Re:I think it's a good thing (Score 2)

You are correct regarding Latin, except that 2000 (or even 1000) years ago, communication was a bit different from what it is today: you wouldn't buy in London (or say Lutetia, I am not sure if London existed 2000 years ago) a newspaper published in Rome, or telephone your girlfriend in Bombay...

Today, we have instantaneous access to whatever is said or written in the most remote parts of the world. This is certainly a major factor of "mondialisation" (don't know the word in English). In other words, there are and will be differences in the way a "universal" English language will be spoken and written, but the core of the language will be and remain reasonably universal, at least enough for everybody to understand the general meaning.

Interestingly, the major risk of deviation exists in the USA, not elsewhere, because most Americans don't know foreign cultures, don't care for them and are happy to distort their own language beyond recognition. Compare the English spoken in 1940's and 1950's American movies with the standard language spoken today in many US states. The old movies were speaking a language much closer to the Queen's English than today.

As far as other, non-native speakers of English are concerned, they need some standard model to adhere to, and this model will probably not be South Dakota farmer's English. Rather, it will be a sort of universal English as taught in the school, with possibly little reference to American or British culture.

I prepared my own website in English, because I wanted it to be accessible to the largest number, even if my 75% of my visitors are French speakers. I could have done it - with lots of efforts - in Spanish, which is claimed to be the second language in the world after Chinese and before English, but I know I have a better chance to be understood in English than in Spanish.

This is just pragmatism.