[Casiopea]

I'd like to join in, but before I do, I wonder if you would be so gracious as to answer a few questions?

In what way are we "experiencing information overload" today, and how is that different from how we dealt with information overload in the past?

Even computers are facing difficulty with memory challenges and new search engines like Google are adapted to more effective ways of information storage and retrieval.

. . . are adapted [by "creative" computer engineers]. There's a "human" factor: Language is creative because of its engineers. History - pick up any English dictionary - is telling. How many speakers know every word in a given English dictionary? In other words, how does "information overload" related to English as a lingua franca?

Academic language takes refuge in nominalization.

But hasn't it always? Wasn't, isn't the scientific approach the most efficient means?

Our present languages are not prepared to keep pace with such density and speed not experienced before and I don't know whether our memories and brains can accomodate and cope with these developments.

I'm still not clear on, 'density and speed not experienced before.' Could you elaborate?

If not the Standard or a variation thereof, what language do 'new speakers of English' speak, and what would be the linguistic - or political - purpose in speaking, say, a form of Chinese-English that non-Chinese don't speak and can't understand?

First, dominance of English to the "disadvantage" of other languages and cultures.

How does English become dominant? Would speakers stop speaking their L1, and if so, why?

Second, loss of linguistic identity.

True. Language is culture. But it's going to take more than 20 or so years, not to mention more than a language to "rip this gun outa my cold dead hands" - to borrow a phrase - and that goes for every culture; e.g., Quebec. Haven't you missed the human equation here? Language may be culture; i.e., We are Our Language, a First Nation's saying, but did they lose their identity once their language was moribund, or did they create a new identity, one that housed both the old and the new? And isn't that design similar to what English has evolved from? English is not a "pure" language. It's a linguistic soup, made from these languages, those language, and more languages over here and there. English accommodates . . . or maybe it's its engineers? What about the "human" factor?

Third, English will change in its new role to accomodate other cultures and languages.

What would the syntax look like, and would speakers be able to understand each other? I gather at that stage that English wouldn't be a lingua franca anymore, right? It would be many new dialects or sorts.

. . . we will save a lot of time and energy spent on translations and removing communications barriers.

See, this is what I don't seem to grasp. If English changes to accommodate other languages, then how will its speakers communicate with each other? Say, English is adapted to Chinese, wouldn't we have to know Chinese, too? Moreover, how would the grammar work? The two languages are very different.

You and me can communicate freely and quickly through the medium of a global English. We have already reached the age of more direct and instant contact, communication and travelling.

How is that different from what we do today?

It's a fact that a Global English is already underway to overrun many a language.

Could you give an example; Why would L2 speakers give up their L1?

In addition, natural languages leave room for ambiguity which still might be very useful . . . but can be a source of misunderstanding.

Misunderstandings are, for the most part, a matter of perspective. Being open-minded has a great deal to do with having experienced a situation from someone else's perspective. The medium is the message, right? Paintings, poetry, music, and languages differ because there are various ways of expressing how we perceive the word around us. Why give up creativity? What's "human" about digitized paintings, poetry, music, and language?