3 ms·
Which is why this isnt a about saving a language, rather preserving it in a paticular state. They dont want it to evolve into the modern world as a living lang
by sandworm101 2y ago
Which is why this isnt a about saving a language, rather preserving it in a paticular state. They dont want it to evolve into the modern world as a living language. They want to lock it into the rules of a paticular time. That means not accomidating recent innovations so that, hopefully, they are never encorporated.
- jrochkind1 2y agoThis change doesn't do anything to prevent in this case Tibetan from "accommodating recent changes". It makes it possible to support the language as it was used historically and as I understand it is used presently. Even if it were to change presently, there are still historical documents which should be supported. It sounds like you want to force change (and specifically change in the direction of what more common languages do), as opposed to "accomodate" it. i would say that making software more flexible to handle more unusual things actually "accomodates innovation" in all languages the software supports. The more things you can support, instead of requiring everything to work the same, the more you are actually accommodating innovation.