to show how important our individual effort to express and bring the 'spirit' of this principle into reality was to Him.

However, when it comes to practical application it is another matter. I think it was no 'accident' that the Master sent Shoghi Effendi to the UK to study English in order to translate the Writings into that particular language because I believe French was actually far more widespread and accepted at that time as 'the second language one should learn'. Does anyone know whether the Guardian was fluent in Esperanto and whether he invested any time and effort into translating anything into Esperanto?

It think it's a nice idea but it doesn't really pass the cost/benefit test for me.

bwb

Here is a compilation of Baha'i quotations, by an individual Baha'i, about an international auxiliary language, if that is a subject which interests you:
Raw Quotes

"To a large extent this is also true of unity of language. The need for it is now recognized on all sides, as reflected in the circumstances that have compelled the United Nations and much of the non-governmental community to adopt several "official languages". Until a decision is taken by international agreement, the effect of such developments as the Internet, the management of air traffic, the development of technological vocabularies of various kinds, and universal education itself, has been to make it possible, to some extent, for English to fill the gap."

(Commissioned by The Universal House of Justice, Century of Light, p. 128)

The 6 "official languages" of the United Nations are English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic.

Yeshua

I find myself in agreeance with Whine. I feel that if there is to be an 'international language' that all human beings should speak fluently along with their own language, then it should be English. The British Empire practically built the modern world. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous territories. It spread democracy, human rights and Western values in nearly every corner of the globe. It built hospitals, schools, nurseries and much more. How many great world figures, such as indeed Shoghi Effendi, have been educated at British universities? The British empire has had a huge amount of influence on world culture, the English language being the main contribution. If it is not the first language of a country it is usually the second and in the few cases where it's not it soon will be. English will soon be the world language.
The worlds most spoken language is actually Mandarin but it is mostly confined to China, whereas English is spoken worldwide. Britain also basically 'founded' America, the world's main superpower (all the original founding fathers were of British descent), which adopted not only an adapted form of the English legal system and its secularism and fledgling democracy but also the English language. Through America - almost a 'New' Britain outwith Britain - the UK's influence in the world has been incredible.
The British Empire was the only time in human history that the world came even close to complete global unification under a single authority. Wikipedia says, "Decades, and in some cases centuries, of British rule and emigration have left their mark on the independent nations that arose from the British Empire. The Empire established the use of English in regions around the world. Today it is the primary language of up to 400 million people and is spoken by over a billion as a second or foreign language.[182] The spread of English from the latter half of the 20th century has been helped in part by the cultural influence of the United States, itself a product of the British Empire. The English parliamentary system served as the template for the governments for many former colonies, and English common law for legal systems.[183] The British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, one of the UK's highest courts of appeal, still serves as the highest court of appeal for several former colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific. British Protestant missionaries who fanned out across the globe often in advance of soldiers and civil servants spread the Anglican Communion to all continents. British colonial architecture, such as in churches, railway stations and government buildings, continues to stand in many cities that were once part of the British Empire. Individual and team sports that were developed in Victorian Britain–particularly ball games including several codes of football, cricket, lawn tennis and golf–were exported.[185] The British choice of system of measurement, the imperial system, and convention of driving on the left hand side of the road, were also retained in much of the former Empire."

Here is a list of British contributions to the world. How many could you survive without?

The English language (English is now the most widely spoken language around the world, and the official language of science, computering, aviation and diplomacy, among others)
The Computer (Alan Turing the father of computer science) and the World Wide Web (WE'RE USING IT RIGHT NOW!!!!!!)
The Parliamentary System (England was the first major country to have a parliament)
Banning of Slavery and Slave Trade (Britain was the first major country to ban the slave trade and slavery)
The agricultural & industrial revolutions (= modern world )
Mechanical inventions (railway, gas turbine, jet engine, automobile, etc.)
The Television (John Logie Baird)
The Electric Light Bulb (want to go back to candles anybody?)
The Telephone (Alexander Graham Bell)
The Radio
Radar
Discovering America
The Submarine
Viagra (well...it helps...yeah...ahem...)
Elastic Fabric
Greetings Cards (HONESTLY WE DID INVENT IT!)
Toilet Paper (we can't live without it!)
Thermos
Umbrella (steel-ribbed)
Matches
Electric Toaster
Flush Toilet
Vacuum Cleaner
Sunglasses
Stereophonic Recording
Carbonated Soft Drinks
Rubber Band
Tin Can
Corkscrews
Diving Equipment
Electromagnet
Fax Machine
Gas Mask
The Bouncing Bomb
Hobnobs, Maltesers and Jaffa Cakes (Come on...)
Penicillin
Periodic Table (CHEMISTRY BASICALLY!)
Polyester
Steel Production
Sewing Machines
Sharpnel
Economics (mercantilism, free trade, capitalism, liberalism)
Scientists & philosophers (Bacon, Locke, Newton, Darwin, Russell...)
Politicians (Walpole, Disraeli, Gladstone, Churchill...)
Parliamentary monarchy
Teas, jams and biscuits
Literature & Poetry (Shakespeare, Milton, Bronte's, Kipling, Dickens, Elliot, JRR Tolkien...)
Crime fictions (Agatha Christie, Sherlock Holmes...)
Children stories (Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, Winnie the Pooh, Peter Rabbit, Harry Potter, CS Lewis...)
Architectural styles (Norman, Tudor, Georgian, Regency, Victorian...)
Pop music (Beatles, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Queen)
Luxury cars (Roll Royce, Bentley, Jaguar, Lotus, Aston Martin)
Fashion (Burberry, Dunhill, Paul Smith, Vivienne Westwood, FCUK)
Oxford & Cambridge universities
Negative & colour photography
Sports (tennis, badminton, cricket, golf, rugby, boxing...)
Games (snooker, croquet, bridge, whist...)

However I think the greatest contribution that Great Britain made to the world occurred in 1940 and was described by the historian A.J.P. Taylor thus ...

Question ... What was the greatest acomplishment of Great Britain during World War II ?

Answer ... They kept it going !

So yeah, I think English should be the universal auxilary language.

nuone

This is why I think it's a bad idea to advocate English being a UAL. We in the west might not fully understand the lingering effects of colonialism, both economic and psychological. We shouldn't be romanticizing colonialism and imperialism. Great Britain's spread of democracy, AKA "the white man's burden" left profound scars around the world. English may be the Lingua franca, just as Latin, Greek and French were in the past, but a Lingua franca is based entirely on the economic, military and cultural dominance of a single group. This isn't the spirit that a UAL should be founded on.

Even with the wonderful intentions that everyone here seems to have, insisting on the adoption of English as a UAL can seen as a sort of neo-colonialism. As an attempt to supercede local culture. This is undesirable, even if English is the expedient solution.

Yeshua

I do not think that the West should be ashamed of its traditional influence in the World. The Nineteenth Century British Empire is not the modern Invasion of Iraq. The British Empire, like any 'Empire', had inherent dark sides. But the good outweighed the bad. We wouldn't have the freedom we enjoy today had it not been for Britain and the west, despite all of its defects. Our Western Civilisation must be defended at all costs, flawed as it is, unless we want to adopt the Iranian or Chinese Models. As Abdul Baha (who had a Knighthood of the British Empire) said:

"The British are always in power because they keep fair and promote harmony
...This is the path to universal peace here as elsewhere -- unity."

Britain never destroyed any of the native cultures it subsumed, unlike the Spanish and Portugese Empires.

You might like to read this article: Britain has no need to make an apology to India for Empire... | Mail Online

An Indian Briton, who still has family in India, says: "Britain has no need to make an apology to India for Empire" Why? Read it and see. Here's a taste:

"the fact that since 1947, Indians have built upon much of what Britain introduced them to - the English language, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and the protection of individual rights - is an admission of the crucial role this country played in their history. "

But he also points out the negative sides of Empire. However he agrees with me that Britain was on the whole the most positive 'Empire' in history.

Nevertheless I fully understand your reservations

Yeshua

Concerning the Knighthood Abdul Baha received:

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is an order of chivalry established on 4 June 1917 by George V of the United Kingdom. The Order comprises five classes in civil and military divisions. Abdul Baha was awarded this knighthood (KBE) on the 27th April 1920 by the British Mandate of Palestine for his humanitarian efforts during the First World War. Abdul Baha later sent his grandson Shoghi Effendi to study at the most elite British University of the day, Oxford. I say that constitutes a very intriguing and warm relationship between him and Britain, indeed between the Baha'i Faith and Britain. Shoghi Effendi, I believe, is actualy buried in London, United Kingdom.

Yeshua

I found this interesting:

Before there were any Bahá'ís in the United Kingdom, the first newspaper reference to the religious movement began with coverage of the Báb which occurred in The Times on 1 November 1845, only a little over a year after the Báb first stated his mission.[4] There was then a British mission in Tehran, Persia and it reported on the events regarding Babism during that period and after Bahá'u'lláh's banishment to Baghdad. The British consul-general of Baghdad offered him British citizenship and offered to arrange for a residence for him in India or any place he wished. Bahá'u'lláh refused the offer.[5] After being further banished from Baghdad, Bahá'u'lláh wrote an specific letter or "tablet" addressed to Queen Victoria commenting favourably on the British parliamentary system and commended the Queen for the fact that her government had ended slavery in the British Empire.[6] She, in response to the tablet, is reported to have said, though the original record is lost, that "If this is of God, it will endure; if not, it can do no harm."[7][8] In addition to newspaper coverage and official communications, in April 1890, Edward G. Browne of Cambridge University was granted four interviews with Bahá'u'lláh after he had arrived in the area of Akka and left the only detailed description by a Westerner.

It would seem to me then that Baha'u'llah, Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi all had very positive views of the British Empire and interestingly enough the events of their lives were often connected, in strange ways, to Britain.

nuone

It wasn't the most positive "Empire". Perhaps the lease negative "Empire". Imperialism is wrong. No good can outweigh the bad. Military conquest and economic exploitation is always inexcusable. The west should indeed be ashamed for colonialism. It's easy to play this game of apologetics and pretend not to see the problems. All we see is a parliamentary system in India. We don't see the attempts to stamp out local languages in the 19th century, salt monopolies created in order to economically control communities, massacres to put down dissent. We can't be blind to this history. To pretend it doesn't matter is to plan our own failure in our attempts to bring the world closer together.

As for "Our Western Civilisation must be defended at all costs". Against whom? China wont be invading the west. There's too much money to be made in peace. As their market continues to open up to the outside world their population will become more insistent on increased freedoms. Though that will take a while. Iran will continue to become more moderate over the coming decades. An entrenched reactionary leadership and military may be hostile but the populace is quickly growing tired of it.

Nationalism will not bring the world together in unity. It will put the boots of one part of the world on the necks of the other.

Yeshua

Hi Nuone :wub

Many leading academics in Western Universities espouse open Marxism and praise the Chinese Model of 'State Capitalism', disregarding all the brutality and authoritarianism of the regime in that country. As the world's next Superpower, possibly overtaking the West in the future, Communist China is a severe problem. People overlook it, but the amount of pro-Chinese, Anti-western attitudes being taught in universities around the world is appalling. As a student I've seen it first-hand. Western values of individual liberty, freedom of religion, sexuality, gender equality and freedom of speech must be 'defended at all costs' against the alternatives of 'State Capitalism', or indeed Sharia systems in many Islamist regimes in the Middle East and Asia. And I agree Imperialism is wrong. But the British Imperialism of the last two centuries in the long run led to a greater appreciation of democracy and freedom the world over. We should not be ashamed of our western values, legal systems and human rights. When compared with Islamic, Communist or other dictatorial nations in the world, the secular, democratic West looks like paradise. If we have any regard for the lives of people in Iran or China or North Korea, then we should actively be promoting these values and our culture, not be ashamed of it. Colinalism was wrong, but the Ottoman Empire also did it and it wasn't Western. China does it today in Tibet and it isn't Western. Russia did it in the Soviet Union days and imprisoned millions of East Europeans in Communist hell. All nations annd political systems are flawed. The West is however the most enlightened and best of these 'flawed' systems, and this should be applauded and encouraged. Imperialism was not just a product of the West. At the very least the West, especially Europe, has done much to tear itself away from Imperialism unlike the chinese, Russians, Iranians and others which still actively wish to endanger other nations and spread their ideologies and political systems (eg Maoism and Fanatical Khomeinist Islamism).

In saying this do not misread me however. Western Society is only the way it is today because of the morals and values it inherited from the Judeo-Christian tradition, an Eastern religious strand. The religions of Europe in comparison in the first century were largely pagan and barbaric, with the honourable exception of the great Greek philosophers and the democratic City State of Athens. Freedom of religion was first practised in Achaemind Persia under Cyrus the Great, not the West. I am not a blind 'pro-Westerner'. When I say 'Western values' I do not mean values generated in the west but rather common, humanitarian principles that lie in a variety of cultures and belief systems but for which ever reason have been able to flourish most fully in the West.

nuone

I hope I'm not coming off like I'm ashamed the west. I'm very proud of the culture I've inherited. I'm just cognizant that using force and coercion to spread that culture does much more harm than good. Whatever intentions we may have, we must never be blind to the evils that it will give birth to. Promoting values doesn't require coercion. Demonstrative action should suffice to promote values that are important to us. It's less reliable, but if we can't show that our values are worthwhile then maybe they're not worthwhile.

And it's not that I can't see that countries like China have imperial ambitions of there own. It's that I can't accept that the only solution is to play the same old game. We must find other options. I"m no idealist. I recognize the difficulty of finding new solutions, but we don't have a choice anymore. Cold War-style politics are inexcusable. The harm done to innocent is the worse kind of evil. War isn't glorious and forcing our culture on another isn't admirable. I wish I had a solution. As soon as I do, I'll write a book about it and get famous.

But back to the topic of a UAL, I see the positives in using English; it's already widespread, and I already speak it, but this is a political issue and a huge portion of the world will object to native English speakers taking the easy way out and it essence declaring their hegemony. An artificial language would be the most politic... It wont be easy and the it will take generations, but I can be patient if God can be patient.

Yeshua

Amen Nuone :wub I think we really are speaking from the same hymn sheet. I do not believe in aggressively 'promoting' Western culture or indeed the English language on other people. As to the latter, I just think it would be the easiest 'option', because of the widespread use of English as language of commerce and because Britain has had more influence and impact upon the world than any other country. As to the former, I firmly believe we shouuld defend our Western morals and values, our democracy and freedoms and encourage other nations to do likewise. However I do not believe in aggressively promoting democracy, as the US tragically did in Vietnam. The end never justifies the means. Democracy, the noblest goal, if it is implented by violent and reckless means, is not justified. I once wrote a dissertation back in my high school days on Grahame Greene's 'The Quiet American'. I warned about the dangers of an 'excessive' form of democratic idealism. The crux of my arguement was as follows (in my own words):

"An ideology no matter how noble a cause, can never be justified in practice, particularly when it supersedes the preservation of the common good and is implemented by means of force...Pyle is most definitely not a ‘neutral’. He is very much on the side of ‘democracy’, purporting to support increased freedom and human rights for the Vietnamese people...On the surface this earnest dedication to an ideal, freedom and democracy, is admirable...However Pyle’s obsession with democracy – just like his obsession with Phuong – turns out to be an end in itself rather than a means to an end...Pyle believes that the democratic end of his objective justifies the violent means he is employing to bring it to fruition. To him, the idea of a free and democratic Vietnam is far more important than the human beings who are intended to enjoy this future of liberation..."

whine of astonsihment

These are all just excellent posts! Such a wonderful array of perspectives - all valid and without condemnation or malice of the historical realities.

I have to agree with both of you as we have both the best and the worst of our national identities and cultures expressed in our history with others. It's a miracle the effect of primarily (but not exclusively) the English on the native peoples of North America has not caused them to go extinct altogether. I can't think of much benefit we had on them at all and if we hadn't been so 'holier than thou' arrogant toward our own beliefs, but rather, chosen a 'reciprocity of respect' to each other enough to perhaps even 'incorporate' some of the best of each others beliefs and cultures, the entire planet would be a much different and safer place today! Certainly from an ecological and environmental perspective for starters and I think this is generally true of most aboriginal cultures we've steamrolled over, who had much greater love and respect for nature than the Europeans. I'm sorry to say as one of them, that our greatest motivation has tended to be materialistic greed and lust for power rather than a genuine desire to enrich the world.

But whatever we may or may not have done in the past is less important than what we are doing in the present. This is what counts in my opinion. To advocate and agitate for adoption of English as a UAL without also putting equal emphasis on spreading only the best features of its origins and none of the negative would be rather duplicitous and hypocritical I think. But if we let the needs and expressed preferences and desires of the societies we wish to positively affect be our guide, I think most of them would have little reason not to unite on a decision like English for UAL. Their primary concern is the loss of their own language and culture.

If we adopted an additional standard like 'all must become at least bilingual' and English-speaking people who were not already bilingual agreed to learn a second language of their choice, it should bring us very close to unity on this one issue at least. We cannot just 'say' we believe in 'unity in diversity', we have to individually and collectively 'become' the change we wish to see in the world.

Beyond that, I still see adopting English as being the fastest and most efficient route to the ultimate goals we are striving for. Unity, peace, and justice.

arthra

Back to Esperanto..

It's fairly easy to learn and there are no exceptions to the rules..

but like any language you need to practise it regularly ... reading, listening to it and so on..

We are fortunate today to have more resources to learn languuage such as the internet .. than when I took some classes years ago..

Esperanto Resources

You can learn the Esperanto Anthem too...

whine of astonsihment

I have a very sweet 92 year old friend on the West Coast who would really love to have a recording of some Baha'i prayers in Esperanto. Any idea how I can find some for him? He would be so excited to have them!

arthra

Here's an English translation of the Anthem:



This is good Baha'i ideals

arthra

For you and your friend:


preghoj-U

Oh recorded prayers! That might take awhile...

LarryK32

Yeshua,
You can't really discover a continent if people already knew about it.

whine of astonsihment

Yes I know. I've been trying to find some since last year ... did I happen to mention he's 92?:unsure

pheonixduprese

*cough cough* I could maybe record some. *cough cough*

whine of astonsihment

I'm seeing butterflies dancing before my eyes my sweet young friend!:wub
Please do it as soon as you can if possible, he's not been very well at all the past couple of weeks and he really needs a boost .... I know it's a lot to ask from you and even more to ask from God, but that's never stopped me before and I didn't choose my 'Whine of Astonishment' ID without good reason.:wink
Either way, you are a treasure in my books!

pheonixduprese

Gah, I've lost my recording device... .

Also, I haven't been able to use the computer recently due to me being grounded from said computer, so... but I will definitely get on that, as soon as possible... I hope I'm not to late!

Clex19

Concerning Esperanto being the universal language:

whine of astonsihment

Don't worry about it phoenix. It's not that important really - and I wish someone would ground me from my computer for awhile!
My friend is turning 93 next week, God willing. I don't know how much time he has left but every day is a gift for him and his family - with or without Esperanto.

Eftekhar Be Khoda

The problem with choosing an existing language is that the fortunes of that language tend to rise and fall with the fortunes of the people who speak that language. I think the rise of China and India is going to change the lingual landscape within a generation or two -- possibly with the rise of either Mandarin or Hindi as the language of commerce.

If we had been having this conversation in the Age of Yeshua, we'd consider Greek or Latin

At the time of Muhammed, Arabic or Persian

At the time of the early Renaissance, we probably would have chosen Spanish

Now it's English, but I don't think it will always be so.

That's why an Artificial Language would be better. It's not tied to a national culture or people so the decline of a civilization would have little effect on the fortunes of the IAL chosen.

Besides which IALs tend to be a bit simpler to teach and learn than natural languages (spelling in English is tuff (er tough)) and there are numerous irregular forms in any natural language. Probably not simple to teach.

Personally, I favor Glossa, but Esperanto is a good language as well, and more comon.

cire perdue

It is extremely easy to point out the negative issues about the British Empire, however badly it began. We could all be speaking French. However it has been transfigured into something the leaders during its apex would probably not recognize nor find acceptable. I believe that Great Britain may have evolved more spiritually than one might realize. Though London is not the whole empire, it is extremely diverse. The recent riots contained elements which demonstrated it may have been mostly adolescent angst rather than about social injustice. There are many precedents there that I wish would be enforced elsewhere such as police without guns and universal healthcare.

If I am not mistaken the Chinese would love a more simple written language.

aidan

It is inapproprite o use The British Empire per se as an example for modernity.Some peoples still remember that it was the Britis wo invnted cncentration camp for holding enemy Boers without trial in inhumane conditions.It is however correct to cherry pick that which is good eg universal healthcareand just aspects of te legal system

Rani

E.B.Khoda quote:
'I think the rise of China and India is going to change the lingual landscape within a generation or two -- possibly with the rise of either Mandarin or Hindi as the language of commerce.'

Something I note, is, that I have a couple of Indian (not baha'i) friends on my facebook, and 95% of the time they write with their Indian friends on their Wall, in *English.
Also, I phoned one of them internationally. He was not expecting my call, but answered, while at his workplace, in English.

As Hindi has numerous dialects, perhaps that is one reason some find common ground with English.

cire perdue

Aren't there 250 dialects in India?

cire perdue

When translating Baha'i Writings at the World Centre the first translation is English and from English into the desired language.

Eftekhar Be Khoda

I stand corrected on Hindi, I was under the impression that Hindi/Urdu was much more common as a standard in India.

But one thing about choosing a native language is that as I said, the reason that English is a chosen langua franca at the moment is that English speakers are culturally and economically dominate right now.

At the turn of the last century around the time of the founding of the league of nations, France opposed the adoption of Esperanto because at the time they had fairly good reason to believe that French would be the world language. They declined and now English stands at the same spot. At the time of Jesus it would have been Koine Greek -- it was spoken all over the Roman empire -- even among the Romans it was considered a bad thing not to be able to read Greek. (the Jews translated the Tanakh into Greek at that time partially because the disporatic population spoke better Greek than Hebrew. I don't think you'd find very many beyond Greece and Classical Scholars who could read the Greek of Paul.

That's why I think choosing the currently ascendant language might be problematic. Eventually as the fortunes of the nations change -- and they will -- the language will decline in use as Latin and Greek did. Then you'll have to teach the language as a forgein one even where it was common before.

The other issue I have with choosing an existing one is that it puts whichever people speak that language in use those metaphors at an advantage. If I go to Japan I'll likely conduct business in my language (English) wear my national costume (business suit), and most likely using either an American or European currency as the basis. He must shift into my mental world -- my language, my culture, my coinage. I must adapt to nothing. I won't have to master bowing or worry about giving offese by bowing wrong, he'll worry about his handshake. I think it's an unfair start for those who must learn our ways to conduct business. At least Esperanto could level one part of that playing field -- we BOTH have to learn esperanto.

cire perdue

English language use is on the rise. I grasp that it is fair for people of different language backgrounds to both learn the 2nd, but the practicality of that matter is now against it. English is already the 2nd langurage nearly everywhere, perhaps not in 3rd world countries, but it is already in place. Esparanto is probably even more practical, but it is not in use already. The World Centre translates Tablets into English and then translate from English into the new language. The Chinese people are already invested in English. Why would they choose a third language. It is True that the West seems to be dominant, but that will fade, but probably not as one would think, b/c if America is brought down economically then China would suffer more. Who says China will obtain a truly dominant position in the same way that happened in the past?

Are Chinese dialects phonetic to their written language or are they pictograph concepts? I happen to think that English has already assumed the place of the world language whether we like it or not. I don't see India's dialects as having a chance.

One thing the British Empire started was an exchange between the mother country and all the colonies. It has continued. I think it is alredy a matter of it being declared. I still think the Chinese would probably prefer English when all is said and done............

Eftekhar Be Khoda

Who said that they'd go for esperanto -- they may choose Mandarin. And the language of Mandarin is not written phoenetically because there are so many homophones in the language that vary only by tone. So if I write the word MA in Latin Characters, without the tone, you wouldn't know which word I meant. If you type in the word "ma" (Chinese English dictionary - Online), you'll find that it can mean dragonfly, horse, to feel with the hand, a sacrifice to the war god, etc. It's not as simple as writing the word directly in Latin letters, although Pinyan is a good start. And they could very easily publish works in Pinyan Mandarin Chinese if they wanted to.

My quarrel isn't so much that English is rising now, but that we must assume that it will ALWAYS be rising. In another 100 years, it's likely to change, and I think a neutral language of some sort would be a better way to preserve and promote a universal culture because it will always be the second language and as a second language it's not as prone to rise and fall with the fortunes of its patron nations because it would be patronized by all nations.

Machine translation may make this academic at some point though.

cire perdue

I only disagree with your future prediction. I think English is already a done deal. It has been too pervasive. You could be right. I just do not think the Chinese will bring that language to the rest of the world. However I know zip about it. I did not comprehend what you wrote, and if it is that complicated, gee whiz, why do we want to do that to ourselves. At least in English you don't have to learn whether something is masculine or feminine like Francais.

I don't think English is as connected to the culture or dominance as you fear and it will be even less connected as it spreads. You forgot to put the Japanese in the running. What do you think outsourcing technical support calls is doing to India?

I upset a Baha'i a great deal, or rather his attachments upset him, when I suggested that Persian could be the universal language. If betting I am going put money on English, not that it validates any culture or such, but because it is so widespread.

Okay, I know more about why the Roman Empire declined, but I DO NOT know how Latin failed and became a dead language. Do you? By what date was latin dead? I'll go see Wiki!

The Media is another reason that English is being spread and also maintaining forms. We probably will not see the extreme differences in the language in 400 years from the mid 1800's like we do from the 1400's. Also the translation of the Baha'i Writings in English will continue to help keep it intact.

Eftekhar Be Khoda

I'm not a prophet, but what I'm saying is that history shows the same pattern over and over. Latin and Greek were once king in the West -- mostly on the fact that Rome valued both languages. What happened essentially was the fall of Rome and the breakdown of communication between parts of the Empire. Eventually, only the well educated spoke Latin or Greek (aside from muttering unknown words at Mass on Sunday) and later Latin and Greek were not taught in schools (I don't know the date, however I do know from reading the writings of Thomas Jefferson that he was familiar with Koine Greek and wrote about how to pronounce it based on poetry), but how many Greek speakers are there today? The Greek and Latin languages were replaced by Romance Languages or Germanic or Slavic languages in Europe and Arabic for the most part in the Middle East (because of the Ottoman Empire).

I doubt the fall of English will be soon, however if the Western World falls and communication fails, we could end up in the same situation again -- the "World Language" will be known by the elites and the effect of that will be the return of Language as a divider of mankind. Civilisations do rise and fall, dialects change and can eventually become separate languages. I see no reason to presume that such things cannot happen again.

kavaliro

Caution: this is long. It's a touchy subject once you begin digging into it. But it is something that needs to get discussed. I apologize in advance if I offend, and I welcome rebuttals.

It is in the top 100 languages spoken in the world. Particularly the Internet has increased Esperanto usage quite a bit. Not a day has transpired since 1986 or so that there hasn't been some sort of Esperanto event occurring somewhere in the world. There are a few thousand people who have Esperanto as their mother tongue. (these people are called "denaskuloj," or "members-from-birth" in Esperanto) The rumors of Esperanto's death have been greatly exaggerated...

It's been proven to work time and time again. There's over 100 years of proof. It's been used by the Red Cross in war relief efforts. It's been chosen and used for international scientific conferences, because it facilitates the information exchange. I could go on for days, but you get the point. The only reason it hasn't already been chosen as the universal auxiliary tongue by the U.N. is that (on two separate occasions) it was vetoed by a single security council nation. (Once by the U.S., and once by France.) It is being considered for adoption by the EU, and if that happens, the U.N. will likely follow suit. The question isn't "Will it work," the question is, "Is there anything else that can come close to working as well as Esperanto works?" The answer is no. Possibly something could be created that would work better, but nothing exists currently that is even close.

This is obviously not true. There is a university which only teaches in Esperanto. There are even a few public schools in the U.S. where it is taught, and the U.S. is not an Esperanto hotbed.

The fact that Esperanto is not being taught in public schools worldwide is particularly a Baha'i problem, because we we are commanded by Abdu'l-Baha to ensure that Esperanto is taught in all schools (Public schools and Baha'i schools at the least.)

There is even a published interview of Abdu'l-Baha by a non-Baha'i, where He discussed obedience to the command (here translated as "instructions," but in the Writings referred to as a command) by the Baha'i community! Here's an English translation:

The article can be considered "Kitab-i-hearsay," in that it probably hasn't been authenticated. However, it's not simply scribbled pilgrim's notes from a speech, but rather an actual published interview. In any case, it makes it clear that Abdu'l-Baha did command Baha'is to take a specific action regarding the language problem, and that the command was known even outside Baha'i circles (and common knowledge in Esperanto circles, still to this day. More on that later.) The commanded action is to learn, use, and facilitate the spread of Esperanto. It doesn't matter whether Esperanto becomes the International Auxiliary language of the world. Baha'is are still responsible for spreading it and using it, because that is the action which has been chosen to spread the fragrance of Baha'u'llah's command to adopt a universal language.

This instruction was reiterated by Shoghi Effendi. This Quote may very well be the most misunderstood Quote written by the Guardian, because for some strange reason, Baha'is tend to think the message is Do nothing, when in fact the message is Do exactly what Abdu'l-Baha instructed, but for Baha'i reasons, not Esperanto reasons.:

We can see that He was clearly admonishing a few over-zealous Esperantists who were (apparently) pressuring Shoghi Effendi to declare Esperanto as the international auxiliary language, But the actual instruction in the message is this:

what Baha'is need to do
and why we need to do it
Beyond that, the Quote is restating that the actual final decision has not been made regarding which language it will be, and that the decision was not given to Him to make, nor had it been finalized by Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Baha.

Note the timeline Shoghi Effendi gave for when Baha'is can relax from learning and teaching Esperanto:
Even though English is the Baha'i working language at the moment due to it's current lingua franca status (a decision which makes perfect sense), the Writings nevertheless indicate that Esperanto is intended to be the internal social language of the Faith, right up to the point that an international auxiliary language is chosen (which also makes perfect sense, and the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.)

And now, an ugly truth. It's the elephant in the room whenever Baha'is and Esperantists interface. The prevalent concept of Baha'is among Esperantists is that we do not practice what we teach. If we did, we would all be speaking Esperanto, because that is what Abdu'l-Baha commanded. I'm just the messenger, don't shoot! I know it's a touchy subject; practicing what we teach is part of the Baha'i identity. But that is the perception amongst Esperantists. It's a narrow view of the Faith, but it is the first impression of most Esperantists, and it's not wrong, even if it doesn't accurately reflect the truth about the Faith overall. My best response is that the Baha'i Faith hasn't fully matured yet. It's unsatisfactory and leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but that's the best I can come up with. I would love to hear a better response.

Well, what about English as an international language? I could go on for days on why English isn't a possiblity! There's an overabundance of disqualifiers, some of which are purely common sense, and some of which relate to the Writings. I'll limit myself to only three.

No non-English-speaking country would allow it to be chosen, first of all. That would permanently tip the political and economic scales in favor of the English-speaking countries.

Secondly, linguistically speaking, English is collapsing under it's own weight. It takes a decade to learn to the point of being useful without full immersion. Most "English speakers" understand English, but actually only speak pidgins. (Ebonics is an easy example, but it's one of many. Teens' speech is sometimes unrecognisable as even an English derivative.) The point is, what we typically speak really isn't English, even though it's called English. English is too hard even for English speakers to use! This makes it utterly unsuitable for international use. Yes, I know it is being used that way now. What can I say? The world is crazy. It's not because of any merit of the language itself. Which brings me to:

Thirdly, and most importantly, English stands zero chance of maintaining dominance. English is only dominant right now because of commerce. The U.S. is losing it's dominance economically, and China swiftly sweeping in as the next superpower. That, combined with the fact that numerically, Mandarin overtaking English regardless of commerce, indicates that, in 20 years time, we can expect to be learning Mandarin, unless a universal language is chosen within the next 3-7 years. It's very nearly a mathematical certainty, barring some paradigm-changing event.

Which language gets chosen is irrelevant. What matters is spreading the awareness of the need for an international auxiliary language. The tool Baha'is have been instructed to use for accomplishing this is, in fact, Esperanto.

All that (whew!) leads to this: The rote Baha'i response to to the language question is misleading and damaging to the Faith, even if it is, technically speaking, not exactly false. Typically you hear something like, "Baha'is believe that the world needs an international auxiliary language, but we don't promote any particular language for that role." That's not correct, in the same way that referring to a sphere as a circle is incorrect. A sphere is circular, but can never be a circle because it has more dimensions than a circle. The language issue is extremely multidimensional. The rote response above allows Baha'is to think they should do nothing about the language problem, when in fact we should be doing something specific. The most succinct response which (barely) conveys the right message that I have been able to think of is, "Baha'is promote the establishment of an international auxiliary language. It is a prerequisite for the establishment of world peace. The way we are instructed to spread awareness of this need is by using and teaching Esperanto, a language which may or may not eventually fill that role."

cire perdue

"the Bahá'ís are advised to study Esperanto only in consideration of the fact that the learning of this language can considerably facilitate intercommunication between individuals, groups and Assemblies throughout the Bahá'í world in the present stage of the evolution of the Faith."

You also say Abdul'baha commanded study of Esperanto. I do not see that.

You make very good points that I do not and actually cannot disagree with, but the above is very shaky. I know Baha'is who have thought being vegetarian was a spiritual duty. They get rabid. However I think Esparanto is a similar secondary issue right now. I think it is fine to support it and if that is your passion that is great. However just as Baha'is cannot get in the UN and work directly for world peace, neither do I think the time is right for Baha'is to focus on a world language.

Thank you for pointing out how hard English is, that is probaby due to its German roots rather than Latin base. I happen to think that focusing on the Ruhi Courses and what may, will, and can develop out of that is a great focus at this time. We still need to teach the Faith, learn to balance that with a family life, and consolidate new believers and not emotionally abandon them when they declare. It has always been my understanding Baha'is are not to make these things happen, nor will Baha'is rule the world. The change is an organic spiritual one, as we see in ourselves as we grow, so shall the world, because we have changed ourselves spiritually.

kavaliro

The "only in consideration of the fact..." part only specifies the reason to do it and the attitude we should take while doing it. It doesn't say only do it if you feel it will facilitate intercommunication..., but rather, do it, but with the attitude and understanding that we are doing it to facilitate intercommunication... Furthermore, the specification about the reason and attitude only applies in that particular stage of the evolution of the Faith. He certainly wasn't limiting the directive with that part; the "Pending this final decision" part was the time-limiter for the directive. Nor does it mean that it would only facilitate intercommunications during the stage it was written: that stage is long past. ("Stage" in Baha'i context basically means an (x)-Year Plan or whenever something significant in the Baha'i Faith changes. At the widest interpretation, the stage to which the directive was referring to ended with the passing of Shoghi Effendi. That's a completely different topic, but it's necessary to understand Baha'i timeframe terminology at least that much to comprehend the directive we are discussing.)

Although this particular passage is specific to Baha'is of eastern origin, It is nevertheless Authentic and does very specifically word it as a Command. In some places Abdu'l-Baha words it as a plea, in some as a call to action. It's a long study and I'm not going to reproduce everything here, but about one Quote in particular I do want to point something out:

I've heard that Divine Phiosophy is not Authenticated. I'm not convinced one way or the other as to whether it is Authenticated or not. So far, I've only found one reference by one person to a letter someone else read which Shoghi Effendi supposedly wrote. The whole thing seemed very convoluted and unsound to me. Hearsay, really. I've really seen nothing to resolve the question. This is truly a whole other topic, but it does bear mentioning that Divine Philosophy, although commissioned and praised by Abdu'l-Baha, may not be Authenticated. I wanted to point that out because that makes this Quote (and the Speech it comes from) less desirable in talking about this issue scientifically. Nevertheless, it is extremely interesting.

Hmm. Let me clarify what I'm trying to say. Baha'is should not be focusing on a world language. They should be focusing on incorporating Esperanto into their individual Baha'i skillset and thereby into the fabric of Baha'i culture. They should not be focusing on Esperanto as a world language. Their normal everyday use of Esperanto will cause the spread of the idea of a world language.

Also, I not suggesting any action or inaction by the Administrative Order. It's simply not my place, but even if it were, I can't think of anything I would do at that level. This action seems to me to be up to each individual.

What I do want to encourage is scientific research into what the Writings say on this subject. I want to encourage Baha'is to start talking about it.

It's kind of like Haquq'u'allah in that people need to do it because they become awakened to the call on their own. It seems to me that it has to be a grass-roots thing, where the Baha'i hive-mind becomes aware of the responsibility and simply does it. For that to happen, people need to start discussing it.
One metaphor is that Baha'is are like candles lighting the way for the rest of the world. Another is that our prayers and actions spread the Fragrances of God. The implication I get from that sort of metaphor is that whenever something happens which advances mankind toward spiritual progress, that light comes from some action or prayer of Baha'is, that fragrance wafts from the deeds and prayers of Baha'is; in other words, on a spiritual level, advances for mankind will only happen based on some Baha'i action. The Baha'i action germinates the spiritual seed which grows into the blessing for mankind. The action isn't necessarily the obvious action, but rather doing the things we have been called to do in the Writings. I know that's a tad bit meta for this conversation, but that's what I believe. It's my opinion that the catalyst Baha'i action which is necessary in order for the world to be blessed with a universal auxiliary language is that we begin to follow Abdu'l-Baha's command and simply learn Esperanto. We don't need to push it as the auxiliary language--that's undesirable, actually. We simply need to take Esperanto and make it our own, using it in the ways that Shoghi Effendi mentioned in the Quote at the top of the post.

Finally,
It is the last two sentences which tell us that Baha'u'llah obligates Baha'is, along with all others with insight and understanding, to actual action on this subject, and that it's not optional. Abdu'l-Baha laid out the specific action plan. Shoghi Effendi cautioned us not to overstep the action plan by trying to force Esperanto to be chosen. So you're right in that we aren't supposed to "make it happen" in the sense of running out and telling the world "Esperanto is the international auxilliary language!" But we are not supposed to be sitting back doing nothing, either: we are very simply supposed to be incorporating Esperanto into our everyday Baha'i lives, so that the people of the world can see our example. It brings to mind this wonderful Quote:

cire perdue

Well, I've adjusted my attitude a little. Three of us Baha'is are reading THE COMPREHENSIVE DEEPENING PROGRAM, and I realized that English is tough. It takes years to become proficient. Also we have things like uniform, and uninformed that are really tough. I had 1 year of Latin and 2 years of French in high school. French is probably tougher than English. I think Latin is easier than English.

So does a Persian Baha'i pioneering in China have Farsi, Arabic, Chinese, and English keyboards? I bet Esperanto would be a breeze. I saw a new study that children with multiple language learning at a young age had better developed brain skills/processes, but may have low vocabulary in both languages.