Back on topic though, does the internet need it's own language? I say no. Broadly speaking, a language is useless if it is confined to a single medium. While there have been kinds of languages that do not have a spoken form, such as Inca Knot messages, they have obvious deficiencies for everyday communication.
What is needed instead is not necessarily a complete international universal language, but perhaps something of an intermediary language, that software systems can translate one input language into, then translating the result into the desired output. This is preferred over direct translation because of the many obvious and often hilarious problems that occur doing to overlapping meanings and spellings.
Lojban seems likely in this regard, as it's the sort of language a Computer would like, if not a human.
Esperanto, on the other hand has the benefit of being immediately accessible to anyone, with students able to learn it quickly from California to Vietnam. The only problem being that the creator of the language decided it necessary to create characters like ĉ, ĝ, ĥ, ĵ, ŝ, and ŭ, the reasoning for this arising from his One Phoneme per Letter rule, rough approximations of these being Ch, like the J in Judge, ch as in Bach, as the g in Beige, Sh, and ŭ being roughly equivalent to the english w in Ow.
The ĝ and ĵ do sound rather alike, the difference being that ĝ begins with the tongue against the roof of the mouth, while ĵ does not.
The benefit of all this being that you will never not know how to pronounce a word, there are no strange pronunciation rules as in French, English, and German.
Author
Topic: Does the internet need it's own language? (Read 4366 times)