4 ms·

People are free to do with their free time what they like, but I think the language preservationists need to make it simple to learn their language. That means

People are free to do with their free time what they like, but I think the language preservationists need to make it simple to learn their language. That means documenting everything as much as possible and making it easy to find. When I search Elfdalian, there's the facebook group for learning the language, but that's hardly the platform to teach a language. Imo, it would help much more to copy the structure of existing courses, write a wikibook, or make a homepage to aggregate all the links in one place. Were I to want to explore the language, I would need to know the alphabet and its sounds, common phrases, the grammar, have flip cards (anki is great for that), have ways to passively consume the language meaning music, videos, articles, subtitles for popular films, etc., ways to practice it with others (forums, subreddit, frequent, physical or virtual meetups, and so on), and, most importantly, it should be available without being physically present. If you don't make it easy to learn, consume, and practice, then make it at least easy to archive.

boublepop 5y ago
Your implied standpoint is that it’s only worth preserving if you can engage with it. Imagine having the same attitude towards endangered animals “why should we preserve the giant turtles when I can’t even find a shop that will sell me one?” The language is intimately tied to the people and the culture. It’s not like they want to push random people around the world to learn it just for a laugh.
- Popegaf 5y ago
  You're making assumptions about my implications and comparing two completely different things. A well archived language can be reborn again - a dead species can't (yet). Furthermore, where are you taking that I'm advocating forcefully spreading a language? I'm stating a two very simple facts: 1. If you want a language to stay alive, you need speakers. 2. If you want a language to outlive speakers, you need to archive it well. Since we live in a world of choice, you'll have to do something in order to let people choose to become a speaker of that language.

boublepop 5y ago

Your implied standpoint is that it’s only worth preserving if you can engage with it. Imagine having the same attitude towards endangered animals “why should we preserve the giant turtles when I can’t even find a shop that will sell me one?” The language is intimately tied to the people and the culture. It’s not like they want to push random people around the world to learn it just for a laugh.

Popegaf 5y ago
You're making assumptions about my implications and comparing two completely different things. A well archived language can be reborn again - a dead species can't (yet). Furthermore, where are you taking that I'm advocating forcefully spreading a language? I'm stating a two very simple facts: 1. If you want a language to stay alive, you need speakers. 2. If you want a language to outlive speakers, you need to archive it well. Since we live in a world of choice, you'll have to do something in order to let people choose to become a speaker of that language.