Talk:Universal language

message: The introduction and a good deal of the content of this article refers to the religious idea of a universal language - when it seems this should lean more towards contemporary debate between cultures and its use in fiction, etc. --Joewithajay 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly focusing on religion? 

message: I agree with the assertion that the article focuses too much on the religious connotations of universal language. This should probably be added to the article on Adamic language instead of this article, which should be about the modern concept.
Esparanza? Atificial contemporary 'universal' languages should probably be included here.
:Best universal language is of course Proto-Indo-European, because it once was Adamic language:  Wikinger 17:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Contemporary Focus? 

message: I was extremely disappointed not to see Mathematics listed? --147.70.123.22 (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maths 

message: Medieval Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese or Aramaic in post-Assyrian times are cases of lingua franca for a big region. They are not "universal language" because entire world doesn't speak them. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are universal language and [[lingua franca]] confused? 

message: "A recent philosophical synthesis has also connected Leibniz's interest in environmental engineering with Systems Ecology. It has been proposed that a modern form of Leibniz's Characteristica Universalis is the Energy Systems Language of Systems Ecology, which has been used to develop ecological-economic systems overviews of landscapes, technologies, and Nations. One consequence of this seems to be that Leibniz's Enlightenment project is alive and being applied globally in the evolution of ecological sustainability."
Seriously asking: WTF is this means? It is some postmodern rumble, without any actuall sense. --91.213.255.7 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Contemporary ideas' section 

message: Wow, for as much talk as there's been, you'd think the article would be less broken by now... of course, most of the talk was about a petty edit war over whether or not the Babel story was relevant, which can probably be traced back to there not being any clear consensus on what the article is even actually supposed to be about in the first place...
List of grievances:
1. It has no unified focus talking variously about trade languages, IALs, mythical languages philosophical languages, and others, without really any well-organized way of putting them together into a cohesive article.
2. Several sections are an absolute garbled mess. The Mythological Universal Languages section makes sense for about 1 paragraph before it goes insane. Also, the Contemporary ideas section is nigh-unintelligible from the beginning.
If no one objects, I might remove some of the mangled garbage from the body, but that alone won't fix the massive flaws which go down to the root of the article...
64.24.208.5 (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has multiple issues. 

message: Toki Pona is a constructed minimalistic language that recently became popular and has now an almost 15 years of history, though it wasn't meant to be an auxiliary language and its 123 root words are a bit limiting the language to everday situations only.
Unish on the other hand is an academic try for forming an international auxiliary language that is really based on more than a bunch European languages, taking in account also Korean, Chinese , Hindi and Russian.
Should we add these languages to this article or are they considered too unimportant ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.218.36 (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toki Pona and Unish 

message: :
Does this sentence mean that Renaissance Europe's ideas on the subject had no clear strands, or what? I hesitate to insult the writer by reading contemporary as a sloppy synonym for modern. —Tamfang (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seventeenth century 

message: Prof. Holger Gzella qualifies Aramaic as the first World Language in A Cultural History of Aramaic: From the Beginnings to the Advent of Islam. Not sure about Sumerian and Akkadian, but I believe these languages also shared degrees of universality for millennia. Artaynte (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aramaic ought to be included for sure 

message: Removed lines-
In other traditions, there is less interest in or a general deflection of the question. The written Classical Chinese languageis still read widely but pronounced differently by readers in China, Vietnam, Korea and Japan; for centuries it was a de facto universal literary language for a broad-based culture. In something of the same way Sanskrit in India and Nepal, Tamil in India and Sri Lanka and Pali in Sri Lanka and in Theravada countries of South-East Asia (Burma, Thailand, Cambodia), were literary languages for many for whom they were not their mother tongue.
Comparably, the Latin language (qua Medieval Latin) was in effect a universal language of literati in the Middle Ages, and the language of the Vulgate Bible in the area of Catholicism, which covered most of Western Europe and parts of Northern and Central Europe also.
In a more practical fashion, trade languages, such as ancient Koine Greek, may be seen as a kind of real universal language, that was used for commerce.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16AdityaG09 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed lines from introduction about “universal” but still regional languages 

message: "It could be said plausibly that mathematics is the universal language of the world that all are capable of understanding."  Aside from being unsourced, what does this even mean?  If it means that everyone does understand math, that's obviously false.  If it means everyone is capable of understanding math if they study it, then that's probably also true of any language, any scientific discipline, any religion, any philosophy, or any form of knowledge on earth.  2601:646:101:4D90:3952:302D:CFC8:D883 (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It could be said plausibly that mathematics is the universal language of the world that all are capable of understanding."