Hello and welcome to the FAQ of Europe Lingua. Here you will find the answers to all the questions we can ask, whether it is about our structure, our project, and many more!
1. What is Europa Lingua?
Europa Lingua is a think tank whose objective is to promote the creation and setting up of a common European language in order to facilitate communication within the European Union, and to allow the appearance of a feeling of unity and common identity within the European Peoples.
1.1. What form would this language take? What are the criteria?
This common European language would be a built language, would synthesize European languages, would not belong to any state and would have no ambition to supplant national languages (it would therefore be a common but not a single language). Egalitarian language between men and women, it should also be modern while being representative of the history of European civilization. This language should finally be simple and natural in order to promote its learning and its diffusion throughout Europe, but also beyond its borders.
1.2. What type of action are you conducting?
This think tank promotes exchange and cooperation between different players in Europe — citizens, associations, NGOs, political representatives, etc — around this the idea of a common language. It is therefore a place of reflection, of the production of ideas and of debates, which aims to establish a common European language.
The association has no lucrative vocation and is apolitical. It wants to be independent and does not want to be affiliated with a party or a political personality.
1.3. Are there already potential languages for your project?
There are many potential candidates. One can think of inter-lingua, interlingual (western) or even esperanto. All are built languages that are intended to transcend the linguistic borders. We invite you to visit our Post "Tour de table of built languages" on our website for more Information.
But a new language can also be created. We have, within the think tank, made a proposal that would meet all of the criteria referred to in question 1.1. We propose in fact the Europeo. It is in our opinion a simple, natural, evolutionary, modern and egalitarian language. Whether in its creation or its vocation, the EUROPEO has the advantage of being purely European. All the information pertaining to the EUROPEO can be found on our site, take a tour!
We insist that the EUROPEO is only one proposal and one candidate among others. We are obviously open to other potential languages. It is just a matter of consolidating all these languages and their supporters within our think tank, in order to exchange and debate. The criteria that we have expressed in question 1.1 are also subject to debate. The objective of Europa Lingua is to establish a common European language in the long term. Whatever the form, it will be the result of the debate of ideas and concepts. All trends must be taken into account.
1.4. And why not Esperanto?
Esperanto is of course a potential candidate for the realization of our European Common Language project. Its vocation is also to transcend linguistic boundaries by adopting a common language. Esperanto has had direct and concrete effects in the history of Europe, and even today it is spoken by thousands of users. For all these reasons, Esperanto could become the common language of Europe and can be defended in this way.
Nevertheless, we believe that Esperanto does not meet all the criteria we have mentioned in question 1.1. Indeed, although Esperanto requires only 150h of learning according to the estimates, it is not "simple and natural" as we advocate. Moreover, it is not "an egalitarian language between men and women", or we believe that this is a crucial element today. It should be noted that Esperanto was created in the nineteenth century, a period that was foreign to these kinds of considerations. Finally, although the roots of Esperanto are European, its vocation remains universal, and does not intend to restrict itself to the borders of Europe. It is in particular from this observation of the necessity of modernity that we have decided to create and propose the EUROPEO.
But once again, Europa Lingua is a place of exchange ; Esperanto is not rejected but it must be discussed, as are all the other languages proposed.
2. Why not continue using English?
There are a number of reasons why we think that English is not the solution for communicating in Europe, whether it is professional, political or touristic. A real neutral and common language must come to replace it.
first, We should not continue to use English because it is unfair to non-english Speakers. english, Contrary to popular belief, is a difficult language to Learn. The Grin report, published in 2005, determined that 1500 hours of learning are necessary to be able to speak fluent english, 10 times more than a built Language. In addition, the British benefited greatly from their language, particularly in the political and trade negotiations. Think about your own discussions with Anglophones (british, irish, etc.). Do you not find that the exchange is not fair? Think about the negotiations, the agreements... The simple fact that anglophones use their own language in the professional environment directly induces a relationship of dominance that is favorable to them, and which for you is Unfavourable. The use of English also has a big impact on the cost savings of Translation. The Grin report also estimates that the use of English reports 15 billion euros per year to great Britain.
second, we should not continue to use English because it does not allow a real sense of common belonging on the continent. We would just like to see that a Hungarian and a Swede who find themselves in Spain do not speak to each other in English, but with a true common and neutral language. This would make it easier to trade and would make them much more natural. The common sense of belonging in Europe would also be much more important. Indeed, every civilization possesses, or has possessed, a language that unites its inhabitants. Think of Latin for the Roman Empire or Arabic for the Muslim Empire for example. English is not the language of Europe, but it has only recently become a privileged working language. In front of him, we firmly believe that a common European language would be a way of federating Europe and uniting its inhabitants. In the current climate we know, it seems urgent.
Third, we should not continue to use English because the United Kingdom has decided to leave the European Union. Indeed, with the Brexit, it seems unlikely to speak the language of a country that is no longer part of the union. Ireland and Malta remain the only countries of the European Union, but they have chosen Irish and Maltese respectively. Why should English be the majority language used in Europe? It is time to adopt a common and neutral language in Europe.
3. I do not want the French to disappear, do you want to replace the national languages?
Far from us the idea of replacing the national languages. We want a language so that Europeans can communicate with one another, but we want to preserve the linguistic and cultural richness of the European nations. So we want a common but not a unique language. In practice, the common language would be a LV2 taught in all schools in Europe. It would be used within the European institutions and could be used between European citizens.
4. With the technological progress and the emergence of more and more efficient translators, what is the interest of a common language?
Language is the foundation of culture. Beyond a simple exchange of information, a language allows the sharing of a conception of the world. In many cases, the exchange should be natural, and should not require an interface to be able to function. Although these translators are more and more often used in writing, do you really want to talk and chat on a daily basis using a machine?
5. It may cost a lot of money to this story...
on the contrary! A common language in Europe would be an economic opportunity. For example, translation costs account for more than 40% of the cost of running the European Union! The introduction of a common language would thus immediately eliminate these translation costs, and the unspent money could be reused in other sectors.
In addition, the costs of teachers and European language courses would be minimal. In fact, built languages are specifically made to be simple to learn and master. For example, it is estimated that only 150 hours of learning are needed to be able to speak Esperanto fluently. In comparison, English requires 1500. By a reduced learning time one obtains reduced costs.
In total, the Grin report estimates that the implementation of a common language would save EUR 25 billion, 000 per year, or EUR 50 per European per annum. Not only is it cheap, but the introduction of a common language would save money.
6. A built language, it never worked, why do you think you can reverse the trend?
You're wrong! Esperanto is the first built language that comes to mind, but it is not the only example of the so-called ' artificial ' language.
Built languages have already been adopted by a number of countries and have been very well internalized. For example, literary Arabic is a reconstructed language that is spoken by a large number of people in the Arab world. The same is the same for Hebrew, Swahili or Norwegian. These are languages that are based on pre-existing languages/dialects, and then have been rebuilt in a simple structure. This has made it possible to unify the peoples and to create cohesion in the political entities. This is precisely what we want to achieve with Europa Lingua: a common language that would synthesize the different European languages.
7. You would not be a little idealistic?
Any ambitious idea is first considered insane, then dangerous and finally obvious. The European Union was originally a wildly ambitious, idealistic idea. But it has gradually become reality. We believe that the European Union needs new ideas, because its popularity has seldom been so low. This is partly linked to the fact that the European ideal has rapidly become an economic pragmatism; The culture and the union between the citizens have been relegated to second place. The introduction of a common language would revive the European momentum and strengthen the common sense of belonging.
We work so that our crazy idea eventually becomes obvious.