3 ms·
> You might only discover that something had value in hindsight. I completely agree. But we have data about many, many languages, lost and current. The chance
by sametmax 9y ago
> You might only discover that something had value in hindsight.
I completely agree.
But we have data about many, many languages, lost and current. The chances that those newly discovered ones bring something more than "oh that's nice and interesting" on the table are quite weak.
> Who knows what we could've learned from the destroyed works of the library of Alexandria?
This is a totally different scale. As I say, we must assess the potential winning vs the cost.
Currently, the science enthusiasts are saying yes to everything, and the people with money are saying no to everything. I find it harmful both ways.
- Mediterraneo10 9y ago"But we have data about many, many languages, lost and current. The chances that those newly discovered ones bring something more than "oh that's nice and interesting" on the table are quite weak." I can imagine someone saying this in the early 20th century. And then the decipherment of Hittite and discovery of Tocharian completely rewrote the history of the Near East and Central Asia. Just a few years ago, Werner and Vajda’s work on Ket finally connected a Siberian population with a Native American one. In fact, I could really go on for hours about how much Central and Northeast Asia history has been drastically revised in just the last 20–30 years from this kind of work. Digitizing manuscripts and analyzing data collected from little-known languages is one of the easiest and most cost-effective ways (especially compared to digs) to gain major historical insights.
- sametmax 9y agoI don't mean it's not valuable. I mean that which should always balance the cost instead of jumping on it.