On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 09:50:24 +1100, Cheng Zhong Su 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Maybe you are right. According your idea, no language
>should be an international language. For any ways,
>English could not be an international language in the
>future. And people always want speak their local
>language. But the only chance to be an international
>language could still be the Chinese. Unlike the
>European language the Chinese language has spread in
>the history neither by the military nor the economy
>power. In ancient time countries like Japan and
>Vietnam just sent student to China to learn it. The
>strange thing is the in the history many times some
>minority ruled this country. They had their languages
>but their language didn&#8217;t assimilate this
>language but this language assimilated theirs.

Sellamat Cheng!

Chinese is not the only example of language that did not spread through 
military or economic domination. Sanskrit, though India was not united before 
the Moghols, spread up to Cambodia and Indonesia because of the brilliance of 
the Hindu civilisation. Even French played an proeminent part in countries (ex: 
Russia or Sweden) that France did never conquer nor dominated seriously 
(Russian nobles were already fond of French before Napoleon tried in vain to 
invade Russia). Latin or Persian kept having a huge influence on vast areas 
long after their corresponding empires had disappeared. 
Those examples can bring to auxlangers a small light of hope, that their drafts 
may gain success without military nor economic coercion!