21 ms·
I don't think the loss of a language without a literature is much of a loss, really. Also Navajo, though grammatically odd to speakers of Indo-European languag
by sbmassey 12y ago
I don't think the loss of a language without a literature is much of a loss, really.
Also Navajo, though grammatically odd to speakers of Indo-European languages, contrary to the article does not seem to only have irregular verbs.
- eveningcoffee 12y agoI think that quite contrary - when language without literature is lost then everything about this language - traditions, knowledge, history, is lost forever (unless anthropologists manage to save some bits of it).
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- gizmo686 12y agoNot nessasarily, the people could continue to pass down the traditions/knowledge/history using another language. If a language with literature is lost, then you loose just as much of those things, as well as the literature (because no one can understand it). Of course, having literature increases the chances of having a rossetta stone.
- sho_hn 12y agoYou might enjoy reading this counter-argument: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/why-save-a-language.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/why-save-a-...