A Stitch in Haste

From the book on linguistic history I'm currently (sorta kinda) reading, regarding the comparative use of Greek versus Phoenician in the Mediterranean regions prior to the rise of Rome:

The cultural undertow was thus running strongly in favor of Greek. And in fact it is possible that, despite its users' commercial prowess, Phoenician or Punic had never been widely used as a lingua franca or even as a trade jargon outside Africa. The language of trade is, after all, perforce that of the customer, rather than that of the merchant.

I had never considered that before, but it's generally true. No matter how wonderful your product or service may be, and no matter how much market dominance you may have, it will still be difficult, if not impossible, to sell to a customer whose language you don't speak. A great product means nothing if you can't explain to people how great it is.

And it really is for the most part unidirectional. I have no desire, nor should I desire, to learn Portuguese just to see whether there are any cool Portuguese (or Brazilian) products to buy. The Portuguese (or Brazilians) have to reach out to me — in English — as a potential customer.

Meanwhile, I as a businessman have to reach out to the Portuguese (or Brazilians) in their language — as potential customers. They are simply not going to learn English just to make it easier for me to profit from their business.

More:

The Phoenicians and Carthaginians, notorious as shrewd businessmen, must have been pragmatists; like their modern analogues, they would have focused on the practical utility of a means of communication, and chosen a language accordingly.

Now compare and contrast the view of the "pragmatic" ancient businessman with that of the "enlightened" modern politician, who thinks not in pragmatic terms but in political terms, and is often perfectly willing to engage in the most unpragmatic catering to multilingualism.

All the arguments in favor of adopting the language of the customer ought to work in reverse for government. Government is not a business, hoping to win customers and therefore required to accommodate them or their language. Government is the one institution that has a captive audience and a guaranteed "customer base." It need not and ought not yield to language barriers.

It is inefficient and costly for Microsoft, or Wal-Mart or the local pizzeria, not to bear the burden of multilingualism. Exactly the opposite is true for government: it is costly and inefficient for it to be anything other than monolingual.

Finally, we all know that the classical version of the Greek language was preserved over the centuries and even to this day. But what about Phoenician — the language of the "shrewd" ancient businessmen? Sadly, unlike Greek, Latin or Hebrew:

There was no tradition to preserve Phoenician or Punic texts, and so they perished with the papyrus on which they had been written.

All linguistic power, like all market power, is fleeting.


---

English as the lingua franca of the world? It's not even the lingua franca of England!