I think there were too many errors in the book as well. Although learning all the languages in the book would be difficult (but certainly not impossible, except perhaps with respect to Phoenician given that we don't have enough extant material to fully know it), certainly Ostler could have had specialists quickly fact-check the various chapters.
His assessment of why languages like Egyptian and Chinese don't catch on is pretty accurate. Large, populous and xenophobic nations with extremely complicated writing systems do not create a vehicle for the dissemination of language. While it's amusing to watch all the soccer moms try (largely in vain) to teach their children Chinese, it's clear that Chinese is not going to displace English as a language of global trade, finance or science - ever. Some other language may displace English in the future, but not Chinese - ever.
You kind of make it really obvious that in a Sino-Anglo unified society, English would be the common tongue, even if people were sufficiently familiar with Chinese to quote it and use it for decorative writing.
Languages spread and endure in book-based religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) but not in other types of religions (like Buddhism or even Hinduism).
Languages really aren't spread because of trade.
Cultural domination spreads languages but the strength of that spread is tied to the ease of learning the language.
Empire spreads languages, but those imperial languages will only remain after the fall of the empire if there is some other utility to them.
That's it, really.
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
