4 ms·

You're promoting both the killing and preserving of languages in the same paragraph, seems a bit misguided. Surely if they're worth documenting, then its worth

You're promoting both the killing and preserving of languages in the same paragraph, seems a bit misguided. Surely if they're worth documenting, then its worth trying to preserve their use as well. Surely the world should be moving to a place where it doesn't matter what language the source is, at least online. A fully competent Google translate would seamlessly allow everyone to communicate without destroying culture in the process.

nitrogen 13y ago
Why promote the use of obsolete technology (including language), when it can be satisfactorily preserved in museums?
- pjmlp 13y ago
  If it doesn't happen the same as it happen to Alexandria's Library, that is.
- coldtea 13y ago
  Because "satisfactorily preserved" and "museum" are contradictory for a language. A spoken language is a living thing -- and it carries with it the patina of all those that have used it, their stories and how they shaped the language in return etc. Relegating to some museum excibits (that noone will care about, let's be honest) is like being satisfied by a polaroid of your significant other, instead of him/her.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    We're not talking about artifacts though; we're talking about people. Yes it would be better to be able to observe and use a language within a native, living body of people in order to be able to well comprehend and thoroughly appreciate the nuance, breadth and depth of a language. But in order to do that you also must require that population not to use some other language which may well benefit them (in terms of education, trade, international relations, access to information, etc.). In Wales for example the historic Welsh language is being propped up at vast expense to a relatively poor region of the UK. All lessons¹ in [state run] primary schools (4-11 year olds) are used to promote the historic Welsh language and children are taught that their own language - predominantly English - is to be deprecated in preference to Welsh. None of that serves the children. Without government interference, if trends continued, barely a handful of people of any age would speak historic Welsh. As it is now - made compulsory for all children in state schools - use of historic Welsh language is still declining. That would indeed be a loss to those interested in Brythonic languages or who mourn for the simpler times of their youth when they spoke historic Welsh or who despise the English people so fervently that using "their" language is anathema [I'm not even joking], or whatever. But, would it be any loss for the people living in Wales as a whole? I warrant not. Indeed it seems it would be a gain. --- ¹ PISA results for 2012, http://priceonomics.com/only-4-of-languages-are-used-online/ http://priceonomics.com/only-4-of-languages-are-used-online/, are just in and show Wales is falling behind the rest of the UK and that the UK is slipping relative to the other countries surveyed. I think an insidious over-emphasis on historic Welsh is at least in part to blame.
- unhammer 13y ago
  Why promote the preservation of obsolete species (including animals), when they can be satisfactorily preserved in museums?
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    When not having those animals around improves the lives of millions of people?
melling 13y ago
I think the majority of the 6000 languages are spoken by very few people. Look at the number of languages spoken in India, for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_... Is there a benefit to having all those languages where less than 100,000 people speak the language?
astine 13y ago
If it were possible to translate every concept or expression, transparently from any language into any other, there wouldn't be any real reason to have more than one language. Or, in other words, if the only differences between languages are cosmetic, different words and slightly different grammar, then there would be more to gain from being able to communicate without using a machine as an intermediary than from keeping the old phonemes (which will eventually be replaced anyway) in use.
icebraining 13y ago
That reminds me of William Temple Hornaday's, who killed a whole herd of Buffalos to preserve them. http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-00022&segmentID=7 http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-0002...

nitrogen 13y ago

Why promote the use of obsolete technology (including language), when it can be satisfactorily preserved in museums?

pjmlp 13y ago
If it doesn't happen the same as it happen to Alexandria's Library, that is.
coldtea 13y ago
Because "satisfactorily preserved" and "museum" are contradictory for a language. A spoken language is a living thing -- and it carries with it the patina of all those that have used it, their stories and how they shaped the language in return etc. Relegating to some museum excibits (that noone will care about, let's be honest) is like being satisfied by a polaroid of your significant other, instead of him/her.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  We're not talking about artifacts though; we're talking about people. Yes it would be better to be able to observe and use a language within a native, living body of people in order to be able to well comprehend and thoroughly appreciate the nuance, breadth and depth of a language. But in order to do that you also must require that population not to use some other language which may well benefit them (in terms of education, trade, international relations, access to information, etc.). In Wales for example the historic Welsh language is being propped up at vast expense to a relatively poor region of the UK. All lessons¹ in [state run] primary schools (4-11 year olds) are used to promote the historic Welsh language and children are taught that their own language - predominantly English - is to be deprecated in preference to Welsh. None of that serves the children. Without government interference, if trends continued, barely a handful of people of any age would speak historic Welsh. As it is now - made compulsory for all children in state schools - use of historic Welsh language is still declining. That would indeed be a loss to those interested in Brythonic languages or who mourn for the simpler times of their youth when they spoke historic Welsh or who despise the English people so fervently that using "their" language is anathema [I'm not even joking], or whatever. But, would it be any loss for the people living in Wales as a whole? I warrant not. Indeed it seems it would be a gain. --- ¹ PISA results for 2012, http://priceonomics.com/only-4-of-languages-are-used-online/ http://priceonomics.com/only-4-of-languages-are-used-online/, are just in and show Wales is falling behind the rest of the UK and that the UK is slipping relative to the other countries surveyed. I think an insidious over-emphasis on historic Welsh is at least in part to blame.
unhammer 13y ago
Why promote the preservation of obsolete species (including animals), when they can be satisfactorily preserved in museums?
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  When not having those animals around improves the lives of millions of people?

melling 13y ago

I think the majority of the 6000 languages are spoken by very few people. Look at the number of languages spoken in India, for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_... Is there a benefit to having all those languages where less than 100,000 people speak the language?

astine 13y ago

If it were possible to translate every concept or expression, transparently from any language into any other, there wouldn't be any real reason to have more than one language. Or, in other words, if the only differences between languages are cosmetic, different words and slightly different grammar, then there would be more to gain from being able to communicate without using a machine as an intermediary than from keeping the old phonemes (which will eventually be replaced anyway) in use.

icebraining 13y ago

That reminds me of William Temple Hornaday's, who killed a whole herd of Buffalos to preserve them. http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-00022&segmentID=7 http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-0002...