# 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?


----------



## 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?


----------



## 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?


----------

