# can Catalan legitimately be termed a minority language?



## dakini79

In 2000, Bilbao hosted the 7th International Conference on Minority Languages.  Catalan was excluded from the conference for the first time, after Lluis Jou of the Generalitat de Catalunya concluded that “it’s growth had possibly been successful enough for it not to have to be included as minority language, with some 94% of the Catalan population able to speak it”.  

However, many reports on the current status and use of Catalan in Catalonia suggest that this decision may perhaps have been rather hasty, with numerous academics declaring that the language is in a ‘precarious situation’ , and ‘is still today a language threatened with extermination’. 

What do you think?


----------



## Roi Marphille

Well, this is what I call a sensitive topic.

The language is actually in danger. The point here is that the Government of Catalonia fakes the statistics. They know they do it, everybody knows it. The reason: to justify the investment they are doing to protect the language. 
This 94% of the population? c'mon this is fake!!! I wonder if there is somebody who really believes that trash. I bet that not even the guy who had the guts to state that, really believes what he said. 

Many think that Catalan language will not survive 80-100 years, I am amongst them. This is something very sad. Anyway, many people will be very happy when Catalan language will disappear. Congrats to them. 

Salut, 
Roi


----------



## Laia

Well, I think that it depends a lot on the immigrants. Most of them only speak Spanish, 'cause they can survive in Catalonia only speaking in Spanish. Here goes the _danger:_ we, catalans, speak them in Spanish, for some reason I cannot understand (although it happens to me).
But I try not to be as pessimistic as Roi (I speak in Catalan with my whole family and 70% of my friends). 
I just don't know what is going to happen. I prefer not to think.


----------



## Catalan Nation

I think that it basicaly depends on catalans. If we really want our language to prevail we will make it last for many years.

I am not too pessimistic, many of my friends back in my childhood did not speak catalan and now they do.

If catalan is a useful language much more people will learn it and the more catalans are active in preserving the language the better the language will be preserved.

Salut


----------



## Outsider

Throwing in my 2 cts., even though I'm not Catalan or Spanish.

_Is Catalan the main language of Spain?_ Not, that's Spanish.
_Is it the main language of any other country?_ No.

To me, this makes it a minority language.

And you should be very, very careful with those statistics that suggest growth in a minority language. The first thing to ask is "What do they mean by 'speaking the language'?" Knowing a couple of random phrases? Having learned it at home and in school, but actually using another language in your everyday life?... In some places, the total number of speakers of minority languages has increased because of better access to education, but _most fluent speakers who use the language in their everyday life are elderly, and the youth overwhelmingly use the majority language_.

Having said this, the UNESCO Red Book on Endangered Languages lists Catalan as 'not endangered'.


----------



## GenJen54

Regardless of one's politics and/or background, it is sad when any language or dialect loses ground and becomes a part of some historical landscape. 

This is happening with some of the Creole dialect because of Katrina (and Wilma).  Many of the remaining true "Creole" speakers were forced to move out of the Bayou.  As such, they are now scattered to different parts, where their language, like much of their heritage, will probably not be carried on. 

It is the responsibility of the younger generations to ensure the language will remain viable, even if through documenting the language in audio and video recordings.


----------



## Roi Marphille

Catalan Nation said:
			
		

> I am not too pessimistic, many of my friends back in my childhood did not speak catalan and now they do.
> 
> If catalan is a useful language much more people will learn it and the more catalans are active in preserving the language the better the language will be preserved.
> 
> Salut


Bé, bé, bé.. *I don't really want to go deeper in this topic because it just produces me nightmares*. I live in Barcelona and sadly, I see what I see, if I'd live in my parents' place in the countryside, I'd probably be more optimistic. 
Salut a la llengua!

Roi


----------



## Catalan Nation

Outsider,

Thank you for the info  

That's a good link  

Salut


----------



## Catalan Nation

Roy

The situation in Barcelona and its metropolitan area is very different than in the rest of the country. However the future of catalan depends a lot in the catalans, especialy in Barcelona

Salut
Xavier


----------



## Roi Marphille

Outsider said:
			
		

> _Is it the main language of any other country?_ No.


...mmm...just a little correction. It is the official and main language of Andorra  . (even that, many people from Andorra speak Castilian and Portuguese as first language)


----------



## Fernando

Laia said:
			
		

> Well, I think that it depends a lot on the immigrants. Most of them only speak Spanish, 'cause they can survive in Catalonia only speaking in Spanish. Here goes the _danger:_ we, catalans, speak them in Spanish, for some reason I cannot understand (although it happens to me).



Because you want to be understood?

I have spoken to Danish people (who have a nation-state). When speaking to you they switch to English. I switch to English when it is needed as "lingua franca" Why should not you?



			
				Laia said:
			
		

> But I try not to be as pessimistic as Roi (I speak in Catalan with my whole family and 70% of my friends).
> I just don't know what is going to happen. I prefer not to think.



I do not feel Catalan is to die. All languages are English-threatened. The catalan is not performing particularly good or worse than others.


----------



## Laia

Estimats Roi i Xavier:

I'm from Barcelona. I was born in Barcelona. I still speak in Catalan.

Confieu una mica en els barcelonins...

Anyway, I agree... the situation is not encouraging.


----------



## Outsider

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> ...mmm...just a little correction. It is the official and main language of Andorra  . (even that, many people from Andorra speak Castilian and Portuguese as first language)


You're absolutely right! I forgot about Andorra. 
I guess it's the majority language there.


----------



## Laia

Fernando said:
			
		

> Because you want to be understood?


 
The point is that we speak to them in Spanish, letting them learn Spanish.
If we spoke them in Catalan, maybe they could learn it too.

Notice that sometimes they don't even know Spanish, and we speak to them also in Spanish and not in Catalan.

And when they only know Spanish, they probably think... "why to learn Catalan? I speak Spanish. I can survive"


----------



## Fernando

If you are talking about people coming from E Europe or Maghreb, I could agree with you: you could talk to them in both Spanish or Catalan (depending on your native language). Obviously there is a pressure since they have a wider realm if they speak in Spanish, since they can talk to anybody in Catalan-speaking world and in whole Spain.

But I do not feel the way to prevent a language from disappearing is rudeness. If so, maybe that language should disappear. Just not to be misunderstood, I do not think I think it is not the case of Catalan.

But, as I said before, is the same for every language, apart from English. Since almost every belgian, or dutch or danish can speak English, I do not feel the urgent necessity to learn danish. Is the solution for danish people to 'forget' or 'ban' English? I think the answer is "Of course, not".


----------



## *Cowgirl*

Outsider said:
			
		

> Throwing in my 2 cts., even though I'm not Catalan or Spanish.
> 
> _Is Catalan the main language of Spain?_ Not, that's Spanish.
> _Is it the main language of any other country?_ No.
> 
> To me, this makes it a minority language.


 
Me too. 
If you aren't a majority than you're a minority.


----------



## Mei

Laia said:
			
		

> I'm from Barcelona. I was born in Barcelona. I still speak in Catalan.


 
Me too!!


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

For me... it is a minority language. 

I agree with Outsider and with Wikipedia

*Minority language*

*From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.*


Jump to: navigation, search
A *minority language* is a language spoken by a minority of the population of a country.


Anyway, this is not to be taken as an offense. It is just a definition.


----------



## Cracker Jack

I concur with Laia. Foreigners usually do not wish to learn Catalan especially those coming from South America.  They are already fluent in Spanish and they find no need learning Catalan because they can alreadfy survive using Spanish.

However, I dissent with Roi.  I don't think Catalan would go extinct.  As long as there are Catalans, it will continue to thrive.  The example of the repression after the Civil War is enough to prove this point.  Catalan survived during that stage, let alone now?  There is so much liberty.  So buddy Roi, don't be pessimistic.  For as long as there is a Generalitat de Catalunya goading the Catalan culture and there are people who obtrude their ''Catalan'' nature, the language will never die.

The sad part however is that even among the Catalans, there are families ''born'' in Catalunya but they speak Spanish as their maternal language. They cannot be labeled thoroughly as Catalans but they are instead called _familas barcelonenses._

The other sad news as reflected by other foreigners in Catalan soil is that given a chance of studying other languages once they master Spanish, they prefer to study either French, German or Italian instead.  This is on the pretext that only 7 or so million speak Catalan whereas there is better job opportunity in learning another non-Catalan European language.


----------



## Roi Marphille

Cracker Jack said:
			
		

> However, I dissent with Roi. I don't think Catalan would go extinct. As long as there are Catalans, it will continue to thrive. The example of the repression after the Civil War is enough to prove this point. Catalan survived during that stage, let alone now? There is so much liberty. So buddy Roi, don't be pessimistic. For as long as there is a Generalitat de Catalunya goading the Catalan culture and there are people who obtrude their ''Catalan'' nature, the language will never die.


 
Yes, Catalan survived almost 300 years of attacks...I hope I'm mistaken my friend  
But just check the Catalan situation in France (where the Republic of France,as a concept, ignores minority languages, in València-area (very worrying, not even in their Generalitat speak Valencian!), in Alghero (some families still use it) and in Balearic Islands (worrying too).


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:
			
		

> Throwing in my 2 cts., even though I'm not Catalan or Spanish.
> 
> _Is Catalan the main language of Spain?_ Not, that's Spanish.
> _Is it the main language of any other country?_ No.
> 
> To me, this makes it a minority language.
> 
> And you should be very, very careful with those statistics that suggest growth in a minority language. The first thing to ask is "What do they mean by 'speaking the language'?" Knowing a couple of random phrases? Having learned it at home and in school, but actually using another language in your everyday life?... In some places, the total number of speakers of minority languages has increased because of better access to education, but _most fluent speakers who use the language in their everyday life are elderly, and the youth overwhelmingly use the majority language_.
> 
> Having said this, the UNESCO Red Book on Endangered Languages lists Catalan as 'not endangered'.


 
I am sorry, but I do not agree with this. I am going to give my opinion, evan though I am not catalan either, nor Spanish, but I live in Catalonia, so I think I know better how the things are.
First, as I understand, minority is a group of people that live in one country, but they belong to another nation who has its own country, like for example Hungairians in Serbia, and vice versa, Serbians in Hungaria... Normaly, minorities appear in border areas between two countries. So, in my example, Serbian in hungary should be minority language, as it is Hungarian in Serbia. Catalan in Catalonia CANNOT be minority language, nor it can be within Spain. It is rather another language spoken in Spain, just as Galician or Baskian. Where it can be minority language? For example, in France, arround the border, if there are any Catalans there living. But, in general terms, Catalan is not minority language, because there is a nation who speaks it, even though Catalonia is not an independant country.
Second... Catalans do speak their language. And it is not truth that older people speak it better than young ones. The common thing I came accross here is that people of my age mostly speak Catalan, but they do not to write it correctly. On the other hand, young people do know to write it correctly. Why? Because until Franco's death, children went to school that was only in Castilian, ie. Spanish. After Franco's death, and when democracy came, Catalan schools teach in Catalan, and children learn how to write and read it correctly. Further more, there is a vivid literature written in Catalan, which is one of the sure signs that one language is not about to die. On the contrary, it is very much alive and it is developing. People here do not know "only a couple of phrases", they speak, laugh, cry, rage, get excited, quarrel, make love in Catalan. And if this is not a sign that one language is live, I really do not know what it is...
Yes, Catalan language is maybe in danger, since there are each time more immigrants (one of them is me, too) who do not have a great need to learn it since they experess themselves very well in Spanish, and since Catalans are mostly bilingual people, most of the time they don't have problems to communicate, nor to find a job... But I dont think that would danger Catalan in terms of being extinguished in some 100 years, since the politics of the Catalan gouvernment in spreading the language is not agressive - everyone who wants, can learn it, even for free, or for a very small amount of money. And I find it more encourging than for example it would be an obligation... I know many immigrants who do speak Catalan (hope one day I will be one of them). The mistake ocurrs in the very same Catalans. Normaly, if they hear some immigrant trying to speak Catalan with difficulties, they pass to Spanish with an intention to facilitate easier communication, and there they spoil everything. Unless the immigrant insists to speak in Catalan, the conversations continues in Spanish... In that way, an mmigrant who tries to learn it, never learn it completely... Hope this chages very soon... I must admit I admire them, since the most of them are bilingual, and they can express themselves both in Catalan and Spanish iqualy well.
Salut.


----------



## belén

Natasha, I can't agree with you more. 

I can talk on my point of view being from the Balearic Islands, and in my opinion, Catalan isn't endangered there, I would say it is quite the opposite: children in public schools are taking all their classes in Catalan and they actually have a hard time writing and speaking Spanish. (which I find very sad, because it is completely possible to be 100% bilingual but I guess that's another thread)

I am from the generation just after Franco died, so Catalan was rescued in schools and so on, I speak in Catalan to my whole family from the oldest to the youngest, to most of my friends in the island and when I am in Palma I use Catalan and Spanish the same. I will never speak in Catalan to someone who doesn't understand it because my priority is communicating, but if we both speak the language, I go for it. 

I know quite an amount of people (either from mainland Spain, from Latin America and from Germany, England...) that live in Palma learning Catalan, I even have a Korean-American friend who moved to Mallorca with her 2 kids and she didn't speak any Spanish and now she basically learns Spanish and Catalan at the same time so that she can help her daughters with their homework, for the girls take all their lessons in Catalan. 

Those are my two _centims,_

Belén


----------



## Outsider

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> First, as I understand, minority is a group of people that live in one country, but they belong to another nation who has its own country, like for example Hungairians in Serbia, and vice versa, Serbians in Hungaria...


You are entitled to a different opinion from mine, but I can't help pointing out that, according to your definition, the Kurds, the Gypsies, and the Native Americans, for example, are not minorities -- since they don't have their own country.

One clarification is perhaps in order, though:



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Second... Catalans do speak their language. And it is not truth that older people speak it better than young ones. The common thing I came accross here is that people of my age mostly speak Catalan, but they do not to write it correctly. On the other hand, young people do know to write it correctly. Why? Because until Franco's death, children went to school that was only in Castilian, ie. Spanish. After Franco's death, and when democracy came, Catalan schools teach in Catalan, and children learn how to write and read it correctly. Further more, there is a vivid literature written in Catalan, which is one of the sure signs that one language is not about to die. On the contrary, it is very much alive and it is developing. People here do not know "only a couple of phrases", they speak, laugh, cry, rage, get excited, quarrel, make love in Catalan. And if this is not a sign that one language is live, I really do not know what it is...


I never stated that Catalans were not using their language; I merely asked the question. I did that because I know of other minority languages where what I described is indeed happening.


----------



## Samaruc

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> Yes, Catalan survived almost 300 years of attacks...I hope I'm mistaken my friend
> But just check the Catalan situation in France (where the Republic of France,as a concept, ignores minority languages, in València-area (very worrying, not even in their Generalitat speak Valencian!), in Alghero (some families still use it) and in Balearic Islands (worrying too).



Here in València, our language has survived for three centuries during which it has been attacked and forbidden and during which only Spanish language has been taught at schools, only Spanish was official... and the language has survived. Despite all the attacks, it's alive.

Now, our language is taught at schools, it is co-oficial, it is used in the Generalitat (not as much as it should, but it is used), we have never edited as many books in Valencian-Catalan as nowadays, we have many media from València and Catalonia (unfortunately no one from the Baleraric Islands...) that use the Catalan language...

Our situation is not good, but it was worse in the past... We are recovering.

So, Roi, don't be so pessimistic. We'll recover.

Amunt els cors!


----------



## Laia

Samaruc said:
			
		

> Amunt els cors!


 
que _macu_  

(beautiful)


----------



## ampurdan

Outsider and Natasha, I don't think Catalan should be labelled "minoritarian" for the same reasons as Gipsies, Native Americans and Kurds in Turkey are called minorities. First of all, the former is a language, the latter are people or nations. 

I'm not sure about the status of Catalan as a language, but to state whether it is "minoritarian" or not, I wouldn't pay attention only in all the people in the country where it is spoken, but I should have to take into consideration the regions where it is spoken and the social status of that language in all the places where it is spoken in the World (it's no worth saying it is majoritarian in one place and minoritarian in another when we are considering globally one language).


----------



## Outsider

Please note that I used the word 'minoritary' in a purely descriptive sense, without attaching any pejorative connotation to it.

I did not mean to imply that the motives for assigning the Kurds, the Gypsies, and the Native Americans minority status were the same as those for assigning the status of minoritary language to Catalan. But I see similarities between the two kinds of situation.

There is only one country where Catalan is spoken by most of the population, Andorra, which is a very small nation. The other countries where Catalan is spoken are Spain (where most of the population speaks another language, Spanish) and (perhaps) Italy and France (where Catalan is in much direr condition than in Spain). In my view, this makes it meaningful to describe Catalan as a 'minoritary language', generally speaking. Or we could just consider one country at a time, and say that Catalan is minoritary _in Spain_. Either way, I think there's no denying that it is in Spain that the largest number of Catalan speakers is found.

I guess your point of view may be that Catalan is not at all minoritary _in Catalonia_. I agree 100% with that. However, politically, Catalonia is a part of Spain, and politics is an important factor in the fate of a language.


----------



## ampurdan

Outsider, I knew you did use 'minoritary' in a descriptive sense, so do I or, at least, I try to. Please, notice that I said I don't know if Catalan is a minoritary language, and I said that because I have not studied the data which could me help to clear up my mind. 

However, I do know how I would procede to determine if one particular language is, in absolute terms, minoritary: I would check the number of the people that use it at home, at work, with their friends, in every possible use, in all the places where this particular language may be spoken (yes, I would probably commit suicide if I had to do it with English).

I don't think this kind of study should stick to one political division, that one of the countries, for instance, but to all the political divisions eventually existing at the moment.


----------



## Outsider

ampurdan said:
			
		

> However, I do know how I would procede to determine if one particular language is, in absolute terms, minoritary: I would check the number of the people that use it at home, at work, with their friends, in every possible use, in all the places where this particular language may be spoken (yes, I would probably commit suicide if I had to do it with English).


And then...? How would you decide whether the language was minoritary or not, given its number of speakers?


----------



## natasha2000

Ampurdan, I never said that Catalan is minority language, read more carefully what I wrote. As a matter of fact, Outsider quotes my post saying the oposite that I said.



> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to a different opinion from mine, but I can't help pointing out that, according to your definition, the Kurds, the Gypsies, and the Native Americans, for example, are not minorities -- since they don't have their own country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outsider, thinking more carefully, I think you are right. Yes, Gypsies and native Americans although do not have their own country, they are minorities. But Catalans do have their own country, even though it is not independent, they speak their language in their own soil - Catalonia. Let me give another example, again with my poor country: in ex Yugoslavia, we had six republics, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro. Now they are all independent countries, but this is not the point here. Let's compare it with Spain. Spain consists of provinces, which would be very similar to yugoslav republics, in repect to the whole state. So, one of the provices is Catalonia. Just as in Yugaslavia were Slovenia and Macedonia, which were two republics that had their own language. The official laguage was serbocroatian, and they learnt it in school, just as the Catalans learn Spanish now in their schools, but theTV, newspaper, schools, were in Slovenian /Macedonian. Just like now it is the case with Catalan in Catalonia. People used Slovenian and Macedonian in they everydays life, just as they use it now, when they are independant, with a little difference, that now as independant countries, they do not have the obligation to have Serbocroatian in schools. In ex Yugoslavia, they were not minoritary languages, but co-official languages. So I would consider Catalan co-official language, since from my point of view, there is a big siilarity in relation Catalan - Spain and Slovenian/Macedonian - ex Yugoslavia. Yes, I forgot, Albanian had the same status, even though, Kosovo, is (was) a part of Serbia, not a republic. There were also minorities and their respective minority languages, such as Hungarian, Slovakian, Biellorussian Gypsyiesm, etc... Thinking it better, maybe this division was according the number of speakers of a certain language inside one country, so, as there was a considerable number of Albanians, Slovenians and Macedonians speaking their own language within ex Yugoslavia, their languages got the title of co-official languages, and since there were less Hungarians, Slovaks, Bielorussians,Gypsies, etc.. they were cualified as minority languages. From this point of view, I dont think Catalan could be considered as minority language, since there are 6 million people in Catalunya speaking it, plus Balears, plus Valencia...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One clarification is perhaps in order, though:
> 
> I never stated that Catalans were not using their language; I merely asked the question. I did that because I know of other minority languages where what I described is indeed happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Ok. I answered the question. Call it whatever you want - minority or co-official language, but what you heaar and know about minority languages certainly cannot be applied to Catalan. I have already said why, and some other people added some more points that go in favor to what I said.

I repeat, I am saying my own opinion, according to what I see here where I live. For sure I am not narrow minded not to allow the other type of opinions. We debate here, exchange opinions, we do not fight. If someone has different opinion, that does not mean he is absolutely wrong, nor that I am absolytely right.
Best regards to all
Natasha


----------



## ampurdan

With the absolute number of speakers. But first I would have to decide what kind of speakers I should consider for my study. Certainly, not that amount of people which can speak the language but virtually do not. I'm not sure about which uses I should take into consideration. This will give me a number, and I could compare with the number of speakers of other languages, obtained by the same process. If that number is over the average number of speakers of all the languages of the world, I would not say it is minoritary. I would not just take into consideration the frontiers of one of the countries where this particular language is spoken, unless I wanted to say that this particular language is majoritarian or minoritarian in one country. But is it worth to say that Catalan is minoritary in Spain? It's kind of obvious to me.


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> With the absolute number of speakers. But first I would have to decide what kind of speakers I should consider for my study. Certainly, not that amount of people which can speak the language but virtually do not. I'm not sure about which uses I should take into consideration. This will give me a number, and I could compare with the number of speakers of other languages, obtained by the same process. If that number is over the average number of speakers of all the languages of the world, I would not say it is minoritary. I would not just take into consideration the frontiers of one of the countries where this particular language is spoken, unless I wanted to say that this particular language is majoritarian or minoritarian in one country. But is it worth to say that Catalan is minoritary in Spain? It's kind of obvious to me.


 
I agree with this method. I would only add that the speakers you count should be NATIVE speakers, because if not, then for example, English could be minoritary language in almost every country in the world... So counting people who have the X language as a mother tongue would be good criteria.


----------



## ampurdan

Of cours we don't fight here, Natasha! I am just saying that the way to consider a language as minority you provide is not the one I would use. You said "So, in my example, Serbian in hungary should be minority language, as it is Hungarian in Serbia"; and I would not procede this way, but I would take into consideration at the same time all the speakers of the language I studied all over the world. That would lead to state if that language is minoritary considering all the languages of the world, instead of saying if this language is minoritary in a particular country or region.

I don't want to fight with you, nor hurt anyone, Natasha. And I think I have read what you have posted carefully and with respect. If you think I didn't, please accept my apologies.


----------



## Outsider

Natasha, I think I see better where you're coming from, now. You grew up in a multilingual country where there were three kinds of languages:

1) The national language, Serbo-Croatian;
2) Regional languages, specific of different provinces within the country;
3) Other languages, of foreign origin, spoken by small numbers of people.

I can see how you may have been accustomed to equate 'minority language' with nr. 3 above, alone, and this is why you do not identify with my terminology. I would probably call 'minority language' to nr. 2 and nr. 3, both.

I don't think we necessarily disagree in anything substantial; it's just that we were using different nomenclature. So long as we all undersand each other, I myself prefer to gloss over the terminology, and discuss the substance. Although I must admit that these language issues have a tendency to turn into semantic mine fields...


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Of cours we don't fight here, Natasha! I am just saying that the way to consider a language as minority you provide is not the one I would use. You said "So, in my example, Serbian in hungary should be minority language, as it is Hungarian in Serbia"; and I would not procede this way, but I would take into consideration at the same time all the speakers of the language I studied all over the world. That would lead to state if that language is minoritary considering all the languages of the world, instead of saying if this language is minoritary in a particular country or region.
> 
> I don't want to fight with you, nor hurt anyone, Natasha. And I think I have read what you have posted carefully and with respect. If you think I didn't, please accept my apologies.


 
No, please accept my appologies, I must have expressed in a wrong way, because I think you misunderstood my words. I said this about fighting in general, not referring to anyone in particular. As I have lived in a multi national country with many minorities, I can help comparing the way it was arranged in my ex country to Spain. I already corrected myself answering,  and I already said I agree with outsider on the way how  to determine if one language in a certain country is minority language or not. I also pointed out that only people who have certain language as mother tongue should be countied, because if not, English would be minority language in many countries.


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:
			
		

> Natasha, I think I see better where you're coming from, now. You grew up in a multilingual country where there were three kinds of languages:
> 
> 1) The national language, Serbo-Croatian;
> 2) Regional languages, specific of different provinces within the country;
> 3) Other languages, of foreign origin, spoken by small numbers of people.
> 
> I can see how you may have been accustomed to equate 'minority language' with nr. 3 above, alone, and this is why you do not identify with my terminology. I would probably call 'minority language' to nr. 2 and nr. 3, both.
> 
> I don't think we necessarily disagree in anything substantial; it's just that we were using different nomenclature. So long as we all undersand each other, I myself prefer to gloss over the terminology, and discuss the substance. Although I must admit that these language issues have a tendency to turn into semantic mine fields...


 
That's right. I have already explained that, as I did not see this message before. Sorry.
By the way, I notice a little disorder in my answers, I apologize for that. I receive e-mails with a delay, so I don´t see all the messages when writing one... Informatics...

One question, Outsider. From your point of view, is there co-official language at all? If no, tell me why you thik like that. And if yes, tell me the criteria you would take to determine if one language is co-official or minority one.
Thanks.


----------



## ampurdan

Natasha, I just saw your post once I have already posted mine. It's the problem with WR.

Anyway, I wouldn't take "mother tongue" speakers into account, but the ones who use this language (maybe should I said with proficiency) at least in some relevant situations at work and with some of their friends... I know it increases the number of speakers of English, that's the reason I've said I would probably commit suicide if I had to perform this study with it, but indeed, the number of speakers of English in non-English countries is increasing all over the world.


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Natasha, I just saw your post once I have already posted mine. It's the problem with WR.
> 
> Anyway, I wouldn't take "mother tongue" speakers into account, but the ones who use this language (maybe should I said with proficiency) at least in some relevant situations at work and with some of their friends... I know it increases the number of speakers of English, that's the reason I've said I would probably commit suicide if I had to perform this study with it, but indeed, the number of speakers of English in non-English countries is increasing all over the world.


 
Well, precisely because of that, I think that only mother toungue speakers should be taken into account. If not, imagine, for example, all North European countries, where a very great number of population really do speak English, and they Speak it pretty well. On theo ther hand, there is no official English community in any of these countries. Ofcourse, for sure there are English or American or Australian people living there, but their number is very low, for sure. People who speak English very well, are Danish, Duch, Swedish. They are by they roots and their genetic background Danish , Duch, Swedish. They cannot be English, since they do not have a single drop of English blood. They feel as Danish, Duch or Swedish. So, English they use can be only treated as foreign language, not minority, or co-offical language. In order one language to be minority language, there must be a minority nation in a ceertain country, and they should have the citizenship of the coutry where they live. Immigrants cannot be treated as minority. In my opinion, the number of native speaking people and the level of their community organizing should be considered. For example, (I think that I am right, I am not positively sure, please some US citizen to confirm this or to deny this) in some parts of USA, Spanish is considered as co-official language, in California and Florida, where a Latin community is very large. And if it is not so, my opinion it should be like that, considering the great umber of Latinoamericans living there. There must be a firm criteria in determining who should be considered as minority and who not. The way you suggest, I see it a little bit to complicated and confused, and at the end, we would have Spanish and English minorities even in Serbia, which you must admit, is a nonsense.
Nowdays, in almost all countries English is used by a great number of people in their everydays work. It is almost impossible to get a job without speaking English. The world of bussiness communicates in English. Almos every international event is done in English, beggining with Eurovision and finishing it with medical, tecnical, etc. Congresses and Fairs. According to your criteria, English should be considered minority language in almost every country in the world. Get my point?


----------



## Outsider

ampurdan said:
			
		

> With the absolute number of speakers. But first I would have to decide what kind of speakers I should consider for my study. Certainly, not that amount of people which can speak the language but virtually do not. I'm not sure about which uses I should take into consideration. This will give me a number, and I could compare with the number of speakers of other languages, obtained by the same process. If that number is over the average number of speakers of all the languages of the world, I would not say it is minoritary. I would not just take into consideration the frontiers of one of the countries where this particular language is spoken, unless I wanted to say that this particular language is majoritarian or minoritarian in one country. But is it worth to say that Catalan is minoritary in Spain? It's kind of obvious to me.


Well, I'm going to disagree... a little bit. 

I think there is not a single way to look at these issues. For example, according to this site, the 'language most widely spoken' in the world is Mandarin Chinese. What they mean, of course, is that more people in the world have Mandarin Chinese as their native language than any other language (around 1,000 million native speakers; estimates vary). But... almost all of them are in China!

Another question we might ask, perhaps as interesting as the total number of native speakers, is "In how many different countries is the language spoken?" In this case, the answer is English, spoken in 115 countries (whereas Mandarin Chinese is spoken only in 5 different countries). In my opinion, this is also a good measure of how 'widely spoken' a language is, just as valid as the absolute number of speakers, although it conveys different information.

Yet another question we might ask is "Which language is most used for communication between people whose native languages are different?" Today, it would be English again, but a few centuries ago it could have been French or Latin.

What I'm saying here is that I don't think the total number of speakers always contains all the relevant information. In my view, this is especially true for minority languages.

Consider East Timor. It's a very small and young country; population: 1 million. They're still trying to figure out which language they're going to use. Candidates include Bahasa Indonesian, English, Portuguese, and a local Timorese language called Tetum. I think there's a chance that Tetum will eventually win out. If that happens, I would say that the future of Tetum is secured. Even though it has only a small number of speakers, it's also got an independent state behind it, which will support this language for as long as East Timor remains independent.

Now let's look at the other side of the spectrum: Russian. A language spoken by some 170 million people. The dominant language in Russia (one of the largest and most populous nations on Earth), and also in a few other countries. But, if you look at the Baltic republics (Russian-speaking population, according to the CIA World Fact Book: about 1.5 million), you will see that, for various social and historical reasons best not discussed here, the governments of these countries are hostile to this language. Given enough time, it's conceivable that Russian will be erradicated from the Baltic. 

And so we have here a 'big' language that is quite possibly doomed (in a particular part of the world), and a 'small' language that is likely to survive and thrive in the foreseeable future! This is why I think that absolute numbers don't tell the whole story, and we need to look at other things.


----------



## ampurdan

I have not much time to answer you, I promiss I will, but indeed, those northern countries feel their cultures somewhat endangered by the advance of English usage. If people use it in Norway at work and with friends, I think it should count. I don't deem it nonsense.


----------



## ampurdan

Last post was an answer to Natasha. Outsider, I don't share your point of view, I promiss to answer you later as well.


----------



## Outsider

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> One question, Outsider. From your point of view, is there co-official language at all? If no, tell me why you thik like that. And if yes, tell me the criteria you would take to determine if one language is co-official or minority one.
> Thanks.


That's a good question... 'Co-official but not equal' seems to be the most common situation. I don't think that Spanish and Catalan have an identical status in Spain. Every Spaniard is expected to speak Spanish, but not all Spaniards are expected to speak Catalan. I'm not saying that this is wrong, mind you. I'm just noting that the two languages are in a different situation within the country.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Last post was an answer to Natasha. Outsider, I don't share your point of view, I promiss to answer you later as well.


I will wait for your reply. 

P.S. Food for thought: the E.U. seems to regard Catalan as a minority language.


----------



## Laia

Samaruc said:
			
		

> Here in València, our language has survived for three centuries during which it has been attacked and forbidden and during which only Spanish language has been taught at schools, only Spanish was official... and the language has survived. Despite all the attacks, it's alive.
> 
> Now, our language is taught at schools, it is co-oficial, it is used in the Generalitat (not as much as it should, but it is used), we have never edited as many books in Valencian-Catalan as nowadays, we have many media from València and Catalonia (unfortunately no one from the Baleraric Islands...) that use the Catalan language...
> 
> Our situation is not good, but it was worse in the past... We are recovering.
> 
> So, Roi, don't be so pessimistic. We'll recover.
> 
> Amunt els cors!


 
I'm thinking... there is a song that talks about the situation of the language in València. It's called "Senyor pirotècnic". There are different versions. (la lletra és una mica bèstia, jo aviso; la lletra és un poc bèstia, jo avise ).

amunt els cors! jeje


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:
			
		

> That's a good question... 'Co-official but not equal' seems to be the most common situation. I don't think that Spanish and Catalan have an identical status in Spain. Every Spaniard is expected to speak Spanish, but not all Spaniards are expected to speak Catalan. I'm not saying that this is wrong, mind you. I'm just noting that the two languages are in a different situation within the country.
> 
> I will wait for your reply.
> 
> P.S. Food for thought: the E.U. seems to regard Catalan as a minority language.


 
Yes, that is exactly the point. They are not the same within the country. Co-official is not the same as official. 
Official (Spanish) is expected to be spoken by everyone in the country, that is the constitutional OBLIGATION of all citizens of Spain, therefore Catalans as well, since they are also Spanish citizens. But besides Spaniards, Catalans are also Catalans, and their language is co-official language. Catalan is expected to be spoken only by Catalans AND ONLY IN CATALUÑA since Catalan is native language of Catalans, not all Spaniards. That is their RIGHT in a democratic country.That is why "_all Spaniards are expected to speak Spanish, but not all Spaniards are expected to Speak Catalan_." Exactly like you said.

My question goes also for ampurdan.


----------



## ampurdan

I know each one of us is talking about how we understand the meaning of the word “minority” and yes, this a matter of convention, and precisely because of that we should convene in which of the senses of “minority” applied to a languade we should use.

As far as the question on the top asks if Catalan is a minoritary language and does not specify where, maybe we should think in worldwide terms rather than in the territory of which sovereign state it is spoken. For instance, if someone asked you whether Portuguese is a minoritary or a majority language, which country would you consider, Portugal? Moçambique? Brazil? (What about the other places where it is spoken but it is not official? What about Galician? Is the same language?) Or else, maybe would you discard a political division which does not work to circumscribe your field of study in absolute terms? Well the same is to be applied for all the languages, even if they are only spoken in the territory of one sovereign state, which nowadays is not the case of Catalan.




			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> the 'language most widely spoken' in the world is Mandarin Chinese. What they mean, of course, is that more people in the world have Mandarin Chinese as their native language than any other language (around 1,000 million native speakers; estimates vary).


 Interesting, I thought English hold that privilege. 





			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> But... almost all of them are in China!


 And so? What’s the problem? China’s territory is not so despicable.




			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Another question we might ask, perhaps as interesting as the total number of native speakers, is "In how many different countries is the language spoken?" In this case, the answer is English, spoken in 115 countries (whereas Mandarin Chinese is spoken only in 5 different countries). In my opinion, this is also a good measure of how 'widely spoken' a language is, just as valid as the absolute number of speakers, although it conveys different information.


 Maybe another interesting question for the ranking could be how much is the avarage income and wealth of the speakers of every language… Seriously, I don’t think the number of states should be taken into account, as the state is not a unity of measure as the meter or the pound are. States are not identical in the in the relevant qualities for our scope, so they don’t work. (By the way, money is). You can’t compare China to Belize or Bahamas, for instance.

I think the relevant point is the number of virtual speakers of the language; the ones who really use the language, independently of whether it is their mother tongue or not, and of course, Natasha, independently of the “blood” which runs in their veins (because we are not talking about ethnicities here, and besides, at least an important part of the native English-speakers around the world have no Anglosaxon biological heritage). This way, Outsider, the language most used for communication would be taken into consideration, English would certainly promote to a merited first position (the ranking in the link you provided only took “native speakers” into consideration).





			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> What I'm saying here is that I don't think the total number of speakers always contains all the relevant information.


 I agree with you, as I said, there is a work to do as to which kind of speakers are to be taken into account.


On the other hand, Natasha, you asked about the co-official status of Catalan. Catalan and Spanish are both co-official in the territory of Catalonia. Spanish is official in all Spain. “Co-official” means that they stand in the same juridical position (this is only what our constitutional laws say). No one is legally expected to know any language in Spain; obviously, there’s no need to do so with Spanish. Some people think a law should be passed, making it compulsory to know Catalan in Catalonia. I disagree, it would be counterproductive and it maybe would injure human rights…

However, the official status of a language may help to secure the future of a language (East Timor) and the official “prosecution” of a language may put it difficult for this language to survive (Russian in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). They may be the CAUSE why a language is minoritary or not, but not the EVIDENCE that it is in fact. Having read all what’s been said in this thread so far, I ascribe this role only to the absolute number of virtual speakers of a language.

Outsider, I took a look to the Italian link you provided. It’s very interesting, but it indeed studies languages which are not the mostly spoken in each of their target states. I think it is another point of view.

Well, Outsider and Natasha, it is a pleasure to talk about these questions with people that have different points of view from mine.


----------



## natasha2000

I think that, in order to answer the question from the title of this post, first we have to be sure we are talking about the same thing. It seems that here the very same word "minority" is understood as a varios and very different things. So, after reading all that was said here in this thread, I concluded that it is defined according to:
1. the number of native speaker in the whole world, generally speaking.
2. the number o speakers, native and foreigners, in the world, generally speaking.
3. the number of native speakers inside of a certain country.

So, the first definition, in my opinion, reffers to how many people use certain language as its mother tongue.
The second definition reffers to how many people use this language in general, no matter if they use it as a mother tongue or as a foreign language.
The third would reffer to languages inside one country and it has inevitably a political and social connotation, while the first two dont have it.
So, first we should agree on which of these three we are going to talk, to avoid any further misunderstandigs. What do you think?


----------



## ampurdan

Well, Natasha, as I've been trying to say, for your second option I'd rather say: "2. The number of speakers, regardless of their mother tongue, who in fact make a significant use of the language all over the world", since it is possible that people whose mother tongue was some particular language, no longer use it, and people who have another mother language use so often that occupies a good part of their speech. This is my proposal.


----------



## Laia

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Well, Natasha, as I've been trying to say, for your second option I'd rather say: "2. The number of speakers, regardless of their mother tongue, who in fact make a significant use of the language all over the world", since it is possible that people whose mother tongue was some particular language, no longer use it, and people who have another mother language use so often that occupies a good part of their speech. This is my proposal.


 
I agree


----------



## natasha2000

[QUOTE ampurdan] As far as the question on the top asks if Catalan is a minoritary language and does not specify where, maybe we should think in worldwide terms rather than in the territory of which sovereign state it is spoken. For instance, if someone asked you whether Portuguese is a minoritary or a majority language, which country would you consider, Portugal? Moçambique? Brazil? (What about the other places where it is spoken but it is not official? What about Galician? Is the same language?) Or else, maybe would you discard a political division which does not work to circumscribe your field of study in absolute terms? Well the same is to be applied for all the languages, even if they are only spoken in the territory of one sovereign state, which nowadays is not the case of Catalan.[/quote]

If you observe languages like that, in general terms, then many official languages of many countries would enter in the group of "minority languages". For example, who else speaks Serbian, Bulgarian, Danish, Norwegian, etc... except native speakers and in their own country? Comparing them with for ejample, English or Spanish, they are sure "minority" languages".

Galician and Bask language should be treated (and I understand, they are treated) the same as Catalonian language in Spain. The thing is, Galician and Bask language are reduced to domestic, home use, only among the family, there is no developed literature in these languages, even the writers of the Bask origin, like Unamuno, wrote in Spanish... Sad, but true. Which of course does not imply underestimating these languages and that those who speak those languages are not in their right to use it. I think these languages *are* endanegred, and Catalan is not.






> Maybe another interesting question for the ranking could be how much is the avarage income and wealth of the speakers of every language… Seriously, I don’t think the number of states should be taken into account, as the state is not a unity of measure as the meter or the pound are. States are not identical in the in the relevant qualities for our scope, so they don’t work. (By the way, money is). You can’t compare China to Belize or Bahamas, for instance.


 
I completely disagree with this. According to this, for example, Norvegian or Sweden should be considered "majority language", and Russian "minority language"???

[/quote]
I think the relevant point is the number of virtual speakers of the language; the ones who really use the language, independently of whether it is their mother tongue or not, and of course, Natasha, independently of the “blood” which runs in their veins (because we are not talking about ethnicities here, and besides, at least an important part of the native English-speakers around the world have no Anglosaxon biological heritage). 

Please, North Americans or Australians are a nation themselves for more than 200 years ago, and they have their own culture, so I think we could speak about Northamerican or Australian blood running in their vains... 


On the other hand, Natasha, you asked about the co-official status of Catalan. Catalan and Spanish are both co-official in the territory of Catalonia. Spanish is official in all Spain. “Co-official” means that they stand in the same juridical position (this is only what our constitutional laws say). No one is legally expected to know any language in Spain; obviously, there’s no need to do so with Spanish. Some people think a law should be passed, making it compulsory to know Catalan in Catalonia. I disagree, it would be counterproductive and it maybe would injure human rights…

OK. I agree. Each country has its own laws and what is valid in one coutry, it is not valid in the other. I was comparing with ex Yugoslavia, and obviously I was wrong. And I am glad because I consider this what you say more democratic. But if Catalan is, as you say, co-official language in Spain, with the same rights as Castilian, so, it cannot be at the same time also "minority language"???

However, the official status of a language may help to secure the future of a language (East Timor) and the official “prosecution” of a language may put it difficult for this language to survive (Russian in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). They may be the CAUSE why a language is minoritary or not, but not the EVIDENCE that it is in fact. Having read all what’s been said in this thread so far, I ascribe this role only to the absolute number of virtual speakers of a language.

Completely agree. But sometimes it is not enough, completely seen from the linguistic point of view. In Spain, giving the status of co-official languages to Catalan, Bask and Galician, it was given a chance to save the language, which happened in the case of Catalan, but not in the case of Galician and Bask, which are right now, as I mentioned before, used only in the family level.

Outsider, I took a look to the Italian link you provided. It’s very interesting, but it indeed studies languages which are not the mostly spoken in each of their target states. I think it is another point of view.

Well, Outsider and Natasha, it is a pleasure to talk about these questions with people that have different points of view from mine.[/quote]

I agree, with you. Pleasure is mine.

PS: Sorry if my quoting is a little bit caotic. I really try to do it as I see in other post people do it, but somehow I don't manage...  I am still a little bit clumsy with all these tools offered here...


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Well, Natasha, as I've been trying to say, for your second option I'd rather say: "2. The number of speakers, regardless of their mother tongue, who in fact make a significant use of the language all over the world", since it is possible that people whose mother tongue was some particular language, no longer use it, and people who have another mother language use so often that occupies a good part of their speech. This is my proposal.


 
Well, then we have another question/doubt/different opinion...
What is a modher tongue?
As I understand, the mother tongue is a language you learn from your earliest childhood, and in most of the cases in this planet is the language used by the country you live in, or the tongue of your parents. There is a case of immigrants whose children mostly learn the language of the country they live in and not of their parents (if their parents are the first generation, of course). So, this what you say"mother tongue was some particular language , no longer use it"... How come that someone can learn a language as a mother tongue if this language is not in use anymore? Who on Earth has a Latin as a mother tongue?

This is how I understand the term "mother tongue". And from this point of view, your theory lacks something. Maybe if you gave me your theory of the term "mother tongue", I would be able to understand it better.


----------



## Laia

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Well, then we have another question/doubt/different opinion...
> What is a modher tongue?
> As I understand, *(1)* *the mother tongue is a language you learn from your earliest childhood, and in most of the cases in this planet is the language used by the country you live in, or the tongue of your parents*. There is a case of immigrants whose children mostly learn the language of the country they live in and not of their parents (if their parents are the first generation, of course). So, *(2)* *this what you say"mother tongue was some particular language , no longer use it"... How come that someone can learn a language as a mother tongue if this language is not in use anymore? Who on Earth has a Latin as a mother tongue?*
> 
> This is how I understand the term "mother tongue". And from this point of view, your theory lacks something. Maybe if you gave me your theory of the term "mother tongue", I would be able to understand it better.


 
Hi Natasha, before (or after) ampurdan replies, I'm going to contribute with my opinion.
*(1)* I agree
*(2)* I think that what ampurdan was saying is that, for example, I would be an English speaker if I were living in the UK. Although my mother tongue was Catalan. So I count as English speaker. "My mother tongue was Catalan, no longer use it ('cause for example I live in UK)"

I don't know if I am wrong, but that's what I have understood.


----------



## Laia

Excuse me, I've read it again, and now I'm confused. I think that my English level is not good enough as to follow this discussion.


----------



## natasha2000

Laia said:
			
		

> Hi Natasha, before (or after) ampurdan replies, I'm going to contribute with my opinion.
> *(1)* I agree
> *(2)* I think that what ampurdan was saying is that, for example, I would be an English speaker if I were living in the UK. Although my mother tongue was Catalan. So I count as English speaker. "My mother tongue was Catalan, no longer use it ('cause for example I live in UK)"
> 
> I don't know if I am wrong, but that's what I have understood.


 
OK.Laia. If Nº2 you see like this, then you're right. But it does not mean that Catalan itself is not in use anymore. My point was:
A) The language itself is not in use any more
and not
B) The speaker does not use it any more, but it uses another one.

If you see what said ampurdan like B), you're right. I wish I could say one day that Spanish is my mother tongue...   But even though I speak it ALMOST as my mother tongue, for me, my mother tongue is, and always be Serbian. I think that here we enter the personal understanding of the word "mother tongue"... And this is of course, very intimate and very personal thing.


----------



## natasha2000

Laia said:
			
		

> Excuse me, I've read it again, and now I'm confused. I think that my English level is not good enough as to follow this discussion.


 
jeejje no seas tan módesta... Of course your English is at the level... Just read it carefully.. 
By the way, what is that you read again and made you confused? Why are you confused now?


----------



## Laia

Well Natasha, the problem is that I read it very quickly before, and as a result I understood another thing... 

I understood B and it was written A...


----------



## natasha2000

Laia said:
			
		

> I understood B and it was written A...


 
OK... Well, as we have already said, we are interpretating the things in different ways, so before giving any opinion, we should agree on definitions.. So, let's wait to see what Ampurdan has to say...

About different definitions... There was a post somewhere here asking, how many languages do you speak? I put 2 (Spansih and English), because I understand that question as How many languages as FOREIGN languages do you speak?
But, then I saw people including their mother tongue, and in that way increasing the number of languages they speak... Personally, I think it is wrong, because if you say I speak Serbian, that does not count, because i did not put any effort to learn it, i learnt is as a child, as my mother tongue... Furthermore, there were people including languages they starting to learn, or languages they have intention to learn... So, when one puts the question in a place like this, where you have many people coming form different countries, different cultures, different point of views, one shuld state and define very clearly what is that he is asking...


----------



## ampurdan

Buf! Natasha, there's much to answer, I'll try to do my best.

First of all, don't worry about the quotes, we all know how difficult is to manage them and I, at least, got perfectly when you were quoting with the help of the blue ink.

As for Catalan, Basque and Galician Status:

As you live in Barcelona, I think you’ll know that in Spain there are autonomous regions, much like the Länder in Germany or, except for all the Federal stuff, the States in the USA. Some of these autonomous regions have ruled about the languages which are used in their territories. I think all of them have granted their languages a co-official status ONLY IN THE TERRITORY OF THEIR COMPETENCE. So:
 
1/ Galician and Basque are co-official in Galicia and the Basque Country, and indeed they are used officialy and taught in school. It is true, however, that their social use is not so wide spread as Catalan. It means that maybe you use Galician at home, but not with your friends or at work, unless you work in an official post (I guess, I’m not sure about its use, I know it is no so bad as you said in your post, since there’s much literature in Galician, but I also know that it is not so used as Catalan is). By the way, Unamuno wrote in the beginnigns of the twentieth century, when no recognition at all was granted to the Basque language (at least since the Second Republic had overcome). Now there is literature in Basque.

2/ Galician, Basque and Catalan are not co-official in Spain, but in part of Spain (it’s good to clarify in order not to lead people less familiarized with this topic to misconception): they are only co-official in Galicia for Galician, The Basque Country and Navarra for Basque and the Balearic Islands, Catalonia and The Valencian lands for Catalan.

“Mother tongue”: roughly, the language in which your parents talked to you. There is no need to resort to Latin (which indeed didn’t die, it just evolved) to know that many languages are increasingly less used by the ones who had them as “mother tongue”. Occitan was the language people mainly spoke in southern France until WWI. Today only old people and some romantic youngsters speak it. There was much people which were talked to in Occitan in their childhood and that now only use French. Why? There may be several reasons. There is a ridiculous official support to Occitan, people think it is useless to speak it etc. Maybe one should know thoroughly the French way of life to answer this question, but the fact is that there is practicaly no social use of it far from the southern farms. This is only one example, there may be thousands of them, sadly.

I didn’t really mean what I said about the income and wealth, it was just a joke I maid to try to make it clear that resort to States or Countries is no use to know if a language is majoritary or minoritary.

I don’t think that the fact that one language is official anywhere makes it “not minoritary” (if this was so, Catalan would also be “not minoritary” since it is official in some places); it depends, absolutely, on the absolute number of their speakers. With all my respects, Norwegian and Bulgarian may be “minoritary” languages too if they are spoken by few people, regardless of their official recognition.


----------



## ampurdan

I've just seen your dialog, Laia and Natasha. I agree with you, Natasha, unless you are a real bilingual (your mother talked to you in one language and your father in another, and using both languages at the same level in your childhood) you have only one mother tongue and it won't change during all your lifetime. Nevertheless, it is possible to stop speaking your mother tongue (I provided an example in my last post), even it is possible to forgot it completely (and I know people who did it, my granny's brother exiled to Northern France after the Spanish Civil War and, after many years of null contact with the people around here, he can no longer speak Catalan, his mother language; he speaks French and some Spanish because he used it with some of the people he worked with in France).


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> As for Catalan, Basque and Galician Status:
> 
> As you live in Barcelona, I think you’ll know that in Spain there are autonomous regions, much like the Länder in Germany or, except for all the Federal stuff, the States in the USA. Some of these autonomous regions have ruled about the languages which are used in their territories. I think all of them have granted their languages a co-official status ONLY IN THE TERRITORY OF THEIR COMPETENCE. So:
> 
> 1/ Galician and Basque are co-official in Galicia and the Basque Country, and indeed they are used officialy and taught in school. It is true, however, that their social use is not so wide spread as Catalan. It means that maybe you use Galician at home, but not with your friends or at work, unless you work in an official post (I guess, I’m not sure about its use, I know it is no so bad as you said in your post, since there’s much literature in Galician, but I also know that it is not so used as Catalan is). By the way, Unamuno wrote in the beginnigns of the twentieth century, when no recognition at all was granted to the Basque language (at least since the Second Republic had overcome). Now there is literature in Basque.
> 
> 
> 2/ Galician, Basque and Catalan are not co-official in Spain, but in part of Spain (it’s good to clarify in order not to lead people less familiarized with this topic to misconception): they are only co-official in Galicia for Galician, The Basque Country and Navarra for Basque and the Balearic Islands, Catalonia and The Valencian lands for Catalan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. I wanted to say the same thing. It would be absurd to put Catalan as co-official language outside Catalonia, and the same goes for Galicia and País Vasco. Maybe I was not clear enough, sorry. I know that there are some writers that write in Basque and Galician, but it is far less than it is done in Catalan. That is why I said what I said. I named Unamuno, because frankly, I am not sure I don't know any modern Basque or Galcian writer. My lack of culture...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Mother tongue”: roughly, the language in which your parents talked to you. There is no need to resort to Latin (which indeed didn’t die, it just evolved) to know that many languages are increasingly less used by the ones who had them as “mother tongue”. Occitan was the language people mainly spoke in southern France until WWI. Today only old people and some romantic youngsters speak it. There was much people which were talked to in Occitan in their childhood and that now only use French. Why? There may be several reasons. There is a ridiculous official support to Occitan, people think it is useless to speak it etc. Maybe one should know thoroughly the French way of life to answer this question, but the fact is that there is practicaly no social use of it far from the southern farms. This is only one example, there may be thousands of them, sadly.
> 
> I didn’t really mean what I said about the income and wealth, it was just a joke I maid to try to make it clear that resort to States or Countries is no use to know if a language is majoritary or minoritary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not agree with your example of occitan language. You cannot take into account the languages that are practicaly dead, as Occitan language (Lengua d'Oc, no? It reminds me of a book about catars and early 11 century I once read) So, Occitan languge was widely used once, yes, but it was in the Middle Ages... We cannot forget that languages develope, change, transform... So according to what you said, Old Slavic language can also be treated as a live language, considering that is the language that is still used bu ortodox Serbian church? I don't think so. Besides, the number of speakers using Occitan is ridiculous, comparing to Catalan, Serbian, Norwegian etc... Which are languages that are still very much alive and used.
> 
> I don’t think that the fact that one language is official anywhere makes it “not minoritary” (if this was so, Catalan would also be “not minoritary” since it is official in some places); it depends, absolutely, on the absolute number of their speakers.
> 
> That is what I think. Catalan is not minoritary language. But before answering this question, you should give us your definition of minoritary language, so we can speak in the same terms. Please look a few earlier posts that I sent, and tell me your definition of minoritary. Before determining and agreeng on definition, we cannot talk about it, since each of us will take a stand taking into account his/her own definition, and it is obvious they are not the same
> 
> With all my respects, Norwegian and Bulgarian may be “minoritary” languages too if they are spoken by few people, regardless of their official recognition.
Click to expand...

 
This depends on your definition of "minoritary language". If we start from your definition, I agree. Serbian, Bulgarian, Norwegian are not so spread languages, besides, they are spoken only within the respective countries, and the countries are not so big as for example, China or Russia, where there are a loto more inhabitants speaking Chinese or Russian, although mainly only inside the frotiers of their own respective countries. 
But if you take my definition of "minoritary language", than Serbian, Bulgarian or Norwegian are NOT minoritary languages, just as it is not Catalan in Spain.
So, please, your definition of "minoritary language" please.


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> I've just seen your dialog, Laia and Natasha. I agree with you, Natasha, unless you are a real bilingual (your mother talked to you in one language and your father in another, and using both languages at the same level in your childhood) you have only one mother tongue and it won't change during all your lifetime. Nevertheless, it is possible to stop speaking your mother tongue (I provided an example in my last post), even it is possible to forgot it completely (and I know people who did it, my granny's brother exiled to Northern France after the Spanish Civil War and, after many years of null contact with the people around here, he can no longer speak Catalan, his mother language, but he speaks some Spanish because he used it with some of the workers in France).


 
These examples are one in million, it is exception, yest it happened and it is still happening, but the number of the people like your granny's brother is small comparing with the number of people who do speak their mother tongue. It happens all the time, immigrant's children forget or never learn properly the tongue of their parents, but the language of the country they live in... I knew people still having serbian or croatian names and surnames, but speaking only English or Spanish, since they have been born and grew and lived in some English speaking or Spanish speaking country. In cases like this, one should put the question in what level those people can be called serbians or croatians? When from your mother country only that is left is ONLY your name, what else is there to say? So, a person called Jovan Jovanovich who was born is USA, grew in USA, has mentality and way of thinking, speaking acting of USA... I cannot consider him anymore as Serbian, nor he himself can. He can be considered American of Serbian origin, at most. I´m giving the examples of a Serbian in USA just as an example, with no second thoughts. The same can be said for for example, a Bulgarian in France, or a Maroqui in Spain.Any way, these are other subjects, and other discussions, it was just a thought it occurred me... 

And in case of Catalans, who are almost all bilingual, how would you decide which is their mother tongue? Personally, I would leave to them to decide...


----------



## ampurdan

Well, indeed, I have already provided my definition of "minoritary language", maybe I did not make myself understood. A minoritary language would be that language whose number of speakers is down the average number of speakers of a language. You take the number of all the speakers of oral languages in the world and you divide it by all the languages alive all over the world, if the number of virtual speakers of the target language is below this number, it should be considered a "minoritary language". 

If you want to study "endangered languages", you should firstly consider if one particular language is minoritary in the world, because if it is not, then it hardly can be deemed as "endangered".

If you say that "official" status makes one language "non-minoritarian", why don't we talk then of "unofficial languages", which would be more clear?

Another issue is saying that one particular language is minoritary in one particular country. Considering the question of this thread, I don't think this is the class of "minority" we are facing, since saying that Catalan is minoritary in France, Italy and Spain is kind of obvious... I'm not sure about Andorra, though, even though Catalan is official in Andorra, it may be minoritary there according to this definition if we count all the people that work over there (in fact, the real Andorran Citizens are very few, if you counted only them, maybe then Catalan would be majoritarian over there).

As for the kind of speakers I would take into account, I think I've made my opinion clear in my last posts. 

By the way, Occitan is still nowadays talked in some places, even if you go in the streets of Toulousse, you will read the names of the streets both in French and Occitan, but it's virtual use is really poor. But even though it was not talked today, I think everyone can understand the concept of one mother language no longer talked, it's happening all over the world with many languages.

Another thing, Latin and Old Slavonic did not die as Occitan is about to do, they evolved into other languages (people did not stop to use it, it was the use of them wich gradually changes). On the other hand, there are languages all over the world which are not evolving, they simply die. English may evolve into different languages if the circumstances happen to favour it. Occitan, in my point of view, is likely to die (let's hope someone correct me), and the fact that you thought that it was talked as long before as the Middle Ages confirms its weakness.


----------



## ampurdan

In fact, we catalans are bilingual in the sense that we are taught to manage two language, but this does not mean that we have two mother tongues. The real bilingual, as I've stated, is he whose mother speaks to him in one language and his father, in another language, having both language the same influence in the childhood life.

If you observe Catalans, you'll notice that most of them speak one language with more ease than the other one. There are cases where both languages are equally mastered, but certainly, this is not the rule.

Let's say I'm more confortable with Catalan than with Spanish, if I moved to Mexico I would be using Spanish all day and even though Catalan is my mother tongue, every year I spent in Mexico with little opportunities to meet friends which I may talk Catalan to, I'm more likely to earn fluency in Spanish (Mexican dialect) and I'll get more chances that my Catalan becomes more clumsy (and, maybe Mexicanized).

Not all immigrants forget their mother tongues, since some of them tend to settle up in communites of the same origins, and their children may talk to eachother in the language of the country of origin, at the same time that they learn the language of the country they live in. It depends on the customs of every community.


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Well, indeed, I have already provided my definition of "minoritary language", maybe I did not make myself understood.
> 
> Sorry, I haven't realized.
> 
> A minoritary language would be that language whose number of speakers is down the average number of speakers of a language. You take the number of all the speakers of oral languages in the world and you divide it by all the languages alive all over the world, if the number of virtual speakers of the target language is below this number, it should be considered a "minoritary language".
> 
> I don't think you can apply mathematial proportion in the field of liguistics. It is simply unapplicable.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to study "endangered languages", you should firstly consider if one particular language is minoritary in the world, because if it is not, then it hardly can be deemed as "endangered".
> 
> I agree, completely.
> 
> If you say that "official" status makes one language "non-minoritarian", why don't we talk then of "unofficial languages", which would be more clear?
> 
> Then we should analyze the use of one language in the world, in general, no matter the number of native speakers or those who have it as a mother tongue.
> 
> Another issue is saying that one particular language is minoritary in one particular country. Considering the question of this thread, I don't think this is the class of "minority" we are facing, since saying that Catalan is minoritary in France, Italy and Spain is kind of obvious...
> In France, yes, in Spain, no, becuse the native soil of Catalan, Catalonia is the part of Spain, and not in France. I didn't know there were any Catlans in Italy... Interesting.
> 
> I'm not sure about Andorra, though, even though Catalan is official in Andorra, it may be minoritary there according to this definition if we count all the people that work over there (in fact, the real Andorran Citizens are very few, if you counted only them, maybe then Catalan would be majoritarian over there).
> 
> I wouldn't dare to say anything about Andorra, since I don't have enough knowledge about the linguistic situation in this country. But I heard Catalan is spoken there as majority language, although a little bit different than Catalan from Catalonia. As a matter of fact, their Spanish is also very strange. Once I had an opportunity to talk in Spanish with a person from Andorra, and I must admit, I couldn't understand him very well. It looked to me that he was speaking some mixture of Spanish and Catalan.
> 
> As for the kind of speakers I would take into account, I think I've made my opinion clear in my last posts.
> 
> By the way, Occitan is still nowadays talked in some places, even if you go in the streets of Toulousse, you will read the names of the streets both in French and Occitan, but it's virtual use is really poor. But even though it was not talked today, I think everyone can understand the concept of one mother language no longer talked, it's happening all over the world with many languages.
> 
> Another thing, Latin and Old Slavonic did not die as Occitan is about to do, they evolved into other languages (people did not stop to use it, it was the use of them wich gradually changes). On the other hand, there are languages all over the world which are not evolving, they simply die. English may evolve into different languages if the circumstances happen to favour it. Occitan, in my point of view, is likely to die (let's hope someone correct me), and the fact that you thought that it was talked as long before as the Middle Ages confirms its weakness.


 
Yes, there are languages that came out of Latin (Romanic languages) and there are languages came out of Old Slavic language (Slavic languages), but these languages, nowadays, are languages of their own, you cannot say that Latin is still living. It is taught and learnt as a "dead" language, the same as old greek. Yes, the modern greek language derived from the old greek, but it is not the same language. So I don't agree with you here.
By the way, I didn't say Occitan was used in Middle Ages and now not. I said it was actively used in Middle Ages, and now there are only a few, old people who use it. As I said, language is a live thing. It develops, chages, merges with other languages, receive influences and influence to the other languages, and all depends on people who use it. If the people use it, change it, take it to other places, it will grow and become richer. If it remains in one place, and people slowly abandon it, whatever the reason, it dies. And that is the fact, no matter how much we like or dislike it.


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> In fact, we catalans are bilingual in the sense that we are taught to manage two language, but this does not mean that we have two mother tongues. The real bilingual, as I've stated, is he whose mother speaks to him in one language and his father, in another language, having both language the same influence in the childhood life.
> 
> That is why I said, let them choose. I wouldn't agree that mother tongue is the language in which your mother is speaking to you, since I met a lot of Catalans of some other Spain part origin (mostly Andaluzia), whose parents never spoke Catalan, but they speak it, and use it in everydays life with friends, at work, with everyone but their own parents. But this is particular case of Catalans, I would agree with this statement in other cases where you have only one mother tongue. This issue is so complex if you start analyzing it. There are so many factors that should be taken into account, don't you think?
> 
> If you observe Catalans, you'll notice that most of them speak one language with more ease than the other one. There are cases where both languages are equally mastered, but certainly, this is not the rule.
> 
> Let's say I'm more confortable with Catalan than with Spanish, if I moved to Mexico I would be using Spanish all day and even though Catalan is my mother tongue, every year I spent in Mexico with little opportunities to meet friends which I may talk Catalan to, I'm more likely to earn fluency in Spanish (Mexican dialect) and I'll get more chances that my Catalan becomes more clumsy (and, maybe Mexicanized).
> 
> Of course, but even if you lived in Mexico the rest of your life, you wouldn't change your mind and consider Spanish as your mother tongue, wouldn¡t you?
> 
> Not all immigrants forget their mother tongues, since some of them tend to settle up in communites of the same origins, and their children may talk to eachother in the language of the country of origin, at the same time that they learn the language of the country they live in. It depends on the customs of every community.


 
Of course, not. You are completely right. But there are immigrants, and immigrants. People are different. There are immigrants who want to adapt themselves to a new society but they don't want to forget their origins. There are immigrants who simply refuse to accept anything from the new society, and they stay with their language, with their way of living, dressing, cooking, eating, etc. This type of immigrants never learn the language of the new country as to speak it fluently. Iheard there are Chinese living in USA for thirty years and they still don't speak English, not a single word. And then, there are immigrants who adapt themselves to a new society completely, forgetting all their origins, and accepting everything from the new society. Of course, this is a personal issue, and everyone is free to do as he/she thiks correct.


----------



## ampurdan

Well then, Natasha, what is your definition of "minoritary"?

"Then we should analyze the use of one language in the world, in general, no matter the number of native speakers or those who have it as a mother tongue."

I do think mathematical proportion is applicable to linguistics if we are talking about an empirical science (part of linguistics er empirical). I don't know a another way to reckon the use of a language, but according to the number of their effective speakers, their users.

You may argue that the average is a very high level and that not all the languages below the average should be deemed minoritary, but only those below the first quartile or something like that. Well, maybe, I'm not sure. Some goode reason should make us decide.

As for the mother tongue, I stick to my version of your definition number 2.

Natasha, taking Outsider's use of minoritary (your definition number 3) in this thread, yes, Catalan is minoritary (in Spain). I think that you and I agree that this definition is useless for the purpose of this thread.

According to what you have said, I think you agree that many languages die because of people stopping to speak them (even those who learnt them as mother tongue), for whatever reasons. So, the speaker's mother tongue should not be taken into consideration, but the language or languages he effectively use in his normal life.


----------



## Laia

ampurdan said:
			
		

> So, the speaker's mother tongue should not be taken into consideration, but the language or languages he effectively use in his normal life.


 
Is this what you meant when you said:



> it is possible that people whose mother tongue was some particular language, no longer use it


----------



## ampurdan

I think mother tongue is the tongue your parents have talked to you, and this does not mean that you can use another language and even "think in it" normally. According to that (and only according to that), even if I stayed the rest of my life abroad, my mother tongue won't change.

That is why I think you should not count only natives or people with mother tongue, because it would be misleading (it would be more misleading if the definition of mother language were "the one you normamly use", because then "mother languages" could vary all along your life) and it won't reflect the effective use of the language.


----------



## Laia

ampurdan said:
			
		

> I think mother tongue is the tongue your parents have talked to you, and this does not mean that you can use another language and even "think in it" normally. According to that (and only according to that), even if I stayed the rest of my life abroad, my mother tongue won't change.
> 
> That is why I think you should not count only natives or people with mother tongue, because it would be misleading (it would be more misleading if the definition of mother language were "the one you normamly use", because then "mother languages" could vary all along your life) and it won't reflect the effective use of the language.


 
Yes, that's what I understood the first time I read one of your posts, and I replied that I agree with that, but then I realized that Natasha had understood another thing. So I ended very confused and lost in all this amount of words...


----------



## ampurdan

Laia said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originalmente publicado por *ampurdan*
> _So, the speaker's mother tongue should not be taken into consideration, but the language or languages he effectively use in his normal life._
> 
> 
> Is this what you meant when you said:
> 
> Quote:
> 
> it is possible that people whose mother tongue was some particular language, no longer use it


 

My point is: given that one's mother tongue may not be the language that one effectevily use, then, if we are dealing Catalan, you should not count the people whose mother tongue is Catalan, but those who effectively use it, in the number of speakers to determine if Catalan is a minoritary language.

Excuse me, my English sometimes makes my speech unclear.


----------



## Laia

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Excuse me, my English sometimes makes my speech unclear.


 
No, it's not your fault, I made all this mess by myself


----------



## ampurdan

While writing all this stuff, I sometimes feel that when some native (or effective ;-) ) English-speaker reads what I have put down here, he will have a lot of work to do, putting all the prepositions I miss and restructuring all the sentences I mix etc. I'm happy if all these mistakes don't corrupt what I want to utter.


----------



## natasha2000

> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, Natasha, what is your definition of "minoritary"?
> 
> "Then we should analyze the use of one language in the world, in general, no matter the number of native speakers or those who have it as a mother tongue."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already said what I consider under the term, "minoritary language". Here you are quoting my words, taken out from the context. This is NOT my defiition of "minoritary language". I repeat, I see it as a language of a people of the same nation who are born, live and die within the soil of other country. But it is obvious that you don't share my definition, so I just accepted your definition saying what you have quoted.
> 
> I do think mathematical proportion is applicable to linguistics if we are talking about an empirical science (part of linguistics er empirical). I don't know a another way to reckon the use of a language, but according to the number of their effective speakers, their users.
> 
> I disagree, precisely because of my undeerstanding of the term "minority". If I uderstood it according to your definition, I would probably agree with you.
> 
> You may argue that the average is a very high level and that not all the languages below the average should be deemed minoritary, but only those below the first quartile or something like that. Well, maybe, I'm not sure. Some goode reason should make us decide.
> 
> For example, in Z country, there are 6 million of X inhabitants, living in X county or republic, or province, and there are 2 million of Y inhabitants living in Y county, republic, or province (it depends on how the Z country is arranged). Therefore, 6+2 = 8:2 = 4 so the average of the country Z, the X inhabitants have 2 million more speakers than average, and Y inhabitants have 2 million less than average speakers. So even though Y is living in their own soil, they are minority in their own country???
> 
> As for the mother tongue, I stick to my version of your definition number 2.
> 
> Different points of view. According to your definition, I might agree with you. But according to my definition, certainly not.
> 
> Natasha, taking Outsider's use of minoritary (your definition number 3) in this thread, yes, Catalan is minoritary (in Spain). I think that you and I agree that this definition is useless for the purpose of this thread.
> 
> I think that the one who put the question should also put the criteria, don't he?
> 
> According to what you have said, I think you agree that many languages die because of people stopping to speak them (even those who learnt them as mother tongue), for whatever reasons. So, the speaker's mother tongue should not be taken into consideration, but the language or languages he effectively use in his normal life.
Click to expand...

 
In some cases such as Occitan or Latin(????) yes, (even though I cannot possibly imagine that there is a one living person in this world who would say that Latin is his mother tongue). But in cases such as Catalan, certainly not.


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> While writing all this stuff, I sometimes feel that when some native (or effective ;-) ) English-speaker reads what I have put down here, he will have a lot of work to do, putting all the prepositions I miss and restructuring all the sentences I mix etc. I'm happy if all these mistakes don't corrupt what I want to utter.


 
I think that as far as now, we are understanding each other perfectly well.... 

Although, we even might pass to Spanish, considering that only Spanish speaking people participate in this discussion....


----------



## ampurdan

Natasha, reading your last post, I feel like we were talking in different languages. I sincerely wanted you to provide a definition in my last post. I didn't quoted you meaning that that was your definition (because, I didn't know which was your definition) but to answer you what I said in the next sentences, that is, that the number of people who speak a language is the only way to know its usage.

"For example, in Z country, there are 6 million of X inhabitants, living in X county or republic, or province, and there are 2 million of Y inhabitants living in Y county, republic, or province (it depends on how the Z country is arranged). Therefore, 6+2 = 8:2 = 4 so the average of the country Z, the X inhabitants have 2 million more speakers than average, and Y inhabitants have 2 million less than average speakers. So even though Y is living in their own soil, they are minority in their own country???"

Yes, that would be pretty much my point, if you changed countries for languages all over the world. And the world has not only two languages but thousands of them. I have also said that you may consider the average a too much high standard, and it would be better half the average or any similar rate... Some good reason should be provided to decide.

You consider a minoritary language "a language of a people of the same nation who are born, live and die within the soil of another country" (now it is my turn to ask for apologies, since I didn't noticed it before). Well, that is not definitely my point of view. I just thougt you have agreed that the "minority" should not have to be considered according to the countries, but according to all the speakers all over the world, as I said; and that we only disagree in the fact that you said that only "mother tongue" speaker should be taken into consideration and I said that only "effective speakers" should be taken into account.


As far as I am concerned:

Natasha and Outsider agree that minorities are only to be considered in the room of one Country. 

I think Outsider would take into account the number of speakers (he has not precised what kind of speakers) of a language, if this one is not the most spoken in this country, then it is minoritary.

Sometimes I think Natasha thinks, that we have to consider not only the countries, but also the regions whit own language, so if one language is majoritary and somewhat official in one country or region of it, it is not minoritary. 

Sometimes I think Natasha says that we have to consider the territory of the Nation who speaks one language, meaning by Nation not a State, but a group of people with the same language and customs. I'm not sure if you meant that, as for you said about Catalan in France I should think you didn't, but when I read your definition I can't help think you are thinking of minority only in the terms of people who have been moved from their soil. I know the word Nation has different meanings, and that may be specially different in the Countries from the East, so some light should be thrown upon all this.

Well, the question is: "can Catalan be legitimtely termed a minority language?" And I won't wait until the one who put the question sets the criteria, because the question permits me think that Catalan is thought as a global unity. The question was not "can Catalan be legitimately termed a minority language in Spain?". To this second question, and If you get Outsider's way to understand it (less than the 50% of the population speaking it) yes, it is. Maybe the treshold should not be 50%, maybe it should be 25%, even this way it would be a minoriatary language in Spain.

I say that political divisions should be taken into account only to determine which would be the "effective users" (if you deemed that the use of the language within the Administration is relevant to determine one speaker, I don't think it is, but...). But I would consider all the speaker of that language all around the world, since what I understand with this question is which is the status of Catalan with respect to all the languages of the world.

There are languages dying constantly, Natasha. Those of the Indians in both Americas, in Russia and the Baltic Countries, in Africa, in Asia... Everywhere. You don't have to resort to Latin. It could have happen to Catalan if things have gone another way, and who knows if in the future it will die (not evolve into another language, which is somewhat natural and is a process difficult and pointless to stop); the fact that now it is official does not secure that its use maybe increasingly reserved to the official uses, and banned from home. I agree that its being official gives it more chances, but... I don't know what will happen.


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Natasha, reading your last post, I feel like we were talking in different languages.
> 
> Well... I agree partialy. The thing is that each of us has its own theory, and sticks to it.
> 
> I sincerely wanted you to provide a definition in my last post. I didn't quoted you meaning that that was your definition (because, I didn't know which was your definition) but to answer you what I said in the next sentences, that is, that the number of people who speak a language is the only way to know its usage.
> 
> "For example, in Z country, there are 6 million of X inhabitants, living in X county or republic, or province, and there are 2 million of Y inhabitants living in Y county, republic, or province (it depends on how the Z country is arranged). Therefore, 6+2 = 8:2 = 4 so the average of the country Z, the X inhabitants have 2 million more speakers than average, and Y inhabitants have 2 million less than average speakers. So even though Y is living in their own soil, they are minority in their own country???"
> 
> Yes, that would be pretty much my point, if you changed countries for languages all over the world. And the world has not only two languages but thousands of them. I have also said that you may consider the average a too much high standard, and it would be better half the average or any similar rate... Some good reason should be provided to decide.
> 
> You consider a minoritary language "a language of a people of the same nation who are born, live and die within the soil of another country" (now it is my turn to ask for apologies, since I didn't noticed it before). Well, that is not definitely my point of view. I just thougt you have agreed that the "minority" should not have to be considered according to the countries, but according to all the speakers all over the world, as I said; and that we only disagree in the fact that you said that only "mother tongue" speaker should be taken into consideration and I said that only "effective speakers" should be taken into account.
> 
> I have never agreed with your point of view. I just tried to observe the problem from your point of view.
> 
> 
> As far as I am concerned:
> 
> Natasha and Outsider agree that minorities are only to be considered in the room of one Country.
> 
> I think Outsider would take into account the number of speakers (he has not precised what kind of speakers) of a language, if this one is not the most spoken in this country, then it is minoritary.
> 
> Sometimes I think Natasha thinks, that we have to consider not only the countries, but also the regions whit own language, so if one language is majoritary and somewhat official in one country or region of it, it is not minoritary.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Sometimes I think Natasha says that we have to consider the territory of the Nation who speaks one language, meaning by Nation not a State, but a group of people with the same language and customs. I'm not sure if you meant that, as for you said about Catalan in France I should think you didn't, but when I read your definition I can't help think you are thinking of minority only in the terms of people who have been moved from their soil.
> 
> Normally, they are not moved. They moved themselves (like Albainians from Albania to Kosovo), or somehow the soil wher they have always lived became the part of their own country (like Catalans within the Spain).
> 
> I know the word Nation has different meanings, and that may be specially different in the Countries from the East, so some light should be thrown upon all this.
> 
> I can provide you my vision of a word nation, which does not necessarily mean it is the vision shared by the rest of Slavic people, even not by the other Serbs. I always spoke from the very beginning about my personal opinion, I cannot speak nor I want to speak in the name of all Slavs or Serbs. That would pass to be a kind of politics, and I would prefer to avoid it.
> 
> Well, the question is: "can Catalan be legitimtely termed a minority language?" And I won't wait until the one who put the question sets the criteria, because the question permits me think that Catalan is thought as a global unity. The question was not "can Catalan be legitimately termed a minority language in Spain?". To this second question, and If you get Outsider's way to understand it (less than the 50% of the population speaking it) yes, it is. Maybe the treshold should not be 50%, maybe it should be 25%, even this way it would be a minoriatary language in Spain.
> 
> OK. This is your point of view, I am perfectly ok with this. But not mine. I think Catalan has enough native speakers within Spain like not to be considered as minority language, but co-official language in the soil of Catalonia.
> 
> I say that political divisions should be taken into account only to determine which would be the "effective users" (if you deemed that the use of the language within the Administration is relevant to determine one speaker, I don't think it is, but...). But I would consider all the speaker of that language all around the world, since what I understand with this question is which is the status of Catalan with respect to all the languages of the world.
> 
> Well, if you look the status of Catalan in respect to all the languages in the world, I agree, it is minoritary language.
> 
> There are languages dying constantly, Natasha. Those of the Indians in both Americas, in Russia and the Baltic Countries, in Africa, in Asia... Everywhere. You don't have to resort to Latin. It could have happen to Catalan if things have gone another way, and who knows if in the future it will die (not evolve into another language, which is somewhat natural and is a process difficult and pointless to stop); the fact that now it is official does not secure that its use maybe increasingly reserved to the official uses, and banned from home. I agree that its being official gives it more chances, but... I don't know what will happen.


 
I agree with you on this, and I do hope it won't happen to Catalan nor to any other language with no so big number of speakers. But, then, we can only wait to see...

To make any conclusion, if it is possible, I would say that the one who put this question has a very good answer, seen from different points of view. As always, talking about something that is so live and in constant change as languages, it is not so easy to give one, straight and simple answer.
It was a pleasure talking to you Max.
Salut.


----------



## ampurdan

Jejeje, qué rápido corren las noticias por WR...

El placer es mío, Natasha, siento no poderlo decir en serbio.

Nevertheless, I would like to say that I don't think that any "nation" should be taken into account to evaluate the state of a language, since nations and languages sometimes may coincide, but normally they don't. Mexicans and Spaniards are not the same nation, just as Americans and Brits, it is kind of obvious. 

I don't think all those who speak Catalan (in Roussillon, in Andorra, in Catalonia, in the Valencian lands and in the Balearic Islands and Alghero) should be considered nowadays as a Nation, mainly because most of them, apart from people who live in Catalonia, don't want to be considered as such. However, it is a fact that they use the same language (with local variations) as what it is spoken in Buenos Aires and in Madrid is the same language (with greater local variations).

In short, I would not use "nation" because of the same reasons I've said I don't think appropriate to use States to determine absolute minority.

And, I'm not so sure that following my method Catalan would result a minority language. In fact, roughly, if there are aproximately 6.500.000.000 people in the World and about 6800 known languages (according to this), that would mean that only languages with a number of speakers below 950.000 would be "minoritary". At first sight, one would think that the number of Catalan "effective speakers" is above that treshold (the Italian web that Outsider has provided said there are 5 million speakers, some people increase this number up to 9 million).

By the way, I have not voted and I have no intention to vote the poll, unless this question is absolutely clear.


----------



## cirrus

Just to confirm it isn't just Spaniards reading this thread, I am interested by this, not least because most of the debate I see about this is on bulletin boards in valencia/ catala. I am surprised at pessimistic statements about the future of Catalan particularly in Catalunya. It seems alive and kicking to me. Forgive me if my examples don't immediately impress - I would like to compare and contrast the situation of catalan with Flemish, Welsh and valencia. 

Less than a fortnight ago I was in Antwerp, which speaks Dutch and has done for hundreds of years despite years and years of wrangling over whether French would become more important. The language question has become so sensitive in Belgium that electronic signs inside the train and passenger announcements on trains change language as you cross language frontiers. On a train from Namur to Antwerp you would start off in French only, pass to French and Flemish (and quite possibly English and German too!) in the Brussels area and then go exclusively to Flemish once out of Brussels. The problems arise if you don't speak one of the languages being used because you were born elsewhere. 

I can understand why people see the need for their language to be validated. If you only use "your language" you give people an incentive to learn it. However there are dangers with this - others can easily miss out on information because you chose not to use a language which you also speak. 

Turning to Valencia and just looking at the example of what languages are spoken at the RENFE. Twenty years ago Valencia Nord station had no announcements in valencia and all the local placenames were in Spanish. These days they are in both castillian and valencia. The difference in terms of valencia spoken in public throughout the city, as opposed to at home or in the Horta (or at the end of jokes) is huge. 

Go to Wales and after years of repression you now see bilingual signs on all roads and there are now Welsh speaking TV and radio stations. The problem is that even in areas where Welsh is spoken by the majority as a first language, you often find that the kids prefer to speak English once they are teenagers. Why? One reason is because it's seen as being cool and more connected with the world. For me this seems to be the key. If the young generation think the language is cool, it has a future. If they don't, and their children don't, then there is a real risk of it becoming endangered whether governments choose to support or not.


----------



## ampurdan

cirrus said:
			
		

> Go to Wales and after years of repression you now see bilingual signs on all roads and there are now Welsh speaking TV and radio stations. The problem is that even in areas where Welsh is spoken by the majority as a first language, you often find that the kids prefer to speak English once they are teenagers. Why? One reason is because it's seen as being cool and more connected with the world. For me this seems to be the key. If the young generation think the language is cool, it has a future. If they don't, and their children don't, then there is a real risk of it becoming endangered whether governments chose to support or not.


 
That is precisely what I think it happened to Occitan speakers in southern France and it is happening with all France's minority (as less spoken than French, no matter if they are official or not, but they aren't) languages, this includes Catalan in Roussillon. Of course, they have this thing of the movility (which is much higher than in Spain), which makes that people change more from region to region along their life and they may think that it is no worth learning the minority language of the place, every time they change, and it is better they all use one single language to make communication easier. French has evolved from "lingua franca" into "only language" in France.

I am not pessimistic about the future of Catalan, I just don't know what is going to happen. At least as for Catalonia, there's much public effort to "protect" it, and people use it in the street, at work (obviously, denpending where you work at), it is the language of teaching at school, there is good TV broadcast in Catalan... Even though, that doesn't mean that one day, teenagers or young people generally speaking begin to think that Catalan is no longer enough "cool" or whatever, and they stop talking it in favour of... Spanish? English? Spanglish? ...? Whatever.

Well, this process indeed begin to happen under the dictatorship of Franco in Spain (which prosecuted the use of Catalan) in favour of Spanish. Once the democracy came, it stopped gently (with our autonomous regions granted, they begin to protect it). But official protection is not everything, if it was so, Catalan would have disappeared somewhen between the last 300 years (time in which in Spain ruled mainly people who despised Catalan or any other thing they thought that manaced the uniformity of the people under their rule), and it happily didn't, because PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT TO STOP USING IT. And viceversa, in spite of the public effort, if people don't want to use a language, it will agonize and die.


----------



## Roi Marphille

Samaruc said:
			
		

> Here in València, our language has survived for three centuries during which it has been attacked and forbidden and during which only Spanish language has been taught at schools, only Spanish was official... and the language has survived. Despite all the attacks, it's alive.
> 
> Now, our language is taught at schools, it is co-oficial, it is used in the Generalitat (not as much as it should, but it is used), we have never edited as many books in Valencian-Catalan as nowadays, we have many media from València and Catalonia (unfortunately no one from the Baleraric Islands...) that use the Catalan language...
> 
> Our situation is not good, but it was worse in the past... We are recovering.
> 
> So, Roi, don't be so pessimistic. We'll recover.
> 
> Amunt els cors!


Amic Samaruc, 
I hope you are right! but I can't stop being pessimistic because I live in Barcelona and I see these kids in that school every morning when going to my job..and I see which language they speak between themselves..
It is true that now the official status of Valencian-Catalan is better than before..but, I think that the percentage of speakers of Catalan-Valencian-Balearic-Algharese in all the areas was much higher before than now. 
Reading all these contributions I tend to believe that many people think that more people speak Catalan now because of the protection and all this stuff. But this is just a matter of accessability, yes, it is true, now more people have access to education in Catalan and have access to read it and write it. Yes, it is true that now, people write it more and more correctly than before...but it does not mean that people speak it more! 
I think people spoke more Catalan before, even when it was forbidden. It is true, however that now you can speak it and you will not be fined, beaten or something.
Anyway, there is still hope.  
amunt els cors!


----------



## natasha2000

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Jejeje, qué rápido corren las noticias por WR...
> jejejeje.... He visto la charla donde descubres tu identidad...
> El placer es mío, Natasha, siento no poderlo decir en serbio.
> 
> Drago mi je.
> 
> Nevertheless, I would like to say that I don't think that any "nation" should be taken into account to evaluate the state of a language, since nations and languages sometimes may coincide, but normally they don't. Mexicans and Spaniards are not the same nation, just as Americans and Brits, it is kind of obvious.
> 
> Again, it depends on whose criteria is taken into account. Neverheless, Mexicans are not Spaniards, but Spanish is their mother tongue, isn't it?
> 
> I don't think all those who speak Catalan (in Roussillon, in Andorra, in Catalonia, in the Valencian lands and in the Balearic Islands and Alghero) should be considered nowadays as a Nation, mainly because most of them, apart from people who live in Catalonia, don't want to be considered as such. However, it is a fact that they use the same language (with local variations) as what it is spoken in Buenos Aires and in Madrid is the same language (with greater local variations).
> 
> The important thing that should be taken into account is which language they consider as their mother tongue, not to which nation they belong. We are talking about languages, not nations. And as you have already pointed out, there are cases of two or more nations using the same language as mother tongue. The nation should be taken into account only if we take my criteria to count, and that is within one country. Counting generally, as you suggested, nation does not anyting to do with this.
> 
> In short, I would not use "nation" because of the same reasons I've said I don't think appropriate to use States to determine absolute minority.
> 
> *And, I'm not so sure that following my method Catalan would result a minority language.*
> Aha!!!! jejejejeje
> In fact, roughly, if there are aproximately 6.500.000.000 people in the World and about 6800 known languages (according to this), that would mean that only languages with a number of speakers below 950.000 would be "minoritary". At first sight, one would think that the number of Catalan "effective speakers" is above that treshold (the Italian web that Outsider has provided said there are 5 million speakers, some people increase this number up to 9 million).
> 
> So, now results that according to both my and your criteria, I am right, isn't it?
> Look, I'm really glad you bothered to find out these numbers, that really puts some light to this subject.
> 
> By the way, I have not voted and I have no intention to vote the poll, unless this question is absolutely clear.


 
Just as I said. It should be determined with more detail. ​


----------



## natasha2000

cirrus said:
			
		

> Just to confirm it isn't just Spaniards reading this thread, I am interested by this, not least because most of the debate I see about this is on bulletin boards in valencia/ catala. .


 
Sorry Cirus, as nobody interferred in a debate except me and ampurdan, I thought nobody is interested in continuing it. My apologies.


----------



## natasha2000

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> Amic Samaruc,
> I hope you are right! *but I can't stop being pessimistic* because I live in Barcelona and I see these kids in that school every morning when going to my job..and I see which language they speak between themselves..


 
Roi, if you think positive, there are more chances to make things go in the right direction. Cheer up, man!


----------



## Roi Marphille

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Roi, if you think positive, there are more chances to make things go in the right direction. Cheer up, man!


 ok, I will!   maybe the situation is not that bad..


----------



## Outsider

This thread has grown... Here's my reply to *Ampurdan*'s post, on page 3.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> I know each one of us is talking about how we understand the meaning of the word “minority” and yes, this a matter of convention, and precisely because of that we should convene in which of the senses of “minority” applied to a languade we should use.
> 
> As far as the question on the top asks if Catalan is a minoritary language and does not specify where, maybe we should think in worldwide terms rather than in the territory of which sovereign state it is spoken.


I don't think that makes much difference, since most Catalan speakers are Spaniards. At best, you can point out, as Roi rightly did, that Catalan is majoritary in Andorra. This is true (and another reason why these questions should be looked at country by country, IMO), but Andorra still has a very small population compared to the overall population of Catalan speakers. 



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> For instance, if someone asked you whether Portuguese is a minoritary or a majority language, which country would you consider, Portugal? Moçambique? Brazil?


I would consider _all_ countries where Portuguese is spoken by a significant portion of the population. If you considered everyone who's fluent in the language (you made the point that we shouldn't just look at the number of native speakers in your post, and I agree), then the answer to your question, for example, would be that Portuguese is:

- majoritary in Portugal (100% of the population is fluent);
- majoritary in Brazil (100% fluent);

- In Mozambique, according to this source, about 40% of the population is fluent in Portuguese. Since no other language seems to have as many speakers, and Portuguese is the official language of the country, I might say that it is a majoritary language, though I admit that this is arguable.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> What about Galician? Is the same language?


That's a different question, and a controversial one. I would prefer not to get into it here.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Or else, maybe would you discard a political division which does not work to circumscribe your field of study in absolute terms? Well the same is to be applied for all the languages, even if they are only spoken in the territory of one sovereign state, which nowadays is not the case of Catalan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the 'language most widely spoken' in the world is Mandarin Chinese. What they mean, of course, is that more people in the world have Mandarin Chinese as their native language than any other language (around 1,000 million native speakers; estimates vary).
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, I thought English hold that privilege.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But... almost all of them are in China!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so? What’s the problem? China’s territory is not so despicable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another question we might ask, perhaps as interesting as the total number of native speakers, is "In how many different countries is the language spoken?" In this case, the answer is English, spoken in 115 countries (whereas Mandarin Chinese is spoken only in 5 different countries). In my opinion, this is also a good measure of how 'widely spoken' a language is, just as valid as the absolute number of speakers, although it conveys different information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe another interesting question for the ranking could be how much is the avarage income and wealth of the speakers of every language… Seriously, I don’t think the number of states should be taken into account, as the state is not a unity of measure as the meter or the pound are. States are not identical in the in the relevant qualities for our scope, so they don’t work. (By the way, money is). You can’t compare China to Belize or Bahamas, for instance.
Click to expand...

I think the main divergence we have is precisely that I would _not_ discard political divisions when studying a language. 
Language and politics are _not_ independent. Politics can influence language, sometimes decisively so. It seems that you agree with me on this much, since you wrote further down in your post:



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> However, the official status of a language may help to secure the future of a language (East Timor) and the official “prosecution” of a language may put it difficult for this language to survive (Russian in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). They may be the CAUSE why a language is minoritary or not, but not the EVIDENCE that it is in fact. Having read all what’s been said in this thread so far, I ascribe this role only to the absolute number of virtual speakers of a language.





			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> I think the relevant point is the number of virtual speakers of the language; the ones who really use the language, independently of whether it is their mother tongue or not, and of course, Natasha, independently of the “blood” which runs in their veins (because we are not talking about ethnicities here, and besides, at least an important part of the native English-speakers around the world have no Anglosaxon biological heritage). This way, Outsider, the language most used for communication would be taken into consideration, English would certainly promote to a merited first position (the ranking in the link you provided only took “native speakers” into consideration).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying here is that I don't think the total number of speakers always contains all the relevant information.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you, as I said, there is a work to do as to which kind of speakers are to be taken into account.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that perhaps we shouldn't just count native speakers. I can accept that, but I don't think it changes my overall idea: that languages should be looked at country by country.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Outsider, I took a look to the Italian link you provided. It’s very interesting, but it indeed studies languages which are not the mostly spoken in each of their target states.


Which is their definition of 'minoritary'. I think that's a sensible definition.


----------



## Outsider

And this is a reply to another post by *Ampurdan*, on page 4 of the thread.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> If you want to study "endangered languages", you should firstly consider if one particular language is minoritary in the world, because if it is not, then it hardly can be deemed as "endangered".


Suppose a language is losing speakers, and you're a billionnaire who can spare a piece of your fortune to help keep that language alive. Now, although the overall number of speakers has been decreasing, in some parts of the world it has remained stable, and in others it has dropped sharply. How would you spend your money?

Would you:

a) Give money to every region where the language is spoken, proportionally to the number of speakers, regardless of whether the language has been receding or not in that part of the world?

b) Focus on investing in the regions where the language has been losing ground, and ignore the parts of the world where the number of speakers has remained stable?


----------



## Roi Marphille

Outsider said:
			
		

> And this is a reply to another post by *Ampurdan*, on page 4 of the thread.
> 
> Suppose a language is losing speakers, and you're a billionnaire who can spare a piece of your fortune to help keep that language alive. Now, although the overall number of speakers has been decreasing, in some parts of the world it has remained stable, and in others it has dropped sharply. How would you spend your money?
> 
> Would you:
> 
> a) Give money to every region where the language is spoken, proportionally to the number of speakers, regardless of whether the language has been receding or not in that part of the world?
> 
> b) Focus on investing on the regions where the language has been losing ground, and ignore the parts of the world where the number of speakers has remained stable?


I guess the most important for me would be to set a quality Satellite TV and invest a lot in marketing and infraestructure of it. 
TV saves languages. TV3 saved Catalan twenty years ago. I think this is a fact. 
a) or b) There are a lot of "depends"...I can't answer that.


----------



## Samaruc

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> Amic Samaruc,
> I hope you are right! but I can't stop being pessimistic because I live in Barcelona and I see these kids in that school every morning when going to my job..and I see which language they speak between themselves..
> It is true that now the official status of Valencian-Catalan is better than before..but, I think that the percentage of speakers of Catalan-Valencian-Balearic-Algharese in all the areas was much higher before than now.
> Reading all these contributions I tend to believe that many people think that more people speak Catalan now because of the protection and all this stuff. But this is just a matter of accessability, yes, it is true, now more people have access to education in Catalan and have access to read it and write it. Yes, it is true that now, people write it more and more correctly than before...but it does not mean that people speak it more!
> I think people spoke more Catalan before, even when it was forbidden. It is true, however that now you can speak it and you will not be fined, beaten or something.
> Anyway, there is still hope.
> amunt els cors!



Benvolgut amic Roi,

Yes, I agree, we have lost many valencian-speakers, we have received a lot of spanish-speaking immigrants who frequently maintain a very aggressive attitude against our language and our politicians... well, I prefer to forget about them. Even after Franco’s dictature, some attacks still remain, specially here, in València. Our situation is difficult and far from being optimal, we mustn’t hide it.

But, what can we expect after three centuries of constant attack against our language? We have survived and this means a lot (just think about american precolombine cultures… they almost disappeared in a shorter time). Our language is alive and it is used everywhere and in all situations: with family and friends, at work, at school and universities, in the media, in arts… Our literature is stronger than never before, you can’t imagine how many musical groups (very young people) there are in València that use our language… Believe me, our language may be ill but it is alive, very alive. Now we have less speakers than before, it is true, but our speakers have never been as prepared as now and many of them feel very concerned about preserving our language. We have never had at our disposal so many tools and means to improve the situation… It won’t happen in a day, we’ll need a lot of patience and we’ll have to do a lot of pedagogy, but we’ll success.

And, anyway, I’m afraid we can’t afford being pessimistic, so… Amunt els cors!


_"No et limites a contemplar 
aquestes hores que ara vénen,
baixa al carrer i participa.
No podran res davant d´un poble 
unit, alegre i combatiu"

Vicent Andrés Estellés_​


----------



## Laia

Samaruc... wow
You have impressed me!

així doncs, ben amunt jejeje

el poema el versiona "obrint pas", oi?


----------



## Carlston

2/ Galician, Basque and Catalan are not co-official in Spain, but in part of Spain (it’s good to clarify in order not to lead people less familiarized with this topic to misconception): they are only co-official in Galicia for Galician, The Basque Country and Navarra for Basque and the Balearic Islands, Catalonia and The Valencian lands for Catalan.

No quiero entrar en polemicas acerca de si el catalan es valenciano, o si el valenciano es catalan, o si es lo mismo con distinta denominacion, pero hay que puntualizar una cosa, en valencia es oficial el VALENCIANO, no el CATALAN, no se lo que ocurre en las islas, pero en valencia es asi.

saludos


----------



## Roi Marphille

Carlston said:
			
		

> 2/ Galician, Basque and Catalan are not co-official in Spain, but in part of Spain (it’s good to clarify in order not to lead people less familiarized with this topic to misconception): they are only co-official in Galicia for Galician, The Basque Country and Navarra for Basque and the Balearic Islands, Catalonia and The Valencian lands for Catalan.
> 
> No quiero entrar en polemicas acerca de si el catalan es valenciano, o si el valenciano es catalan, o si es lo mismo con distinta denominacion, pero hay que puntualizar una cosa, en valencia es oficial el VALENCIANO, no el CATALAN, no se lo que ocurre en las islas, pero en valencia es asi.
> 
> saludos


Yes, it is true. In València area the name of the language is Valencian i/o Catalan. Even that, everybody knows that it is the same language. I think the Government in Spain (PSOE) refers to it as: "the language called Catalan in Catalonia and Balearic Islands and Valencian in Valencia-area". I'm personally Ok with it if they agree that it is the same language.


----------



## Fernando

Obviously they do not agree, unless you cancel them a debt or give them one vote. They are politicians, Roi, by God's sake and you are not negotiating with them now.

Please, agree in one denomination or name it catalán/valenciano or valenciano/catalán, not to hurt nobody's feelings.


----------



## belén

Fernando said:
			
		

> Obviously they do not agree, unless you cancel them a debt or give them one vote. They are politicians, Roi, by God's sake and you are not negotiating with them now.
> 
> Please, agree in one denomination or name it catalán/valenciano or valenciano/catalán, not to hurt nobody's feelings.



I am just glad our dear Latinamericans friends don't complicate their lives as we do... Imagine if there was a debate on that, it would be endless

We could take it to the extreme of:


Diccionario Guatemalteco/mexicano/venezolano/colombiano/paraguayo/chileno/argentino - alemán/austríaco/suizo 

De verdad... qué sandeces las de este país que me vio nacer...


----------



## Laia

belen said:
			
		

> De verdad... qué *sandeces* las de este país que me vio nacer...


 
All languages: lost and found words


----------



## Roi Marphille

Fernando said:
			
		

> Obviously they do not agree, unless you cancel them a debt or give them one vote. They are politicians, Roi, by God's sake and you are not negotiating with them now.
> Please, agree in one denomination or name it catalán/valenciano or valenciano/catalán, not to hurt nobody's feelings.


yes, you are right amigo but for some, "catalán/valenciano or valenciano/catalán" is not correct either. Some prefer only Catalan, some only Valencian...some català-valencià-balear...some God-knows-what..I'm stressed!  

BTW: There is a similar thread in "Slavic Languages" Forum reg. Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian-Montenegrinan...

politics, politics, politics...


----------



## natasha2000

belen said:
			
		

> I am just glad our dear Latinamericans friends don't complicate their lives as we do... Imagine if there was a debate on that, it would be endless
> 
> We could take it to the extreme of:
> 
> 
> Diccionario Guatemalteco/mexicano/venezolano/colombiano/paraguayo/chileno/argentino - alemán/austríaco/suizo
> 
> De verdad... qué sandeces las de este país que me vio nacer...


 

Ufff.. This reminds me of Serbian/Croanian language question....


----------



## Samaruc

Laia said:
			
		

> el poema el versiona "obrint pas", oi?



Sí, Laia. Són uns versos d'un poema de Vicent Andrés Estellés que els d'"Obrint Pas" varen incloure en una cançó seua.
Veig que estàs ben posada en música, hui els "Obrint Pas" i l'altre dia els de "la Gossa Sorda" amb "Senyor Pirotècnic"...

Salutacions



			
				Carlston said:
			
		

> No quiero entrar en polemicas acerca de si el catalan es valenciano, o si el valenciano es catalan, o si es lo mismo con distinta denominacion, pero hay que puntualizar una cosa, en valencia es oficial el VALENCIANO, no el CATALAN, no se lo que ocurre en las islas, pero en valencia es asi.



Hi Carlston,

I celebrate you don't want to get into controversy because this is a sterile debate...

It's very easy: ONE language and TWO official names. Easy, isn't it?

The statutes of the Balearic Islands and Catalonia state their language is called Catalan, whereas the statute of Valencia states its language is called Valencian.

The Valencian statute states that the "Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua" is the official institution for all linguistical questions affecting Valencian.

The "Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua" states that Valencian and Catalan are two names for a same language and recommends to use both names. The "Acadèmia" also recommends that all the institutions from the territories where Valencian-Catalan is spoken should work together in everything concerning the Valencian-Catalan language.

So...




			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> Please, agree in one denomination or name it catalán/valenciano or valenciano/catalán, not to hurt nobody's feelings.



Hi Fernando,

Thanks for your interest in respecting everybody's feelings, but I think that nobody should feel offended. It's just a linguistical question...



			
				Belén said:
			
		

> I am just glad our dear Latinamericans friends don't complicate their lives as we do... Imagine if there was a debate on that, it would be endless
> 
> We could take it to the extreme of:
> 
> 
> Diccionario Guatemalteco/mexicano/venezolano/colombiano/paraguayo/chileno/argentino - alemán/austríaco/suizo
> 
> De verdad... qué sandeces las de este país que me vio nacer...



Balearic common sense... Gràcies Betlem!


----------



## Alundra

belen said:
			
		

> I am just glad our dear Latinamericans friends don't complicate their lives as we do... Imagine if there was a debate on that, it would be endless
> 
> We could take it to the extreme of:
> 
> 
> Diccionario Guatemalteco/mexicano/venezolano/colombiano/paraguayo/chileno/argentino - alemán/austríaco/suizo
> 
> De verdad... qué sandeces las de este país que me vio nacer...


 
No podría estar más de acuerdo...  

Alundra.


----------



## Carlston

Samaruc said:
			
		

> Sí, Laia. Són uns versos d'un poema de Vicent Andrés Estellés que els d'"Obrint Pas" varen incloure en una cançó seua.
> Veig que estàs ben posada en música, hui els "Obrint Pas" i l'altre dia els de "la Gossa Sorda" amb "Senyor Pirotècnic"...
> 
> Salutacions
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Carlston,
> 
> I celebrate you don't want to get into controversy because this is a sterile debate...
> 
> It's very easy: ONE language and TWO official names. Easy, isn't it?
> 
> The statutes of the Balearic Islands and Catalonia state their language is called Catalan, whereas the statute of Valencia states its language is called Valencian.
> 
> The Valencian statute states that the "Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua" is the official institution for all linguistical questions affecting Valencian.
> 
> The "Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua" states that Valencian and Catalan are two names for a same language and recommends to use both names. The "Acadèmia" also recommends that all the institutions from the territories where Valencian-Catalan is spoken should work together in everything concerning the Valencian-Catalan language.
> 
> So...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Fernando,
> 
> Thanks for your interest in respecting everybody's feelings, but I think that nobody should feel offended. It's just a linguistical question...
> 
> 
> 
> Balearic common sense... Gràcies Betlem!


 
Estoy de acuerdo, una lengua, dos nombres, cap problema..... 
por lo menos para mi!!!
saludos


----------



## Roi Marphille

Samaruc said:
			
		

> The "Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua" states that Valencian and Catalan are two names for a same language and recommends to use both names. The "Acadèmia" also recommends that all the institutions from the territories where Valencian-Catalan is spoken should work together in everything concerning the Valencian-Catalan language.


Incha'allah !!! 

and peace, love and understanding


----------



## ampurdan

Outsider, maybe someone may look down upon our debate as quite hair-splitting, since it is both possible to consider minority country-to-country and worldwide, depending on what you aim… BUT, what we aim is to check the welfare of one particular language as a language (not as the language spoken in one particular place). 

Before I answer to your dilemma quiz about the billionaire, let me draw an analogy. An endangered language is somehow like an endangered species and a minority language is somehow like a minority species. You may say that one particular species is minority in Poland, in China or in Bermuda; you may also consider if the species is minority in California, in Africa or in the region of Ile-de-France; more normally you would study the population of your species in the areas which configure the ecosystem from which it is autochthonous: only your particular purpose will define the scope, and there may be reasons which lead you to scope one country (maybe you aim economic aids from the government for your species), the territory of another political entity (this time the aids come from, let’s say, the EU or the Land of Bayern in Germany) or the Caspian Sea (let’s say your species is the sturgeon). 

Well, I don’t know which are the specific criteria to determine if one particular species is in danger of extinction but, whatever thay be, I know biologists would take into account all the members of that particular species, not just the ones living around Lisbon, in Japan or in Africa. They would probably procede the same way with minority species (those not endangered, but maybe close to be so, due to their low population).



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Originalmente publicado por *ampurdan*
> _As far as the question on the top asks if Catalan is a minoritary language and does not specify where, maybe we should think in worldwide terms rather than in the territory of which sovereign state it is spoken._
> 
> *Outsider:*
> I don't think that makes much difference, since most Catalan speakers are Spaniards. At best, you can point out, as Roi rightly did, that Catalan is majoritary in Andorra. This is true (and another reason why these questions should be looked at country by country, IMO), but Andorra still has a very small population compared to the overall population of Catalan speakers.


 
Well, let’s say all the world population of our species of sturgeon is in the Caspian Sea. We want to know if our species is minority or even endangered. We would compare the number of our species of sturgeon to the number of all the fishes of the Caspian Sea? Or we would rather use a universal standard to know if the species is a minority or endangered?
The difference is marked, Outsider, if you compare the number of Catalan speakers to the average numbers of speakers of a language in the world, we might have as a result that Catalan is reasonably spoken, at one particular moment.


			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Originalmente publicado por *ampurdan*
> _For instance, if someone asked you whether Portuguese is a minoritary or a majority language, which country would you consider, Portugal? Moçambique? Brazil?_
> 
> *Outsider:*
> I would consider _all_ countries where Portuguese is spoken by a significant portion of the population. If you considered everyone who's fluent in the language (you made the point that we shouldn't just look at the number of native speakers in your post, and I agree), then the answer to your question, for example, would be that Portuguese is:
> 
> - majoritary in Portugal (100% of the population is fluent);
> - majoritary in Brazil (100% fluent);
> 
> - In Mozambique, according to this source, about 40% of the population is fluent in Portuguese. Since no other language seems to have as many speakers, and Portuguese is the official language of the country, I might say that it is a majoritary language, though I admit that this is arguable.


 
So, after all you have to resort to all the countries where Portuguese is actually spoken (I guess there are more, but that’s not the point) and yet, you don’t want to deal with Portuguese as one language, but you like to give an answer for every country, considering only proportions (and only when they are large enough!), not absolute numbers… A very devious way to get to the same point I wanted to get to, with the drawback that you can’t compare the welfare of Portuguese to that of, let’s say, French, this way (because countries are not the units of measure, but people, real speakers).




			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> I think the main divergence we have is precisely that I would _not_ discard political divisions when studying a language.
> Language and politics are _not_ independent. Politics can influence language, sometimes decisively so. It seems that you agree with me on this much, since you wrote further down in your post:





			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Originalmente publicado por *ampurdan*
> _However, the official status of a language may help to secure the future of a language (East Timor) and the official “prosecution” of a language may put it difficult for this language to survive (Russian in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). They may be the CAUSE why a language is minoritary or not, but not the EVIDENCE that it is in fact. Having read all what’s been said in this thread so far, I ascribe this role only to the absolute number of virtual speakers of a language._



I think what you quote is quite clear: I agree that politics inlfuence the welfare of languages. I do not agree with any political division being the unit and point of reference of the check of the welfare of a language. (And this point is not a matter of definition of a word).



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is that perhaps we shouldn't just count native speakers. I can accept that, but I don't think it changes my overall idea: that languages should be looked at country by country.


 
Well, not quite so: I’m saying that we should count only those speakers of a language which in fact use significantly this language. Saying so is just “la otra cara de la moneda” (I don’t know how to say it in English, maybe "the other side of the coin"?) of saying that a language should be considered as a whole, not divided by the places where it is spoken. I consider real speakers, regardless the way they happened to speak that language and regardless where they are and their nationality; and, in my point of view, this should change your overall idea. 



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Suppose a language is losing speakers, and you're a billionnaire who can spare a piece of your fortune to help keep that language alive. (That’s much supposing). Now, although the overall number of speakers has been decreasing, in some parts of the world it has remained stable, and in others it has dropped sharply. How would you spend your money? Would you:
> a) Give money to every region where the language is spoken, proportionally to the number of speakers, regardless of whether the language has been receding or not in that part of the world?
> b) Focus on investing in the regions where the language has been losing ground, and ignore the parts of the world where the number of speakers has remained stable?


Well, Outsider, first of all, this particular language does not have to drop or not according to the different countries where it is spoken, maybe just in a part of the country A is dropping, but not in another, and maybe in some parts of country B is also dropping its use, but not in other parts. So, the question goes now also for you.
I’m not likely to give even a cent, but as we are supposing, If I had to choose, I'll take B (even though Roi's appreciation is quite sensible); but to take B, first I should have to realize that the use of the language in those areas is dropping to an alarming level, and I could only do that by a somewhat universal rule which says to me when that language is entering into the alarming level.


----------



## ampurdan

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Quote: originally posted by *ampurdan:*
> *And, I'm not so sure that following my method Catalan would result a minority language.*
> Aha!!!! jejejejeje
> In fact, roughly, if there are aproximately 6.500.000.000 people in the World and about 6800 known languages (according to this), that would mean that only languages with a number of speakers below 950.000 would be "minoritary". At first sight, one would think that the number of Catalan "effective speakers" is above that treshold (the Italian web that Outsider has provided said there are 5 million speakers, some people increase this number up to 9 million).
> 
> So, now results that according to both my and your criteria, I am right, isn't it?
> 
> 
> ​


 Natasha, if you took the trouble to read again all what I have said in this thread (no, you don't have to  ), you would realize that I have never stated that Catalan is minority and I have allways said that I cannot be sure about it with my available data. 

These numbers I've found are too rough (it was not really difficult to find them). Moreover, I don't think the number of speakers matches the "effective speakers" of Catalan. 

I think that it is more useful to know the way one can know if Catalan is a minority language (and it's kind of sad we are not able to agree it) than the fact of being right or wrong about it.

Anyway, minority or not, it won't prevent me from sleeping. So, _drago mi je _and good night!


----------



## Outsider

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Outsider, maybe someone may look down upon our debate as quite hair-splitting, since it is both possible to consider minority country-to-country and worldwide, depending on what you aim…


 LOL. Judging from the rating of the thread, we're boring everyone to tears. But then, we're not forcing anyone to read it.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> BUT, what we aim is to check the welfare of one particular language as a language (not as the language spoken in one particular place).


That's your point of view, Ampurdan, but it isn't mine. I think people are often interested in answering questions like "How is this language faring?", "What will become of it in the near future?", "How is its number of speakers changing?" The proper answers to these kinds of questions are (often) not global. They may well be different in different countries, or regions within countries.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Before I answer to your dilemma quiz about the billionaire, let me draw an analogy. An endangered language is somehow like an endangered species and a minority language is somehow like a minority species. You may say that one particular species is minority in Poland, in China or in Bermuda; you may also consider if the species is minority in California, in Africa or in the region of Ile-de-France; more normally you would study the population of your species in the areas which configure the ecosystem from which it is autochthonous: only your particular purpose will define the scope, and there may be reasons which lead you to scope one country (maybe you aim economic aids from the government for your species), the territory of another political entity (this time the aids come from, let’s say, the EU or the Land of Bayern in Germany) or the Caspian Sea (let’s say your species is the sturgeon).
> 
> Well, I don’t know which are the specific criteria to determine if one particular species is in danger of extinction but, whatever thay be, I know biologists would take into account all the members of that particular species, not just the ones living around Lisbon, in Japan or in Africa. They would probably procede the same way with minority species (those not endangered, but maybe close to be so, due to their low population).
> Well, let’s say all the world population of our species of sturgeon is in the Caspian Sea. We want to know if our species is minority or even endangered. We would compare the number of our species of sturgeon to the number of all the fishes of the Caspian Sea? Or we would rather use a universal standard to know if the species is a minority or endangered?


There's a crucial difference between your fish analogy and languages: fish are not subject to politics. 
They do not have to compete for subsidies, schools, media, literature. They do not have to fight prejudice. They do not try to repress another species just because they don't like it. They do not have a history.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> The difference is marked, Outsider, if you compare the number of Catalan speakers to the average numbers of speakers of a language in the world, we might have as a result that Catalan is reasonably spoken, at one particular moment.


I'm skeptical of the idea of using the global average number of speakers as a standard, because the vast majority of languages in the world have very few speakers, and then a small handfull of them have hundreds of millions of speakers. It's a highly skewed distribution.

I actually looked for numbers on the Net yesterday, and did a little back-of-the-envelope calculation. As it turns out, the world population reached 6,000 million in 1999, and the number of languages in the world is estimated as being between 4,000 and 6,000. If you divide 6,000 million for 6,000, you get an average of 1 million speakers per language.

Then again, _any_ threshold is of course arbitrary. Rather than figuring out how many speakers a language has (a static approach), I think it's more informative to study how the number of speakers has been changing; whether it has been increasing, stable, or descreasing, where, and among whom.

Finally, I have to point out that I have never questioned that Catalan had a reasonable number of speakers. Our conversation got a little more general than an overview of Catalan itself. In fact, on page 1, I posted a link to a webpage where UNESCO has classified Catalan as a 'not endagered' language.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> So, after all you have to resort to all the countries where Portuguese is actually spoken (I guess there are more, but that’s not the point) and yet, you don’t want to deal with Portuguese as one language, but you like to give an answer for every country, considering only proportions (and only when they are large enough!), not absolute numbers… A very devious way to get to the same point I wanted to get to, with the drawback that you can’t compare the welfare of Portuguese to that of, let’s say, French, this way (because countries are not the units of measure, but people, real speakers).


I don't understand your point, here. You seem to be disagreeing with my opinion that languages should* be studied on a country-by-country basis, but then you make an analogy with economics -- where, I'm sure you'll agree, analyses _are_ typically done on a country-by-country basis, not with people as units of measure!

* More exactly, my point was that we should _also_ look at the country-by-country picture. I don't reject other approaches.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> I think what you quote is quite clear: I agree that politics inlfuence the welfare of languages. I do not agree with any political division being the unit and point of reference of the check of the welfare of a language. (And this point is not a matter of definition of a word).


As I wrote above, and on page 2 of this thread, I do not think there is a unique, right way to study languages. There are different approaches, none of which should be dismissed _a priori_. As such, I do not identify with the description of political divisions as a 'unit and point of reference'. That's not what I'm saying at all. 



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Well, not quite so: I’m saying that we should count only those speakers of a language which in fact use significantly this language. Saying so is just “la otra cara de la moneda” (I don’t know how to say it in English, maybe "the other side of the coin"?) of saying that a language should be considered as a whole, not divided by the places where it is spoken. I consider real speakers, regardless the way they happened to speak that language and regardless where they are and their nationality; and, in my point of view, this should change your overall idea.


How so? 



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Well, Outsider, first of all, this particular language does not have to drop or not according to the different countries where it is spoken, maybe just in a part of the country A is dropping, but not in another, and maybe in some parts of country B is also dropping its use, but not in other parts.


Which is why I used the word 'regions', not 'countries', in my previous post.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> I’m not likely to give even a cent, but as we are supposing, If I had to choose, I'll take B (even though Roi's appreciation is quite sensible); but to take B, first I should have to realize that the use of the language in those areas is dropping to an alarming level, and I could only do that by a somewhat universal rule which says to me when that language is entering into the alarming level.


And this is another point where we differ. I do not believe in an objective, universal threshold above which a language is 'safe', and below which it is 'endangered'. Those kinds of judgements are always subjective and dependent on social and historical context. Losing 1 million speakers overnight would be a tragedy for Catalan, but a drop in the ocean for Mandarin Chinese.


----------



## geo005

Laia said:
			
		

> Well, I think that it depends a lot on the immigrants. Most of them only speak Spanish, 'cause they can survive in Catalonia only speaking in Spanish. Here goes the _danger:_ we, catalans, speak them in Spanish, for some reason I cannot understand (although it happens to me).
> But I try not to be as pessimistic as Roi (I speak in Catalan with my whole family and 70% of my friends).
> I just don't know what is going to happen. I prefer not to think.


Hello guys! 
Well personally I am a Greek/English Immigrant in Spain. The point here is as to the above comment that if a Catalan wants me to speak Catalan, then she/he would have to understand that this denotes a TREMENDOUS efford on my behalf. I am learning castellano and i have to say that I would LOVE to learn Catalan, just have to wait for a bit till i get my Spanish sorted out!!! Catalan is a beaudiful language indeed. What i would like to note here though is that by isolating yourself linguistically (eg NOT talking to immigrands in Castellano, you are hurting your own language. If you want to facilitate ppl to speak Catalan then you should respect the point that in the same country (in generic terms Spain, I am not ignoring the Estatud issue at all) just want to say that geografically the surrounding areas and many links economical and social are dominated by Castellano and I find this logical coherence (not good nor bad). So I think that Catalan YES it can and SHOULD be saved!!! To accomplish this for me is to disconnect the language from political connotations about its survival. That would create a cultural interrest from foreign language enthousiasts and students and Catalan children would be able to be taught easier!!! Personal responsibility for me is the way to transfer a language!! When I ll have children I ll see to It that they speak Greek and Spanish as English is much easier to facilitate schools for, Greek is unapprochable here, therefore I shall promote the language that is more "endangered" so to speak! The same I believe about Catalan people should tech their children and the state to facilitate the teaching but at the same time not to make it dichotomous Castellano BAD/Catalan Good! Castellano would be necessary to anyone in the Iberian Penninsula, so by making the languages enemies the minority language suffers. Just my opinion thnx


----------



## Laia

geo005 said:
			
		

> Hello guys!
> Well personally I am a Greek/English Immigrant in Spain. The point here is as to the above comment that if a Catalan wants me to speak Catalan, then she/he would have to understand that this denotes a TREMENDOUS efford on my behalf. I am learning castellano and i have to say that I would LOVE to learn Catalan, just have to wait for a bit till i get my Spanish sorted out!!! Catalan is a beaudiful language indeed. What i would like to note here though is that by isolating yourself linguistically (eg NOT talking to immigrands in Castellano, you are hurting your own language. If you want to facilitate ppl to speak Catalan then you should respect the point that in the same country (in generic terms Spain, I am not ignoring the Estatud issue at all) just want to say that geografically the surrounding areas and many links economical and social are dominated by Castellano and I find this logical coherence (not good nor bad).
> 
> Me estás dando la razón... you see, I'm speaking with you in Spanish!!
> 
> not to make it dichotomous Castellano BAD/Catalan Good! Castellano would be necessary to anyone in the Iberian Penninsula, so by making the languages enemies the minority language suffers. Just my opinion thnx
> 
> Things are not as simple as this, they are more complex, complicated.


----------



## geo005

Sorry just another small point:
You are here talking about the qualifications and the systems of refference as to which the language would be termed "minority or not". Legistlation I am sure exists, according to which the typical standards are considered and minority characterization granded. So (as I am unaware of the legistlation - european/international) we could look for it (in European centre or U?nesco maybe?). That answers the question in CLEAR mode by itself. Oversimplifing the issue (actually by complicating it lool) does not answer any question. I may believe that greek or Catalan qualify but the legistlation is the factor to determine that and it has reasons of existence. 
Another question is WHY u would like it to be a minority language. I believe that the standards you are trying to establish (international acceptancy, number of virual speakers etc) are subject to personal belief in theoretical conversations. If it SHOULD be minority is ANOTHER question. and for this the reasons should be stated. I believe the whole issue comes out of the rivalry with Castellano and I say, stop the rivalry, give children book, catalan state is Indeed fighting for the language, and then just accept the reality, greeks are scarse, I never wanted my language to be termed minority and is not of interrest to me. So I am just trying to say if the polemic stops I believe the language will benefit but that requiers STRONG bases in the educational system AND the family!After All Catalan should speak first in Catalan, like greeks in Greek etc when in their own country but I would never expect a Catalan doing bussiness in Greece to learn Greek if he/she wants to visit or negotiate there. 
Thnx


----------



## geo005

como te estoy dando la razón?? You actually do not explain yourself here please elaborate. 
2nd I am NOT SPANISH I am Greek English and be it Catalan Spanish or even English I will not speak my real mother language (eventhough you can say English is one of them) so what is your point with you talking to me in Spanish I do not get it. I JUST deny to be part of ANY polemic.
3I like Catalan and Cataluña and I DO want to learn the language. Just bare In mid it took me one year to get my spanish from zero to c2 level. Therefore I am unable to learn Catalan yet because as a person this would only harm me by mutating my Spanish at the moment. I already suffer temporarely in English and Greek because of it being in excess learning rythms. But be sure I ll talk to you in Catalan one day hopefully!!! as I want to in Gallego  
4th Please explain to me if you like I REALLY want to learn more on the situation tell my about that complexity and I apologise sincerely I do not want to offend anyone!!!! I just REALLY am trying to understand the situation!!!! HEEEEEEELP MEEEEE thnx!!!
And a last pointÑ
I do not think it depends A LOT ON THE IMMIGRANTS THIS IS OFFENSIVE I BELIEVE. The official language is Castellano of the Country we live in (as a state with the current political situation NOT culturally) and so the majority of communication with no Catalan people is with ppl from SPAIN, so look there for it and not on the immigrands, I find it perfect and a MUST for cataln banks (for example) having bilingual offices in Madrid but if they spoke only Catalan they would go out of bussiness....*what is the point with the immigrants???*


----------



## Laia

geo005 said:
			
		

> como te estoy dando la razón?? You actually do not explain yourself here please elaborate.
> 2nd I am NOT SPANISH I am Greek English and be it Catalan Spanish or even English I will not speak my real mother language (eventhough you can say English is one of them) so what is your point with you talking to me in Spanish I do not get it. I JUST deny to be part of ANY polemic.
> 3I like Catalan and Cataluña and I DO want to learn the language. Just bare In mid it took me one year to get my spanish from zero to c2 level. Therefore I am unable to learn Catalan yet because as a person this would only harm me by mutating my Spanish at the moment. I already suffer temporarely in English and Greek because of it being in excess learning rythms. But be sure I ll talk to you in Catalan one day hopefully!!! as I want to in Gallego
> 4th Please explain to me if you like I REALLY want to learn more on the situation tell my about that complexity and I apologise sincerely I do not want to offend anyone!!!! I just REALLY am trying to understand the situation!!!! HEEEEEEELP MEEEEE thnx!!!


 
Excuse me... I must have explained badly myself... 
Right now I don't even know what I've said. If I could I would delete what I wrote, but I can't because you have replied me 

I'm exhausted of speaking of this topic... jejeje


----------



## ampurdan

Outsider said:
			
		

> There's a crucial difference between your fish analogy and languages: fish are not subject to politics.


 

Ok, just try to explain what you say to ecologists or even to fishermen. Fish is subject to politics just as languages are. 




			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> They do not have to compete for subsidies, schools, media, literature. They do not have to fight prejudice. They do not try to repress another species just because they don't like it. They do not have a history.



Neither have to do languages, but the people who want to protect languages. And sturgeons should fear, if they could, any of the countries on the Caspian shore wanting a deeper exploitation of caviar. 

So the analogy stands. You now say that you may study one subject region by region, well, that’s just what I am saying, they don’t have to be “countries”, you’ll scope whatever is better to your study. What is better to your study when they ask you for one language health? (I used “welfare” in my last post and this word entailed a confusion which made you believe I was talking about economics) I think it is to have a standard of minority language and of endangered language which should be applicable both to Chinese and Catalan. This would take into account why it would be dramatic for Catalan to lose 1 million speaker and why it would not be so nasty for Chinese.




			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> I'm skeptical of the idea of using the global average number of speakers as a standard, because the vast majority of languages in the world have very few speakers, and then a small handfull of them have hundreds of millions of speakers. It's a highly skewed distribution.


 
I know the “average method” is very rough, I’ve always expressed my misgivings about it. I don’t think any treshold is as arbitrary as any other. A treshold only regarding country percentages is highly arbitrary and a treshold based on an the “average method” is not so arbitrary because it tries to establish a criterion applicable everywhere. (Geo005, welcome to WR, law may be the way to decide but there are reasons as yours or mine behind the law: if you are suggesting to find a sensible international criterion, I can’t most agree with you).

Outsider, one language could be minoritary (in the sense: less than 50% of the population of a country) in 60 countries, what conclusion could we get out of it? Absolutely none. Why? Saying this you say nothing. You can’t say a language is minoritary because it is minoritary in 60 countries nor say it is majoritary because it is spoken in 60 countries, can you? You’d need to know the population of each of these countries and after that, make the addition. You need to know the absolute number of speakers and know if this number qualifies for minority or not.




			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> I'm sure you'll agree, analyses _are_ typically done on a country-by-country basis, not with people as units of measure!


 
Analysis aiming to compare countries are made on a country-to-country basis. Analysis aiming to compare languages should be made on a language-to-language basis (I’m glad I’ve found this expression, thanks to you). An international standard makes languages comparable, just as any economic standardized index (let’s say, GDP) makes the economy of countries comparable.




			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> * More exactly, my point was that we should _also_ look at the country-by-country picture. I don't reject other approaches.


 “Also”… Should I take this “also” as if you were saying that first you would reckon the speakers according to an international standard, and then you would study it country by country? Well, again, you know I’ve said whatever-to-whatever basis may have their interest, depending on what you aim.

Now, once you have the number of speakers of a language, you can comment it, you can say A or B policy has made that this number has increased or decreased because of X, Y and Z reasons.


----------



## ampurdan

Outsider said:
			
		

> LOL. Judging from the rating of the thread, we're boring everyone to tears. But then, we're not forcing anyone to read it.


 
 It seems we are raising to the _average_.


----------



## Fernando

You have a reader. My tears have not fallen...yet.

Come on, go along. I would like to know where the fish (er...I mean, the Catalan) goes. Will or will not be a minoritary language?


----------



## Alundra

You have another reader...

Alundra.


----------



## Outsider

Outsider said:
			
		

> I actually looked for numbers on the Net yesterday, and did a little back-of-the-envelope calculation. As it turns out, the world population reached 6,000 million in 1999, and the number of languages in the world is estimated as being between 4,000 and 6,000. If you divide 6,000 million for 6,000, you get an average of 1 million speakers per language.


I've just noticed that you had already posted the same calculation. Somehow, I missed that part of your conversation with Natasha.

Ampurdan, before we go on, I would like you to answer me just one question, because I'm getting a little confused over where you stand on this issue. Do you believe that studying languages on a country-by-country basis is:

A) A reasonable approach, at least in some cases, possibly to be complemented by other approaches?

B) Absolutely wrong, and should never be undertaken in any circumstances?


----------



## ampurdan

Outsider said:
			
		

> I've just noticed that you had already posted the same calculation. Somehow, I missed that part of your conversation with Natasha.


 
You're right but you linked the wrong post. It's number 76 in the fouth page and also number 101.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Ampurdan, before we go on, I would like you to answer me just one question, because I'm getting a little confused over where you stand on this issue. Do you believe that studying languages on a country-by-country basis is:
> 
> A) A reasonable approach, at least in some cases, possibly to be complemented by other approaches?
> 
> B) Absolutely wrong, and should never be undertaken in any circumstances?


 
I do not discard studies comparing countries (I've never said so and I've said several times in my lasts post just the contrary) as I don't discard studies comparing regions or municipalities. But first, we have to bear in mind that this divisions are not valid for any study. If you aim to study the different dialects spoken on the riverside of the Rhine, you'll have to identify the different dialects, and compare their "number of speakers" (besides the proper linguistical variations); you can't just compare the dialect (let's say) of Nordrheinland-Westphalia to the one of Rheinland-Pfalz because the frontiers of the territory where the dialect is spoken may not coincide with the borders of the Länder (I don't know if there are different dialects over there, it is only a hypothesis).

Second, you may compare countries for whatever reasons, but if you want to compare the health of a language in country A and in country B, you can't just compare the percentage of speakers in relation to all the population. In country A 25% of the population speak our target language and in country B some 90% of the population. In country A has 80 million inhabitants and country B just 500.000. You'll need a rule to know if 25% of 80 million, that is 20 million speakers should be a minority or not. Even if you only consider one particular country. 

Now, why you don't consider the study of the language as whole as the first approach to know if this language is a minority?


----------



## Outsider

ampurdan said:
			
		

> You're right but you linked the wrong post. It's number 76 in the fouth page and also number 101.


Thanks. I fixed the link.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> I do not discard studies comparing countries (I've never said so and I've said several times in my lasts post just the contrary) as I don't discard studies comparing regions or municipalities.


Well, then, I think we are essentially in agreement on this issue, and I don't see much point in quibbling any further over analogies, examples and terminology.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Now, why you don't consider the study of the language as whole as the first approach to know if this language is a minority?


The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages has the following definition:



> For the purposes of this Charter:
> 
> "regional or minority languages" means languages that are:
> 
> traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population; and
> 
> different from the official language(s) of that State;
> it does not include either dialects of the official language(s) of the State or the languages of migrants;


If we are to apply this definition of 'minoritary language', then it seems clear that we must look at the states where a language is spoken, to decide whether it is minoritary or not.

We _can_ look also at the global situation of the language, before or after, but that won't answer the question "Is it a minority language?"


----------



## ampurdan

This definition may fit the purposes of this particular Treaty (to take measures to protect these languages). It does not take into account the languages of immigrants. Irish, even being spoken by less than 50% of the population, could not benefit from this Treaty because it was indeed the official language of Ireland. You see, not because the Council of Europe says so, it means I have to apply it.

We can take a look on how a language is spoken in every country, but that won't answer the question "Is it a minority language?".


----------



## Roi Marphille

ampurdan said:
			
		

> This definition may fit the purposes of this particular Treaty (to take measures to protect these languages). It does not take into account the languages of immigrants. Irish, even being spoken by less than 50% of the population, could not benefit from this Treaty because it was indeed the official language of Ireland. You see, not because the Council of Europe says so, it means I have to apply it.
> 
> We can take a look on how a language is spoken in every country, but that won't answer the question "Is it a minoritary language?".


yes, the funny thing is that Catalan would have much recognision and prestige if *Andorra* would enter in the EU! amazing, isn't it? a country with much less people than my neighbourhood! 
There are many languages in Europe with more recognision than Catalan and with much less speakers...Maltese, Irish, Danish(?), Finnish..


----------



## ampurdan

Outsider said:
			
		

> Well, then, I think we are essentially in agreement on this issue, and I don't see much point in quibbling any further over analogies, examples and terminology.


 
I wouldn't be "quibbling" any further if you seemed to understand what I am saying. I'd take it for appearance of understanding, if I was given an answer to my analogies and examples and they not just got banned by "It's your point of view" and "Fish is not subject to politics" clauses. I know it may be due to a lack in my English constructions and a lack in the appropriate terminology. But there are reasons behind these bad constructions. I do answer your questions and try to understand your examples. 

I think you are fluent in Spanish, so let me explain myself in Spanish, you don't have to answer me in Spanish, of course:

Yo entiendo por idioma minoritario un idioma hablado por debajo del nivel medio o aceptable para un idioma. ¿Por qué no tomo la definición de "idioma hablado por menos del 50% de la población de un país" o "idioma no oficial"?, porque:

1) Un idioma puede ser y normalmente es hablado en varios países, de manera que con esa definición no podríamos saber si ese idioma es minoritario, sólo sabríamos si es minoritario en cada uno de los países donde es hablado. No podríamos sacar ninguna conclusión global, porque de acuerdo al punto dos, no podríamos simplemente "sumar" los resultados de tres países A, B, C al estilo de "minoritario en A+minoritario en B+mayoritario en C = minoritario ". Eso no funciona así.
2) Los estados tienen muy, muy distinta población, cosa que hace los porcentajes _inconmensurables_. De manera que se crean situaciones absurdas, una lengua que de estar en un estado sería minoritaria por el número de hablantes, sería mayoritaria en otro.
3) Si exportáramos el modelo a nivel mundial, todas las lenguas serían minoritarias, salvo que se reconociera la oficialidad de alguna.
4)Todo ello es debido a que las fronteras políticas y las lenguas son elementos de naturaleza distinta.
4) Una lengua puede ser oficial y hablada por muy poca gente y no-oficial y hablada por mucha gente.

Now, please, do you have objections on my points?


----------



## valerie

Cracker Jack said:
			
		

> The sad part however is that even among the Catalans, there are families ''born'' in Catalunya but they speak Spanish as their maternal language. *They cannot be labeled thoroughly as Catalans *but they are instead called _familas barcelonenses._



I cannot do otherwise than to answer to that remark. (I have not yet read the whole read, I apologize to the participants to the current discussion)

One famous catalan politician, namely Jordi Pujol, not specially known for his cosmopolitan features and love of immigrants, once stated that 
*He who lives and works in Catalunya is Catalan*

This is very important to all of us immigrated in Catalunya and to our integration in the society. The fact that you speak Catalan is *NOT* discriminant, even if it is easier to speak it to get some jobs or go to the university. The fact that your parents and grand parents were already living in Catalunya, or that you have a catalan-sounding name, is neither a criteria to be Catalan, even if some use the adjectives in that sense.


----------



## natasha2000

valerie said:
			
		

> I cannot do otherwise than to answer to that remark. (I have not yet read the whole read, I apologize to the participants to the current discussion)
> 
> One famous catalan politician, namely Jordi Pujol, not specially known for his cosmopolitan features and love of immigrants, once stated that
> *He who lives and works in Catalunya is Catalan*
> 
> This is very important to all of us immigrated in Catalunya and to our integration in the society. The fact that you speak Catalan is *NOT* discriminant, even if it is easier to speak it to get some jobs or go to the university. The fact that your parents and grand parents were already living in Catalunya, or that you have a catalan-sounding name, is neither a criteria to be Catalan, even if some use the adjectives in that sense.


 
Very nice of Mr Pujol, and I am grateful to him for this. Since people in Catalunya NORMALLY behave like that, I have never felt as outsider here. 
But, this is politics, and a good one. The real Catalans are those who were born in Cataluña and speak Catalan as a mother tongue. No matter how much I try, I will never be a Catalan. I am ok with what I am. a Serbian woman living in Catalunya, Spain.
Salut


----------



## Roi Marphille

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Very nice of Mr Pujol, and I am grateful to him for this. Since people in Catalunya NORMALLY behave like that, I have never felt as outsider here.
> But, this is politics, and a good one. The real Catalans are those who were born in Cataluña and speak Catalan as a mother tongue. No matter how much I try, I will never be a Catalan. I am ok with what I am. a Serbian woman living in Catalunya, Spain.
> Salut


My opinion on it is that we must not _label_ people against their will. That's it. ..anyway, this thread is not about "_ethnicity_" but about languages so we should avoid to step out the topic.


----------



## valerie

well, I apologize again because I have the feeling I'm perhaps off-topic, but I also have to answer to you, Natasha.
I am Catalan, because I live and work in Catalunya, and I contribute to this society, its development, its demography, etc (I pay taxes, I raise my children here,...). This does not prevent me from being also French, by blood and education, and being also European.
I do not think it is a good idea to define Catalan or Catalunya by history criteria, even if those are important in the self definition of the majority of the population. I think the most remarkable feature of Catalunya is its capacity to integrate people from everywhere and take some benefit out of it. 

That's it - I'm going to read the previous messages on linguistics


----------



## ampurdan

Valerie and Natasha, I think yours are interesting remarks, but they are a little off topic. I just want to say that you can use the adjective Catalan in plenty of senses (to the language, to the nation, to the region etc).

Legally, nowadays, to be citizen of the Autonomous Region of Catalonia you have to be citizen of the Kingdom of Spain. There are several ways to get the Spanish citizenship, it depends on the International Treaties that Spain has signed (with Latin American countries, Philippines, Portugal and Andorra). Unless you come from one of these countries, I think that you have to prove 10 years of legal residence in Spain. You also need 10 years of residence within Catalonia to adquire the "Catalan civil vicinity" (that means that Catalan civil law is your personal law). So, if you have lived 10 years in Catalonia and the Spanish citizenship is granted to you, then you have the "Catalan civil vicinity".

Un saludo!


----------



## natasha2000

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> My opinion on it is that we must not _label_ people against their will. That's it. ..anyway, this thread is not about "_ethnicity_" but about languages so we should avoid to step out the topic.


 
Please Roi, explain me what in my message ofended you?  I did not label anyone. I thik you are exagerating or you just see in my message what you want to see, and not what this message really says.


----------



## natasha2000

valerie said:
			
		

> well, I apologize again because I have the feeling I'm perhaps off-topic, but I also have to answer to you, Natasha.
> I am Catalan, because I live and work in Catalunya, and I contribute to this society, its development, its demography, etc (I pay taxes, I raise my children here,...). This does not prevent me from being also French, by blood and education, and being also European.
> I do not think it is a good idea to define Catalan or Catalunya by history criteria, even if those are important in the self definition of the majority of the population. I think the most remarkable feature of Catalunya is its capacity to integrate people from everywhere and take some benefit out of it.
> 
> That's it - I'm going to read the previous messages on linguistics


 
Everyone has the right to feel how he/she wants to feel. And if you come from France, and want to feel like Catalan, go ahead, I won't say you're not. I just said how I feel, and I hope that this won't offend anyone, since I also have right to feel how I feel, don't I?


----------



## Outsider

ampurdan said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be "quibbling" any further if you seemed to understand what I am saying.


Same here. 



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> I'd take it for appearance of understanding, if I was given an answer to my analogies and examples and they not just got banned by "It's your point of view" and "Fish is not subject to politics" clauses.


Some things _are_ a matter of opinion. For example, what constitutes a 'minority language'. This very thread illustrates that fact quite well.
Unless, of course, we take a legalistic approach to the discussion, and refuse any opinion that isn't backed by some judicial framework -- which would take us back to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> I know it may be due to a lack in my English constructions and a lack in the appropriate terminology. But there are reasons behind these bad constructions.


I don't think I have misunderstood what you wrote so far, nor have I noticed any special problem with your English, but I will read your clarifications carefully, and comment on them. 



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> I do answer your questions and try to understand your examples.


As do I. 



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> I think you are fluent in Spanish, so let me explain myself in Spanish, you don't have to answer me in Spanish, of course:


O.K. I did my best to understand what you wrote, but some of it was not entirely clear to me, possibly due to the language barrier.
I hope you will be so kind as to clarify it for me. See my questions below.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Yo entiendo por idioma minoritario un idioma hablado por debajo del nivel medio o aceptable para un idioma.


Nada en cuentra, pero eso es una opinón, ¿verdad? 



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> ¿Por qué no tomo la definición de "idioma hablado por menos del 50% de la población de un país" o "idioma no oficial"?, porque:
> 
> 1) Un idioma puede y normalmente es hablado en varios países, de manera que con esa definición no podríamos saber si una lengua es minoritaria, sólo si es minoritaria en cada uno de los países donde es hablada.


No estoy de acuerdo que no pudiéramos saber si una lengua es minoritaria con esta definición. Se puede hacer las dos cosas: decidir si la lengua es minoritaria dentro cada país, y simultáneamente si es minoritaria en el globo.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> No podríamos sacar ninguna conclusión global, porque de acuerdo al punto dos, no podríamos simplemente "sumar" los resultados de tres países A, B, C al estilo de "minoritaria en A+minoritaria en B+mayoritaria en C = minoritaria ". Eso no funciona así.


Sin saber a qué "resultados" se refiere usted, no puedo comentar.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> 2) Los estados tienen muy, muy distinta población, cosa que hace los porcentajes _inconmensurables_.


¿Qué quiere decir con "porcentajes incomensurables"?



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> De manera que se crean situaciones absurdas, una lengua que de estar en un estado sería minoritaria por el número de hablantes, sería mayoritaria en otro.


Eso no me parece absurdo, sino bien razoable.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> 3) Si exportáramos el modelo a nivel mundial, todas las lenguas serían minoritarias, salvo que se reconociera la oficialidad de alguna.


¿Qué quiere decir con "exportar el modelo", exactamente? 



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> 4)Todo ello es debido a que las fronteras políticas y las lenguas son elementos de naturaleza distinta.


¿"Todo ello", lo qué? 



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> 4) Una lengua puede ser oficial y hablada por muy poca gente y no-oficial y hablada por mucha gente.


En Europa, al menos (y el catalán es una lengua europea), todas las lenguas oficiales son habladas por una fracción considerable de la población del país, mismo que no lo sean por la mayoría.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Now, please, do you have objections on my points?


A few objections and many doubts. I've written them side by side with your original statements, so as to be perfectly clear about what I'm referring to. I await your replies to my objections and questions. 




			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> We _can_ look also at the global situation of the language, before or after, but that won't answer the question "Is it a minority language?"





			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> We can take a look on how a language is spoken in every country, but that won't answer the question "Is it a minority language?".


I based my statement on the definition used by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. 
On what do you base yours, and what makes it right, and mine wrong?


----------



## Roi Marphille

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Please Roi, explain me what in my message ofended you? I did not label anyone. I thik you are exagerating or you just see in my message what you want to see, and not what this message really says.


no sorry, no ofending.   I just wanted to point out that I didn't want to start a discussion on who should be called Catalan and who should not. That has nothing to do with the original thread. God knows I'm not accusing you of anything, sorry for misunderstanding!  
I'm quite agree with what Mr.Pujol said, so my point was that I can consider you or Valerie or whoever.. Catalan if you want..or this or that if it is your desire...no probem with me. I don't like distintion over ethnicity, origin, surnames..etc. I'm with people's own will. Anyway, I think I am nobody to label anybody. Sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well, you can contact with me by PM if you wish. 
Regards,
Roi


----------



## natasha2000

Roi Marphille said:
			
		

> no sorry, no ofending.  I just wanted to point out that I didn't want to start a discussion on who should be called Catalan and who should not. That has nothing to do with the original thread. God knows I'm not accusing you of anything, sorry for misunderstanding!
> I'm quite agree with what Mr.Pujol said, so my point was that I can consider you or Valerie or whoever.. Catalan if you want..or this or that if it is your desire...no probem with me. I don't like distintion over ethnicity, origin, surnames..etc. I'm with people's own will. Anyway, I think I am nobody to label anybody. Sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well, you can contact with me by PM if you wish.
> Regards,
> Roi


 

I was just making a comment to what Valerie said. I did not have any intention to offend anyone   God fobid... I am sorry for taking the subject of this thread in a wrong way...


----------



## ampurdan

PART I



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ I wouldn't be "quibbling" any further if you seemed to understand what I am saying._
> 
> 
> 
> Same here.
Click to expand...

I am not the one who has used “quibbling” referring to the other’s reasonings.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Some things _are_ a matter of opinion. For example, what constitutes a 'minority language'. This very thread illustrates that fact quite well.
> Unless, of course, we take a legalistic approach to the discussion, and refuse any opinion that isn't backed by some judicial framework -- which would take us back to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.


 
If we are talking about setting a coherent definition, the reasons provided to defend a proposal are not graded as: the opinion of each one of us and what is set forth by the law.

We are all subject to the law and we must observe it and comply with it. Of course, this does not imply that we may have reasons against what is set forth by it. The law takes decisions according to opinions that might be better than yours or mine or might be worse. By “better” I mean closer to reality and, therefore, more according to the particular pursued aim. 

Thus, there are opinions based on practical reasoning that may be more or less closer to reality. Furthermore, there are opinions based on an authority argument and there are also opinions based on one’s will, faith or caprice etc. Stating “I think so because a Treaty signed by some European Countries says so” is a kind of authority argument, which does not really contribute with any reasoning, unless I explain which were the reasons that made the signatory Countries agree on that definition and see if they apply to the case. It is “a kind of” authority argument because it is not even such: an “authority argument”, at least, is universal; but the scope of the law is limited to the territories where the law is applicable to.

If you became legalistic, you would have to find out the legislation applicable to the your scope-language spoken in one particular country, not just one of the Treaties that this State has signed. And you’d find out clauses like “For the purposes of this Charter:” which is precisely the piece of text from the Article 1 of the European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages that inmediately precedes your quote and which makes a unity of sense with it. Nowadays, most of the acts enforced make their definitions according to their particular purposes. Thus, maybe there are other laws that set forth other definitions. At the end, you’ll have to find out which is the appicable law. As a result, you’ll have a legal comparative work about minority languages which won’t give you an answer to the question “what is a minority language?” that you can apply equally to every language spoken in the World, nor even to a single language, if it is spoken in more than one country (which is the normal situation). 

I have explained why I think the definition of minority languages established by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages does not fit the goal of defining what is a minority language no matter where and so, is not a good universal answer to the question. I’ll go on it below. If you’re convinced it is, or if you are convinced that there is no need to have a universal definition, it would be much useful for the rest of us, or at least for me, that you state the specifical reasons that have convinced you.

Of course, you can answer to each and everyone of my statements, or to the whole: “this is your opinion”; but as it is not that easy to express oneself and it’s a little frustrating when you get an answer of this kind after having tried to base soundly your opinion, I would indeed appreciate you provided the reasons why it is or they are not yours (not just an “authority argument”). Otherwise, please say to me you are happy with your particular definition, which you won’t change, whatever should be said to you, and I’ll just stop “quibbling”, as you said.




			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> I don't think I have misunderstood what you wrote so far, nor have I noticed any special problem with your English, but I will read your clarifications carefully, and comment on them.


 
Well, that was not what seemed to me when I read:



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> I don't understand your point, here. You seem to be disagreeing with my opinion that languages should* be studied on a country-by-country basis, but then you make an analogy with economics [I wasn’t in this particular moment] -- where, I'm sure you'll agree, analyses _are_ typically done on a country-by-country basis, not with people as units of measure!


 
And when I just didn’t get answers to thesis or objections that seemed crucial to me.


I go on on the next post.


----------



## ampurdan

PART II



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ Yo entiendo por idioma minoritario un idioma hablado por debajo del nivel medio o aceptable para un idioma._ I think a minority languages is a language spoken below the average or acceptable level for a language
> 
> 
> 
> Nada en contra, pero eso es una opinión, ¿verdad? I have nothing against it, but this is an opinion, isn’t it?
Click to expand...

 
Yes, it’s my opinion. If you have nothing against it, why don’t you just adopt it? How is it that you have nothing against my opinion and you still maintain yours, they being incompatible? And they are incompatible basicly because “less than 50% of whatever” is not matchable with “less than the average number or another universal standard applied over the effective speakers of a language”. They are more incompatible if your 50% is only of the population of every single State (no mater if after you compare percentages). More, if you add another requiste of “officiality in one State”. And even more, if you agree to count only the languages “traditionally used within a given territory”, which is what the Charter sets forth, excluding languages of migrants and in fact, also other languages that might be very used.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _¿Por qué no tomo la definición de "idioma hablado por menos del 50% de la población de un país" o "idioma no oficial"?, porque:_
> Why don’t I adopt the definition that goes like “language spoken by less than 50% of the population of a country” or “non-official language”? Because:
> _1) Un idioma puede y normalmente es hablado en varios países, de manera que con esa definición no podríamos saber si una lengua es minoritaria, sólo si es minoritaria en cada uno de los países donde es hablada._
> 1) A language may be and normally is spoken in several countries, so that with that definition we could not know if a language is a minority, only if it is a minority in each of the countries where it is spoken.
> 
> 
> 
> No estoy de acuerdo en que no pudiéramos saber si una lengua es minoritaria con esta definición. Se puede hacer las dos cosas: decidir si la lengua es minoritaria dentro de cada país, y simultáneamente si es minoritaria en el globo.
> I do not agree that we could not know if a language is a minority with this definition. Both can be decided simultaneously: if a language is a minority within each country and if it is a minority in the Globe.
Click to expand...

 
First of all, if you count languages spoken by less than 50% on a Global basis, they all are minority languages. Second, the World is not an State so it does not make sense to apply your definition to the World. Third, there is no “official” language of the Globe. 

First point does not make impossible to “decide both things simultaneously”, but you’ll have to assume the pointless consecuences of having a useless definition in the Global level. Second and third points do make it impossible.

First and third points account for what I meant by:



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> _ 3) Si exportáramos el modelo a nivel mundial, todas las lenguas serían minoritarias, salvo que se reconociera la oficialidad de alguna._3) If we applied this definition to the World, all languages would be a minority, unless one of them was made the World’s official language


 


			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ 2) Los estados tienen muy, muy distinta población, cosa que hace los porcentajes inconmensurables._2) States have very, very different population, which prevents percentages “to be treated as the same unit of measure” [I’m not sure about this translation of “inconmensurable” but it means the simple concept that “You cannot add apples to pears”]_ De manera que se crean situaciones absurdas, una lengua que de estar en un estado sería minoritaria por el número de hablantes, sería mayoritaria en otro._Thus, absurd situations overcome, a language that being in a State would be a minority according to its number of speakers, it would be a majority in another.
> 
> 
> 
> Eso no me parece absurdo, sino bien razonable. I don’t think it is absurd, but very reasonable.
Click to expand...

 
Inconmensurable: can you solve this addition: 60% of A+30% of B+20% of C? No you can’t, it is like trying to add an apple to a pear, unless A, B, C became real numbers and then you can add them. But if you do so, those 50.000 who accounted for the 60% will stop to be a majority and those 30 millions who accounted for the 30% will stop to be a minority; wouldn’t they?

“5 million speakers of a minority language A in one country speak the same majority language that is spoken by 60.000 people in country B”. A nice sound sentence with plenty of sense within your definition. An absudity and a burden if you are trying to know if a language qualifies for minority.

Why should a language spoken by 1 million people be a majority language and a language spoken by 5 million people should not? “Because one may be politically protected and the other not and plenty of other reasons”. Well, if you are to take into account the other millions of people in the state that do not speak that language and the official status of it, as you say, you should also take into account “plenty of other reasons”: the economic power under the users of the language would be a good one, which your definition does not take into account; and also the hostility towards one language, and how “cool” it is to speak one language rather than another and so on. Making a definition out of it all would be rather complicated and as I said, those are factors to take into account once you know if a language is a minority and when you want to know how it happened to become such. All this factors should not interfere in the calculation of its minority-or-not status. I’ve already said that all of them may be EXTERNAL CAUSES (very important, even determining) of the minority status, but they are not the EVIDENCE of it, and as such, should not interefere in the core definition of minority language. Don’t you think? (And if you don’t, could you please explain me why?).

By the way, I forgot to say that I agree with your observation about studying the variation of the number of speakers. But this is 100% compatible with having a treshold of minority.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ No podríamos sacar ninguna conclusión global, porque de acuerdo al punto dos, no podríamos simplemente "sumar" los resultados de tres países A, B, C al estilo de "minoritaria en A+minoritaria en B+mayoritaria en C = minoritaria ". Eso no funciona así._We couldn’t get any comprehensive conclusion because, according to poin 2, we could not just “add” the results of three countries A, B and C, as “minotiry in A, plus minotity in B, plus minority in C equals a minority”.
> 
> 
> 
> Sin saber a qué "resultados" se refiere usted, no puedo comentar.
Click to expand...

 I meant “20% of the population of state A speaking a lenguage, plus 30% of state B speaking the same language, plus 60% in state C has as a result that the language is a minority because it is a minority in two out of three countries”. I guess it does not make much sense to you. Well, if you sticke to your definition, this would be the only way that you could decide if a language spoken in more than one country is a minority.

By the way, according to your definition, neither can you procede like this: to count the number of speakers of each of the three states and then divide their addition by the addition of the populations of each of the three states. The three states are three states, not one. And if you are to count unities different from states, why don’t you just count the regions were the language is spoken? Why do you have to refer to all that other people within the three states that, as non-speakers of that language, have the same relation to it as the population of a state D, which is not taken into account and where there’s virtually no speakers of our language? (And by the way, the same problem would apply to regions or whichever other division we might take).


I go on on the next post.


----------



## ampurdan

AND PART III



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _5) Una lengua puede ser oficial y hablada por muy poca gente y no-oficial y hablada por mucha gente._5) A language may be official but spoken by very few people and also non-official but spoken by a lot of people
> 
> 
> 
> En Europa, al menos (y el catalán es una lengua europea), todas las lenguas oficiales son habladas por una fracción considerable de la población del país, mismo que (¿=aunque?) no lo sean por la mayoría. At least in Europe (and Catalan is an European language), all official languages are spoken by a considerable portion of the population from the Country, even though it is not spoken by the majority
Click to expand...

 As a concept, a language could be spoken by the smallest portion of people and yet be official. That suffices to be an objection to a conceptual definition. Moreover, as you said, “our conversation has become a little more general than an overview of Catalan itself”, so there’s no reason to look only at Europe (where official Irish is spoken by a 6,5% of the population of the Republic of Ireland). So, going on what I’ve explained above: officiality is unessential to the definition of “minority language”.

Your definition says nothing of “considerable portions”, it says “less than 50% of the population”, unless you’ve changed your mind. So, according to what method you would deem a “considerable portion” that would not be as “arbitrary as any other threshold”? Is 6,5% a considerable portion?




			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ 4)Todo ello es debido a que las fronteras políticas y las lenguas son elementos de naturaleza distinta._All this is due to the fact that political borders and languages are elements of different nature.
> 
> 
> 
> ¿"Todo ello", el qué? “All this”? What’s that?
Click to expand...

 
Well, I meant my points in the post you quote numbers 1, 2 and 3. But I think I did not express conveniently my idea. Number 5 is also due to the mixture of political elements into a definition which only should be suitable to empirically ascertain which level of usage of a particular language should make it qualify for minority.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _We can look also at the global situation of the language, before or after, but that won't answer the question "Is it a minority language?"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _We can take a look on how a language is spoken in every country, but that won't answer the question "Is it a minority language?"._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I based my statement on the definition used by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
> On what do you base yours, and what makes it right, and mine wrong?
Click to expand...


As for the Charter, I’ve explained above the reasons why should not be taken into account. As for my basements, I think I have not left anyone of my statements without them.

The study of a language may treat the parts of a language, may take into account that is spoken by less than 50% of a State’s population, where it is official; but, as a language which can be more or less spoken, it should be considered as a whole, not as spoken in some place, at least once. The only way to do so is through the absolute number of its (effective) speakers. All other political or geographical elements which interfere in the wrong moment can make it unable to be studied as a whole. So, if you are going to use the definition of “minority language” to protect (or to extinguish, that is not essential) a language, you cannot take into the definition all the elements that may manace this language _avant la lettre_, because, as explained above, they make the definition _undefinable_, and therefore, useless. If you only take arbitrary elements (“officiality” and “less than 50% of the population of a State”) you may have results that don’t account for the reality of a language situation. So acording to such definition, Irish is not a minority language, although it has only 350.000 speakers, (even far from the majority of Ireland’s population). This is nonsense, a language so below the average number of speakers should not be deemed a minority, just because it is official in one country, as just because French is a language spoken by less than 50% of the population of Canada does not make French a minority language.

These are the reasons why your definition is wrong.

My definition has none of this flaws, it is objective, applicable everywhere and yet it is true that, as for the “average method”, most of the languages of the World are spoken by very few people, in fact it’s just the way it is, it accounts for the reality of which languages people do speak (although maybe the number of speakers should be recounted bearing in mind the number of “effective speakers”). If there were only two languages spoken in the World, one would be a majority and the other a minority; I think this is the only flaw of the avarage method. But at least I think there should be “a universal standard” based upon the number of effective speakers, which account for a language as whole, and not in other considerations.

Thank you for your attention. I’m looking forward to your answers.

(when I say above or below, I may refer to whicever of these hours series of posts. They were written as a unit, but there is a limit of characters for each post)


----------



## Outsider

ampurdan said:
			
		

> I am not the one who has used “quibbling” referring to the other’s reasonings.


The word "quibbling" was extensive to myself:



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not discard studies comparing countries (I've never said so and I've said several times in my lasts post just the contrary) as I don't discard studies comparing regions or municipalities.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then, I think *we* are essentially in agreement on this issue, and I don't see much point in quibbling any further over analogies, examples and terminology.
Click to expand...

...and it was not meant as an insult.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be "quibbling" any further if you seemed to understand what I am saying. I'd take it for appearance of understanding, if I was given an answer to my analogies and examples and they not just got banned by "It's your point of view" and "Fish is not subject to politics" clauses. I know it may be due to a lack in my English constructions and a lack in the appropriate terminology. But there are reasons behind these bad constructions.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I have misunderstood what you wrote so far, nor have I noticed any special problem with *your English*, but I will read your clarifications carefully, and comment on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that was not what seemed to me when I read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, after all you have to resort to all the countries where Portuguese is actually spoken (I guess there are more, but that’s not the point) and yet, you don’t want to deal with Portuguese as one language, but you like to give an answer for every country, considering only proportions (and only when they are large enough!), not absolute numbers… A very devious way to get to the same point I wanted to get to, with the drawback that you can’t compare the welfare of Portuguese to that of, let’s say, French, this way (because countries are not the units of measure, but people, real speakers).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand your point, here. You seem to be disagreeing with my opinion that languages should* be studied on a country-by-country basis, but then you make an analogy with economics ampurdan: [I wasn’t in this particular moment] -- where, I'm sure you'll agree, analyses are typically done on a country-by-country basis, not with people as units of measure!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(Bolded mine.)*
Click to expand...

I did misread that paragraph, but it was not your fault. Your text was clear enough.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> And when I just didn’t get answers to thesis or objections that seemed crucial to me.


If I have abstained from commenting on some of your arguments, it was because I did not feel that they were crucial to the points either of us were making. I wanted to avoid long posts like my latest one.
If, however, you feel that I have overlooked some crucial theses or objections of yours, then, by all means, point to those theses and objections, explain why you think they are crucial, and I will address them.


----------



## Outsider

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some things are a matter of opinion. For example, what constitutes a 'minority language'. This very thread illustrates that fact quite well.
> Unless, of course, we take a legalistic approach to the discussion, and refuse any opinion that isn't backed by some judicial framework -- which would take us back to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
> 
> 
> 
> If we are talking about setting a coherent definition, the reasons provided to defend a proposal are not graded as: the opinion of each one of us and what is set forth by the law.
> 
> We are all subject to the law and we must observe it and comply with it. Of course, this does not imply that we may have reasons against what is set forth by it. The law takes decisions according to opinions that might be better than yours or mine or might be worse. By “better” I mean closer to reality and, therefore, more according to the particular pursued aim.
> 
> Thus, there are opinions based on practical reasoning that may be more or less closer to reality. Furthermore, there are opinions based on an authority argument and there are also opinions based on one’s will, faith or caprice etc. Stating “I think so because a Treaty signed by some European Countries says so” is a kind of authority argument, which does not really contribute with any reasoning, unless I explain which were the reasons that made the signatory Countries agree on that definition and see if they apply to the case. It is “a kind of” authority argument because it is not even such: an “authority argument”, at least, is universal; but the scope of the law is limited to the territories where the law is applicable to.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should explain better why I referred to the Charter in this post.

You had asked me:



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Now, why you don't consider the study of the language as whole as *the first approach* to know if this language is a minority?
> 
> *(Bolded mine.)*


So, I presented an example where studying the language as a whole would not be a necessary step in determining whether a language is minoritary or not.
I am not saying that this _example_ is better than others; only that it exists. Given that this example exists, I cannot agree that the study of the language as whole _must_, under all circumstances, be 'the first approach'. 



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> If you became legalistic, you would have to find out the legislation applicable to the your scope-language spoken in one particular country, not just one of the Treaties that this State has signed. And you’d find out clauses like “For the purposes of this Charter:” which is precisely the piece of text from the Article 1 of the European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages that inmediately precedes your quote and which makes a unity of sense with it. Nowadays, most of the acts enforced make their definitions according to their particular purposes. Thus, maybe there are other laws that set forth other definitions. At the end, you’ll have to find out which is the appicable law. As a result, you’ll have a legal comparative work about minority languages which won’t give you an answer to the question “what is a minority language?” that you can apply equally to every language spoken in the World, nor even to a single language, if it is spoken in more than one country (which is the normal situation).


I do not intend to use the legalistic argument. I think it would make the debate uninteresting.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> I have explained why I think the definition of minority languages established by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages does not fit the goal of defining what is a minority language no matter where and so, is not a good universal answer to the question.


Let's look at what you wrote in that post:



> [1] This definition may fit the purposes of this particular Treaty (to take measures to protect these languages).


Good. So it isn't an unacceptable definition.



> [2] It does not take into account the languages of immigrants.


And what is the problem with that? I see no reason why the languages of immigrants must _necessarily_ be considered 'minority languages'.



> [3] Irish, even being spoken by less than 50% of the population, could not benefit from this Treaty because it was indeed the official language of Ireland.


Why should that be a problem? 



> [4] You see, not because the Council of Europe says so, it means I have to apply it.


Agreed.
However, if the Council of Europe has adopted this definition, then there's probably something to be said in favour of it. It's probably a reasonable definition of 'minority language', though perhaps not the best one, or appropriate to all situations.



> We can take a look on how a language is spoken in every country, but that won't answer the question "Is it a minority language?".


Of the sentences above, only two, [2] and [3], could conceivably challenge the Charter's definition, and I do not agree with them. That's why I remain unconvinced by your arguments.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> I’ll go on it below. If you’re convinced it is, or if you are convinced that there is no need to have a universal definition, it would be much useful for the rest of us, or at least for me, that you state the specifical reasons that have convinced you.


I find the Charter's definition sensible because it is simple, practical, takes into account political factors, and agrees with what I believe most people mean by the term "minority language" in everyday speech. 



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Of course, you can answer to each and everyone of my statements, or to the whole: “this is your opinion”; but as it is not that easy to express oneself and it’s a little frustrating when you get an answer of this kind after having tried to base soundly your opinion, I would indeed appreciate you provided the reasons why it is or they are not yours (not just an “authority argument”).


I have now, and I have also explained, in my previous post, why I abstained from giving these justifications at first. If there is anything you find unreasonable in these explanations, let me know.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Otherwise, please say to me you are happy with your particular definition, which you won’t change, whatever should be said to you, and I’ll just stop “quibbling”, as you said.


I hope you realise now that your sarcasm here was unjustified.


----------



## Outsider

ampurdan said:
			
		

> PART II
> 
> 
> 
> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo entiendo por idioma minoritario un idioma hablado por debajo del nivel medio o aceptable para un idioma. I think a minority languages is a language spoken below the average or acceptable level for a language
> 
> 
> 
> Nada en contra, pero eso es una opinión, ¿verdad? I have nothing against it, but this is an opinion, isn’t it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it’s my opinion. If you have nothing against it, why don’t you just adopt it?
Click to expand...

Do you adopt everything you don't object to?! I do not.  
For instance, I don't object to the habit of watching reality shows, but I don't adopt it either.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> How is it that you have nothing against my opinion and you still maintain yours, they being incompatible?


That's why they're called 'opinions'. They're subjective.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> And they are incompatible basicly because “less than 50% of whatever” is not matchable with “less than the average number or another universal standard applied over the effective speakers of a language”. They are more incompatible if *your 50%* is only of the population of every single State (no mater if after you compare percentages).


Where did I ever write anything about "50%", or “less than 50%”, in this thread?



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> More, if you add another requiste of “officiality in one State”. And even more, if you agree to count only the languages “traditionally used within a given territory”, which is what the Charter sets forth, excluding languages of migrants and in fact, also other languages that might be very used.


Yes, the Charter's definition of 'minoriy language' is different from yours. So...?



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ¿Por qué no tomo la definición de "idioma hablado por menos del 50% de la población de un país" o "idioma no oficial"?, porque:
> Why don’t I adopt the definition that goes like “language spoken by less than 50% of the population of a country” or “non-official language”? Because:
> 1) Un idioma puede y normalmente es hablado en varios países, de manera que con esa definición no podríamos saber si una lengua es minoritaria, sólo si es minoritaria en cada uno de los países donde es hablada.
> 1) A language may be and normally is spoken in several countries, so that with that definition we could not know if a language is a minority, only if it is a minority in each of the countries where it is spoken.
> 
> 
> 
> No estoy de acuerdo en que no pudiéramos saber si una lengua es minoritaria con esta definición. Se puede hacer las dos cosas: decidir si la lengua es minoritaria dentro de cada país, y simultáneamente si es minoritaria en el globo.
> I do not agree that we could not know if a language is a minority with this definition. Both can be decided simultaneously: if a language is a minority within each country and if it is a minority in the Globe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, if you count languages spoken by less than 50% on a Global basis, they all are minority languages.
> 
> Second, the World is not an State so it does not make sense to apply your definition to the World. Third, there is no “official” language of the Globe. First point does not make impossible to “decide both things simultaneously”, but you’ll have to assume the pointless consecuences of having a useless definition in the Global level. Second and third points do make it impossible.
> 
> First and third points account for what I meant by:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Si exportáramos el modelo a nivel mundial, todas las lenguas serían minoritarias, salvo que se reconociera la oficialidad de alguna.3) If we applied this definition to the World, all languages would be a minority, unless one of them was made the World’s official language
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I never said the definition applied to states would be the same as the definition applied to the globe, did I? 

Incidentally, the definition you're referring to is not "mine". It's from the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> 2) Los estados tienen muy, muy distinta población, cosa que hace los porcentajes inconmensurables.2) States have very, very different population, which prevents percentages “to be treated as the same unit of measure” [I’m not sure about this translation of “inconmensurable” but it means the simple concept that “You cannot add apples to pears”]


Who said anything about adding percentages?



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De manera que se crean situaciones absurdas, una lengua que de estar en un estado sería minoritaria por el número de hablantes, sería mayoritaria en otro.Thus, absurd situations overcome, a language that being in a State would be a minority according to its number of speakers, it would be a majority in another.
> 
> 
> 
> Eso no me parece absurdo, sino bien razonable. I don’t think it is absurd, but very reasonable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inconmensurable: can you solve this addition: 60% of A+30% of B+20% of C? No you can’t, it is like trying to add an apple to a pear, unless A, B, C became real numbers and then you can add them. But if you do so, those 50.000 who accounted for the 60% will stop to be a majority and those 30 millions who accounted for the 30% will stop to be a minority; wouldn’t they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No podríamos sacar ninguna conclusión global, porque de acuerdo al punto dos, no podríamos simplemente "sumar" los resultados de tres países A, B, C al estilo de "minoritaria en A+minoritaria en B+mayoritaria en C = minoritaria ". Eso no funciona así.We couldn’t get any comprehensive conclusion because, according to poin 2, we could not just “add” the results of three countries A, B and C, as “minotiry in A, plus minotity in B, plus minority in C equals a minority”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sin saber a qué "resultados" se refiere usted, no puedo comentar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I meant “20% of the population of state A speaking a lenguage, plus 30% of state B speaking the same language, plus 60% in state C has as a result that the language is a minority because it is a minority in two out of three countries”. I guess it does not make much sense to you. Well, if you sticke to your definition, this would be the only way that you could decide if a language spoken in more than one country is a minority.
> 
> By the way, according to your definition, neither can you procede like this: to count the number of speakers of each of the three states and then divide their addition by the addition of the populations of each of the three states. The three states are three states, not one. And if you are to count unities different from states, why don’t you just count the regions were the language is spoken? Why do you have to refer to all that other people within the three states that, as non-speakers of that language, have the same relation to it as the population of a state D, which is not taken into account and where there’s virtually no speakers of our language? (And by the way, the same problem would apply to regions or whichever other division we might take).
Click to expand...

Again, who said anything about making such additions? Please do not put words in my mouth!



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> “5 million speakers of a minority language A in one country speak the same majority language that is spoken by 60.000 people in country B”. A nice sound sentence with plenty of sense within your definition. An absudity and a burden if you are trying to know if a language qualifies for minority.


What is 'absurd' about it?



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Why should a language spoken by 1 million people be a majority language and a language spoken by 5 million people should not? “Because one may be politically protected and the other not and plenty of other reasons”.


Was that a rhetorical question?



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Well, if you are to take into account the other millions of people in the state that do not speak that language and the official status of it, as you say, [...]


Are you talking about a specific language?



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> [...] you should also take into account “plenty of other reasons”: the economic power under the users of the language *would be a good one*, which your definition does not take into account; and also the hostility towards one language, and how “cool” it is to speak one language rather than another and so on.


You've lost me again. Would be a 'good' _what_?



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Making a definition out of it all would be rather complicated [...]


I should imagine so.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> [...] and as I said, those are factors to take into account once you know if a language is a minority and when you want to know how it happened to become such.


I have no idea what you're saying, here.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> All this factors should not interfere in the calculation of its minority-or-not status.


Perhaps. I'll get back to that once you explain what you meant by the previous sentences. 



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> I’ve already said that all of them may be EXTERNAL CAUSES (very important, even determining) of the minority status, but they are not the EVIDENCE of it, and as such, should not interefere in the core definition of minority language. Don’t you think? (And if you don’t, could you please explain me why?).


I don't even know what to think. Sorry, but that paragraph makes little sense to me. You can try to rewrite it in Spanish, if you wish.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> By the way, I forgot to say that I agree with your observation about studying the variation of the number of speakers. But this is 100% compatible with having a treshold of minority.


You mean a _global_ threshold?


----------



## Outsider

ampurdan said:
			
		

> AND PART III
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5) Una lengua puede ser oficial y hablada por muy poca gente y no-oficial y hablada por mucha gente.5) A language may be official but spoken by very few people and also non-official but spoken by a lot of people
> 
> 
> 
> En Europa, al menos (y el catalán es una lengua europea), todas las lenguas oficiales son habladas por una fracción considerable de la población del país, mismo que (¿=aunque?) no lo sean por la mayoría. At least in Europe (and Catalan is an European language), all official languages are spoken by a considerable portion of the population from the Country, even though it is not spoken by the majority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a concept, a language could be spoken by the smallest portion of people and yet be official. That suffices to be an objection to a conceptual definition. [...] So, going on what I’ve explained above: officiality is unessential to the definition of “minority language”.
Click to expand...

I must correct something I wrote above: not all languages official in European countries are spoken by a 'considerable fraction' of the country. For example, Mirandese, which is official in Portugal (10 mil. inhabitants) is spoken only by some 15,000 people. So I have to agree that that's one shortcoming of the definition employed by the Charter.
Still, this is an extremely uncommon situation.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Moreover, as you said, “our conversation has become a little more general than an overview of Catalan itself”, so there’s no reason to look only at Europe (where official Irish is spoken by a 6,5% of the population of the Republic of Ireland).


There is a reason. The definition you're discussing is the one in the European Charter for Regional and Minoritary Languages. It has no pretension of being appliable outside Europe.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Your definition says nothing of “considerable portions”, it says “less than 50% of the population”, unless you’ve changed your mind.
> 
> So, according to what method you would deem a “considerable portion” that would not be as “arbitrary as any other threshold”? Is 6,5% a considerable portion?


Why would there be any need for a "method" in these matters?



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4)Todo ello es debido a que las fronteras políticas y las lenguas son elementos de naturaleza distinta.All this is due to the fact that political borders and languages are elements of different nature.
> 
> 
> 
> ¿"Todo ello", el qué? “All this”? What’s that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I meant my points in the post you quote numbers 1, 2 and 3. But I think I did not express conveniently my idea.
Click to expand...

Do you intend to re-express it conveniently, or should I ignore that argument?



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Number 5 is also due to the mixture of political elements into a definition which only should be suitable to empirically ascertain which level of usage of a particular language should make it qualify for minority.


I do not understand what you mean here.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can look also at the global situation of the language, before or after, but that won't answer the question "Is it a minority language?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ampurdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can take a look on how a language is spoken in every country, but that won't answer the question "Is it a minority language?".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I based my statement on the definition used by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
> On what do you base yours, and what makes it right, and mine wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As for the Charter, I’ve explained above the reasons why should not be taken into account. As for my basements [basis?], I think I have not left anyone of my statements without them.
Click to expand...

And I have explained why your explanations are in some cases flawed and, in the others, incomprehensible. Please present better and clearer explanations.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> The study of a language may treat the parts of a language, may take into account that is spoken by less than 50% of a State’s population, where it is official; but, as a language which can be more or less spoken, it should be considered as a whole, not as spoken in some place, at least once. The only way to do so is through the absolute number of its (effective) speakers.
> 
> [...] So, if you are going to use the definition of “minority language” to protect (or to extinguish, that is not essential) a language, you cannot take into the definition all the elements that may manace this language avant la lettre, because, as explained above, they make the definition undefinable, and therefore, useless. If you only take arbitrary elements (“officiality” and “less than 50% of the population of a State”) you may have results that don’t account for the reality of a language situation.


Here you only seem to be restating your position. You have presented arguments for it, but I do not agree with those arguments. See above, and my previous posts.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> All other political or geographical elements which interfere in the wrong moment can make it unable to be studied as a whole.


How so?



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> So acording to such definition, Irish is not a minority language, although it has only 350.000 speakers, (even far from the majority of Ireland’s population). This is nonsense, *a language so below the average number of speakers should not be deemed a minority*, just because it is official in one country, [...]


And, according to the definition in the Charter, it is not deemed a minority language. So what's the problem?!



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> [...] as just because French is a language spoken by less than 50% of the population of Canada does not make French a minority language.


That's arguable.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> These are the reasons why your definition is wrong.
> 
> My definition has none of this flaws [...] applicable everywhere and yet it is true that, as for the “average method”, most of the languages of the World are spoken by very few people, in fact it’s just the way it is, it accounts for the reality of which languages people do speak (although maybe the number of speakers should be recounted bearing in mind the number of “effective speakers”). If there were only two languages spoken in the World, one would be a majority and the other a minority; I think this is the only flaw of the avarage method.


No, there are more flaws in it. See my previous post.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> , it is objective [...]


Then how come the Council of Europe uses a different one?



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> But at least I think there should be “a universal standard” based upon the number of effective speakers, which account for a language as whole, and not in other considerations.


Why? What would be the advantage of having such a standard?



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Thank you for your attention. I’m looking forward to your answers.
> 
> (when I say above or below, I may refer to whicever of these hours series of posts. They were written as a unit, but there is a limit of characters for each post)


O.K. Talk to you later, then.


----------

