4 ms·

It demonstrates the value in academically preserving languages, but not in culturally "saving" them from extinction.

atlantic 12y ago
An language is intertwined with a particular culture and geography to such an extent that, once the last native speakers die, it's gone for good, whatever happens academically. I don't think the aim here should be to culturally save just languages but the entire culture and lifestyle that spawns and nourishes them. At the very least, you'd have to put the brakes on the globalization movement, so as to preserve local cultural differentiation. It's very unlikely to happen.
- LunaSea 12y ago
  Like the author, you still don't explain why culture should be saved though.
  - jayvanguard 12y ago
    I think you can just accept that as a tautology. If a bunch of humans want to save their culture then by definition it has some human value in saving it. A separate question is whether we have a duty to help _other_ cultures in their quest for self-preservation. I think there are altruistic reasons for doing so stemming from the fact that most people value their own culture so we can empathetically understand why others would want to preserve theirs. There are also interesting biological and sociological arguments around diversity and resilience of the species that don't rely on altruism. The question specifically about language is asking something different though. So this conversation should just be about languages where the group that spoke it no longer has enough interest to continue that tradition. So the question becomes should we save the language of other cultures for them? I don't think there is a strong case (other than academic preservation). Arguments about the intrinsic relationship of language to culture are valid but fall apart when the members of the culture itself don't care enough to preserve the language.
  - atlantic 12y ago
    I think I would justify it along the same lines as biodiversity is usually defended. With changing external conditions, a niche species may suddenly become of critical importance to an ecosystem. In the same way, humanity faces challenges, and at a certain juncture, a completely different approach to life might make the difference between survival and extinction. But that can only happen if that diversity of approaches has been conserved, and global culture has not become monolithic.

An language is intertwined with a particular culture and geography to such an extent that, once the last native speakers die, it's gone for good, whatever happens academically. I don't think the aim here should be to culturally save just languages but the entire culture and lifestyle that spawns and nourishes them. At the very least, you'd have to put the brakes on the globalization movement, so as to preserve local cultural differentiation. It's very unlikely to happen.

LunaSea 12y ago
Like the author, you still don't explain why culture should be saved though.
- jayvanguard 12y ago
  I think you can just accept that as a tautology. If a bunch of humans want to save their culture then by definition it has some human value in saving it. A separate question is whether we have a duty to help _other_ cultures in their quest for self-preservation. I think there are altruistic reasons for doing so stemming from the fact that most people value their own culture so we can empathetically understand why others would want to preserve theirs. There are also interesting biological and sociological arguments around diversity and resilience of the species that don't rely on altruism. The question specifically about language is asking something different though. So this conversation should just be about languages where the group that spoke it no longer has enough interest to continue that tradition. So the question becomes should we save the language of other cultures for them? I don't think there is a strong case (other than academic preservation). Arguments about the intrinsic relationship of language to culture are valid but fall apart when the members of the culture itself don't care enough to preserve the language.
- atlantic 12y ago
  I think I would justify it along the same lines as biodiversity is usually defended. With changing external conditions, a niche species may suddenly become of critical importance to an ecosystem. In the same way, humanity faces challenges, and at a certain juncture, a completely different approach to life might make the difference between survival and extinction. But that can only happen if that diversity of approaches has been conserved, and global culture has not become monolithic.