What do you think about this? Should there be an official European Union language? If so, which language should it be?
Since
Esperanto failed to take off in the European Union, I suppose it is wise to adopt a more established language as the official one.
I certainly have no problem with the chosen language being English, since that is my first language. Dont know what the more nationalist folk of the EU countries would feel about it though.
Reply to this Why only one language? Why not choose a few? It's not that hard to print documents in several languages...several countries do it all the time for their government documents.
Reply to this I'm surprised French wasn't chosen, as it's spoken in Belgium and Switzerland (and Luxemburg?) as well as in France. English will appeal more to Scandinavia, but it's only spoken as a mother tongue in Great Britain, which hardly embraces the EU.
I suppose English is convenient for corresponding with the United States and China.
J.
Reply to this Why only one language? Why not choose a few?
To simplify things, I suppose. As well as that, it would give people a definate language to focus on learning, instead of needing to learn 3 or 4 to communicate within the EU.
I'm surprised French wasn't chosen, as it's spoken in Belgium and Switzerland (and Luxemburg?) as well as in France.
But, the EU are close Allies and important trading partners with the US.
Reply to this Thiz iz a wonderful idea.
English is the de-facto language of international business and politics - it iz a surprisingly pragmatic move by the EU.
The EU seems to be loaded down with a vast amount of inefficiency - currently every document has to be translated into something like 12 languages.
Having just one should mean that they can reduce the amount of money collected from member countries and reduce the amount of paper wasted.
There is a difference with documents that politicians and bureaucrats are required to read and understand - where English would be fine - and those that everyone living in the EU should be able to understand - where multiple translations are worth having.
Reply to this Actually, I'm surprised French wasn't in the running either...isn't French used in the UN? I suppose the two aren't that related.
Sure, picking only one language would simplify things, but having bilingual documents isn't much more expensive simply because each government would have to pay to translate the English into their languages anyways.
I have yet to hear of any government that really has reduced paperwork!!! 😊
Reply to this In a sense it will make travelling easier, but I also appreciate each soverign state having their own language as well. And you can only appreciate it trying to fumble your way through a phrase book, trying to ask where the nearest toilet is. I too would have thought that perhaps French or even German would have been one of the preferred languages, but I guess the cost rationale of having one tongue (e.g. not having to make 12 different documents) makes sense.
Reply to this The name of the website that Mell links to gives a useful insight:
i.e. it's a joke. Reply to this I snipped the link, because it doesnt work. Please repost it, if it is relevant to the topic.
Mel
Reply to this Too good to be true - the costs of translating all the vast amounts of paperwork into all member countries' languages is hugely expensive as Ali pointed out. Shame Mel's post was a hoax. A deliberate one I assume?
Reply to this 
