3 ms·

Sadly popular opinion seems to be that languages and other traditions must be preserved because, well, we can't lose them. It's certainly good to preserve them

Sadly popular opinion seems to be that languages and other traditions must be preserved because, well, we can't lose them. It's certainly good to preserve them in museums so people can use them for research, etc. But there's little or no actual need for more than one language in the world, let along more than one writing system for the same language! People don't mourn the loss of codepage 437. For many people that's a big part of their growing up. But now it's not in common use and the world is better for it. We don't see people trying to slow the adoption of UTF8 because it's making the world one big dull homogenous borg that's unable to express box drawings. Nowadays, there's quiet revolution going on in the form of many small dialects disappearing. That's wonderful. It's giving millions the opportunities that come with being able to communicate with more other people by sharing common language. We should be celebrating the massive advantages that keep growing each time another obscure script or dialect becomes nobody's native language.

mkaziz 12y ago
I think the concern is more the loss of literature written over the ages in a language. Equally importantly, language - as an extension of culture - shapes the way people think. Different people thinking differently is how problems can get solved, instead of monstrous uniformity you seem to be envisioning.
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  This doesn't make any sense. Ancient literature will be lost no matter how many languages the world holds at any time -- language change means that it isn't possible to understand ancient works. Sure, it's easier for an English speaker to pick up Old English than Ancient Egyptian, but both take years of effort. > Different people thinking differently is how problems can get solved, instead of monstrous uniformity you seem to be envisioning People think plenty differently while speaking the same language. They don't think any more differently if they speak different languages.
  - mkaziz 12y ago
    Are you bilingual? If so, that perhaps you'll know what I'm talking about.
Dewie 12y ago
I detest this view. Typical navel gazing, utility-uber-alles (at least for things that "I" am not interested in) programmer who is more concerned with some kind of compatibility (of course using IT examples) than anything else. Even if we only strictly consider languages themselves, what if some people find pleasure in them? You can't say that what they enjoy doing is wrong with some argument for its utility - because the use and consumption of that language is a utility in itself. Neither can you confine them to these "museums" since they might want to use it outside of the halls of dusty books. Then, so much for "one and only one language". Now, considering not just the language but culture. Languages are so incredibly context dependent and vague that I think they are deeply intertwined with culture. Outside of whatever you can laboriously define and enshrine in some book to stuff in a museum, there are incredible nuances that can be hard to appreciate if one is not involved with it, through things like social interaction and the written word. If you lose or discard the language of some culture, then you might also lose an appreciation for a lot of subtleties and ways of thinking. Words and expressions that might seemingly translate easily may have nuances that only an active speaker of the language can appreciate. Thirdly. Consider if we with one magical button could make everyone in the world speak one language, say English. Now we are all on the same page! Then fast forward a few units of time - are we still speaking the same language? Probably, but we might have developed distinct dialects in different corners of the world. Why? Because every society and culture practising the language "evolved", namely added new expressions, words, phrases. Even pronunciation (accents). Why didn't the language simply evolve in the same way, worldwide? Of course because of the fact that the world is made up of a lot of different places and cultures. All of these cultures affect each other, but it's like a web of intermingling sharing. There is, largely, not a single, dominating culture, and so there is no central "authority" on how the language is going to evolve naturally. But you need a single "reference" point for this language to evolve in a uniform way, and avoid a lot of dialects! So if the goal is to have a single language, and a single dialect, your only bet is cultural imperialism. But culture is just a silly thing that just gets in the way, right? Better just stuff them in a museum and adopt a single, standardized culture. It's so efficient! Given enough time, these dialects might turn into their own languages (let's say that languages are now distinguished by not being mutually intelligible with each other). Then you're back to the same problem, basically. Well, it's a lot better since all of these languages are closely related. And maybe these languages would never really become their own languages, since there is sufficient inter-cultural, global communication to avoid any significant divergence. But to eventually have no dialecs, no linguistic misunderstandings? Something's gotta give, namely everyone has to adopt the same culture and pallet of beliefs and values. But I guess that kind of robotic efficiency would be a Utopia for you.

mkaziz 12y ago

I think the concern is more the loss of literature written over the ages in a language. Equally importantly, language - as an extension of culture - shapes the way people think. Different people thinking differently is how problems can get solved, instead of monstrous uniformity you seem to be envisioning.

thaumasiotes 12y ago
This doesn't make any sense. Ancient literature will be lost no matter how many languages the world holds at any time -- language change means that it isn't possible to understand ancient works. Sure, it's easier for an English speaker to pick up Old English than Ancient Egyptian, but both take years of effort. > Different people thinking differently is how problems can get solved, instead of monstrous uniformity you seem to be envisioning People think plenty differently while speaking the same language. They don't think any more differently if they speak different languages.
- mkaziz 12y ago
  Are you bilingual? If so, that perhaps you'll know what I'm talking about.

Dewie 12y ago

I detest this view. Typical navel gazing, utility-uber-alles (at least for things that "I" am not interested in) programmer who is more concerned with some kind of compatibility (of course using IT examples) than anything else. Even if we only strictly consider languages themselves, what if some people find pleasure in them? You can't say that what they enjoy doing is wrong with some argument for its utility - because the use and consumption of that language is a utility in itself. Neither can you confine them to these "museums" since they might want to use it outside of the halls of dusty books. Then, so much for "one and only one language". Now, considering not just the language but culture. Languages are so incredibly context dependent and vague that I think they are deeply intertwined with culture. Outside of whatever you can laboriously define and enshrine in some book to stuff in a museum, there are incredible nuances that can be hard to appreciate if one is not involved with it, through things like social interaction and the written word. If you lose or discard the language of some culture, then you might also lose an appreciation for a lot of subtleties and ways of thinking. Words and expressions that might seemingly translate easily may have nuances that only an active speaker of the language can appreciate. Thirdly. Consider if we with one magical button could make everyone in the world speak one language, say English. Now we are all on the same page! Then fast forward a few units of time - are we still speaking the same language? Probably, but we might have developed distinct dialects in different corners of the world. Why? Because every society and culture practising the language "evolved", namely added new expressions, words, phrases. Even pronunciation (accents). Why didn't the language simply evolve in the same way, worldwide? Of course because of the fact that the world is made up of a lot of different places and cultures. All of these cultures affect each other, but it's like a web of intermingling sharing. There is, largely, not a single, dominating culture, and so there is no central "authority" on how the language is going to evolve naturally. But you need a single "reference" point for this language to evolve in a uniform way, and avoid a lot of dialects! So if the goal is to have a single language, and a single dialect, your only bet is cultural imperialism. But culture is just a silly thing that just gets in the way, right? Better just stuff them in a museum and adopt a single, standardized culture. It's so efficient! Given enough time, these dialects might turn into their own languages (let's say that languages are now distinguished by not being mutually intelligible with each other). Then you're back to the same problem, basically. Well, it's a lot better since all of these languages are closely related. And maybe these languages would never really become their own languages, since there is sufficient inter-cultural, global communication to avoid any significant divergence. But to eventually have no dialecs, no linguistic misunderstandings? Something's gotta give, namely everyone has to adopt the same culture and pallet of beliefs and values. But I guess that kind of robotic efficiency would be a Utopia for you.