3 ms·

I don't disagree with anything that you say here, and yet you seem to be disagreeing with me, which is odd. You seem to think I'm naively making some argument

• stcredzero 17y ago
  I believe a language spoken by just two people (or even one) is just as real a language as one spoken by millions-- that the difference in the way they're treated is a matter of politics, not the intrinsic qualities of the language. I was also trying to provide support to the notion that, "the difference in the way they're treated is a matter of politics." Often, I'm replying to 3rd parties or countering common misconceptions in my "replies," which is probably trying to say too much in one post as well as leaving too much implicit. In other words, I am grinding an axe here, but it's not directed at you. A language spoken by exactly two would be very difficult to study. There are problems analogous to studying a species with only the last two individuals from which to draw data. I think there is some mechanism here that links the softer fields inextricably with politics. There is less academic "territory" to occupy, and so there is a handicap to the political power of academics who study that particular data, while at the same time, there's also often increased power that stems from scarcity. (Dead sea scrolls.) EDIT: All human endeavors are linked with politics. "Softer" fields tend to be more encumbered.
• deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]