# More languages close to extinction



## luis masci

According with leading language experts about half the planet's languages are facing extinction and with them a differing vision of the world.
Professor David Crystal, of the University of North Wales, said: This is the big crisis. Of the 6000 or so languages in the world, half are so seriously endangered they are unlikely to last the century. 
The number of speakers go from the two billion or so that speak English, to about 60 languages in the world where there is one speaker left. These are the ones in danger. Ninety-six per cent of the world's languages are spoken by 4 per cent of the people.
What would do you think? Is it really pity that many minor languages and dialects will be lost forever, or for the opposite do you think it will be for good due to simplification and practical reasons?


----------



## Fernando

I tend to agree with your second option (good due to simplification and practical reason) though:

1- Of course is bad a language disappear. It is a "collateral damage" of globalization.

2- They should be protected to a point. 

Anyway, languages have always disappear. The difference today is that we notice. And we can investigate them before they die. I can see no way how those one-speaker languages could stand.


----------



## beclija

A one speaker language is dead already (unless those people are particularly fond of talking to themselves). An endangered language, in my understanding, is one that has a few dozen or even hundred speakers all of which are equally or more fluent in another dominant language.


----------



## french4beth

It's a shame that languages and dialects disappear - they reflect so much about the customs, culture, and numerous other aspects of the people who speak them. Today, of course, we have the technology to document them, so even if no one speaks them, we can still have some record of them.  By the way, no one actually speaks Latin today, so it could be considered to be a dead language, but it's still used a lot (medical & legal fields, etc.).

Besides, even though I speak English and French fluently, I don't know how well I'd be able to communicate with someone in the 10th century if I were magically transported back in time - languages are constantly evolving, even from day to day.


----------



## luis masci

I see your point French.
It's worth preserving knowledge of dead languages for historical and cultural studies, but there's not a good point keeping useless languages to be learned and spoken if everyone's speaking other languages more happily.
I think with internet and fluently communicated world that we have today, what we need is manage a few and massive languages instead too many diversification. Don't you think?


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

luis masci said:


> what we need is manage a few and massive languages instead too many diversification. Don't you think?



Is that your view on religions, newspapers, wildflowers, philosophies, music styles (etc) too?


----------



## Tsoman

Everything dies -- you, me, our kids, our kids' kids, languages, and cultures. From an objective point of view, it doesn't matter


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Tsoman said:


> Everything dies -- you, me, our kids, our kids' kids, languages, and cultures. From an objective point of view, it doesn't matter



Who's talking about objective? Few posts on these forums are anything near objective, so how about your subjective response here? Would it still be that it doesn't matter?


----------



## Aprinsă

Tsoman: Tell me, then, what is your objective? You see, from an objective point of view, one could say that nothing matters. It depends what's important to you. It seems to me that you are simply saying that it doesn't matter to you.

Well, it matters to me. Diversity is always a good thing. It broadens the mind. I cannot believe how many of you think it's better to have just a few big languages. gwrthgymdeithasol makes an excellent point. And I know that people who do not love languages in general often think of language as merely a practicality... but the truth is, language is what makes us human. It can be art. It can serve many functions. Think of poetry, story-telling, etc. Would you say we should have a limited amount of poetry? Just as poetry can serve a psychological need, so can diversity of something so fundamental to humankind. Shall we get rid of this diversity simply because we think its only purpose should now be the most basic form of communication?

What you folks don't seem to be getting is that more than HALF of human languages are endangered! Is half of humankind going to be dead in the next year? Would you say then that it doesn't matter? Would you say that everyone or every culture should die except for the U.S., China, Brazil, and a few other "important" countries, or that it wouldn't matter if they did or not?

Yes, people die every day. And new people are born every day. Unfortunately, it's not even close to an exact analogy with languages. Languages are dying off at a rapid pace due to globalization. And they are not being born nearly as quickly as they used to be due to writing and the fast spread of information.

Communication is wonderful. I know that we wish to communicate with as many people as possible, but I don't believe having everyone on earth speak the same language is the solution. Economic expediency (money, an individual lifetime) or whatever you want to call it does not stand above something as fundamental as human diversity. I would much rather be unable to speak directly to 75% of the people on earth than to be able to speak directly to 95% of them if it means that languages and human richness will live on.


----------



## Tsoman

Its natural that certain things change and certain things die. But just because something dies doesn't mean that it has never been. Everything plays a part in the big picture, even after death.

I don't think it's disrespectful to let a language fall into the pages of history.


(this is the type of mood I get in after I take nature hikes -- I love it too)


----------



## Daddyo

"All things must pass away." - George Harrison

Or,

"[...] things fall apart;
the centre cannot hold," - W. B. Yates


----------



## Aprinsă

You know, I understand the concept that all things must die, that it's simply nature running its course, and that dying is not a deletion of existence. But don't you think we should fight for some things while we're still alive? If a virus were taking you over, would you say, "Okay, virus, it's your turn to run your course," or would you say, "hey, if I fight this, maybe I'll be able to live another decade"? That's also okay if you think the former... however, that makes you a weirdo.  

Anyway, I guess it doesn't matter. There's a reason for everything, and if you don't care, you don't care. I care, and I'd better get back to work.


----------



## luis masci

Aprinsă said:


> Communication is wonderful. I know that we wish to communicate with as many people as possible, but I don't believe having everyone on earth speak the same language is the solution.


Taking this forum as a sample, we can see here is used mostly English and as alternative Spanish. Any other language would be non convenient. Why? Simple… because most people can’t understand and therefore the discussion would be limited just a small bunch of people. 
So you see in this example why due to practical reasons all other languages (except the two mentioned) are naturally excluded despite there is not any prohibition. 
Yes, I know that every language provides some unique ways of looking at the world, some unique ways of expressing feelings and the loss of any one is a bit a loss to mankind. 
However it’s a natural process; all that birth also bound to die; and what must die first will be the weakest. That is sad of course, but it is so in this world and we can’t change it.

---------------------------------- 
Remember I’m only a Spanish speaker, so forgive me mistakes and correct me if it’s possible please.


----------



## don maico

luis masci said:


> Taking this forum as a sample, we can see here is used mostly English and as alternative Spanish. Any other language would be non convenient. Why? Simple… because most people can’t understand and therefore the discussion would be limited just a small bunch of people.
> So you see in this example why due to practical reasons all other languages (except the two mentioned) are naturally excluded despite there is not any prohibition.
> Yes, I know that every language provides some unique ways of looking at the world, some unique ways of expressing feelings and the loss of any one is a bit a loss to mankind.
> However it’s a natural process; all that birth also bound to die; and what must die first will be the weakest. That is sad of course, but it is so in this world and we can’t change it.
> 
> ----------------------------------
> Remember I’m only a Spanish speaker, so forgive me mistakes and correct me if it’s possible please.



maybe we should introduce lunfardo


----------



## maxiogee

In a closed system entropy increases.

Humanity is a closed system.
Languages will die - dialects of large languages will emerge - some may become new languages in their own right.
Do not believe that "the global village" is the way the world will be forever.


----------



## Alxmrphi

If a language is loved by their people (like French is) it'd never die out, it'd only die out because it was allowed to by its people, and in that case, is it not a good idea?


----------



## sound shift

don maico said:


> maybe we should introduce lunfardo


No está muerto, el lunfardo? No lo sé porque nunca estuve en el barrio de La Boca.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

Of course it is a pity and a loss... But do people have to be forced to speak, to keep speaking the language of their ancestors?
And despite all the nice feelings already expressed here... Do we _really_ miss Sumerian?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## maxiogee

Frank06 said:


> Do we _really_ miss Sumerian?



Excellent point, Frank!
_Sum_ of us probably do


----------



## Outsider

Frank06 said:


> Do we _really_ miss Sumerian?


There was nothing we could do to prevent the extinction of Sumerian. It had already happened before we were born. (And yes, it was a fascinating language, urelated to any other, so far as historians have been able to ascertain. If we knew more about it, we could find out where the Sumerians came from, which is still a much debated topic.) We're talking about the present, here.

Having said this, I can understand each side of this debate. I like languages, and I like their diversity, but I also like the comforts of modern life. And by that I don't just mean computers and nice clothes, but also democracy and education for all citizens.

Developing countries are often poor and have many languages, and it's terribly _expensive_ for a state to support a language. I fear that the path of economic least resistence for them is to let the "big" languages thrive, and the "small" ones die off.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't try to resist this trend, but it is what I see happen in the near future, unless something is done about it.


----------



## french4beth

I wonder if any of the people who seem to feel that we should eliminate languages that are too rare would feel if it was *their* language that would be eliminated?

Could we hear from some people who have direct connections to 'dying' languages?

And are we going to have to some type of language gestapo that will decide which languages are worthy of saving?  I think that all languages should be documented in some form or another; everything that people learn (or should be learning) has some basis in the past.  If we don't learn from past mistakes, we are doomed to fail.


----------



## maxiogee

french4beth said:


> I wonder if any of the people who seem to feel that we should eliminate languages that are too rare would feel if it was *their* language that would be eliminated?
> 
> Could we hear from some people who have direct connections to 'dying' languages?




Were I to be around in one hundred years time, Irish is a language which I would be surprised to hear anyone speak. It has been dying for years, has been the subject of many and various efforts to revive it and it defies all of of them.
I would be sorry to see it go, but go it will.


----------



## PedroAznar

maxiogee said:


> I would be sorry to see it go, but go it will.



No doubt. Sorry to see it go? Not me personally, I've never liked it but I would feel sorry for the people who really love the language.


----------



## Julito_Maraña

french4beth said:


> I wonder if any of the people who seem to feel that we should eliminate languages that are too rare would feel if it was *their* language that would be eliminated?



Some of the people who are most enthusiatic with getting rid of a language are the very people who speak it as a native language. If you are a speaker of Foo-Bar and that language is a minority language associated with poverty, ignorance and backwardness, then the last thing you might want to do is pass it on to your children and subject them to the same kind of contempt you deal with everyday because of that darn Foo-Bar accent that you just can't shake.

These programs on NPR talks a bit about Language Extinction.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1393632

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1139510


----------



## Outsider

That kind of "enthusiasm" is hardly based on a free choice.


----------



## curly

maxiogee said:


> Were I to be around in one hundred years time, Irish is a language which I would be surprised to hear anyone speak. It has been dying for years, has been the subject of many and various efforts to revive it and it defies all of of them.
> I would be sorry to see it go, but go it will.


 
Irish didn't defy any attempts to have it revived, the attempts were just badly implemented.
It also suffered a lot of setbacks, even from the irish government, particularly it's re-structure to conform to printing presses, that was just silly...


----------



## Julito_Maraña

Outsider said:


> That kind of "enthusiasm" is hardly based on a free choice.



In a global level, no. It is not. But people are free to encourage or discourage language use on an individual level. In France, a country that strongly discourages the use of regional languages, some languages do better than others and that's because of the cumulative effect of individual decisions. Corsica has been a part of France long enough to have wiped out Corsican. The Corsican people, however, just won't stop speaking Corsican. The same can't be said by other languages of France. 

Take any multilingual country in Europe and you can find examples of communities that hold on to their language stronger than others under very similar political and economic situations.


----------



## Outsider

I don't think that matters much. The point is that the destiny of their languages does not lie (solely) on their hands.


----------



## Julito_Maraña

Outsider said:


> I don't think that matters much. The point is that the destiny of their languages does not lie (solely) on their hands.



I don't know what it is that you think that matters much. Is it the survival of the Corsican language? If that's what you meant then let me join you in your apathy. I couldn't care less about Corsu either.

But most people on this planet have issues whose outcome depends on either some foreign power, some bureaucrat in the capital, or some international for-profit or non-profitable organization. However, out all of these issues I think what language you speak is more of an individual choice than, for example, whether or not you remain nomadic, if you continue to hunt whales, what you must wear, where you must live, what kind of crops you raise etc.

Globalization may push you out of the forest, stop hunting whales, force you to grow wheat instead of corn, or wear a tie, but you can speak Foo-Bar, at least at home, if you are really stubborn about it. It just seems to me that it's hard for the bureaucrats to force you to speak a certain language at home. Just an opinion.


----------



## Outsider

Julito_Maraña said:


> I don't know what it is that you think that matters much. Is it the survival of the Corsican language?


No, I meant the differences in the way that different communities resist the death of their minority languages. They are quite irrelevant to whether language death is good/bad/should be fought/etc.



Julito_Maraña said:


> It just seems to me that it's hard for the bureaucrats to force you to speak a certain language at home.


What I fear is that "market forces" will do that themselves.


----------



## Julito_Maraña

Outsider said:


> What I fear is that "market forces" will do that themselves.



I don't really "fear it" but I acknowledge that it's certain to happen. Under the right conditions, or the wrong conditions if you will, all of the world's languages can be reduced to one. And then, under different conditions, better or worse depending on what you think the world should be like, that one language can split into thousands and thousands of languages again.

Languages die but they also reproduce. You might see the death of Latin as a bad thing but it contributed to a great deal of the linguistic diversity of Europe. What I find interesting that a lot of the people who think the death of Latin is sad are the same ones who are afraid that Latin American Spanish might becoming too different from European Spanish.

One of the beautiful paradoxes we humans come to think is normal.


----------



## Fernando

Julito_Maraña said:


> What I find interesting that a lot of the people who think the death of Latin is sad are the same ones who are afraid that Latin American Spanish might becoming too different from European Spanish.



Because we think that languages are to communicate. Latin death takes us further from 2,000 years of literature and thought.

Spanish (eventual) death (or break-up) would takes us further from 1,000 years of literature and thought and would take apart a 300-million people community. Meanwhile, I can not find nothing or virtually nothing written in madrileño, extremeño, murciano or peruano.

But, said that:

1) if (eventually) Spanish would be impossible or very costly to preserve, let it die.

2) Latin is dead, period. We are not proposing no kind of resurrection.


----------



## Layzie

At first I wanted to say "survival of the fittest", but then I remembered that language doesnt work that way. No language dies out because its inferior to another language, all languages are equally expressive, a languages survival depends on how much the people that speak them spread it. I think we should make an effor to record and document as much as we can in the endangered languages but I think its unfair for those last remaining speakers to encourage them to devote their time and effort into preserving something that will ultimately be useless to their children or grandchildren.


----------



## Julito_Maraña

Fernando said:


> Latin death takes us further from 2,000 years of literature and thought.
> 
> Spanish (eventual) death (or break-up) would takes us further from 1,000 years of literature and thought and would take apart a 300-million people community.



I think very little of literature and books in general so I don't care. I also think that 300 million is too many people anyway. I speak NY Dominican Spanish but could care less if what they speak in any of the Córdobas, Cartagenas, Santiagos, Cuencas, or Guadalajaras are impossible for me to understand one day. In any case, I read Tolstoy translated and didn't think it was that bad. If Spanish breaks-up, think of the work that will give the translators!

I'm definitely pro-language break-up.


----------



## Outsider

If you break it up too fast, you're going to have to learn a new one.


----------



## gabrielv

I understand it is a big loss in cultural subjects, but it's a big advance in terms of efficiency
In my opinion we can't fight against the evolution.

(PLease forgive any english mistake)


----------



## Layzie

Julito_Maraña said:


> I think very little of literature and books in general so I don't care. I also think that 300 million is too many people anyway. I speak NY Dominican Spanish but could care less if what they speak in any of the Córdobas, Cartagenas, Santiagos, Cuencas, or Guadalajaras are impossible for me to understand one day. In any case, I read Tolstoy translated and didn't think it was that bad. If Spanish breaks-up, think of the work that will give the translators!
> 
> I'm definitely pro-language break-up.



I think that if it didn't break up much in the hundreds of years latin america was colonized(when it took many months to communicate between spain and america), it's not going to break up now that we have satellites and internet and all other instant communication. Add to that, not all languages have the equivalent of a "Real Academia Española"


----------



## Julito_Maraña

Layzie said:


> I think that if it didn't break up much in the hundreds of years latin america was colonized(when it took many months to communicate between spain and america), it's not going to break up now that we have satellites and internet and all other instant communication. Add to that, not all languages have the equivalent of a "Real Academia Española"



I couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

luis masci said:


> Taking this forum as a sample, we can see here is used mostly English and as alternative Spanish. Any other language would be non convenient. Why? Simple… because most people can’t understand and therefore the discussion would be limited just a small bunch of people.
> So you see in this example why due to practical reasons all other languages (except the two mentioned) are naturally excluded despite there is not any prohibition.



Well, that's not really a big deal, is it? There's a lot more to life than these forums :-D



luis masci said:


> Yes, I know that every language provides some unique ways of looking at the world, some unique ways of expressing feelings and the loss of any one is a bit a loss to mankind.
> However it’s a natural process; all that birth also bound to die; and what must die first will be the weakest. That is sad of course, but it is so in this world and we can’t change it.



In fact we *can* change it. That's what laws are (supposedly) for: to protect people from bullies, rapists, murderers. Laws can also help languages by giving them a fairer chance to survive.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

maxiogee said:


> In a closed system entropy increases.
> 
> Humanity is a closed system.
> Languages will die - dialects of large languages will emerge - some may become new languages in their own right.



That's a good point; but in modern times we're forcing languages to commit suicide -- these are mostly unnatural processes carried out by huge multinational forces.



Alex_Murphy said:


> If a language is loved by their people (like French is) it'd never die out, it'd only die out because it was allowed to by its people, and in that case, is it not a good idea?



I wouldn't use the phrase 'good idea', but what you say is true: a language needs its speakers to want to speak it to survive. However: for the reasons they choose to give it up -- see above.


----------



## modus.irrealis

If all language died the way Latin (allegedly) did, I don't think anyone would have a problem. My personal concern is the the loss of scientific data that would occur if languages (or language families) died out that had no close relatives. I've read about all sorts of linguistic hypotheses that seemed to be universal but were proven to not be because of an "exotic" language with very few members. If someone thinks, like I do, that human language reflects the way the human brain works, then you need to know all possible human languages before you start making any conclusions, and if some languages are lost because of historical circumstances, any conclusions will be skewed in favour of the patterns that the big languages exhibit. From that perspective, language death is a huge loss for me.

From a cultural perspective, not so much. Although I do think there is some kind of link between culture and language, I do not think that there are cultures that can only be expressed in one language or languages that can only express one culture. If a people moves to a new language, they will find ways to express their culture in their new language.

I'd also add that ultimately what language you use is the choice of individuals and I don't think people on the outside should criticize anybody because they decide to "abandon" their language. Personally, I'd like to see massive efforts made to record and describe as many languages as possible before they die out, and I know this is happening but I've read criticisms from some linguists that not enough of this is happening, and it would be more than a pity if this were true.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

modus.irrealis said:


> I'd also add that ultimately what language you use is the choice of individuals and I don't think people on the outside should criticize anybody because they decide to "abandon" their language.



Usually it's your parents who decide what language you speak, not you yourself. But anyway, if people do abandon their language, it's a personal choice on one level, but a huge national or international pressure on another.


----------



## modus.irrealis

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Usually it's your parents who decide what language you speak, not you yourself. But anyway, if people do abandon their language, it's a personal choice on one level, but a huge national or international pressure on another.



I would say your peers are more important than your parents, but I was thinking that most languages (unless the speakers themselves are wiped out) die after a (maybe short) period of bilingualism, where people would start using one language more and more until the old one was no longer heard, so new speakers could not learn it.

You're right about pressures but I'm pessimistic and think that counter-pressures can only be applied on behalf of languages that are already relatively secure. If a language has only hundreds of speakers, I can't see any government deciding to publish information in that language and ensure that monolingual speakers of that language can still interact with their government. But governments and other organizations are probably irrelevant here because I'd say that ultimately it's a question of society and I don't see how you'd pressure a society into making a minority language sufficient in and of itself for daily life -- in the end, some people will have to be bilingual. And like others mentioned, it's a good thing that people participate fully in their local, national, and international communities, but this means that languages with more speakers are going to win out, because they will be the ones that people opt to use most often.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

modus.irrealis said:


> I would say your peers are more important than your parents,



What I meant was, your parents decide before you're born and by the time you even realise that languages exist, it's quite hard to change.



modus.irrealis said:


> You're right about pressures but I'm pessimistic and think that counter-pressures can only be applied on behalf of languages that are already relatively secure. If a language has only hundreds of speakers, I can't see any government deciding to publish information in that language and ensure that monolingual speakers of that language can still interact with their government. But governments and other organizations are probably irrelevant here because I'd say that ultimately it's a question of society and I don't see how you'd pressure a society into making a minority language sufficient in and of itself for daily life -- in the end, some people will have to be bilingual. And like others mentioned, it's a good thing that people participate fully in their local, national, and international communities, but this means that languages with more speakers are going to win out, because they will be the ones that people opt to use most often.



Yes; it's hard to make generalisations, because situations vary so much. I think the outlook for many hundreds or even thousands of languages and dialects is very bleak, because of politico-economic globalisation. But monolithic languages quickly fragment into dialects and off we'd probably go again.


----------



## ElaineG

This topic led me to find this link: http://www.ethnologue.com/nearly_extinct.asp, which I found to be utterly fascinating.  Just thought I'd share.


----------



## Julito_Maraña

Thanks for sharing. I didn't expect to see so many for the US, Canada and especially Australia. That was kind of shocking.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

ElaineG said:


> This topic led me to find this link: http://www.ethnologue.com/nearly_extinct.asp, which I found to be utterly fascinating.  Just thought I'd share.



Ethnologue's a great resource for anyone interested in languages, particularly the thousands of smaller ones.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

In Ireland Gaelic is the ostensible "native" language but in language terms, it's on life support. There are about only 80,000 speakers left who use it at home yet the state still proclaims it's bi-lingual and it is still compulsory to study it in schools, have it on sign posts etc. Large amounts of money are spent on it every year, apparently in order to help it grow. 

For all this though, the language is still in steep decline. The general question then is, should states who have pockets of minority speakers encourage a language to survive even when it seems it has little hope? Frisian, Breton and Occitan are some pertinant examples.

Or should minority languages be left to die a natural death?


----------



## Bienvenidos

There are two ways to see this. As a native speaker of any of those languages (If I were one), I would fight to the core to keep them alive. Languages are important, have meaning and SHOULD NOT DIE! Think about it...if we just let it wither away, we just erased a part of the world's culture. Professionals in all aspects of language study are burdened by the fact that several ancient languages just cannot be deciphered. So, in our modern age, with our technology and our preservation techniques, there is little excuse for a language to die.

The second viewpoint is that with so little speakers, we may not be able to do anything but let it die. It would be sad, but maybe that's what's good about Earth, what's needed stays and what isn't perishes. Maybe the death of one language will give rise to another. You never know.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Bienvenidos said:


> There are two ways to see this. As a native speaker of any of those languages (If I were one), I would fight to the core to keep them alive. Languages are important, have meaning and SHOULD NOT DIE!



One could argue that everything that is born must eventually perish. For instance in 2000 years or less, English will probably have perished and be replaced by something else. Is that not just the natural cycle of life? Indeed, why should we be worse off for it? Are we worse off for Latin dying out?


----------



## CrazyArcher

I wouldn't agree that all the languages are equally expressive, but let's put that aside...
Each langauge has its own vibe, which no other language has. I feel it to the greatest extent with languages like Japanese or Norse/Icelandic/Faroese. You can feel that these languages are ancient, an have seen relatively little change throughout the centuries, thus preserving that culture. However, Norse has value for me onyl because I have sentiments towards it. I doubt that a tribe in remote jungles of Indonesia made as much impact on the Asian history as Vikings did on European.


----------



## TRG

We really only need one language and whatever it is I'll be happy with it as long as I'm allowed to say whatever I want to whomever I want.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


CrazyArcher said:


> I feel it to the greatest extent with languages like Japanese or Norse/Icelandic/Faroese. You can feel that these languages are ancient, an have seen relatively little change throughout the centuries, thus preserving that culture.


Which means that people in Iceland still walk around with a horned helmet? 
All languages themselves are (probably) equally old. What differs in age are the labels people put on them.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Outsider

TRG said:


> We really only need one language [...]


Speak for yourself. A world with just one language would bore me to tears.


----------



## CrazyArcher

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Which means that people in Iceland still walk around with a horned helmet?
> All languages themselves are (probably) equally old. What differs in age are the labels people put on them.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank



Haha, of course not, although that would be cool. 
What I like about Norse languages is that they haven't changed much from those dark times as much as other languages did. In fact, the only thing that differentiates Icelandic from the Old Norse is pronounciation, while the spelling is the same.
The age of languages can't be the same, since Spanish is obviously newer than Sanskrit.


----------



## beclija

You can't compare these. Spanish is a living language, while Sanskrit is dead. I guess I what Frank means to say is that it makes little sense to claim than any given _living_ language is older than the other. The Spanish of today,  the Icelandic of today and the Mayan of today are all at best as old as their oldest speakers. While it is true that different languages change at different speeds, no language remains unaltered and giving it a new name or not is basically an arbitrary choice.


----------



## TRG

Outsider said:


> Speak for yourself. A world with just one language would bore me to tears.


 
If your business or hobby involves multiple languages, I can understand why you might say this, but don't you imagine that if you had been born into a world with only one language that you could manage to be otherwise occupied and happy? Being multilingual is not part of human nature. Speaking only for myself, of course.


----------



## CrazyArcher

beclija said:


> You can't compare these. Spanish is a living language, while Sanskrit is dead. I guess I what Frank means to say is that it makes little sense to claim than any given _living_ language is older than the other. The Spanish of today,  the Icelandic of today and the Mayan of today are all at best as old as their oldest speakers. While it is true that different languages change at different speeds, no language remains unaltered and giving it a new name or not is basically an arbitrary choice.


Okay, Sanaskrit was a bad example, but still some languages evolve faster than others. If we take texts from 16th century in diferent languages, for each language there wil be another degree of comprehensibility for a modern average speaker. My fellow linguist said that Russian used to have constructions analogous to modal verbs and perfect tenses in English. Where are they now? Gone and forgotten, and it's actually a great difficulty for a modern Russian speaker to understand the whole perfect business. Icelandic, as I said, has changed only in phonetics. 
Attributing age to a language is not correct, I admit, but we can probably talk about its "depth". The "deeper" the language is, the better old texts can be understood by modern speakers, and this way, they are more accessible to the people, and can have greater impact on their culture.


----------



## Lombard Beige

TRG said:


> ... a world with only one language that you could manage to be otherwise occupied and happy? Being multilingual is not part of human nature. ...



On the basis of experience so far, I think it is. Also, on the same basis, if the world did reach a single language, I am sure that the day after that language would begin to diverge, cf. English, Spanish and I assume every other language. Modern technology acts as a brake, but not completely.

Taking the case of English, from the time of US Independence, British and American English continued to diverge, e.g. the terminology of railroads/railways, and cars (hoods/boots, gasolene/petrol, etc.). The only influential contacts were stage actors and Titanic passengers.  The process was slowed down starting from World War I and further slowed down by talkies, radio, TV, etc. to the extent that new technologies such as computers use identical terminology (right?), e.g. US  program (in general)/(computer) program vs UK programme (in general)/(computer) program. But even here "obscure forces" are at work that make the UK and followers use "organisation" rather than "organization", as suggested by the Oxford !!! Dictionary and Fowler. (So the Light Blues - Cambridge - prevail  !) So language divergence is slowed but not stopped.

Also, speaking the same language doesn't provide any benefits in terms of better understanding, cf. wars between Spanish-speaking countries or in ex-Yugoslavia or the five wars between cricket playing, English-speaking (mainly as a second language) India and Pakistan.

Lastly, I find it amazing among Sub-Saharan Africans how many languages they speak, more or less well. Nobody seems to be completely monolingual. Am I wrong?

regards


----------



## beclija

Lombard Beige said:


> On the basis of experience so far, I think it is. ...
> 
> Lastly, I find it amazing among Sub-Saharan Africans how many languages they speak, more or less well. Nobody seems to be completely monolingual. Am I wrong?
> 
> regards


Thanks for pointing this out. I think that (strict) monolingualism is the exception rather than the rule through human history. In any population that is in contact with other populations (i.e. in any population other than Tristan da Cunha), some degree of bilingualism will be widespread, if not dominant.


----------



## beclija

CrazyArcher said:


> Icelandic, as I said, has changed only in phonetics.


I would claim it's an exaggeration to say that only the phonetics have changed, but surely the changes in Icelandic have been minor enough to allow a high degree of comprehensibility without prior training, and negligible compared to other languages in the same time frame. I agree with your point.


----------



## Lombard Beige

modus.irrealis said:


> ...If a language has only hundreds of speakers, I can't see any government deciding to publish information in that language and ensure that monolingual speakers of that language can still interact with their government. ...



And yet that is what the Swiss government has done with Romansh. This language is spoken by about 50,000 people. Also, left to themselves, the Romansh speakers split up into 5 (five!) different smaller languages, based on geographical and religious (Catholic vs Protestant) variants and local dialects. What the Swiss Federal government did was to sponsor the creation of an artificial language Rumantsch Grischun (by Prof. Schmid, Univeristy of Zurich) which combines features of the 5 little languages. 

Now this language is used in official Swiss government documents, ("Clamada a las Armas", Army call-up), banknotes (Banca Naziunala  Svizra Diesch Francs, Las bancnotas en protegidas dal dretg penal), I'm copying this from a Swiss banknote), and a daily newspaper (La Quotidiana), where previously each little community published its own with very limited circulation, etc., etc. 

Now all this costs money, so why did the business-oriented Swiss of all people do this? 

Because Romansh is the only purely Swiss language. German, French and Italian, which are also national and official languages in a varying number of Cantons, are shared with others. Romansh is not, although it is close to some language "entities" spoken in Northern Italy. In fact, Mussolini was the real benefactor of Romansh, by claiming it as an "Italian dialect". The Swiss response back in 1938 was: "F*ck you Musso!" and they proclaimed the language their 4th national language. Unfortunately, at the time they didn't do much else, so the language has weakened since, but perhaps it's not too late. Non-Romansh speakers (for example in Zurich) learn Rumantsch Grischun and this maintains a link with centuries of history, traditions, etc. (The Romansh language was described by a Catalan writer, Jacinto Verdaguer as a fragment of a Roman toga that has survived miraculously in the Alps, cf. "Crus alva", the White Cross, the Swiss flag, or "cudesch" meaning book from "codex").

regards


----------



## Outsider

TRG said:


> If your business or hobby involves multiple languages, I can understand why you might say this, but don't you imagine that if you had been born into a world with only one language that you could manage to be otherwise occupied and happy? Being multilingual is not part of human nature.


I have no reason to believe that, quite the contrary: I think that human beings are by nature creative, and this includes creating new words, new turns of phrase, and yes, even whole new languages if necessary. Case in point: Nicaraguan sign language.

If the world had only one language, my bet is that some people would quickly make up new ones, just to break the monotony.


----------



## Lombard Beige

Outsider said:


> I have no reason to believe that, quite the contrary: I think that human beings are by nature creative, and this includes creating new words, new turns of phrase, and yes, even whole new languages if necessary. Case in point: Nicaraguan sign language. ...



Remaining in the realm of "conspiracy theory", was this language invented before or after the Sandinistas? 
And by the pros (professionals) or the Contras 

And is it now used to translate the speeches of elected President Daniel Ortega? 
And what about his friend Hugo Chavez? 
When he comes to Managua does he have two sign language translators?
Or perhaps three for his US audience?
Cf. this week's dialogue between Fidel Casto and Hugo Chavez: 
HC: "How are you?"
FC: "Very well thank you!" 
And they say these guys are anti-American 

regards


----------



## TRG

Outsider said:


> I have no reason to believe that, quite the contrary: I think that human beings are by nature creative, and this includes creating new words, new turns of phrase, and yes, even whole new languages if necessary. Case in point: Nicaraguan sign language.
> 
> If the world had only one language, my bet is that some people would quickly make up new ones, just to break the monotony.


 
Since new language you speak of is non-verbal I'm not sure it's relevant. Sign language is the equivalent of writing. They use symbols to represent the spoken word. In the development of language, we know that the spoken form comes first. Are there languages that are only written and not spoken where it is the primary means of communication in any country or cultural group?

As to the matter of people having a natural tendency towards multilingualism, the U.S. would seem to prove that this is not the case. Otherwise people here would still be routinely speaking the language of the ancestors. It's true we have many Spanish speakers, but they are the new arrivals. Odds are they will be speaking exclusively English in one or two generations. 

My theory is that different languages ony develop because of geographical or social isolation. People who are close together physically or have the means or need to communicate routinely are always going to speak one language. The fact of Europe and the many languages spoken all over the world is just a reflection of those languages developing during a time when people were much more isolated from one another. Since I am a complete ignoramus about linguistics, someone who actually knows about this stuff will deconstruct my foolish arugments and set me straight. I hope so.


----------



## Lombard Beige

TRG said:


> ... As to the matter of people having a natural tendency towards multilingualism, the U.S. would seem to prove that this is not the case. Otherwise people here would still be routinely speaking the language of the ancestors. It's true we have many Spanish speakers, but they are the new arrivals. Odds are they will be speaking exclusively English in one or two generations. ...



What about the Cajun French (and Louisiana Creole) speakers in Louisiana?
And the Pennsylvania Dutch? 
And the Navajos?

regards


----------



## beclija

TRG said:


> Since I am a complete ignoramus about linguistics, someone who actually knows about this stuff will deconstruct my foolish arugments and set me straight. I hope so.


We've been trying to do so 

And, no, while it is (synchronically) true that sound is the primary modality of human language, Sign Language does not represent an image of spoken language the way writing does, so these two types of a linguistic system are far from comparable. Sign Languages are languages of their own right - you may be able to tell that they are in some way derived from spoken language in that they show characteristics that are naturally explainable as a neccessity of the auditory channel but seem unmotivated for the visual channel (the strictly linear ordering of symbols, where the spoken word is just another type of symbol, for example), but beyond that NSL is no more derived from Nicaraguan Spanish than English is from Arabic.


----------



## Outsider

TRG said:


> As to the matter of people having a natural tendency towards multilingualism, the U.S. would seem to prove that this is not the case. Otherwise people here would still be routinely speaking the language of the ancestors. It's true we have many Spanish speakers, but they are the new arrivals. Odds are they will be speaking exclusively English in one or two generations.
> 
> My theory is that different languages ony develop because of geographical or social isolation. People who are close together physically or have the means or need to communicate routinely are always going to speak one language. The fact of Europe and the many languages spoken all over the world is just a reflection of those languages developing during a time when people were much more isolated from one another. Since I am a complete ignoramus about linguistics, someone who actually knows about this stuff will deconstruct my foolish arugments and set me straight. I hope so.


I don't disagree with what you say there, but I still tend to think of language-creation as an active and ongoing human "instinct", rather than a sporadic act undertaken only in times of need.

As I was writing my previous post, I started thinking about slang and other regional variations in language. As we know, certain social groups are especially prone to developing their own sublanguages, and languages tend to fragment into dialects, given enough time and isolation (I would say the former two are what English has lacked in the U.S.) Prescriptive grammarians regard these variations as "corruptions" of some ideal "correct" standard, but I began to think of them more as the result of groups of people "tinkering" with language as they use it, to adapt it to their needs, and, why not?, even to joke around a little. When I think of common English constructions such as these (warning: obscene language), it seems like the only explanation. Then I realised that this happens all the time around us: when young generations make up their own slang, when urban grafitti painters invent their own calligraphy, when scientists standardize their own jargon... I think these are all instances of a natural human tendency for "tinkering" with communication which doesn't go away even in populations that share a single common language.


----------



## beclija

Consider also some (fairly hypothetical, but nonetheless coherent) hypotheses like the ones expressed in this or this article, which claim that the tendency of language to change is not just some random by-product of some other need but actually an adaptation to a specific function of learned sound patterns that might have been even prior to the communicative function of language: The recognition of group members. If this is anywhere close to true, there is a biological neccessity for languages changing and splitting up relatively quickly, as human groups fraction and merge in relatively short time spans.


----------



## TRG

Lombard Beige said:


> What about the Cajun French (and Louisiana Creole) speakers in Louisiana?
> And the Pennsylvania Dutch?
> And the Navajos?
> 
> regards


 
I have lived in Louisiana for the since 1999 and spent much time in the state in the years prior to that. I have yet to hear any Cajun French except in music. I can't speak to the other two except that as I said earlier the ability to form or maintain a new language depends on geographic or social isolation. Really, it's just social, because geographic isolation more or less imposes social isolation, at least it used to, but in the age of modern communications this is less true than in the past.


----------



## beclija

Even so, you are probably able to tell a Southern from a Yankee from a Midwest accent - approximately 200 years (in some cases less) after these areas have been integrated into the English-speaking world. Given another 200 years, you will probably be able to tell Cambridge, Massachussets from Boston. It's a Law of Nature that languages change, and therefor split up.


----------



## TRG

beclija said:


> We've been trying to do so
> 
> And, no, while it is (synchronically) true that sound is the primary modality of human language, Sign Language does not represent an image of spoken language the way writing does, so these to types of a linguistic system are far from comparable. Sign Languages are languages of their own right - you may be able to tell that they are in some way derived from spoken language in that they show characteristics that are naturally explainable as a neccessity of the auditory channel but seem unmotivated for the visual channel (the strictly linear ordering of symbols, where the spoken word is just another type of symbol, for example), but beyond that NSL is no more derived from Nicaraguan Spanish than English is from Arabic.


 
Interesting word, synchronically; thanks. Can you prove this? Is this idea widely accepted among studiers of language? As I said, I'm an...



Outsider said:


> I don't disagree with what you say there, but I still tend to think of language-creation as an active and ongoing human "instinct", rather than a sporadic act undertaken only in times of need.
> 
> As I was writing my previous post, I started thinking about slang and other regional variations in language. As we know, certain social groups are especially prone to developing their own sublanguages, and languages tend to fragment into dialects, given enough time and isolation (I would say the former two are what English has lacked in the U.S.) Prescriptive grammarians regard these variations as "corruptions" of some ideal "correct" standard, but I began to think of them more as the result of groups of people "tinkering" with language as they use it, to adapt it to their needs, and, why not?, even to joke around a little. When I think of common English constructions such as these (warning: obscene language), it seems like the only explanation. Then I realised that this happens all the time around us: when young generations make up their own slang, when urban grafitti painters invent their own calligraphy, when scientists standardize their own jargon... I think these are all instances of a natural human tendency for "tinkering" with communication which doesn't go away even in populations that share a single common language.


 
Of course languages evolve. I'm not saying they don't. It is one of the reasons, I assume, that we have different languages in the first place. However, language evolution does not tend to multilingualism when all the people using it are in complete social contact. Take the American South. It is well known that people there (here actually) have a distinct way of speaking. I suspect that if the South had prevailed in the Civil War, their way of speaking would have continued to diverge from the English spoken in the remainder of the U.S. There is no telling what it would sound like today. As it is, the English spoken in the South today is much more like the English spoken in the rest of the country because with modern transportation, personal mobility, and instant communication, U.S. English is becoming, I think, more standardized across the country.



beclija said:


> Consider also some (fairly hypothetical, but nonetheless coherent) hypotheses like the ones expressed in this or this article, which claim that the tendency of language to change is not just some random by-product of some other need but actually an adaptation to a specific function of learned sound patterns that might have been even prior to the communicative function of language: The recognition of group members. If this is anywhere close to true, there is a biological neccessity for languages changing and splitting up relatively quickly, as human groups fraction and merge in relatively short time spans.


 
As we say in Louisiana, what it means "the neural basis for vocal mimicry and for mimesis in general remains unknown."


----------



## modus.irrealis

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The general question then is, should states who have pockets of minority speakers encourage a language to survive even when it seems it has little hope?



I'm not sure that states can do anything to help languages that are dying, if speakers of that language are opting to speak different languages and the number of native speakers being born keeps decreasing. Things like teaching the language in school or making the language a requirement for certain government jobs I think at best will produce a bunch of people who will know the language as a second language, and for me, that's a kind of language death too because it's native speakers who preserve the language. (What I mean is if the languages I know as second languages were suddenly wiped out and I had to reintroduce them, they simply wouldn't be the languages they are today, but something that would be influenced, maybe deeply, by my English.)

Although, now I'm wondering, are there any examples of a government stepping and saving a language without there being significant support from society itself?



Lombard Beige said:


> Taking the case of English, from the time of US Independence, British and American English continued to diverge,



And my understanding is that even in the U.S. the various regions are diverging rather than converging, at least phonetically with the various vowel shifts that are occurring.



Lombard Beige said:


> And yet that is what the Swiss government has done with Romansh. This language is spoken by about 50,000 people.



Thanks for that example. I understand the motivation behind it after your explanation. Sometimes I'm tempted to change my mind and say that the actual number of speakers is not that important but rather if there is a stable community of native speakers (whatever that means) of a language that has roots in that country (again, whatever that means), the government has a duty to support these speakers. But then I think of parts of the world where some languages are limited to a few hundred speakers, but are extremely stable and face no imminent threat of extinction, and I can't see myself saying those governments need to do something, especially when that something isn't needed.

A question though, can a monolingual Romansh speaker (if such a person exists?) function as a complete citizen in Swiss society, e.g., can trials be conducted in Romansh?



> Unfortunately, at the time they didn't do much else, so the language has weakened since, but perhaps it's not too late.


Do you think that government action could have helped the language? I'm still firmly convinced that people will do what they think is in their best interest and that if they don't believe preserving their language is, there's nothing really a government can do.


----------



## beclija

modus.irrealis said:


> A question though, can a monolingual Romansh speaker (if such a person exists?) function as a complete citizen in Swiss society, e.g., can trials be conducted in Romansh?


Theoretically, yes, practically, no. As far as I know, trials can be conducted in Romansh, or at least translators will be provided, for the very reason that Romansh is an official language. Equally, important informations from the government are provided in Romansh just as they are in any other of the official languages of Switzerland. But, practically, Romansh is a minority language even in Graubünden(German name)/Grischun(Romansh)/Grigiuni(Italian), the only Canton with a historically established Romansh population - my guess would be that Graubünden's population is 60% German speaking, 35% Rumansh and 5% Italian. All Rumansh children learn German starting from primary school, and most nominally Rumansh communities are de facto bilingual with German, and have been so for decades, if not centuries. So, monolingual Romansh citizens, while they would probably find their way in Swiss society, are only a theoretical construct.

Off topic: Besides the five local Rumansh varieties, the common Rumantsch Grischun and Italian, Graubünden has also at least three very different dialects of German: (a) The eastern Alemannic variant based in the north around Chur, and spreading further, which is similar to the dialects spoken in nearby eastern Switzerland and the Vorarlberg state of Austria, (b) the western Alemannic spoken in some upland valleys by the "Walsers" who immigrated there during the Middle ages from the Wallis canton in western Switzerland, and (c) the Tyrolese (Bavarian) dialect of the village of Samnaun near the Austrian and Italian borders. As a native speaker of Bavarian and someone who has lived in Vorarlberg for considerable time, I understand (a) and (c) to some extent, while (b) is hopelessly alien.


----------



## Outsider

modus.irrealis said:


> Do you think that government action could have helped the language? I'm still firmly convinced that people will do what they think is in their best interest and that if they don't believe preserving their language is, there's nothing really a government can do.


Government action can _change_ what is "in their best interest".


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider said:


> Government action can _change_ what is "in their best interest".



It might be a lack of imagination on my part, but I can't think of anything a government could do. I can think of some fairly oppressive measures a government could use but I'm not convinced that even such measures could lead to more native speakers, and I think you'd still get death by becoming a second language.


----------



## Outsider

modus.irrealis said:


> It might be a lack of imagination on my part, but I can't think of anything a government could do.


One word: *Israel*.

A hundred years ago, it was in no Jew's "best interest" to be a monolingual speaker of Hebrew. Now, for some, that's quite possible.


----------



## Lombard Beige

modus.irrealis said:


> ... *1) *A question though, can a monolingual Romansh speaker (if such a person exists?) function as a complete citizen in Swiss society, e.g., can trials be conducted in Romansh?
> 
> *2)* Do you think that government action could have helped the language?
> 
> *3)* I'm still firmly convinced that people will do what they think is in their best interest and that if they don't believe preserving their language is, there's nothing really a government can do.



*1) *As far as I know, today there are no monolingual Romansh speakers. They all speak German, because they live to the North of the Alps, and they had that problem with Italy that I mentioned. However, that was not always so historically, and I have noticed a tendency for Romansh speakerstoday to answer in Italian. For example when they see I have Italian number plates.

*2)* Yes, if the Swiss government had adopted back in 1938 the measures it adopted recently. I don't think the situation is completely lost, also thanks to the positive support of the other Swiss, like Prof. Schmid himself.

*3)* Well the Romansh do have what they call an "umbrella organization" (Lia Rumantscha), which coordinates with the Swiss and local government (Canton of Grisons, Grigioni, Graubuenden, Grischun). South of the Alps the official language of Grisons, like Ticino, is Italian, but the dialects are "semi-Romanstch" or have Romansch features.  As for grass-roots support, that also exists, BUT they are also localistic and so the situation is not so easy as it could be with the Federal government support. Their slogan is: "Ni Talians ni Tudaisch, Rumantchs vulains restar!": "Neither Italian nor Germany, we want to remain Romansh". You do hear people speaking in Romansh, not exactly in Saint Moritz (San Murezzan), but in the Upper Rhine Valley and in Lower Engadina.  It sounds a bit like Portuguese!

P.S. An off topic to add to Beclija's message: Grisons is the home Canton of Heidi !!!

regards


----------



## modus.irrealis

beclija said:


> Theoretically, yes, practically, no. As far as I know, trials can be conducted in Romansh, or at least translators will be provided, for the very reason that Romansh is an official language. [...] So, monolingual Romansh citizens, while they would probably find their way in Swiss society, are only a theoretical construct.



Thanks. That makes sense, and is similar to the language situation in Canada (with respect to the federal government at least). I was just wondering about what official language recognition entailed in Switzerland.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider said:


> One word: *Israel*.
> 
> A hundred years ago, it was in no Jew's "best interest" to be a monolingual speaker of Hebrew. Now, for some, that's quite possible.



But you think that was a result of government action and not because of powerful social forces within the Jewish community? I'm not saying that languages cannot be saved but that in the end it's not something that a government can have a real effect on.


----------



## Outsider

modus.irrealis said:


> But you think that was a result of government action and not because of powerful social forces within the Jewish community?


Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe there are no monolingual Hebrew speakers in the Jewish communities that live outside Israel. How else would you explain this fact?


----------



## modus.irrealis

Thanks Lombard Beige.



Lombard Beige said:


> As for grass-roots support, that also exists, BUT they are also localistic and so the situation is not so easy as it could be with the Federal government support. Their slogan is: "Ni Talians ni Tudaisch, Rumantchs vulains restar!": "Neither Italian nor Germany, we want to remain Romansh". You do hear people speaking in Romansh, not exactly in Saint Moritz (San Murezzan), but in the Upper Rhine Valley and in Lower Engadina.  It sounds a bit like Portuguese!



I don't know, but for me personally, that's a better sign of the language's chances than official support. I was reading the wikipedia article on the subject, and it suggests that some speakers dislike the standardized form that's been adopted -- is wikipedia accurate here?


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider said:


> Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe there are no monolingual Hebrew speakers in the Jewish communities that live outside Israel. How else would you explain this fact?



Well, Hebrew took off before the State of Israel existed so I don't see how the government brought about the language's revival. But I don't understand your point -- just because something occurs only in a country doesn't mean that that's countries government is responsible for it.


----------



## Lombard Beige

modus.irrealis said:


> Thanks. That makes sense, and is similar to the language situation in Canada (with respect to the federal government at least). I was just wondering about what official language recognition entailed in Switzerland.



It entails a lot, as Beclija says. 

Art. 116 Swiss Constitution
1 The national languages of Switzerland are German, French, Italian and Romansh.
2 The Confederation and the Cantons promote understanding and exchanges between the language communities.
3 The Confederation supports the measures adopted by the Canton of Grisons and Ticino to support and promote Romansh and Italian.
4 The official languages of the Confederation are German, French and Italian. Romansh is also an official language in relations with Romansh citizens. The details are regulated by the law.

However, the Romansh are not fanatics, and they don't insist on everything, because as good Swiss, they are practical and realistic. 

I wanted to add that, for Romansh, the fact that they speak German as their second language is not a bad thing, as the two languages are so distant that it's difficult to mix them up. If you look at their close linguistic relatives in Italy, above all the Ladin speakers of Trento, you'll notice that their language is more "contaminated" by Italian. True, German also contaminates the other languages in Switzerland, e.g. the use of "respectivement" and "rispettivamente" in the sense of "or". But possibly Swiss German is also historically influenced by French, e.g. Radio instead of Rundfunk, systematically ue instead of u umlaut, etc.

Another off topic: it was the Romansh and Italian Swiss from Grisons who opened up the many Cafés Suisse to be found around the world, for example in Spain. In Poschiavo (GR), there is a Spanish quarter (!), which doesn't means that it's inhabited by Hispanics, but that it was built in Spanish "Indiano" style by people who had emigrated to Spain in the 19th Century.

regards


----------



## Outsider

modus.irrealis said:


> Well, Hebrew took off before the State of Israel existed so I don't see how the government brought about the language's revival.


Would those tentative efforts have lasted if the state of Israel hadn't been created? We need not speculate, since there is evidence we can analyse: Just look at the places where the first attempts to revive Hebrew were made (Eastern Europe, I believe), and tell me: how many monolingual Hebrew speakers live there, today?



modus.irrealis said:


> But I don't understand your point -- just because something occurs only in a country doesn't mean that that's countries government is responsible for it.


I ask again: how else would you explain it?
You earlier attributed the successful revival of Hebrew to the strength of the Jewish communities that spontaneously fostered it. But those communities had a state supporting _them_ in Israel. And it was only in Israel that stable monolingual Hebrew communities ever developed. Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


TRG said:


> Since new language you speak of is non-verbal I'm not sure it's relevant.


It sure is.



> Sign language is the equivalent of writing.


It sure is not. Some introductory information on the topic: here and here.



> As to the matter of people having a natural tendency towards multilingualism, the U.S. would seem to prove that this is not the case. Otherwise people here would still be routinely speaking the language of the ancestors. It's true we have many Spanish speakers, but they are the new arrivals. Odds are they will be speaking exclusively English in one or two generations.


This USA map may come as a surprise. The stats underneath the map are interesting too.



> My theory is that different languages ony develop because of geographical or social isolation. People who are close together physically or have the means or need to communicate routinely are always going to speak one language. The fact of Europe and the many languages spoken all over the world is just a reflection of those languages developing during a time when people were much more isolated from one another.


The many dialect continua and the emergence of standard languages in Europe counterspeak your ideas.


Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Lombard Beige

modus.irrealis said:


> Thanks Lombard Beige.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, but for me personally, that's a better sign of the language's chances than official support. I was reading the wikipedia article on the subject, and it suggests that some speakers dislike the standardized form that's been adopted -- is wikipedia accurate here?



Yes. I would say unfortunately, some people are virulently against this "phoney Esperanto-like language!", but perhaps, as you say, the tension acts as a spur. Unfortunately, a part of the problem is religious !!! This is the only part of Switzerland where religion is still a problem. The Upper Rhine is Catholic, with a huge Virgen de Guadalupe type Counter-Reformation Sanctuary, and Engadina is protestant, and not "soft" Anglican type Catholics, but hard line Zwinglian Protestants. Even the Italian-speaking Val Bregaglia is Protestant. 

Another interesting off-topic: the Protestant Reformation saved a lot of Medieval frescos, as the people at the time painted them over with whitewash, which preserved them over the centuries. They also threw the purported relics of the Saints into the rivers, which is perhaps a lesser loss for culture, etc. ...

regards

P.S. I wanted to add that the Swiss government has made it clear that they will support ONE language, but not FIVE!


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider said:


> Would those tentative efforts have lasted if the state of Israel hadn't been created? We need not speculate, since there is evidence we can analyse: Just look at the places where the first attempts to revive Hebrew were made (Eastern Europe, I believe), and tell me: how many monolingual Hebrew speakers live there, today?



I don't know any of these other attempts so I can't speak to them. Did they have the same sort of success without government support like the movement in Israel did?



> I ask again: how else would you explain it?



Well, I'd say that in what is now Israel, people decided to create a Hebrew speaking society, building schools, etc.. I don't see what role the government of a country not even in existence could play in this process.



> You earlier attributed the successful revival of Hebrew to the strength of the Jewish communities that spontaneously fostered it. But those communities had a state supporting _them_ in Israel.



Except that they didn't -- Hebrew was revived before the State of Israel. To my eyes, it looks like the State of Israel is Hebrew because it was establish in a Hebrew speaking area, not the other way around. But tell me, what exactly did the government of Israel do?



> And it was only in Israel that stable monolingual Hebrew communities ever developed. Coincidence? I think not.



By that reasoning, African American Vernacular English is the product of American government policy because the black community in Canada doesn't speak it.


----------



## Outsider

Regarding something that *Lombard Beige* said in the previous page, I agree that the eternal plague of minority languages is the frequent provincialism of their speakers. They let themselves be too easily convinced that anyone who doesn't speak exactly like they do in their beloved village (or some other selected village) can't be speaking the same language as they. The end result of such attitudes is a proud and stubborn fragmentation of an already small and endangered language into even smaller and more powerless pieces. Which, of course, is a blessing for the local "big" language competitors.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Lombard Beige said:


> 4 The official languages of the Confederation are German, French and Italian. Romansh is also an official language in relations with Romansh citizens.



That's interesting that Romansh is limited to Romansh citizens.



Lombard Beige said:


> Yes. I would say unfortunately, some people are virulently against this "phoney Esperanto-like language!"



Calling it "Esperanto-like" makes me think it must be very artificial -- is it? Does any one speak this standard version then, even if just in formal situations, or are just the dialects spoken, and I guess German is used when the dialects won't work.



> P.S. I wanted to add that the Swiss government has made it clear that they will support ONE language, but not FIVE!



What about the canton-level government - is it also just one language is supported? Or even lower level governments?


----------



## Lombard Beige

Frank06 said:


> ... This USA map may come as a surprise. The stats underneath the map are interesting too. ...e many dialect continua and the emergence of standard languages in Europe counterspeak your ideas. ...



Very interesting for those of us who are interested in languages. Also, to avoid sending too many messages,  I hope you don't object Frank (which is also my real name behind the pseudonym Lombard Beige) if I use this space to illustrate Schmid's method for creating Rumantsch Grischun, which is applicable to any language. A fictitious example: 

USA color
Canada color / colour
UK colour
Australia colour
NZ hue

Schmid would chose either "colour", on the majority principle, or "hue", because it is the most distinct, e.g. cudesch < Lat. codex for book rather than *liber (too much like fr. livre or it. libro).

regards


----------



## Outsider

modus.irrealis said:


> I don't know any of these other attempts so I can't speak to them.


You will find a brief mention here. An excerpt:



> The literary and narrative use of Hebrew was revived beginning with the Haskalah (Enlightenment) movement of the mid-19th century, with the publication of several Eastern European Hebrew-language newspapers (e.g. HaMagid, founded in Lyck, Prussia, in 1856). Prominent poets were Chaim Nachman Bialik and Shaul Tchernichovsky; there were also novels written in the language.


Even Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, although he later immigrated to Palestine and did most of his pro-Hebrew activities there, was originally a Russian.



modus.irrealis said:


> Did they have the same sort of success without government support like the movement in Israel did?


Given that there are no monolingual Hebrew speaking communities outside Israel nowdays, I would say they didn't. In all fairness, though, the Holocaust must have also had an impact on this matter. 

So let me give you a different example: Portuguese in Brazil. Several sources estimate that around the early 18th century the most spoken language by the people of Brazil was a form of Tupi (a Native-American language). Then the Marquis de Pombal banned the use of Tupi and disbanded the Jesuits, who had protected the indigenous languages to some extent, and within two centuries Portuguese had become the dominant language in the country. Today, less than 1% of the Brazilian population speaks Tupi. Still convinced that governments are absolutely powerless to effect language?...



modus.irrealis said:


> By that reasoning, African American Vernacular English is the product of American government policy because the black community in Canada doesn't speak it.


The American government never had any clear motivation to support African American Vernacular English (which I believe is considered a _dialect_ of English, not an independent language, anyway). Not so with Israel and Hebrew.


----------



## Outsider

Lombard Beige said:


> Yes. I would say unfortunately, some people are virulently against this "phoney Esperanto-like language!", but perhaps, as you say, the tension acts as a spur.


That is regrettable. They should know that all standardized languages are artificial constructs to some extent. Even General American.


----------



## Lombard Beige

modus.irrealis said:


> *1) *That's interesting that Romansh is limited to Romansh citizens.
> 
> *2) *Calling it "Esperanto-like" makes me think it must be very artificial -- is it? Does any one speak this standard version then, even if just in formal situations, or are just the dialects spoken, and I guess German is used when the dialects won't work.
> 
> *3) *What about the canton-level government - is it also just one language is supported? Or even lower level governments?



*1)* If a non Romansh Swiss citizen chose to use Romansh, I don't think the Government could force him/her to take a DNA test  
In fact, I've met some German-speakers who are fanatical supporters of Romansh. They speak to you in Romansch even if you have difficulty in following.

*2) *If you look at my message to my Flemish namesake Frank, you can see the method. It's artificial if you want it to be artificial. 

*3)* The Cantonal and Municipal government level is the LEVEL of government in Switzerland.  The Canton for practical reasons also supports Romansh Grischun, while the Municipalities (Communes) can by law change their official language. For example, Saint Moritz could re-adopt Romansh if they thought it was in their (for example tourist) interest to do so. If you drive around Grisons, you can see clearly when you're in a Romansh-speaking area, but for non-Romansh speakers its a bit difficult to tell whether you're in a "color" or a "coulour" or a "hue" area. 

The five variants are: Sursilvan, Sutsilvan, in the Rhine Valley, Puter, Vallader, in Engadina, and Surmiran in the middle . There is also ONE officially Italian-speaking Municipality north of the Alps called Bivio (Beiva), as there is ONE German-speaking (Walser) Municipality called Bosco Gurin, south of the Alps in Ticino. 

Hoping that all this is not too boring for everyone. A final thought: of course, Switzerland is I believe the world's richest country per capita and that helps!

regards


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider said:


> You will find a brief mention here. An excerpt:



But that seems to be the use of Hebrew as a literary language (that how it sounds at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_of_Hebrew_language), not aiming at producing a Hebrew speaking community, let alone a monolingual one (although, now come to think of it, I don't see why you place so much importance on monolingualism -- if Ireland's policies ended up with a bilingual country, would that be a failure?).



> So let me give you a different example: Portuguese in Brazil. Several sources estimate that around the early 18th century the most spoken language by the people of Brazil was a form of Tupi (a Native-American language). Then the Marquis de Pombal banned the use of Tupi and disbanded the Jesuits, who had protected the indigenous languages to some extent, and within two centuries Portuguese had become the dominant language in the country. Today, less than 1% of the Brazilian population speaks Tupi. Still convinced that governments are absolutely powerless to effect language?...


Yes, because I don't have enough details about the situation. How do you know that this government action is what caused the language change? (Plus this would be an example of a government damaging a language, which is easy to do because you can just kill all its speakers -- how do you preserve a language?)



> The American government never had any clear motivation to support African American Vernacular English (which I believe is considered a _dialect_ of English, not an independent language, anyway). Not so with Israel and Hebrew.


Alright, but then what did the government of Israel do?


----------



## Outsider

Your skepticism seems unwarranted to me. It is clear that governments can have an effect on language; that's called "language policy". For one thing, if you want to support a language -- building schools that teach it, publishing newspapers and literature in it, using it in the state media, writing laws in it, or even signposts and passports -- none of this is free. The money for it can obviously come from the state. If the state provides it, it's supporting the language; if it doesn't, it's not. Laws to enforce such measures are also clearly a plus. If the state has them, it's supporting the language; if it doesn't, it isn't.

Your suggestion that the extinction of Tupi may have been due to the extermination of Tupi speakers is not borne out by the genetic evidence. Recent DNA studies have shown that the Native American contribution to the Brazilian gene pool is considerable, in some cases reaching 1/3, in others much more. Perhaps you were thinking of another country.

I must conclude that my line of argumentation is not getting through to you. Although this exchange has been stimulating, I think I will now bow out from it.

See you around.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Lombard Beige said:


> *1)* If a non Romansh Swiss citizen chose to use Romansh, I don't think the Government could force him/her to take a DNA test



 it was something that just jumped out at me that it would have a slightly different status, although, like you point, one that probably couldn't make any practical difference.



> If you look at my message to my Flemish namesake Frank, you can see the method. It's artificial if you want it to be artificial.


I can see how such a system could result in satisfying no one. It does seem rather artificial in that it's neither the result of a natural process nor is it backed by a literature, but I'm guessing that if people are allowed to fiddle with it for a few generations, those problems will disappear.



> *3)* The Cantonal and Municipal government level is the LEVEL of government in Switzerland.  The Canton for practical reasons also supports Romansh Grischun, while the Municipalities (Communes) can by law change their official language. For example, Saint Moritz could re-adopt Romansh if they thought it was in their (for example tourist) interest to do so. If you drive around Grisons, you can see clearly when you're in a Romansh-speaking area, but for non-Romansh speakers its a bit difficult to tell whether you're in a "color" or a "coulour" or a "hue" area.


That seems like a reasonable way of handling the issue. A last question, is there any other candidate for standard language, or is all opposition the sort of localist attitude you mentioned before, say one based on any literary works?


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider, alright - I guess we'll agree to disagree. But just one comment:



Outsider said:


> Your suggestion that the extinction of Tupi may have been due to the extermination of Tupi speakers is not borne out by the genetic evidence.



I did not (mean to) make such a suggestion.


----------



## beclija

As far as I know, the opposition to Rumantsch Grischun is based on the fact that it is artificial (i.e. not faithfully reflecting any of the local dialects). I know of no alternative proposal that would equally fulfill its role and which it would be in concurrence with.


----------



## Lombard Beige

beclija said:


> As far as I know, the opposition to Rumantsch Grischun is based on the fact that it is artificial (i.e. not faithfully reflecting any of the local dialects). I know of no alternative proposal that would equally fulfill its role and which it would be in concurrence with.



Also in response to modus irrealis:

As beclija says, there is no real counter-proposal except for everyone to continue using one of the 5 local variants (which can be and are reduced to 2, see below), and RG is not really artificial, in the sense that none of it is invented, unlike Esperanto. Schmid merely chose the most widely used and most genuine terms. A few examples, in Sursilan, Surmiran, Vallader, RG:

pasch pasch pasch > *pasch *= peace
viadi viadi viadi > *viadi *= journey
alv alv alb > *alv *= white 
notg notg not > *notg *= night
ura oura ura > *ura *= hour
sempel simpel simpel > *simpel *= simple
siat set set > *set *= seven
fil feil fil > *fil *= thread
cudisch codesch cudesch > *cudesch *= book
gie gea schi > *gea *= yes
jeu ia eu > *jau *= I 
aur or or/aur > *aur *= gold

The Grisons Cantonal government recognized *RG *as the official language in 1996, alongside German, and Italian (in the valleys South of the Alps): 

"In future, the Canton will use RG to communicate with the entire Romansh population, but may continue to use the local variants in contacts with the various regions, with municipalities and with citizens." 

In the *courts *RG may be used. "The use of the unified language in schools, especially in *elementary schools*, shall remain [for the time being] limited and the variants shall continue in future to form the individual's linguistic basis (principle of education in the pupil's mother tongue), as only certain passive knowledge of RG will be taught. In *middle and professional schools* instead a more important role for RG is planned."

In actual fact, the Cantonal authorities of Grisons, in addition to RG, uses only two variants *Ladin *(*Vallader*) for Engadina and *Sursilvan *for the rest (see above). 

All this has to considered in the following legal context:

Art. 3
Swiss Constitution
*The Cantons are sovereign*, insofar as their sovereignty is not limited by the Federal Constitution, and as such they exercise all rights that are not devolved to the Federal Authority". 

The  Muncipalities, which are sovereign in the areas not devolved to the Canton, for example elementary schools, may use whichever variant they prefer. Again, we are talking of a maximum of five variants, not the local dialects. Thus a school in Engadina will probably teach in its own version of Ladin, rather than in RG, but it could opt for RG if it wishes to.  Probably, as people get used to the new language they will. Under the new law it can no longer opt for German! Similarly for place names. So San Murezzan could no longer become St. Moritz!.

Also, in Romansh areas, all signs must be in Romansh (but the law does not state which kind of Romansh). Example: a bar in Disentis/Muster (Sursilvan area) had to change its name from "Bar amici" (Italian) to "Bar amis" (which is not French, but Romansh). Similarly, Gasthaus, Gasthof , Gaststube become "ustaria", "restaurant" or "albiert".

regards


----------



## beclija

One question, as you seem to be quite knowledgable on the subject: If Grisons employs a "principle of education in the pupil's mother tongue" that allows education in the five local variants, wouldn't that in principle also allow education in Samnaunian, Walser and Eastern Alemannic? As far as I can tell, these "dialects" are at least as far from Standard German as the different Romansh varieties are from each other.


----------



## Lombard Beige

beclija said:


> One question, as you seem to be quite knowledgable on the subject: If Grisons employs a "principle of education in the pupil's mother tongue" that allows education in the five local variants, wouldn't that in principle also allow education in Samnaunian, Walser and Eastern Alemannic? As far as I can tell, these "dialects" are at least as far from Standard German as the different Romansh varieties are from each other.



Well, as I understand it, the first problem is that under the Swiss Federal Law and the Grisons Cantonal Law, the schools teach in *languages, not dialects: German, French, Italian or Romansh*. _This is not a linguistic definition (what is a language and what is a dialect?), but a legal one. _

"Teaching *LANGUAGES*. The legislation on education does not establish the teaching LANGUAGE in the elementary schools of the Canton. For the choice of language, the Municipalities are competent. The study plans issued by the Canton take account of the different conditions and needs of each linguistic group. The implementing Ordinance of the school law mentions the *mother tongue* as the obligatory teaching medium in the elementary schools. The regulations also establish that "*in schools of Romansh and Italian language, German is ALSO taught*". Municipalities with schools whose teaching language is German may declare the teaching of Romansh and Italian to be obligatory for all classes or parts thereof".

The problem with the Romansh LANGUAGE is that it doesn't have an *agreed *standard form. If it did, that form would be used, not the local variant. This is what the Federal authorities, the Canton, the Lia Rumantscha and the supporters of RG are trying to achieve in the long run, but the localists can't digest the idea of not using their own local version. "I want to use Romansh, but MY Romansh. A bit like English, or Spanish, but on a minute scale! 

The same problem that you mention exists in Switzerland with *Italian dialects*. In Val Poschiavo, they teach in Italian not in Pos'ciavin. ("Vargot al va sempri rot" = "Qualcosa si rompe sempre" = "Something always breaks".) Similarly, in Val Bregaglia, Val Mesolcino and Val Calanca (the Italian-speaking valleys of Grisons). The dialect of upper Bregaglia is similar to Romansh, and in fact was Romansh until the time of the Reformation, when the valley officially adopted Italian (strangely under the influence of Italian-speaking Protestants). The same thing applies in Ticino: they teach in Italian only ("l'insegnamento deve essere impartito *in lingua italiana*"). This applies to all schools public and private. Of course, German, English and Spanish are also taught, but as second languages. Similarly, for French in Geneva or Vaud.

regards


----------



## TRG

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> It sure is.


That a deaf people who had lived previously in isolation from other deaf people would spontaneously develop sign language when given the opportunity is not a compelling argument for the case of an inherent tendency of human beings to develop new languages. 



Frank06 said:


> It sure is not. Some introductory information on the topic: here and here.


Since language by definition includes verbal, written, and other forms of communication, I can't really argue the point. But, I hope you can see my point in seeing sign language as more like writing in that they are both visual. How is signing different from making marks on a piece of paper? It's something you look at, not something you listen to.


Frank06 said:


> This USA map may come as a surprise. The stats underneath the map are interesting too.


Map wouldn't come up. I'll check it later.



Frank06 said:


> The many dialect continua and the emergence of standard languages in Europe counterspeak your ideas.


 
So, on the whole are the people of Europe sharing more common language or less? It is hard for me to imagine that differences are not disappearing, but then, I've never been there.


----------



## Lombard Beige

beclija said:


> ... Question: If Grisons employs a "principle of education in the pupil's mother tongue" that allows education in the five local variants, wouldn't that in principle also allow education in Samnaunian, Walser and Eastern Alemannic? As far as I can tell, these "dialects" are at least as far from Standard German as the different Romansh varieties are from each other.



For those interested in this question, here is some more information 

Re your question on *German dialects*, looking through my documents, I find a series of *“Principles for the correct use of language in German-speaking Switzerland”*, which are as follows [I'm translating from an Italian-language version]:

_1) “ German-speaking Switzerland (CH) has two forms of expression: dialect (M) and “Hochsprache” (H). Schools and the media must dedicate attention to both M and H”._

_2) Particular attention must be dedicated to H, as it is an international language of culture, also used in exchanges with the other linguistic communities of our country. Special attention must be dedicated above all to the spoken language”_ [i.e. spoken H].

_3) Schools and media must take into account the following:_
_- fluency in H in relations with fellow citizens of another linguistic community should be considered natural. Speaking H means, in this case, respect for the linguistic minorities in CH;_
_- teachers and media workers act as role models and must be aware of this;_
_- greater use of H in electronic media can contribute to preserve the peculiarities of the local dialects._ [I assume by making people aware of the differences; otherwise the two forms would tend to contaminate each other].

_4. In lessons and radio and TV broadcasts the respective functions of H and M must be stated explicitly_ [i.e. “This programme is in Walser dialect”] _and, in particular, the need for fluency in H must be emphasized._

_5. The relevant bodies _[including the Swiss broadcasting system] _will endeavour, jointly and separately, to dedicate particular attention to H and M. No institution will leave decisions on the choice of language_ [M or H] _to chance, but rather they will issue internal provisions to regulate the qualitative and quantitative relations between these two forms of language”._

For the other linguistic communities, I have already described the situation for the *Italian dialects*. 

For *French dialects*, the situation is more difficult, because the use of these dialects has been historically discouraged, by the local authorities, not by any foreign power, so the local Franco-provençal dialects survive only in rural areas of Fribourg (Gruyère, etc.) and Valais. Also, I think a bit in Jura, but those dialects are not Franco-provençal but a form of eastern French (langue d'oil). In other words, French-speaking CH does not have a diglossic situation similar to German and Italian-speaking CH.

For *Romansh*, the situation of dialects and the five local variants more or less coincides, but for a  more informed view of the situation, see (in Romansh, German and English):   

http://www.liarumantscha.ch/

I also have some more updated information on the legal status, but I'll send it in a separate message, to avoid confusion.

regards


----------



## Lombard Beige

Re the Wikipedia article on Romansh, which I have just looked through, it seems perfectly accurate, but a bit pessimistic. So for a more complete view, see the site of Lia Rumantscha provided in my previous message or:

http://www.suedostschweiz.ch/medien/lq/index.cfm

This is the homepage of the Romansh-language newspaper “La Quotidiana”.  
_[Disclaimer and explanation: This is not intended as advertising because there are no other newspapers in Romansh. This is the only one they have, so this link can in no way harm anyone else's interests, I think.]_

 Also, the Wiki article contains a link to the text of the Swiss Constitution (also available in English in pdf). This is more up to date than the version I quoted (because in Switzerland, the Constitution is also regularly updated, with Swiss precision, on the basis of referendum results, etc.). The current text of the article that I translated (which was 116 and is now 70) is as follows, in French (with English translation). The Swiss constitution is also available on the official site in German, Italian and Romansh):

*Art. 70 Langues*
 1 Les langues officielles de la Confédération sont l’allemand, le français et l’italien. [_The official languages of Switzerland are German, French and Italian._] Le romanche est aussi langue officielle pour les rapports que la Confédération entretient avec les personnes de langue romanche. [_Romansh shall be an official language for communicating with persons of Romansh language_].   
 2 Les cantons déterminent leurs langues officielles. [_The Cantons shall designate their official languages._] * Afin de préserver l’harmonie entre les communautés linguistiques, ils veillent à la répartition territoriale traditionnelle des langues et prennent en considération les minorités linguistiques autochtones. [_In order to preserve harmony between linguistic communities, they shall respect the traditional territorial distribution of languages and take into account the indigenous linguistic minorities_].  
 3 La Confédération et les cantons encouragent la compréhension et les échanges entre les communautés linguistiques. [_The Confederation and the Cantons shall encourage understanding and exchange between the linguistic communities_].
 4 La Confédération soutient les cantons plurilingues dans l’exécution de leurs tâches particulières. [_The Confederation shall support the plurilingual Cantons in the fulfillment of their particular tasks_].  
 5 La Confédération soutient les mesures prises par les cantons des Grisons et du Tessin pour sauvegarder et promouvoir le romanche et l’italien. [_The Confederation shall support the measures taken by the Canton of Grisons and Ticino to support and promote Romansh and Italian_].

 * Examples: Grisons: German, Romansh, Italian. Valais: French, German. Zurich: German. Geneva: French. Ticino: Italian.

I think I have now covered all points and provided the necessary links for anyone who wants to find out more.  

 regards


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


TRG said:


> Since language *by definition *includes verbal, *written*, and other forms of communication, I can't really argue the point.


Whose definition is this?
I have the impression that I might misunderstand you -- and if so my apologies -- , but at this moment I think that the quote above would imply that e.g. Blackfoot wasn't a language until the late 19th century, the period that it started to be written down (just as thousands of other languages)? That this would mean that whatever the origin(s) of language(s), and whatever the timeframe you want to apply, language(s) didn't exist until it was put down on clay/rock/papyrus/bamboo or whatever medium?



> But, I hope you can see my point in seeing sign language as more like writing in that they are both visual. How is signing different from making marks on a piece of paper? It's something you look at, not something you listen to.


I don't _see _the point (no pun intended) at all. Writing is a secundary expression, while the signing is rather primary. 
To but it very black and white: without writing, let's say English, you still have a language (spoken by millions), without signing, you don't have an English (or American) Sign Language.
For me it's hard to put the act of signing ASL on a par with writing American English. 



> So, on the whole are the people of Europe sharing more common language or less? It is hard for me to imagine that differences are not disappearing, but then, I've never been there.


I am sorry, I don't understand the first sentence. I don't see what you mean by 'common language'.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## etornudo

TRG said:


> Since language by definition includes verbal, written, and other forms of communication, I can't really argue the point. But, I hope you can see my point in seeing sign language as more like writing in that they are both visual. How is signing different from making marks on a piece of paper? It's something you look at, not something you listen to.




It's different because they are learned in differnt ways and at different times in your life. By the time a child learns how to read and write, he already talks or signs. Talking and signing seems to occur without effort, while writing takes a great deal of time and effort.

You can't read, write, or sign in complete darkness. But I think that's where the parallel ends.


----------



## MarX

luis masci said:


> According with leading language experts about half the planet's languages are facing extinction and with them a differing vision of the world.
> Professor David Crystal, of the University of North Wales, said: This is the big crisis. Of the 6000 or so languages in the world, half are so seriously endangered they are unlikely to last the century.
> The number of speakers go from the two billion or so that speak English, to about 60 languages in the world where there is one speaker left. These are the ones in danger. Ninety-six per cent of the world's languages are spoken by 4 per cent of the people.
> What would do you think? Is it really pity that many minor languages and dialects will be lost forever, or for the opposite do you think it will be for good due to simplification and practical reasons?


 
It is a pity that many languages are dying. But languages have always died or being modified constantly.
The only difference is that today it is happening much more apace.

Saludo


----------



## vince

To protect a minority language you must unite "dialects" into a single standardized form.

It doesn't matter whether only 5% of the speakers speak this standardized form. A standard grammar must be written up and international vocabulary translated. Then this language must be taught to all of the speakers of the original "dialects". They must also be convinced that their "dialects" are not stand-alone linguistic units, but a part of this standardized language.

As artificial as it may sound, most national languages of today once started as imposed unifications of hundreds of related dialects (and sometimes languages). One dialect was imposed on all others and speakers were told that this dialect represented the standard form of the language of which their local dialect was a part of.

Linguists have already united many minority "dialects" into languages. But if you tell someone from Bern that you are speaking the same speech as someone from Z"urich (Alemannish), or tell someone from Shanghai that you are speaking the same speech as someone from Suzhou (Wu), they will laugh at you. Because these languages (Alemannisch and Wu) exist only to linguists.


----------



## michimz

There is one point that I don't think has been bluntly stated on the clarifications about why ASL is indeed a language and not the same as marks on a piece of paper. Writing is the English language in written form. ASL is not English, and has it's own grammatical structure and everything else that has to do with a language (except, of course anything vocal.) It has dialects - urban, classic, etc., and there is even the same controversy about English infiltrating as there is with _Spanglish. _Not all who sign know English.


----------



## Outsider

vince said:


> Linguists have already united many minority "dialects" into languages. But if you tell someone from Bern that you are speaking the same speech as someone from Z"urich (Alemannish), or tell someone from Shanghai that you are speaking the same speech as someone from Suzhou (Wu), they will laugh at you. Because these languages (Alemannisch and Wu) exist only to linguists.


The Swiss would laugh at you if you told them they speak German? I doubt that very much!

Actually, from what I've observed, linguists go out of their way to split languages into as many sub-"languages" as they possibly can, sometimes to an extent that I find a bit ridiculous -- just look at the Ethnologue Report classification.


----------



## michimz

modus.irrealis said:


> If all language died the way Latin (allegedly) did, I don't think anyone would have a problem. My personal concern is the the loss of scientific data that would occur if languages (or language families) died out that had no close relatives. I've read about all sorts of linguistic hypotheses that seemed to be universal but were proven to not be because of an "exotic" language with very few members. If someone thinks, like I do, that human language reflects the way the human brain works, then you need to know all possible human languages before you start making any conclusions, and if some languages are lost because of historical circumstances, any conclusions will be skewed in favour of the patterns that the big languages exhibit. From that perspective, language death is a huge loss for me.
> 
> From a cultural perspective, not so much. Although I do think there is some kind of link between culture and language, I do not think that there are cultures that can only be expressed in one language or languages that can only express one culture. If a people moves to a new language, they will find ways to express their culture in their new language.
> 
> I'd also add that ultimately what language you use is the choice of individuals and I don't think people on the outside should criticize anybody because they decide to "abandon" their language. Personally, I'd like to see massive efforts made to record and describe as many languages as possible before they die out, and I know this is happening but I've read criticisms from some linguists that not enough of this is happening, and it would be more than a pity if this were true.


 
I agree completely with the first paragraph, and I disagree completely with the second. Language and culture are inseparable. When one dies, the other dies with it. There are things that simply cannot be expressed in another language. My husband's first language is Nahuatl.  There are many things that he tells me about that he has a hard time explaining simply because the words of English or Spanish just do not do justice.  One very basic example is a huipil, it is the white shawl-like cloth that is worn on top of the _tilmaj _(clothing).  Sure, you could call it a shawl, but that is not what it is and it does not carry with it all of the cultural significance that a huipil does.  This is just a very simple example and does not even begin to show how important a language is to it's culture.  
I do agree, however, that more documentation is needed, and fast!

Tied in with this, bio-diversity is also related to language and culture. There is a very interesting book that talks about this. Where there is dense biodiversity, there is also dense cultural and linguistic diversity. In other words, the hotter the climate, the more languages you will find. If you don't think that language death matters, just think about how many undiscovered plants and other life-forms are in these hot places (rain forests). There are natives in these places that know things that no scientist would ever be able to 'discover' after studying them. We can only get this information from these people. (And then we put patents on this information.... different topic!). When the language of these people die, the language, information, and biodiversity all die along with it. This order can vary, but really it all is happening at the same time.


----------



## modus.irrealis

michimz said:


> I agree completely with the first paragraph, and I disagree completely with the second. Language and culture are inseparable. When one dies, the other dies with it. There are things that simply cannot be expressed in another language. My husband's first language is Nahuatl.  There are many things that he tells me about that he has a hard time explaining simply because the words of English or Spanish just do not do justice.  One very basic example is a huipil, it is the white shawl-like cloth that is worn on top of the _tilmaj _(clothing).  Sure, you could call it a shawl, but that is not what it is and it does not carry with it all of the cultural significance that a huipil does.  This is just a very simple example and does not even begin to show how important a language is to it's culture.


I wrote that over a year ago so I'm fairly surprised I still agree with it . I don't see why it can't be expressed in another language. Why can't the Nahuatl word be borrowed or the meaning of another Spanish word modified or even a completely new Spanish word created?


----------



## michimz

Well, like I said, the _huipil_ is a very basic example. It is just one word that I used to try to show what I'm saying and anybody who has studied a foreign language knows that a language is more than vocabulary. It is a way of thinking. Lets say your favorite food is a sandwich made with goat cheese. If goats become extinct, you could always make your sandwich with cheese made from cow, and it will still be pretty good. Your sandwich, however, will never be the same as it once was. 

Haha! Kind of silly, I know, but I don't really know how best to explain it. Culture is indeed directly linked to language. 

In this book, the author compares English to Wal-mart in that English is taking over other languages the way Wal-mart takes over small businesses. In this book, a member of the Native tribe in Oklahoma, the Euchee tribe, disagrees with the author. He claims that they are not the same because you can still find the things you need in Wal-mart after the small businesses shut down, but English is not like that. "English doesn't sell the other merchandise - it eliminates the other merchandise." This is quoted from page 79 which can be seen on the preview in the link. This is a very interesting book because the perspective is different. The author is not a linguist, he is a journalist.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

We're risking to drift off, but if language is a way of thinking, then what are we going to do with words as "atom"? What does "atom" (roughly translated as "cannot be split") say about our way of thinking about atoms?



> Culture is indeed directly linked to language.


I smell Sapir-Whorf...

My question is: shouldn't we a bit more careful before making the most dramatic conclusions on the basis of an out-of-date theory (at least the hardcore version) and a set of badly chosen examples?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## michimz

Well, Frank, I see you don't agree with me. 
How could you say that this is a "dramatic conclusion?" How could you possibly separate the two??

Sapir-Whorf.... While indeed interesting, their hypothesis is not what I am basing my comments on. The books I have mentioned were published in 2000 and 2005, among others. I'm not trying to say that I am any kind of expert on the matter. The reading I have done on this topic has been purely because I'm very interested in the matter and because it is of personal concern to me. 

Furthermore, if you want to talk about badly chosen examples, I think your atom example tops them all! What are you supporting with that? The cultural information that is tied to the language that I'm referring is not the history of the word. I'm talking about the cultural meanings that people have arbitrarily assigned to a word regardless of the origin of the word.


----------



## Hulalessar

Whether the Sapir-Worf hypothesis (in its strong or weak form) is correct or not, what I do think happens is that languages divide up the way the world is seen in different ways. "The world" consists of an infinite number of things/events and no language can have a word for everything or indeed describe the world perfectly. All languages are conventions and each has its convention as to how to describe the world. No two languages will ever coincide. If a language is lost, then what is lost is a unique way of looking at the world.

Whatever one may mean by "culture" there is not always a one-to-one correlation between a particular language and a particular culture. Some cultures share a language and some cultures use more than one language. Regarded simply as a means of communication, languages do not neatly coincide with cultural, or indeed ethnic, religious, or national boundaries.


----------



## vince

Outsider said:


> The Swiss would laugh at you if you told them they speak German? I doubt that very much!



If you heard a Bernese person speaking Alemannisch, and you asked them what they were speaking, they would say, "I am speaking 'Dialect'" or "Bernese dialect". Then if you ask them, what is Bernese a dialect of? They would say "German". The same thing would happen if you asked an Alemannisch speaker in Zürich. Now, if you asked them whether Bernese and Zürich Alemannisch were the same "Dialekt", they would say "No!" If you asked them what they have in common, they would say, "They are both German dialects"

What I am getting at is that there is no sense of the word "Alemannisch" beyond linguistics. To Swiss Alemannic speakers, everything is a German dialect.



> Actually, from what I've observed, linguists go out of their way to split languages into as many sub-"languages" as they possibly can, sometimes to an extent that I find a bit ridiculous -- just look at the Ethnologue Report classification.



Think to yourself why Portuguese is a separate language from Spanish. It is definitely not for linguistic reasons, but more because it has developed a standardized national dialect and standardized written form through which a national culture has flourished. If minority languages are to survive, they too must develop a single standardized dialect and a single standardized written form taught to everyone, and popularized through important works of literature and media. As long as minority language speakers split themselves into village dialects, no one will miss the language when it dies off.


----------



## modus.irrealis

michimz said:


> Well, like I said, the _huipil_ is a very basic example. It is just one word that I used to try to show what I'm saying and anybody who has studied a foreign language knows that a language is more than vocabulary. It is a way of thinking. Lets say your favorite food is a sandwich made with goat cheese. If goats become extinct, you could always make your sandwich with cheese made from cow, and it will still be pretty good. Your sandwich, however, will never be the same as it once was.


I like that example, but it shows where we disagree. I don't identify culture and modes of thought and so on with their expression in a particular language, so for me, if goats are culture, switching language would be like driving your herd of goats over the mountain to another pasture, and you'll have to adapt in some ways, but they're still goats.


----------



## Outsider

vince said:


> Think to yourself why Portuguese is a separate language from Spanish. It is definitely not for linguistic reasons [...]


Really? Kindly define "linguistic reasons" for me.


----------



## avok

Frank06 said:


> I smell Sapir-Whorf...
> 
> My question is: shouldn't we a bit more careful before making the most dramatic conclusions on the basis of an out-of-date theory (at least the hardcore version) and a set of badly chosen examples?


 
I smell a "pointless attack" rather than a "meaningful question." My question is: Why do you always make dramatic remarks about the same things that you constantly keep critizing?



Outsider said:


> The Swiss would laugh at you if you told them they speak German? I doubt that very much!
> 
> I don't know about the Swiss but I would laugh if someone told me the Swiss speak German.


 


MarX said:


> It is a pity that many languages are dying. But languages have always died or being modified constantly.
> The only difference is that today it is happening much more apace.
> 
> Saludo


 


michimz said:


> Culture is indeed directly linked to language.


I agree with you and I dont smell anything.


----------

