Talk:Universal language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Overly focusing on religion?
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)
[edit] Interlingua propaganda?
I think the paragraph about Interlingua is not written from a NPOV. A simple link to Interlingua article would be sufficient. --FlorentGaret 19:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Does it seem to anyone else that this article avoids the fact that English is already becomming THE universal global language? It's the most taught second language, and is the main language in international politics, communications, science, sport and business.--72.139.35.107 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Needs Contemporary Focus?
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.