> What does the Leo community think about this?
What do I think of it? I think it betrays an astounding ignorance of the history of natural language change, and the fate of constructed languages (such as Esperanto, Volapük, Interlingua, etc.)
Norms for language change legislated by governments or other ruling bodies have rarely worked, or even been influential, except where absolute dictatorial power was available to coerce such change (and even then, mostly on a written or orthographic level, rather than vocabulary or usage).
I see nothing wrong with trying to devise sensible English-learning materials, to promote understanding between "a Kenyan and a Korean trying to navigate a business deal", but this is not the same as trying to codify rules for a language, giving it a name, and so on. The people at Berlitz, (Rosetta, fill-in-the-blank), might say they have already done so.
The latter seems to me more a (quixotic) reach for either riches, as someone else has already conjectured, or fame and glory within an academic field. I strongly believe they will succeed in neither goal, but end up on the trash heap of failed utopian language experiments.
Yes, Wikipedia has a Simplified English section, they claim 10,391 articles. If it helps people learn English, great. The main (English) Wiki claims 1,319,964 articles. Which one will you actually use, when you want to look up something?
C.C. writes, 'Why is the world going along with [English]?'
'The World' isn't an organization like the U.N., deciding at the top what the world must go along with. 'The World' is six billion or so individuals making individual decisions on what's best for them. Ask each of them why *they* go along with it, and if you spot a trend, maybe that's your answer.
I'll start with you--why are you going along with it by asking your question in English?