4 ms·

Languages don't die; people do. Languages are tools for communication, but communication always happen between two people. There's a great book called Language

Languages don't die; people do. Languages are tools for communication, but communication always happen between two people. There's a great book called Language in Thought and Action, by S. I. Hayakawa, where he discuss topics like this. I've put together some notes on that book if you happen to be interested: http://alvaroduran.com/language-in-though-and-action http://alvaroduran.com/language-in-though-and-action

tuukkah 7y ago
A language needs to develop hand in hand with and by the community that uses it. If the community withers, the language withers. I suppose you can try to bring a dead language back to life in a new community, but that's academic, artificial and distinct from natural languages. [Edit: I don't want to say it's black or white but that the discontinuity probably leaves at least a scar in the language and in the community depending on how carefully the revival operation is performed.]
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  That seems a little circular? If all it needs is a community, and you 'bring it back to life' in a new community, then the language has all it needs to be 'natural'?
  - tuukkah 7y ago
    It's not a community but the community. When a language is dead, how do you learn it to native proficiency without native speakers to help you? What does it mean to a child to learn it as a mother tongue when it's not the mother tongue of the parents or anyone else alive?
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      By study and from records. People have been measuring language for a century by now.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I suppose you can try to bring a dead language back to life in a new community, but that's academic, artificial and distinct from natural languages. How? If the evolution of language in continuous use with s community is natural, so is it's revival by one (e.g., spoken Hebrew.) Dividing human behavior into “natural” and “artificial” is arbitrary.
  - tuukkah 7y ago
    Hebrew seems to be an interesting example as it's claimed to be the only succesful revival. I don't know much about it but it sounds like the community dispersed to later re-unite and also that the revived language exhibits some discontinuities (which have or will fade with time). The difference between natural and artificial (or constructed) languages is well-defined in linguistics although there may be borderline cases. Again, I don't want to claim that e.g. Hebrew would be somehow tainted as a language now, just that it has endured something very atypical.
nikofeyn 7y ago
> Languages don't die; people do. that's a weird sentiment. it's even hard to respond to, because it's not even clear what your point is. languages dying is a metaphor and not a literal statement. they certainly do "die off". it seems to me that people who speak the language dying would affect the language, but it doesn't address why the language is not passed down to younger generations or other people. the answer to that question is more about the overall culture being removed. language is not just communication. it is a representation of culture. i would imagine that everywhere there is a dying language, there is also a dying culture and not just people dying.

tuukkah 7y ago

A language needs to develop hand in hand with and by the community that uses it. If the community withers, the language withers. I suppose you can try to bring a dead language back to life in a new community, but that's academic, artificial and distinct from natural languages. [Edit: I don't want to say it's black or white but that the discontinuity probably leaves at least a scar in the language and in the community depending on how carefully the revival operation is performed.]

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
That seems a little circular? If all it needs is a community, and you 'bring it back to life' in a new community, then the language has all it needs to be 'natural'?
- tuukkah 7y ago
  It's not a community but the community. When a language is dead, how do you learn it to native proficiency without native speakers to help you? What does it mean to a child to learn it as a mother tongue when it's not the mother tongue of the parents or anyone else alive?
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    By study and from records. People have been measuring language for a century by now.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> I suppose you can try to bring a dead language back to life in a new community, but that's academic, artificial and distinct from natural languages. How? If the evolution of language in continuous use with s community is natural, so is it's revival by one (e.g., spoken Hebrew.) Dividing human behavior into “natural” and “artificial” is arbitrary.
- tuukkah 7y ago
  Hebrew seems to be an interesting example as it's claimed to be the only succesful revival. I don't know much about it but it sounds like the community dispersed to later re-unite and also that the revived language exhibits some discontinuities (which have or will fade with time). The difference between natural and artificial (or constructed) languages is well-defined in linguistics although there may be borderline cases. Again, I don't want to claim that e.g. Hebrew would be somehow tainted as a language now, just that it has endured something very atypical.

nikofeyn 7y ago

> Languages don't die; people do. that's a weird sentiment. it's even hard to respond to, because it's not even clear what your point is. languages dying is a metaphor and not a literal statement. they certainly do "die off". it seems to me that people who speak the language dying would affect the language, but it doesn't address why the language is not passed down to younger generations or other people. the answer to that question is more about the overall culture being removed. language is not just communication. it is a representation of culture. i would imagine that everywhere there is a dying language, there is also a dying culture and not just people dying.