3 ms·

Note the qualification of "small-er" languages: you are implying "languages which are still large enough that a translational layer is economically feasible. Sm

Note the qualification of "small-er" languages: you are implying "languages which are still large enough that a translational layer is economically feasible. Small languages (let me pull a number out of thin air and assume <20 million speakers) would still be doomed. Guess what: that means English, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian and Polish for Europe, everyone else kindly GTFO, we don't have resources for implementing your languages.

schoen 11y ago
Also German, Ukrainian, Romanian, and Dutch, and, if you count speakers who are geographically outside of Europe together with those inside it, Turkish.
personlurking 11y ago
Sorry, I don't quite follow your intended meaning, but I will try to expand on my initial comment below. If it no longer matters what language someone speaks, a language with fewer speakers than others wouldn't need to become extinct, as will happen without tech-aided interpretation. Of course, the viability of a language isn't solely connected to the ability for a native speaker to do commerce in it, but I would imagine it's nonetheless an important factor. From Wikipedia's article 'Lists of endangered langauges': "While there are somewhere around six or seven thousand languages on Earth today, about half of them have fewer than about 3,000 speakers. Experts predict that even in a conservative scenario, about half of today's languages will become extinct within the next fifty to one hundred years." I would hope that even languages with 3,000 speakers could be 'saved', in the scenario I propose (assuming a Wikipedic-style worldwide effort - in conjunction with the tech sector, governments and linguists - to get as many languages as possible implemented).
- Piskvorrr 11y ago
  Well, that's the "let's assume unlimited resources (inc. time), suddenly nothing is a major problem" scenario. The actual scenario tends to be "but you have a choice of all these 20 languages; are you just lazy to learn a proper language that's on the list?" My native language has about 10 million users, so I get this a lot (and consequently, most of my digital UX is in English - significantly less hassle for me).

schoen 11y ago

Also German, Ukrainian, Romanian, and Dutch, and, if you count speakers who are geographically outside of Europe together with those inside it, Turkish.

personlurking 11y ago

Sorry, I don't quite follow your intended meaning, but I will try to expand on my initial comment below. If it no longer matters what language someone speaks, a language with fewer speakers than others wouldn't need to become extinct, as will happen without tech-aided interpretation. Of course, the viability of a language isn't solely connected to the ability for a native speaker to do commerce in it, but I would imagine it's nonetheless an important factor. From Wikipedia's article 'Lists of endangered langauges': "While there are somewhere around six or seven thousand languages on Earth today, about half of them have fewer than about 3,000 speakers. Experts predict that even in a conservative scenario, about half of today's languages will become extinct within the next fifty to one hundred years." I would hope that even languages with 3,000 speakers could be 'saved', in the scenario I propose (assuming a Wikipedic-style worldwide effort - in conjunction with the tech sector, governments and linguists - to get as many languages as possible implemented).

Piskvorrr 11y ago
Well, that's the "let's assume unlimited resources (inc. time), suddenly nothing is a major problem" scenario. The actual scenario tends to be "but you have a choice of all these 20 languages; are you just lazy to learn a proper language that's on the list?" My native language has about 10 million users, so I get this a lot (and consequently, most of my digital UX is in English - significantly less hassle for me).