[kwhitefoot]

Who does that? Most people learn only their own language. A substantial number learn one other language, generally English. My own experience (bi-lingual Brit living in Norway working with people from 17 different countries) suggests that a very small proportion go beyond that. I'm excluding those who have a smattering of another language such as most Brits like me who had to take French and Latin at school but never got beyond being able to ask for a beer in a bar. Some of my Polish colleagues can get by in Russian as well as English but not many of those under 30.

[dpc59]

I live in Quebec. Everyone is bilingual (over 90% of the population). In my experience the only people who are mostly unlingual are people who's first language is something like english and they stay in english speaking countries (because you're bound to pick up a bit of other languages when travelling) or like mandarin staying in mainland china.

[GuiA]

> Who does that? Most people learn only their own language.

In 2002, the AP reported that 66% of children worldwide are bilingual. There are probably fewer people who speak a single language than 2 or more.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/06/19/language.glance/index.h...

[djKianoosh]

anecdotally I know several europeans where they know at least their language + english + at least one of (french, german, spanish, italian)

brasilians I know typically know english and portuguese and they dont want to admit it but usually they know spanish. they just prefer brasilian or english.

overall if we just all agreed on english as the universal language (imperfect as it is) then it would save so many smart people so much time from needing to learn and translate between so many languages.

just from an efficiency perspective alone, humanity would see a major benefit, I believe.

[pyrale]

> overall if we just all agreed on english as the universal language (imperfect as it is) then it would save so many smart people so much time from needing to learn and translate between so many languages.

> just from an efficiency perspective alone, humanity would see a major benefit, I believe.

I'm always surprised to see people accustomed to the world of computers say this kind of things. We know computer languages have different strengths, and we're often advised to learn some languages, not for the professional impact, but for the abstractions they teach.

In this context, I can't explain how people miss the fact that learning multiple languages is an enriching experience. And it is not only an abstract theory, considering the loan words every language has.

It is not only a matter of opening your thought framework, but also a matter of what ressource you have access to : the english language as we know it is very recent, and as a consequence, most of the world's intellectual output has been written in foreign languages. A world that switches to a single language as fast as we do is inevitably burning bridges with most of its knowledge.

Don't try to save smart people from diversifying their views, it's a bad idea.

[Alexey_Nigin]

I would like to point out that learning a computer language usually takes between a week and a month, while learning a natural one takes about a decade. I agree that knowing a natural language broadens the mind to some extent, but spending so much time to get such little reward seems a bit wasteful.

[richard_todd]

Exactly, that's why engineered auxiliary languages have always seemed like such a great idea to me (like esperanto or Novial). But, none of the offerings ever appealed to a critical mass of people. And, if I understand the history correctly, not-invented-here syndrome caused most moderate successes to splinter when people decided they could come up with something better.

[djKianoosh]

I deeply know the benefit of learning multiple languages. I know three myself. I was born in iran, and am fluent in spanish and english, so I have been exposed to all three cultures and languages all my life. I would love to know and learn from chinese, arabic, japanese, french, german, italian, portuguese, indian, american indigenous, etc.

Do we -all- have to spend all our lives learning -all- of these languages for us to communicate the greatness of each others' cultures and philosophies? Wouldnt it be better, given our finite time on this planet, to share all of these concepts more efficiently?

[pyrale]

I understand that there is a desire to make things as efficient as possible, especially in our group. Diversity for a large part, stems from different experiences, especially experiences that stem from diverse society values, though.

I don't see an easy way to get many growing and living cultures, and everyone sharing one language, cultural content, goals, etc. A society can't be homogene and diverse at the same time.

[selimthegrim]

George Steiner has a good bit on how the diversity of ways to make love must be amplified by the unique vocabulary around it in each language.