A language that everyone memorizes

1)If you don't realize the obvious limitations in modern society that prevent the implementation of an entirely new language across multiple societies, I question your ability to even participate in this debate. All of the culture in the world would have to be translated, textbooks would all be obsolete, parents would have to relearn an entire language or risk becoming separated fro their children or friends, and the economic weight of all this would be enormous. And that's just off the top of y head: I' positive there are other ore pernicious and even ore serious ramifications of such as switch. And, considering the weighing mechanism I introduced in y first statement, these limitations alone are enough to condemn this action. However, for the sake of argument, I'll continue. 2) You see to have misunderstood my point. I was obviously not suggesting that an /entire/ country switching languages would hinder understanding more than it already is hindered: that would be preposterous. No, my point was that, due to the limitations outlined above, many countries that have multiple regions within themselves that are of different economic levels would be fractured into regions that have the economic capabilities to learn the new language and those that don't. This, as I stated above, would only further hinder understanding between people, even amongst those fro the sae country. Your other point, that dictionaries could be used to translate between languages actually hurts your position due to the fact that it underscores the logistical and economic weight of switching to a completely new language, as would be required to produce these new translation dictionaries. If translation dictionaries are going to be required anyway, why bother switching? 3) The significance of this point is that, as the language becomes bastardized by the different regions throughout the world, it would be harder to understand across cultures, defeating the purpose of a new language. 4) Again, you see to be misunderstanding my point. My point here was not that the language itself would be lost: I obviously understand that the language would be preserved to some extent. No, my point here was that much of the culture of a people is tied up in its language. Take the Eskimo, for example: they have around 50 words for snow, each with subtle but important differences to their meanings. The cultural damage associated with such a loss of unique human perspective would be catastrophic, not to mention to the exponentially higher losses when the fact that all other languages, and therefore cultures, on earth would have similar losses, and this becomes a much greater issue. People would be forced to choose, especially in monotheistic societies, between isolating themselves fro the rest of the world or condemning their native language and culture to obscurity and eventual atrophy. 5) Yet again, you have missed my point. Here, my issue with your premise is the fact that languages come in families. This new language would have roots of soe sort that would benefit a certain region or country, and this fact causes it to be prejudicial towards one of these, and therefore not fair to all. 6) I'll admit that I don't completely understand your response. Perhaps the Tower of Babel fable was a bad example: what I was actually referencing was the tradition throughout history of trying to consolidate languages, first at the tower of babel and more recently with Esperanto, a language of the type you're defending, that never caught on (most likely because people and governments recognize the limitations of modern life outlined in my first point). The failure to develop a world language, basically is what I'm trying to say, is not for lack of trying. 7) My point here was that the different accents of the world would corrupt the world language and hinder understanding in emergencies. See point number 3. 8) Your premise for "debunking" my point was that it is possible to keep hold of a language. However, as I said, the transformation of a language fro the primary one in a country to a secondary one would see the loss of soe of its words and the context of the language. Look to ancient Latin for this: having been transformed fro the primary language to any people, it is now considered a dead language and with it, i'm sure, much of the Roman culture would be lost. The development of a world language would be a strong catalyst for making many languages become dead languages. 9) In this point, I was referring to the fact that, due to the tendencies of any schools to teach only one language, the children and parents, only one generation apart, would be separated and lose a vital understanding of one another, inhibiting proper development, just one ore negative effect of this hypothetical world language. 10) In this, i was not saying that it wouldn't be possible for specific words to be translated. I was referring to the fact that much of the original literary intent of any works might be lost in translation as all of humanity's works would have to be re translated. Also, re translating all of it would take tie, and a generation or two might lose out on some amazing literature fro thousands of years of the human experience. I agree with my opponent on some of the benefits of this proposed new language. However, as of right now, I don't believe that the benefits at all are balanced with the terrible costs.