Universal languages are cool. They are really simple in phenomena, but powerful. The idea that you can communicate with anyone in the world, regardless of their language or country of origin or upbringing, because there is a shared understanding of something core to humanity.
Grief, for example, is universal. We all cry, all mourn, all fret. Awe is another. Hand gestures, too. The arts, like dance and music and paintings, can certainly be understood by everyone (we might derive different things from a work, but we can appreciate them nonetheless).
Another interesting universality is English. Now I think this is up for debate, whether the English language is truly universal. Because there are most certainly communities where English isn’t known or understood. But whether it should be evokes a very strong negative reaction in me. I see English as a cultureless, history-less bland script with no character or charm. English to be seems blunt and utilitarian, spoken only because it is useful. It doesn’t celebrate beauty or tradition, it is just there for when it is needed. I feel I might anger historians by saying these things, and perhaps it is because I think English displaced my use of my parents’ native language of Hindi that I have complaints to air. Maybe this is a personal dispute. But nonetheless, I don’t think English needs to or should because another universal language of the world. We have enough as is.
Indigenous: something that is innate. Or, to be nature or native to a particular place.
Leave a Reply