Language creates scientific isolation. I would involve even more competent science translaters, e.g. not only to translate books (which is frequently done), but also well appreciated review papers that were published in top journals (which is rarely or not done).

I think many colleagues would like to have such a computer programme.

This is a very, very old argument that will never be resolved. It goes back well before the creation of artificial languages and was one of the major reasons for the creation of Esperanto and Volapük, neither of which succeeded in the end. There were scientific journals published in Esperanto and some of that literature was reasonably good.

My personal view is that languages that are very simple (basic English, basic Spanish before you get into the subjunctive and conditional forms, Bihasa Indonesia and Malay) are simple for a reason, and that is that they are living expressions of a dynamic culture, and tend not to be standardized (despite the Academia Real) or fixed in vocabulary. They tend (like Chinese) to rely heavily on context and inference rather than grammatical particularity (yes it really is a word, meaning reflecting highly specific characteristics and meaning - see what I mean?). The best language for scientific communication, in my opinion, is one that is highly concrete and accurate, unambiguous, but still conveys nuance and shades of meaning very well, regardless of the difficulty of grammar, and does not change much except to receive new technical vocabulary which it can easily absorb without changing grammar and important verbs.

Latin was almost perfect for all these reasons, but it's gone. Academy (not colloquial) French was pretty good, too. German, being a synthetic language (pieced together by Luther from Lower Saxon dialects and the artificial legal language used in the Holy Roman Empire days), was also a good fit. English? Well, it fits in terms of nuance and expressiveness and has a remarkable capacity to absorb new vocabulary while retaining a loose grammar informal expression. We could do worse for a scientific language.

For the time being, this is argument is a dead end. English may some day be replaced by a better choice for scientific purposes but more likely if it is replaced, it will by the language of a politically ascendant power, whether or not that language has any advantage in technical communication.

Dr. Guidotti,

Thanks for your thorough and distinguished mini-essay with the little historical overview.

I agree almost in everything with you.

It was fascinating when you characterised as the best possible scientific language, the French:

“accurate, unambiguous, but still conveys nuance and shades of meaning very well…”

I do stress that I have not even thought on simple basic languages. I emphasised clearly that strong cultural and scientific backgrounds are conditions for a global language.

To your last argument on the possible new scientific international language: we can wait for the next empire which with economic/political power will “dictate” it. We can agree: an international language has never been a question of choice by democratic ways or logical decisions. However, the triumphant empire’s idiom must have had some advantages.

I agree with András Bozsik. However, from my point of view, the english sounds very good as scientific language for several reasons: simplicity, intuitivity, and mainly because is used in different countries around the world. During the last centuries (first french and now english, as scientific lenguage for articles) we are accustomed to it, so change it now would cause more problems than solve others...

Would you define what you mean by "script"? I thought I knew until reading your characterization of each language ("OK" vs. "easy"??)

I am sorry I was so careless.

I did mean script = writing, written form.

OK = originally All Correct(ed) historically written by people with elementary education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okay).

I thought OK would not be as easy as easy “easy” could be. I am sorry this was an absolutely subjective characterisation attempt.

I am waiting for your own classification and opinion.

For me, from the perspective of latinized characters, script would be easiest if there were no accented characters (diacritical marks). For this then, Italian and English would be easy, while French, Spanish, and German would be "OK." [my subjective interpretation] Where this would come into play is where the presence or absence of accented characters makes a difference in the meaning of the word/sentence.

Math must be one of the most important languages of Nature. If we could better understand Nature we would have another culture. There is only one concern: mathematics - at a certain level - is more difficult than Chinese or Arabic.

I remember a short story of Jorge Luis Borges when an Inca (Quechua) priest decoded the secret of universe from the spots of a jaguar at a Spanish jail.

The short story of Borges cited by Andràs is "The God's Script", from The Aleph. In this short-story, the protagonist, who can decoded the secret of Universe, prefers silence and says:

"May the mystery lettered on the tigers die with me. Whoever has seen the universe, whoever has beheld the fiery designs of the universe, cannot think in terms of one man, of that man's trivial fortunes or misfortunes, though he be that very man. That man has been he and now matters no more to him. What is the life of that other to him, the nation of that other to him, if he, now, is no one. This is why I do not pronounce the formula, why, lying here in the darkness, I let the days obliterate me."

Beautiful story, really...

The problem with math is that the variables have to be assigned a meaning, which gets one back to needing a natural language. Interesting discussion.

Dear Federico,

I like this story as all other stories of Borges and propose to everybody to read and try to understand them. Thanks for the opportunity you have evoked these immortal lines of Borges.

All language should be welcome depending on your ethnics and culture but english is welcome due to language 85% of the people in the research community use but the most important is the contribution to knowledge and its application of such research.

Not only most of people speak English Today, the language, comparing to the other you mentioned, has a great potential in Science. English is easily adoptable to Scientific writing and also highly compatible to Math. Those characteristics in which I can not easily find in Spanish or Arabic.

Dear Amir,

Please, ask a Spanish or Arabic mathematician.

English has characters originated from the Latin. Spanish language may have the same.

In my opinion the best language for science and for communication between scientists and professionals is the one that in a historical moment of humanity existence prevails over the others. Currently is English, but this language was not before the predominant language and science and literature were written in other languages.

In the future maybe the language that will prevail is another and then it will be used in written sciences and for communication between people, no matter whether it is easy or difficult.

Dear Jorge,

You have written that you believe in the historical evolution process of scientific languages which has nothing to do with their value or suitability.

This may mean that Dr. Pangloss was right: humans lived and live in the best world of all possible worlds.

Dear András

Language has no value as such, it is a mechanism of communication between persons. In my opinion, several languages can be used for scientific purposes, for example the Spanish or the French or the Geman, just to mention a few of them. I recall you that the international scientific community knows very well important German speaking scientific as well as French speakingscientifics. Others languages like the Chinese language or the Arab languages are more complicated to use but for the Chinese and Arabic scientific communities this are the best languages form them. Another matter is the language to communicate scientific progress. The suitability of a specified language is closely related to the historical moment we are living. Today is the English language, tomorrow who knows what will be.

Dear Jorge,

Value of a language may not be a fortunate expression. Instead of value, expressiveness, accurateness and unambiguousness with a rich vocabulary would be better.

I think that suitability of a specified language is not really closely related to the given temporal moment which is determined by totally other facts and features. Of course, one should first determine suitability for what? When suitability does mean the best possibility for scientific communication as such, my question has a raison d’être.

If the “Muhlenberg” or “German vote” legends are true there was a chance for the German language to become the official language of the USA. Interestingly, these legends have been opposed so vehemently by the English speaking side and it is difficult to find reliable evidences that nobody knows what was true?

Playing with the historical chance there might have been some likelihood for an imaginary event and regarding the butterfly effect, now we could discuss and correspond with each other in German.

http://maxkade.iupui.edu/adams/chap7.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhlenberg_legend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Muhlenberg

So much about the suitability of a scientific language formed by linguistic “evolution”.

I'm not sure what the topic has to do with the characteristics of an ideal scientific language, but it is not true that German was an alternative to English as the "official language" of the United States. The US has no "official language" designated by law and never did (although the Senate passed such a law a few years ago; the House did not so it did not become law). But there is a tiny grain of truth to the legend. In 1795 there was a bill introduced to translate existing US federal and Virginia laws (it originated in Virginia) into German for the convenience of the German-speaking minority. It did not pass. At the time German was spoken widely in Pennsylvania and also in scattered German communities elsewhere, and much of the privileged landowning class (like Jefferson) could read it (and also French and Spanish) but it was never spoken by more than a small minority of the population or widely in the country as a whole. It was not like Spanish, which is not only widely spoken in the US today but was historically the colonial language of much of the country.

All languages in my opinion are equal. No language is superior over the other. The basic function about languages is for communication. The choice for a particular language will therefore depend on your audience.

Dear Dr. Guidotti,

Thanks for your comment. Certainly, what you have written as a grain of fact, was known for everybody looking a bit at the question. What I have written was only an imaginary game with the possibility adapted for our situation. However, it is strange as I wrote, the vehemence of opposing this “opportunity” and also the hiatus of availability of evidences. I would like to note that in 1795 the number of German speaking people in the USA could be higher than that of the Spanish speaking minority these days. And also the excellent knowledge of Germans was highly estimated. Of course, German was spoken among German immigrants and their children not to speaking about a lot of other European immigrants who could speak and understand German.

Dear Elvis,

Of course, all languages are equal from legal or liberal point of view. But I think Orwell saying should be considered “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”. However, I think there are important differences between languages look at the try of classification of the original question

A lingua franca is not based on what is best but rather on that what is used the most. In the past it was Latin but today it is English, generally speaking. Obviously at conferences that are restricted to a particular region where everyone speaks a common local language they use that one. However, for good or ill, English has come to be the lingua franca on the international stage. This is an artifact of history and isn't based on the intrinsic value of English for scientific pursuits.

Reade,

There are facts (artifacts) and there can be imagination, desires, logical conclusions and theoretical opportunities for a better choice.

If I may comment .... bad English unfortunately seems to be the world's Lingua Franca.

I keep being puzzled by the number of pretty bad speakers I come across who nevertheless (sometimes smugly) aver that English is easy ....

This false but widespread prejudice leads many to not put in the requisite effort to learn it properly, and hence to totally miss out on the wealth of vocabulary and many shadings of nuance that can be expressed in English

The English lexicon is close to a million words (OED) , by far the largest of any other language.

Moreover, its grammar does not actually seem so straightforward, as evidenced by the so-many mistakes that are so common on international forums ....At the end of the day, maybe it does not matter much which language is used, provided it is learnt and used properly. There would be no much point in swapping, say, bad English for bad German ....

Language is only medium of communication. We can use as many as we wish but aquisition of knowledge is the asset for science. We must have something to communicate.

Language creates scientific isolation. I would involve even more competent science translaters, e.g. not only to translate books (which is frequently done), but also well appreciated review papers that were published in top journals (which is rarely or not done).

Dear All,

I am aware that my opinion is a partial European view. I thought always that the best language should be a culturally developed dead language. For me this is the Latin. Long time ago Linnaeus had no choice in the Netherlands when he had defended his dissertation or wrote and published Systema Naturae.

Regarding our age, I think, the Italian would be the most suitable – from point of view of the characters I mentioned above. I stress this is a biased European standpoint.

Marcel is right. Language (I would add: a single dominant language) creates isolation. Englishmen and Americans with their comfortable single (dominant) language knowledge may isolate themselves and decrease their own opportunities to recognise the knowledge written in other languages than English.

What is the relationship between language and the community of readers (citizens, scientists, decision-makers.... )? Perhaps citizens prefer local languages, decision-makers, like politicians, are assisted by translators, English is an efficient tool for scientists....

Marcel,

That was the German, too...

Of course. Different science disciplines have/had different language traditions...

Dear all, I really would prefer german, because I could use this very differentiated language I really master perfectly. But I know the reality, I think it´s english. Sorry for all the wonderful other speeches.

Dear Hanno,

We are chatting on opportunities and try to assess objectively the "ability" of languages per se and not the influence of politics. And If even the streets will be plastered with English books I will prefer Goethe, Villon and Maupassant. Of course, I like very much good English belles-lettres.

To answer this question, you may have to consider what your purpose is and who your audience are. Science is important to every people group so for its benefits to be fully appreciated you need to communicate your findings and discoveries in a language your target group would appreciate. if it is English, so be it but if it is other languages too, and it would serve your purpose why not.

Dear Kennedy,

The question was to evaluate which language suits best general scientific communication. Please, find a determined opinion.

Hope it will be italian!!

But I don't think so. Perhaps english is the best choice.

Dear @Andras, in the following article attached What type of Science Communication best suits emerging countries, many questions were raised. "...to paraphrase New Scientist, we could say that China, India and Brazil are or can aspire to be the three new “superpowers of knowledge”...China, India and Brazil are three great countries that have set out on a path, impetuous at times, towards development both in terms of economy and scientific culture. Thanks to these countries, as well as many others in Latin American and Asia, a historic turning point is occurring in the geopolitics of research.Modern science with the sole and partial exception of Japan, has been until now a transatlantic reality

(between Europe, including Russia, and North America), but is becoming an Indo-Pacific reality as well. In other words, it is becoming truly global.

In these countries of new scientific frontiers and emerging economies, a significant system of the public communication of science and technology is also coming about."

Regarding the offered choice by your thread, I agree with your arguments about Latin, but my choice is English, as I was forced to study it for 10 years, and to attend Ph.D studies for 2 years in USA.

Dear Ljubomir,

I can understand your point. However, sometimes one tries to indicate what would be the fair and better way of an approach than that of the pure and egoistic - but internationally accepted - interest.

English, of course.

English is the best choice for global reach for the time being. Many authors  are writing scientific articles in their regional languages. But,  these articles need not gain attention beyond that region.  

http://www.cwts.nl/tvr/documents/avr-language-scientometrics.pdf

Dear All,

Many people said similar things on the Russian in Eastern Europe about 25 years ago. Many say now, it is time to learn Chinese…

Dear George,

It is not a battle only an opinion.

Dear Mariano,

I think that Italian would be the best solution regarding the common sense.

Dear Jane,

What do you mean on plain English?

Dear all, even if we can find an ideal (from the formal point of view) language, we can't replace English in world-wide scientific, and not only scientific communications. Esperanto was one of the attempt, but this language didn't become widely accepted.

Dear @Jane, thanks for very good resource. You are right, it is about crystal-clear communication! 

"'All politicians are guilty of slipping into jargon - and all of us deserve scrutiny from the Plain English Campaign. Complicated sets of initials, official jargon, bureaucracies that over-complicate things to boost their own self-importance - all of these things help to build barriers between government and people.

When important information is being provided by officials or government departments, that is especially serious. So I congratulate the Campaign on all it has achieved to date, and wish it well.'" - David Cameron MP, Prime Minister

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/about-us/quotes.html#charles

Dear George,

This is not a fight but a discussion. It is not on acknowledging of political and economic power of a nation but the suitability of scientific expression and communication.

I agree dear András,

my care would be the diversity and complexity needed by a new lingua franca. The scientific english, german, french etc developped in centuries.

Dear Hanno,

Very well, diversity and complexity are the points. I would fancy a multi-language publication system like in the first half of the 20th century. Being a European, for me an English, German, French publication system would be more just and correct than the present English (American) dominance. Unification may cause defencelessness and impoverishment of the communication.  

Yes dear András,

and our actual scientific language uses such strange expressions like "Eigen-value" from the german Eigenwert (Hilbert), or "Bremsstrahlung". I´m sure we have a lot of additional examples.

Dear Hanno,

Yes, I used to smile reading German and French words in English texts.  

Yes András,

this is the central problem with a scientific language. You need clear definitions of items and ideas then you you can talk totally strange expressions. Most important is, all collegues in your field understand.

Dear George,

Please, allow me to correct your indication: not the English language has won but the American political and economic power and interest. This is the difference…

Think the originality of ideas, research, scientific works or knowledge contribution is more important than which languages were used to develop it.  Because we can always translate the scientific works or knowledge from the original language to other languages to the best that we can.

Dear Han,

Agreed. The ideas are really important though the way, ideas go to the receivers, has a crucial importance. The most original and valuable ideas expressed in an unknown idiom can approach but an insignificant minority. Yes, scientific results can be translated but many of them will never be translated and which have been but done with a long delay.      

András, 

Thank you for telling about this thread. And thank you for offering such vibrant comment on my current question. To your question, I am biased in that I am a native English speaker. However, I like you, am partial to German and Italian having lived in Europe for nine years in Germany and Italy. My genealogical roots have a strong background in these language groups so I also follow your similar conclusions.  Thanks for great discussions.