LESSWRONG
LW

All of Mo Zhu's Comments + Replies

Mo Zhu's Shortform
Mo Zhu10

In a vacuum, yes. But the implementation is harder. Requiring everyone to simultaneously change pronunciation and writing is more difficult than changing one or the other first. In Chinese, these two things can be separated. 

And in a vacuum, yes. But if you think a global language is worthwhile, you'd settle for pronunciation or writing first, rather than demanding both. So while it is a desirable feature of a global language, it is not a necessary feature. 

Reply
5MikkW
Alphabets are easy to learn, requiring perhaps two hours of studying to learn and apply the basics, plus a period of semi-passive absorption to more fluently master. Any language that uses an alphabet, especially one which uses the Latin Alphabet (which is widely known, even among people who don't primarily communicate using it) will have minimal extra work to go between written and spoken forms of the language, especially if the language is designed with the goal of a global language in mind.
Mo Zhu's Shortform
Mo Zhu40

Chinese is more suitable as a global language because using it does not require everyone to adopt the same pronunciation. 

Reply
-8garbageactual
9MikkW
One problem that I have with 中文 is that there's too many kanji that have to be learned. While this doesn't make it impossible for it spread beyond East Asia, it does slow it down substantially. A system that uses a smaller inventory of radicals, and generates all characters by combining them according to the meaning of each radical (as opposed to the phonetic wordplay that currently underlies the combination of radicals, which does not translate well into cultures not influenced by Chinese pronunciation) will be able to spread much faster than any current form of 中文.
1MikkW
The statement "Chinese is more suitable as a global written language" (i.e. 中文) is one I agree with, but "Chinese is more suitable as a global language" without specifying written is one that I'm inclined to disagree with, since spoken languages are still just as important as written languages, and I do not endorse Mandarin as a universal spoken language.
3Measure
I would think that everyone using the same pronunciation would be a desirable feature of a global language.
Who decides what should be worked on?
Mo Zhu20

I completely agree that execution and a culture of effective execution make a huge difference, but the "visionary" strategic stuff gets written about. 

But is there a distinction to be made here between high-level strategy/direction vs. mid-level planning and low-level execution? It's hard for me to imagine that senior leadership of a company w/ > 50 people just rubber stamps ideas from below. 

For example, senior leadership might say, "this year we're going to grow fruit" and they may accept proposals from below for bananas or oranges or apples... (read more)

Reply
3Aglaya Ivanovna
You're right - the reason they review it at all is to retain the power to reject unreasonable proposals (and sometimes to make slight tweaks based on information only they possess).  Sometimes they make the goals more ambitious, too. 90% of the time, though (and 100% of the time in my company's short existence), the proposals coming from below are almost exactly what they wanted - the communication outside of strategic planning exercises is sufficient to ensure that.