Languages should be documented but not specially preserved for the sake of preservation. Indeed, we need dictionaries of current languages so that we can later study cultures of the past which are currently being written in languages that are yet to go extinct, however, all languages stem from a single language and along with globalization, neologisms and blending of vocabulary, a single language will ultimately emerge.

Originally, there was an original language, yet as societies divided, new words were created – predominantly through brands (Coke), neologisms (Cyberspace) and cumulative error (different phonetics of Chinese characters between regions). New languages are therefore an offshoot of the original language and as the lingua franca absorbs these languages and make them extinct, a variation of the original language will eventually arise.

The point of learning more than one language, therefore, is: 1) thinking in different languages gives us different perspectives; 2) learning two or more languages will result in a blend that is a step closer to the original language; 3) the original language will arise naturally and should not be chosen (i.e. Esperanto) – everyone learning two or more languages will create an empathy of academic struggle which will make everyone more amiable as they share a common background. 

----------

Edit: 12th Apr 2021

Grice's Razor: Address what the speaker actually meant, instead of addressing the literal meaning of what they actually said.

Unfortunately, due to the drawbacks of language a writer/speaker's intentions are not efficiently conveyed and are often muddled by reader/listener's interpretations. Additionally, as soon as the writer/speaker has finished conveying their message, their own intentions have changed as they are influenced by the flux of human nature and influence of the natural world.

I.e. 

X wrote A with the intention of conveying B.

Y interprets C.

Y asks X if their intention is C. 

Because language has drawbacks, X hears Y asking if their intention is D. 

X thinks D and B have striking similarities, actually, the more X thinks about it, the more connections they seem to have (which is a possible effect of 'meaning-making') and ultimately concludes that they must have had D in mind when writing A, although at this point, this is unprovable.

X, therefore, tells Y that they did interpret D (or E at this stage depending on how well language conveys X's response). 

In effect, B becomes E which may or may not be originally interrelated. The point is, language is the spirit of Puck (A Midsummer Night's Dream) and therefore is not efficient. However, as Puck, language is the taint of chaos in an otherwise ordered system that catalyses progress. As a result, isn't misunderstanding, unprovability and overall confusion an asset?

Why is it so necessary to be accurate when the key to life is not about the beginning, end or journey, but rather about the company that one travels with?

----------

Edit: 20th Apr 2021

"The Intentional Fallacy" - once a piece of work is published, it no longer solely belongs to the author. Ownership belongs to all, therefore, the aesthetic of a work / literary analysis is not completely relevant to the author's intention or intended meaning. 

"The Affective Fallacy" - once a piece of work is absorbed into the public, individual emotional response is not completely relevant. A reader's personal reaction is not a fully valid modem of literary analysis. Also see 'reader-response' school of literary theory.

Subsequently, a piece of work does not fully belong to the author, nor does it fully belong to the reader - it is a mutually shared idea. 

I.e. The curtains are blue.

Author's intention - blue represents endless skies and foreshadows freedom.

Reader's response - blue represent current melancholy and the impact of depression.

Both are equally valid, but both are simultaneously wrong. Once the work is published, responsibility is shared and therefore both author and reader waive the right to define the work.

Before forming prejudice, it is therefore important to understand:

1. Epistemic contextualism - we are all (sub)consciously affected by our surroundings which impact our works. Also language changes and so does its meanings.

2. People are volatile - especially their sense of self. What I believed yesterday isn't guaranteed to be the same as what I believe tomorrow. Therefore, a piece of work is a snapshot in time, encapturing the essence of an author who used to exist but is now fundamentally different. As soon as a work is published, the author loses ownership.

3. A work is meant to be shared - it is a form of communication. However, language is flawed. An interpretation will not always be the same as the intention, and the original intention cannot be guaranteed due to the author already not being who they were. A work is, therefore, a piece of history and is thus only an influential piece of material. It is a tool.

4. New Criticism and Reader-Response both are valid, yet both are irrelevant. The value of a piece of work is in its intrinsic value. Just as a parent and friend have different values for the person in between. A parent might have tried to mould the child in a certain way, yet the perceived effect by the friend is different. But both parent and friend are unqualified to define the person in between. 

----------

Edit: 10th May 2021

Silence is violence.

Well yes... to a point. 

Free speech must be advocated, but people have the right to remain silent. The problem is not inherently with silence, but with judging silence as a default for agreement. Some people remain silent out of fear and other idiosyncratic ethical values, however, silence should never be judged as agreement nor disapprovement. Instead, silence should be given the opportunity to speak on an anonymous platform without coercion.

Afterall, there is more than one way to communicate.