4 ms·

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

by 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.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Yardlink 12y ago
Why preserve culture? You answer still comes down to "because we can't lose it". The other side of the coin is it's being done at the expense of forcing all minority language speakers to be economically disadvantaged. Great news if you're an American, not so great if you're a Nepalese. I have to disagree with you there. You haven't shown any reason why a member of a minority culture should be excluded from most of society and prevented from even learning modern knowledge, reading literature, or even understanding the ways of thinking of most of the world. This is why I favor storing languages in museums, rather than burdening millions of innocent people with the job they didn't even sign up for.
- Dewie 12y ago
  > Why preserve culture? You answer still comes down to "because we can't lose it". Why have cultures? Because it increases the diversity of thought and ideas. This diversity in turn can inspire each other and create new impulses, ideas, ways of thinking. This diversity is severely limited - and in turn how much it can influence and inspire other cultures - if they simply disappear. It's like taking all the work and time it took, for perhaps thousands of years, to create that culture, and simply destroying it. Another reason is that I think that it's a shame for majority, dominant cultures to simply swallow up minority cultures. If the people of that minority culture want to preserve it, I think they should stand a chance. Lastly, I think it's a worthy end onto itself. This is the end-road of socratic reasoning. Would you say that it is frivolous to just say "because it is worthy in itself"? Well, this is how all arguments end up, anyway. Just like your argument might end up with the assumption that "convenience and less struggle to communicate is worthy in itself". But then I can say, "a little struggle and inconvenience in communication is part of the fun! We should preserve our differences for that reason". > The other side of the coin is it's being done at the expense of forcing all minority language speakers to be economically disadvantaged. Great news if you're an American, not so great if you're a Nepalese. I have to disagree with you there. You haven't shown any reason why a member of a minority culture should be excluded from most of society and prevented from even learning modern knowledge, reading literature, or even understanding the ways of thinking of most of the world. Nonsense. Do you know how many people speak two, three and so on languages? How many people who speak a minority language in some country, also speak some majority language? The same goes for speaking a native, minority, or whatever language, and speaking English (or perhaps French or Portuguese etc., depending on where they are in the world). I have to emphasize that I would never condone forcing people to practice and learn a language. It should be by their own volition. If they don't want to practice it, then that is of course entirely up to them. Just as I wouldn't force them or encourage them to give up their language (and perhaps in turn also their culture) in favour of some international standard language. > This is why I favor storing languages in museums, rather than burdening millions of innocent people with the job they didn't even sign up for. Is that so.

by Dewie 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Yardlink 12y ago

Why preserve culture? You answer still comes down to "because we can't lose it". The other side of the coin is it's being done at the expense of forcing all minority language speakers to be economically disadvantaged. Great news if you're an American, not so great if you're a Nepalese. I have to disagree with you there. You haven't shown any reason why a member of a minority culture should be excluded from most of society and prevented from even learning modern knowledge, reading literature, or even understanding the ways of thinking of most of the world. This is why I favor storing languages in museums, rather than burdening millions of innocent people with the job they didn't even sign up for.

Dewie 12y ago
> Why preserve culture? You answer still comes down to "because we can't lose it". Why have cultures? Because it increases the diversity of thought and ideas. This diversity in turn can inspire each other and create new impulses, ideas, ways of thinking. This diversity is severely limited - and in turn how much it can influence and inspire other cultures - if they simply disappear. It's like taking all the work and time it took, for perhaps thousands of years, to create that culture, and simply destroying it. Another reason is that I think that it's a shame for majority, dominant cultures to simply swallow up minority cultures. If the people of that minority culture want to preserve it, I think they should stand a chance. Lastly, I think it's a worthy end onto itself. This is the end-road of socratic reasoning. Would you say that it is frivolous to just say "because it is worthy in itself"? Well, this is how all arguments end up, anyway. Just like your argument might end up with the assumption that "convenience and less struggle to communicate is worthy in itself". But then I can say, "a little struggle and inconvenience in communication is part of the fun! We should preserve our differences for that reason". > The other side of the coin is it's being done at the expense of forcing all minority language speakers to be economically disadvantaged. Great news if you're an American, not so great if you're a Nepalese. I have to disagree with you there. You haven't shown any reason why a member of a minority culture should be excluded from most of society and prevented from even learning modern knowledge, reading literature, or even understanding the ways of thinking of most of the world. Nonsense. Do you know how many people speak two, three and so on languages? How many people who speak a minority language in some country, also speak some majority language? The same goes for speaking a native, minority, or whatever language, and speaking English (or perhaps French or Portuguese etc., depending on where they are in the world). I have to emphasize that I would never condone forcing people to practice and learn a language. It should be by their own volition. If they don't want to practice it, then that is of course entirely up to them. Just as I wouldn't force them or encourage them to give up their language (and perhaps in turn also their culture) in favour of some international standard language. > This is why I favor storing languages in museums, rather than burdening millions of innocent people with the job they didn't even sign up for. Is that so.