# Is a shrinking number of languages positive or negative?



## Jacobtm

As Western society expands across the world, many small indigenous languages have already been wiped out or brought to the brink of extinction. The number of languages across the world is shrinking, and much linguistic diversity, for instance in the United States, is maintained only by small communities that don't mix with society at large.

The processes that lead to language extinction are often deplorable; colonialism, genocide and the like are of course things that everyone should oppose. 

But the fact that today if one can speak with nearly 1/3 of the world's people with only three languages, English, Spanish and Mandarin, is remarkable. About 5% of the world's languages are understandable to 95% of the globe, leaving the remaining 95% of languages spoken by about 5% of the populations. Globalization seems likely to further drive small languages into extinction as languages which are already wide-spread gain more and more prominence in international communication.

In the end, is this new ease of communication something that outweighs the sad extinction of many languages?


----------



## felicity09

I would say that from a utilitarian perspective the benefits of this linguistic globalization outweigh the negatives, but from a cultural, romantic one it is indeed something to mourn. Unfortunately far too few people have the luxury of considering things from that perspective and there is certainly nothing romantic about poverty and a complete lack of opportunity. I witness this daily in the Mexican town I live in; those who have everything they need (and more) do everything in their power to preserve the colonial charm of the town with no consideration whatsoever of the employment an unsightly Big Box store or manufacturing plant would generate. But I digress...


----------



## Jacobtm

I don't think your point is a digression, but actually very important to the point. Often the people attempting to save dying languages can lose sight of the fact that linguistic conformity can provide economic opportunity where none previously existed. Of course linguistic conformity doesn't guarantee economic advancement, but it is a requirement for it in most places.


----------



## trance0

I believe we will have very few living languages in a few generations from now. This is because linguistic conformity truly provides more economic opportunities, not to mention how it facilitates daily communication among people. Freedom of mobility, globalization and most peoples` general attitude towards languages, they are considered only a tool by most people, will in the end all contribute to this practical but sad (from purely linguistic prespective) end of the very great majority of today`s languages on Earth.


----------



## Frank78

I don´t agree with your "big languages-conquer-smaller-ones-thesis". If you look back into history there were different _lingua franca_ in the western world. At first Latin for about 2000 years then came French in the early modern times. Those world language come and go with the empires carrying them.

By the way Mandarin is not a world lanugage and doesn´t belong to the group with Spanish and English because there exist just a few non-native speakers.


----------



## Sowka

Jacobtm said:


> About 5% of the world's languages are understandable to 95% of the globe, leaving the remaining 95% of languages spoken by about 5% of the populations.


 
Hello 

I think the conclusion drawn in the second part of the sentence is not correct because it is based on the assumption that each individual can handle one language only. Which is not the case, as we can observe in these forums 

In my opinion, under normal circumstances, a language will stay alive as long as its speakers are aware of the value of this very language, as long as the speakers feed it and pamper it, by updating it to the current needs, adding new ideas and idioms to it that reflect their current situation of life, and speaking it as frequently as possible even if for international communcation they may use one of the "big" languages.

When I found these forums a few weeks ago, I was fascinated (and still am) about how fondly such languages as Gaelic, Euskera and others are treated here. I love that  

Unless atrocities, such as genocide or violent suppression of cultures, are involved, I feel confident that many languages will stay alive. Or they might gain new vitality as speakers become aware of what they lost when that language disappeared, and start to reanimate it.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

I also agree with you, but I think sometimes it depends on several things, for example hebrew wasn't very important years ago, but as Israel settle down and turn into a country and stated Hebrew as a national language it appers not only in the Tora (I think it's sorry if I made a mistake) as prayers or sth like that. 

I think world ans people are really weird, today english reign over the world, tomorrow, French?, Spanish?, German? Vasco? Who knows, political life change the world in a fast way


----------



## RaLo18

Some language will never be extinct. Hebrew, for example, is not just a way to communicate, it's part of the Israeli and Jewish cultures. Catalan or Basque are unlikely to be extinct as well.
Globalization has its limits, and the need for global communication will be limited to 2nd language in some countries and regions.
On the other hand, every place in the world will be affected by globalization, and English as a 2nd language is very likely to grow even bigger.


----------



## palomnik

Languages will continue to disappear.  Let me say that in my opinion, it is an unmitigated misfortune for the world.  The real problem is not that languages _per se _are disappearing, but the societies that speak these languages are gradually losing their identity, and the individual cultures of the world are all being molded into variations on a modern Western machine-oriented culture, where nothing has any real meaning outside of what we choose to pretend that it has.

Modern Western society presents a world that can't really tolerate a refusal by any other culture to accept its materialistic values and is determined to obliterate all other forms of culture by spreading a belief in financial prosperity as the consummate purpose of life.

European/American culture has spread to the ends of the earth and destroyed the underlying framework of traditional cultures - not of just Native Americans, Aborigines and Bushmen, but more sophisticated cultures like Southeast Asia and Africa.  The fact that all too many of these places have highly unbalanced societies with highly corrupt governments is not coincidental.  The loss of language is just one more step in the eradication of human diversity.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


RaLo18 said:


> Some language will never be extinct. Hebrew, for example, is not just a way to communicate, it's part of the Israeli and Jewish cultures. Catalan or Basque are unlikely to be extinct as well.


Surely Sumerian will surely never get extinct. Sumerian isn't just a way to communicate, it's part of the Sumerian (_and_ Mesopotamian) culture, for 1000s of years... There will never come a day when we have to say "Gosh, do I miss Sumerian".

Frank


----------



## Sowka

palomnik said:


> Languages will continue to disappear. Let me say that in my opinion, it is an unmitigated misfortune for the world. The real problem is not that languages _per se _are disappearing, but the societies that speak these languages are gradually losing their identity, and the individual cultures of the world are all being molded into variations on a modern Western machine-oriented culture, where nothing has any real meaning outside of what we choose to pretend that it has.


 
Hello palomnik 

I don't see such a mechanism at work. In my opinion, it is not comparable to a species of butterflies dying out, for example, but it is always about people taking choices (unless violence is involved, of course).

In Gambia, for example, people are heavily influenced by western culture, to an extent that I find deplorable. They ignore the wonderful traditional textiles, longing for the (much more expensive, much uglier (to my eyes )) western printed T-shirts instead.. But there are areas of the culture that are vivid and thriving: Music, for instance, and the traditional religions and many of the customs associated with them. 

AND, although English is the official language, they speak their local languages among themselves. Each of the people I met spoke several of them: Wolof, Mandinka and Peul in most cases.



> Modern Western society presents a world that can't really tolerate a refusal by any other culture to accept its materialistic values and is determined to obliterate all other forms of culture by spreading a belief in financial prosperity as the consummate purpose of life.


 
But even in my immediate surrounding, there are people who do not follow this belief. Some don't follow it to its full extent. Some despise it and fight against it openly. 



> European/American culture has spread to the ends of the earth and destroyed the underlying framework of traditional cultures - not of just Native Americans, Aborigines and Bushmen, but more sophisticated cultures like Southeast Asia and Africa. The fact that all too many of these places have highly unbalanced societies with highly corrupt governments is not coincidental. The loss of language is just one more step in the eradication of human diversity.


 
I think this is not an influence of western culture per se, but the heritage of colonisation and its ending: Countries were created "on the map", ignoring cultural and linguistic groups, governments were imposed, etc.

I would like to present an example for the survival of traditional culture: The reconciliation procedures conducted in South Africa and Ruanda, that I admire, are based on traditional African problem-solving methods within a community. 

Of course, I don't want to dispute the observations that you have made. Just want to add my own observations; I always tend to look at those parts of a development that I can attach my hope to


----------



## Neuromante

RaLo18 said:


> Some language will never be extinct. Hebrew, for example, is not just a way to communicate, it's part of the Israeli and Jewish cultures. Catalan or Basque are unlikely to be extinct as well.
> Globalization has its limits, and the need for global communication will be limited to 2nd language in some countries and regions.
> On the other hand, every place in the world will be affected by globalization, and English as a 2nd language is very likely to grow even bigger.



Ninguna lengua es "solo" una forma de comunicación, todas son parte de su cultura y en algunos casos, como el español, parte indivisible de varias culturas. Todas las lenguas, sin excepción, lo son en el mismo grado que lo es el hebreo. Incluso será la manifestación de una cultura cuando solo quede una persona en el mundo que hable esa lengua, porque el idioma es una manifestación de la cultura de un pueblo y las culturas de los pueblos, de todos ellos, es el único patrimonio de la humanidad. Ese es un motivo que por si solo basta para hacer de la defensa de las lenguas una prioridad ineludible y,de paso, para responder a la pregunta del hilo.


Por otro lado no entiendo porque se ha usado el termino "romantic" para referirse a los defensores de las lenguas minoritarias, lo encuentro altamente despreciativo en este contexto.


----------



## RaLo18

Frank, I think most people will enjoy the forums better without such sarcastic comments, I surely will.

Neuromante, I suggest that next time, if someone uses one language, you'll answer in the same language. You can't be sure whether or not he knows that language, and you surely can't trust online translators. I don't know Spanish, and if Google translator hadn't worked, I wouldn't have been able to answer you.

To both of you, of course every language is part of a culture, but Hebrew is a big part in Jewish and Israeli cultures, bigger than most languages are in their local culture.
Hebrew is the language of the bible, and since its revival, Jewish people see it as Jewish people's only language (except for some ultra orthodox Jews, who believe Hebrew is too sacred to be spoken daily, and only use it during prayers).
Hebrew isn't a normal language, and it's less likely to be extinct because of its importance amongst Jewish people. I think you can say it with absolute confidence that as long as Judaism exists, so will Hebrew.


----------



## Neuromante

Well, I don´t speak english so good, so I think is better you use the google translation and I will be not misunderstood. I supposed it´s logic No? In diferent place here, in WordReference you may found  lots of multilenguage trend. And I know for sure that the automatic translation just make look ridicoulous who is writing. 

Dejando al margen el hecho de que el hebreo es la lengua de la Biblia Hebrea y no del resto de las existentes, que son unas cuantas, y para no entrar en asuntos de religión que no tienen que ver con la finalidad del foro:

No creo que sea correcto hablar de "culturas locales", ya que es una forma de disminuir el valor de esas culturas. Quizás si hubieras escrito "en otras culturas" pero no lo has hecho. Creo que a partir de esto todo lo que se te podría decir queda ya sobrentendido. Pero por si acaso:
No, salvo para una parte de los hebreos no hay ninguna diferencia entre el lenguaje hebreo y los demás. Es una manifestación de una cultura, tan digno como todos los demás. Cualquier otra opinión es sólo un punto de vista religioso y personal de un idioma y no puede ser impuesta al pensamiento de los demás seres humanos. En el fondo estás poniendo en tela de juicio las demás religiones.

Me ratifico en mi anterior post:
Ninguna lengua es "solo" etc, etc...


----------



## Hillbilly

There is another aspect of the evolution of language that has not yet been mentioned in this thread:  the formation of new languages.

Is it not true that the Romance languages evolved from Latin?  Now that English is spoken in so many different places, it is possible that it may mix with other languages and form hybrids that eventually will become separate languages in their own right.   

Perhaps this will not happen because of globalization, the internet, and the availability of recordings that help non-native speakers speak a language like natives.

In one respect, mass communication helps to preserve language.  In another respect it actually accelerates the pace of change.  New terms and idioms spread very fast.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


RaLo18 said:


> Frank, I think most people will enjoy the forums better without such sarcastic comments, I surely will.


You may have noticed that I just echoed your statement, merely replacing the name of one language (yours) by another (not yours). But I am glad that we agree that this kind of statements is indeed sickening. 



> To both of you, of course every language is part of a culture, but Hebrew is a big part in Jewish and Israeli cultures, bigger than most languages are in their local culture.


How are you going to substantiate that claim? Why the comparative? Help me to get rid of the idea that you're basing your ideas on something else than thin air and a figment of the mind.



> Hebrew is the language of the bible, and since its revival, Jewish people see it as Jewish people's only language (except for some ultra orthodox Jews, who believe Hebrew is too sacred to be spoken daily, and only use it during prayers).


Yes, and?



> Hebrew isn't a normal language,


It's as normal (or abnormal) as any other language. Why do you claim a special position for Hebrew (or Catalan, or Basque, or any language)?



> and it's less likely to be extinct because of its importance amongst Jewish people. I think you can say it with absolute confidence that as long as Judaism exists, so will Hebrew.


And I do hope it will exist for a long long time. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Sumerians thought exactly the same way about their language/culture.
You may find this "sick sarcasm", I think it's just rephrasing of what has been said here before: languages come and go. 
Sadly enough. But it's already going on for the last 100.000 (or so) years, and I don't think that any language, including yours and mine, will be exceptions. let's wait and see...

What you call "sick sarcasm" was just a strong reaction against a slightly off the wall political and nationalistic statement without any kind of (socio-) linguistic foundation. I can understand that you find your language very very important and special, but probably that's the way quite a lot speakers of non-Hebrew languages think about theirs.

RaLo18, I think most people will enjoy the forums better when you substantiate your claims and leave out the demeaning tone v.a.v. other languages/cultures implied by your statements. I surely will.


Frank


----------



## Hillbilly

Frank,

I can't speak for RaLo, and I'm not even Jewish, but it seems clear that the situation with modern Hebrew is very unusual, if not altogether unique.  Hebrew is an ancient language that was essentially revived and brought back into everyday use to give the Jews of the diaspora a common language.

Some time ago I listened online to a radio program from RAI  (Italian radio) about Israel.  The person being interviewed was speaking English, so I understood almost everything that was said. Israel is, at the same time, one of the most religious countries in the world and one of the most secular.  For instance, the ultra orthodox element is always a powerful voice.  On the other hand, people who are openly gay or lesbian often hold office.

The language itself reflects this paradox.  It is the language of ancient sacred texts, and as such, carries a mystique of antiquity. But it also incorporates words and phrases describing post-modern life.

If nothing else, it is a fascinating phenomenon.


----------



## Neuromante

Pero sólo una lengua más entre muchas.
De hecho, este hilo trata sobre la necesidad o no de conservar las lenguas minoritarias frente a las grandes lenguas, la mía es una de ellas. No veo el por qué una lengua debe recibir un trato preferente sobre las demás o una cultura ser considerada relevante y las demás "locales". Y mucho menos si los argumentos implican que una religión es más importante que otra.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



Hillbilly said:


> it seems clear that the situation with modern Hebrew is very unusual, if not altogether unique. Hebrew is an ancient language that was essentially revived and brought back into everyday use to give the Jews of the diaspora a common language.


As many people already pointed out, for the last 100.000 years (or 6.000 if somebody would prefer that) languages do disappear. As pointed out by many people in this thread, languages come and go. And yes, Hebrew did come back, which is indeed a remarkable, interesting and fascinating  situation.

But jumping from pondering about the special situation of Hebrew to the statement "Some language will never be extinct. Hebrew, for example, is not just a way to communicate, it's part of the Israeli and Jewish cultures" doesn't make an awful lot of sense. To put it mildly, it's quite against the ods.

This doesn't mean that I am wishing Hebrew would get extinct. Nor am I hoping that Catalan, Basque, !Xhosa or Quechua would disappear from this world. 
I am merely stating that it is very unlikely to make the almost absolute claim that those and any other languages will not disappear. 
I am merely stating that the statement "language X is part of X-ish culture" could be _equally _applied to any language slash culture (though I am not a fan of this way of thinking). It's probably the way all the speakers of all the extinct languages thought about their particular language. But that didn't really prove to be a sound reason to avoid extinction. See my token example of Sumerian.

"Equally applied", meaning that I fail to see the need for unsubstantiateable comparatives as in "Hebrew is a big part in Jewish and Israeli cultures, *bigger* than most languages are in their local culture." Maybe I am wrong, but then I would like to be convinced by hard sociological data rather than by esoteric, nationalistic, political or religious reasons.



> The language itself reflects this paradox [secular/religious]. It is the language of ancient sacred texts, and as such, carries a mystique of antiquity.


I am terribly sorry, but I find this a case of attributing almost esoteric qualities to a language. With all due respect, but I am too much a rationalist (and amateur linguist) to be impressed by this kind of mystical thinking.



> If nothing else, it is a fascinating phenomenon.


Agreed. The history of Hebrew _is_ fascinating.

But in my sometimes not so humble opinion as a language and linguistics nerd, language, any language is a fascinating phenomenon and I don't grasp the need to use comparatives, superlatives and hence supremist notions when talking about various languages. Mine is bigger (or an other comparative) than yours. I am sorry, this is not my style of debating. 
Otherwise said, my fascination is not driven by isolating one particular language and give it "special" qualities without a rationale.
We can deplore the loss of languages, and I do. The figures I got from MINEL, the Foundation for Endangered Languages aren't really that uplifting. 
And yet, I don't think it's too provocative to wonder, once in a while, if we _really miss_ this or that extinct language for other than "romantic" reasons (as it was called in this thread).

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Languages are indeed disappearing at a worrying rate, and not just small ones either. Having spent some time in Germany these last few months, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the German language disappear or (perhaps more likely) undergo radical change to become more like English.

To say that Germany is invaded by English is an understatement. You cannot go anywhere without encountering it, and I've met very few Germans who cannot speak at least a little. As globalization gains steam, even relatively "big" languages are under threat.



Frank06 said:


> But jumping from pondering about the special situation of Hebrew to the statement "Some language will never be extinct. Hebrew, for example, is not just a way to communicate, it's part of the Israeli and Jewish cultures" doesn't make an awful lot of sense. To put it mildly, it's quite against the ods.



Indeed. Hebrew is an essential part of Judaism but for many periods throughout history it has essentially been a "dead" language akin to Latin. It is a language like any other, and sacred or not, nothing inherent in its make-up _guarantees_ survival.


----------



## RaLo18

> You may have noticed that I just echoed your statement, merely replacing the name of one language (yours) by another (not yours). But I am glad that we agree that this kind of statements is indeed sickening.





> You may find this "sick sarcasm", I think it's just rephrasing of what has been said here before: languages come and go.
> Sadly enough. But it's already going on for the last 100.000 (or so) years, and I don't think that any language, including yours and mine, will be exceptions. let's wait and see...





> What you call "sick sarcasm" was just a strong reaction against a slightly off the wall political and nationalistic statement without any kind of (socio-) linguistic foundation. I can understand that you find your language very very important and special, but probably that's the way quite a lot speakers of non-Hebrew languages think about theirs.


You could have easily made your point in another way, there's no need for annoying sarcasm in these forums, is there?
And by the way, I didn't call it "sick sarcasm", re-read my original post.
I use Hebrew merely because I'm familiar with it. It has nothing to do with nationalism.



> It's as normal (or abnormal) as any other language. Why do you claim a special position for Hebrew (or Catalan, or Basque, or any language)?


Let me rephrase myself: Hebrew isn't a normal language in this matter...



> RaLo18, I think most people will enjoy the forums better when you substantiate your claims and leave out the demeaning tone v.a.v. other languages/cultures implied by your statements. I surely will.


Thanks for agreeing with me that sarcasm is annoying and shouldn't be used (see? I can be sarcastic myself).



> As many people already pointed out, for the last 100.000 years (or 6.000 if somebody would prefer that) languages do disappear.


The topic is about globalization, not about 100,000 years of changes. When globalization hits its 100,000th birthday and Hebrew doesn't exist, I'll admit you proved your point.



> Maybe I am wrong, but then I would like to be convinced by hard sociological data rather than by esoteric, nationalistic, political or religious reasons.


In Israel, religious reasons are sociological reasons. Israel is a religious state.


----------



## Hillbilly

Frank,

I understand now what you are trying to say about Hebrew, and you are correct.

One point of clarification:  When I said that Hebrew "carries a mystique of antiquity,"  I didn't really mean that there is anything inherently mystical in the structure of the language itself.  I was speaking of the mental and psychological associations that archaic language can stimulate in the minds of people.  These are powerful and should not be discounted.

Some native English speakers prefer the Authorized "King James" Bible because it is old and uses archaic language.  Well, it is only four hundred years old, and we only have to turn to Shakespeare to hear the language used in a more bawdy context.  By contrast, modern Hebrew has carried the language of stone tablets directly into the postmodern age of text messaging and sexual hookups.  That is quite bizarre.  

And don't forget that ancient Hebrew was preserved for centuries by the painstaking work of scribes copying texts onto scrolls.  Given that history, it is not likely that Hebrew will disappear soon.

It would be interesting if someone could compare the history of Hebrew with that of Arabic, but that would need to be a different thread altogether.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


RaLo18 said:


> The topic is about globalization, not about 100,000 years of changes.


"Shrinking number of languages" is about language extinction. Your post to which I reacted was about language extinction (or the alleged lack thereof). And yes, globalisation might be one of the factors for languages to get extinct, but it's not the only one. So, this is not about globalisation per se.

My post was about the simple extrapolation, beyond reasonable doubt, based upon known facts, that languages come and go, that languages tend to go extinct in the course of time. That many of the already extinct languages were considered to be sacred and that many were spoken in a "religious country" (or equivalent) didn't help them a lot preventing from getting extinct. 

In this light, a statement that "Some language will never be extinct" is quite, erm, wishful thinking.



> In Israel, religious reasons are sociological reasons. Israel is a religious country (even if most of its citizens aren't).


Two questions:
1. In which way, pray tell me, would this prevent Hebrew from getting extinct, eventually?
2. My original question concerning "Hebrew is a big part in Jewish and Israeli cultures, *bigger* than most languages are in their local culture." It's the use of "bigger", the comparative that bothers and baffles me. Please explain using data.                      

Or any other language. I don't want to give you the impression that I am picking on Hebrew, on Israel, on Hebrew speaking Jews and non-Jews or anything/anybody else. I just have some slight problems with your way of thinking, disregarding the language(s) you use as an example.

Frank


----------



## HUMBERT0

There is no doubt that languages are being lost, there is nowhere as many languages in my country as there were before the arrival of Europeans; many factors contributed to their demised, the conquest, colonization, diseases, wars, etc. 

As for one language being more intertwined with one cultured as opposed to another language, "x language is a big part in x’s cultures and religion, bigger than most languages are in their local culture”; this could happened, for example, native American languages in my country are no longer tighed with their ancestral pre-catholic religions, some elements maybe present or have survived, but new words were introduced for their new religious reality, they do not need their native languages for liturgical, or to read religious texts of the Catholic Church, their language is a part a their culture, but it does not encompass all of their present reality, since they lost a big part of their culture since 1519, and the majority of us don’t understand them, Spanish is lingua franca and has being since the XVI century, 

Some languages on the other hand have survived in much better condition than others, and have stud the test of time, I thing Latin “ecclesiastical” will survive as long there is a Catholic Church survives and its clerics will continue to use it as always, the same thing goes for Classic Arabic it will continue to be thought as long as there are Muslims because it’s part of their sacred text, or Hebrew as long as there are Jewish communities and or a Jewish state (they have manage to keep their traditions and language for nearly 2000 years since the last diaspora, not many communities can say the same, it has to be hard to maintain a language alive awaiting the right time for a revival… this proveb comes to mind “aprender a amar a Dios en tierra ajena/ to learn to love God in a foreign land”), and Sanskrit will be also be thought and handed down by Brahms, etc. in these cases and I don’t think they are unique, their religion and religious texts have contribute to make them keep on going, though it does not have to be a religious component that determines its survival, take Greek… it’s still alive despite that the people do not profess their ancient pantheon of gods. I do understand why Basque or Catalan can be mention as examples of languages that have survived and probably will continue to do so, while others didn’t, like Gothic or Mozarabic.

Not all peoples or communities feel the need to teach their language to the next generation, circumstances can make a people not teach their language and adopt another, like it has happened in my country where Spanish if overwhelmingly dominant. And if a language has survived against all odds, it is safe to say they will fight to continue to keep it alive, like Basque, Catalan, Hebrew, etc. but of course anything can happened.


----------



## acemach

Hi all,


> Let me rephrase myself: Hebrew isn't a normal language in this matter...





> Hebrew is a big part in Jewish and Israeli cultures, *bigger* than most languages are in their local culture.


RaLo18, if I understand these quotes and the previous ones related to the role of the Hebrew language, and how big a role it plays in Israeli life, I would like to draw a parallel with Chinese.

My ancestral dialect, Teochew, for example, is used by its speakers in all religious rites and there are hundreds and thousands of Chinese religious scriptures, written in archaic language that can be read many ways, depending on which dialect one uses. Teochew speakers also use the same language in daily conversation, and it shares a common writing system with other Chinese dialects. 

I'm sure that many other old languages share that same significance. All they lack is the 'resurrection' Hebrew has had. And pardon me if I'm wrong, but I've read that Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew are sufficiently far apart to be considered distant dialects.

How is Hebrew bigger in Israeli life than Chinese is in Chinese life?
Please enlighten me. (No sarcasm here =])

Ace


----------



## Mishe

I wouldn't go as far as to say that "big" languages such as French or German are endangered by English. Of course they are heavily influenced by it, and it's quite a normal process, but IMO they are far from being endangered. Language change is a constant, that's the fact we have to be aware of, and there are always some "dominant" cultures that are influencing others, but that's  the way it's always been... English stems 30% of its vocabulary from French and it certainly cannot be called a French dialect. 

P.S.: French, Germans and Italians dub all the English language films, series and sitcoms so actually they hear English pretty seldom, unless they watch a lot of foreign channels. I wouldn't be too worried


----------



## Veraz

I'm sorry, but if I'm not mistaken I think the topic of this thread is not "what languages are most/least likely to disappear" but rather whether a shrinking number of languages is really a bad thing.


I don't think that all languages should endure for ever, but I do think that language diversity is enriching and hence, a world with less languages is worse.

I think that language differences should not be a barrier for social promotion and economic growth, but economic growth and social promotion should not be either an excuse to wipe out language differences. There are different values at stake and none should be an absolute value, we should ponder them.

A world where I can understand more people is better than a world where I can understand less people, only if those other people really have something new to say to me.


----------



## acemach

Of course, I digress =],

I do agree that language is identity, and here in Malaysia we can see the old dialects dying out as the generations go by, in favour of English, Mandarin or Malay.
In this way, the shrinking number of languages is a bad thing.

However, everyone speaking a few common languages would make for a more united society than everyone doing their own thing. 

In an ideal world for me, everyone would be able to retain their ancestral tongue and with it their culture, while speaking several widespread languages for the purpose of communication, without fear of language death, much like how the Dutch and Swedes treat English. 

Ace


----------



## Hulalessar

acemach said:


> language is identity


 
Believing this, though apparently obvious and reasonable, is I think fraught with danger. Language is above all a means of communication, a convention adopted by a group of people, sometimes very small and sometimes huge. Now any given language does not of course exist in a vacuum and, being spoken by real people in the real world, may to varying degrees be associated with any one or more of culture, religion, nationality or race. People naturally feel that their native language is part of what they are, but a child born into the world has no language, just the language ability. S/he has no language just as s/he does not come into the world wearing the national dress.

Too close an association of a language with group identity leads people to believe things they really ought not to be believing, for example that you cannot be a proper X unless you speak Xish. In many cases group identity is based on nothing more than the fact that a group speaks a language not spoken by others with whom in fact it has a lot in common.

The loss of a language is to be lamented because it is the loss of a way of being human. It is to be lamented in the same way as the loss of a culture. I think though that well-meaning western liberals (in which I include myself) can be in danger of being over sentimental. We may rail against the increasing homogenisation of culture, but the plain fact is that many people in the world see some degree of assimilation to western culture as desirable progress. Who are we to lecture them and warn against the dangers of consumerism? In our enthusiasm that they should not make the same mistakes we have made we must be careful that we do not insist they stay in their village, denying them the opportunities for self-fulfillment that we take as essential for ourselves. We may be anxious not to engage in exploitation, but we must not on that account do anything to hold people back.

In the process of social change language loss, though not inevitable, often occurs. A young person who moves to the big city may regard the language of his village as something to be discarded along with what s/he considers all the other trappings of village life. S/he may not appreciate being told by someone, who would not dream of telling him/her what to wear or how to cook fish, that s/he should pass his/her mother tongue to his/her children. If the person telling him/her that is a linguist who finds his/her mother tongue fascinating because it has an unusual way of expressing syntactic ergativity, that will be of supreme indifference to him/her; the language is just normal to him/her.

Language loss may happen for a variety of reasons ranging from indifference through discouragement to outright suppression. Historically, language loss has arisen through noble motives. The idea that languages ought to be preserved is only comparatively recent in liberal thinking. Following the French Revolution, the plethora of languages spoken in France was seen as an impediment to social progress. "Encouraging" everyone to speak French was seen as a means of empowering people so that they could engage with the agencies of government. A similar thing happened in South America. Contrary to what many may think, Spanish was not imposed on the indigenous population by the Spanish colonial powers. Indeed, the Church actively encouraged the study and continuing use of indigenous languages; it did so of course for the very illiberal reason that it wanted the indigenous people to be kept uncontaminated by outside influences. When Spanish rule came to an end in South America in the first half of the nineteenth century only a minority of the population spoke Spanish (similar to the situation with English in India after independence). The new liberal governments, inspired by the ideals of the Englightenment, went the same route as the revolutionaries in France.

The questions posed in this thread have no easy answers and it is not always clear who are the good guys and who the bad guys. By all means encourage minority languages to thrive and certainly do not ridicule, devalue or suppress them, but when a language is truly dying let it go in peace and do not, in the words of the Jesuits, strive officiously to keep it alive.

[Apologies for the _his/her_ thing. I started and then carried on. It is far too tedious a task to go back and change it.]


----------



## Mishe

Hulalessar said:


> In the process of social change language loss, though not inevitable, often occurs. A young person who moves to the big city may regard the language of his village as something to be discarded along with what s/he considers all the other trappings of village life. S/he may not appreciate being told by someone, who would not dream of telling him/her what to wear or how to cook fish, that s/he should pass his/her mother tongue to his/her children. If the person telling him/her that is a linguist who finds his/her mother tongue fascinating because it has an unusual way of expressing syntactic ergativity, that will be of supreme indifference to him/her; the language is just normal to him/her.
> 
> Language loss may happen for a variety of reasons ranging from indifference through discouragement to outright suppression. Historically, language loss has arisen through noble motives. The idea that languages ought to be preserved is only comparatively recent in liberal thinking. Following the French Revolution, the plethora of languages spoken in France was seen as an impediment to social progress. "Encouraging" everyone to speak French was seen as a means of empowering people so that they could engage with the agencies of government. A similar thing happened in South America. Contrary to what many may think, Spanish was not imposed on the indigenous population by the Spanish colonial powers. Indeed, the Church actively encouraged the study and continuing use of indigenous languages; it did so of course for the very illiberal reason that it wanted the indigenous people to be kept uncontaminated by outside influences. When Spanish rule came to an end in South America in the first half of the nineteenth century only a minority of the population spoke Spanish (similar to the situation with English in India after independence). The new liberal governments, inspired by the ideals of the Englightenment, went the same route as the revolutionaries in France.



Do you think that a similar process may happen in Africa, where European languages (English, French, Portuguese) are spoken by a small fraction of the population, while a large majority speaks indigenous languages?


----------



## Hulalessar

Mishe said:


> Do you think that a similar process may happen in Africa, where European languages (English, French, Portuguese) are spoken by a small fraction of the population, while a large majority speaks indigenous languages?


 
No, at least not in the short to medium term. The situation is a bit different there. In South America there was a very large immigrant population of Spanish speakers who did not speak indigenous languages and power was in the hands of members of that population. In most of Africa those in power are not generally speaking monolingual English/French/Portuguese speakers. The situation varies considerably from place to place. In some countries many local languages are spoken and exist in a sitation of extreme diglossia with a European language to the extent that the European language is the only one actually written down and used in education and administration. Even so, I do not think that that means that people will stop speaking the local languages. (You only need to look at Italy where it is estimated that something like a half of the population do not speak Standard Italian with family and friends.) What is more likely to happen is that that endangered languages will be replaced by non-European languages.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Hulalessar said:


> Believing this, though apparently obvious and reasonable, is I think fraught with danger. Language is above all a means of communication, a convention adopted by a group of people, sometimes very small and sometimes huge. Now any given language does not of course exist in a vacuum and, being spoken by real people in the real world, may to varying degrees be associated with any one or more of culture, religion, nationality or race. People naturally feel that their native language is part of what they are, but a child born into the world has no language, just the language ability. S/he has no language just as s/he does not come into the world wearing the national dress.
> 
> The questions posed in this thread have no easy answers and it is not always clear who are the good guys and who the bad guys. By all means encourage minority languages to thrive and certainly do not ridicule, devalue or suppress them, but when a language is truly dying let it go in peace and do not, in the words of the Jesuits, strive officiously to keep it alive.



I can see your point but in many cases, someone's language _is_ their identity. The reasons for the destruction of the Irish language are well documented so there's no need to go in to them here suffice to say that if we let the language die (as it may very well do, only 50,000 people or less use it at home) then a huge part of Irish culture and identity dies with it.

I'm all for everyone speaking English, French or Spanish, in fact I think it should be a requirement that people can speak at least two of these to a decent level upon leaving school. If we let the local "languages" die though we surely lose more than we gain.

Take Breton, which is in a somewhat similar position to Irish. If it should go the way of the other French regional languages, Brittany would be forever lessened. They will keep their own "peculiarities" sure, but without the Breton language a huge part of their culture goes down the drain.


----------



## Judica

I think the shrinking number of languages is bad, particularly in the sense that a culture is tied to its language and customs. Think of trying to read an old manuscript or some pottery shards with Sanskrit. We lose a lot of world history in this respect; where we come from, everyday life in major ancient civilizations, and our original cultures.

As for being able to communicate across a range of nations, knowing another language is always good.

We must remember, the majority of "major" languages we speak today are not original languages, they are forms of some older language which has been changed throughout the ages. 

English is a variant of Germanic Norse, Hebrew is a variant of Aramaic, The Romance languages are variants of Latin, etc.

I think the fear of great loss is what drives people in some countries to learn the indigenous languages of their ancestors. (ie. Mexico and Ireland)


----------



## Veraz

Hulalessar said:


> Too close an association of a language with group identity leads people to believe things they really ought not to be believing, for example that you cannot be a proper X unless you speak Xish. In many cases group identity is based on nothing more than the fact that a group speaks a language not spoken by others with whom in fact it has a lot in common.



This is a very widespread belief. And I don't find anything specially fraught with danger. After all, some of our Constitutions require citizens to understand and speak a given official language.



> Who are we to lecture them and warn against the dangers of consumerism?



Who are we to lecture ourselves? This situation affects everybody.



> In the process of social change language loss, though not inevitable, often occurs. A young person who moves to the big city may regard the language of his village as something to be discarded along with what s/he considers all the other trappings of village life. S/he may not appreciate being told by someone, who would not dream of telling him/her what to wear or how to cook fish, that s/he should pass his/her mother tongue to his/her children. If the person telling him/her that is a linguist who finds his/her mother tongue fascinating because it has an unusual way of expressing syntactic ergativity, that will be of supreme indifference to him/her; the language is just normal to him/her.



Nobody should force him to speak what s/he wants, but there's nothing wrong with pointing him/her to the benefits of keeping something of what their parents bequeathed to him/her. In the end, it's up to every person and every people to decide what to speak.


----------



## sokol

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Hulalessar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believing this, though apparently obvious and reasonable, is I think fraught with danger. Language is above all a means of communication, a convention adopted by a group of people (...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see your point but it many cases, someone's language _is_ their identity. (...)
Click to expand...

Both points made are valid, as are both appeals to be careful.

Language ultimately is a means of communication: we use language to communicate, so this is an essential quality of language.

But it is also a means of socialisation - and as such carries identity. Humans are social animals, we are what we are through socialisation - thus, the language we grew up with is essential to our identity.

Both properties of language are conflicting - to communicate alone in theory one language would be sufficient; however, even new languages develop dialects because a language is defined by and through its use in society.
Sign language is a good piece of evidence for that: in theory it would be nonsense to try and develop distinctive dialects of Sign language, and this wasn't intended in the first place at all. Nevertheless dialects have developped, against the intentions of its creators.
(Austria has its own dialect of Sign language, as have Switzerland and Germany; and the Wiki articel on New Zealand Sign language pretty much confirms that similar diversifications happened in English speaking communities.)

If there wouldn't be a force against unifying language to one single world language we'd long have one such unified language already; history shows that the social value of language and dialects is (or at least, till now was) strong enough to counter unification trends which are particularily strong in our modern society.

Thus, in my opinion the original question is a simplification; I wouldn't ask wether it is "good" or "bad" to have a shrinking number of languages - I'd rather ask what forces are behind this, that is shrinking or growing number of languages.
(And with that I'd also like to say that it is not a one-way-road - languages vanish, but new dialects emerge which one day might develop into new languages in their own right. See the example of Sign language. )


----------



## Veraz

Sokol, I don't agree that just because languages have been always splitting into dialects and dying, it makes the actual state of things just a phenomenon that cannot be tagged as good or bad or anything in between.

We could say exactly the same about global warming or any other natural phenomenon. After all, it would be a natural phenomenon (since human beings are a part of nature) that life would eventually disappear from the face of the earth.

We are here on Earth and we take decisions about what we do. Our decisions bring consequences and from that point of view, we can say that they are good or bad.


----------



## Mishe

OK, so on one side we have the number of languages shrinking and languages dying out, but on the other hand "big" languages tend to move towards extreme diversification, although this process is stopped by globalization.


----------



## sokol

Veraz said:


> Sokol, I don't agree that just because languages have been always splitting into dialects and dying, it makes the actual state of things just a phenomenon that cannot be tagged as good or bad or anything in between.


Well actually I didn't claim that this *can't *be tagged as good or bad - my point was rather that it *shouldn't.* 

(And yes, I know that it'll be tagged nevertheless; that's just my point of view - that I won't tag this. Languages disappear and new dialects and languages come into existence, and I'd like to act as observer only; that's my choice, it needn't be yours. ;-)

I think I should add my reasons for this: if I'd choose to value the communication factor of language more than anything then this would mean denying the social factor, and vice versa.
But both are valid and important functions of language: both to communicate, and to socialise. So how should I "choose" any of those? And to value a shrinking number of languages as either positive or negative indeed would mean choosing between both - communication on one hand (which would mean, the less languages the better), and social factor on the other hand (which means, each social group ultimately will develop its dialect which might further evolve into a fully fledged language).

Thus my reasoning; hope that helps.


----------



## Veraz

Whether it is your choice or mine, I think it's not very important to this discussion. Instead, the question "why shouldn't the "satus quo" or present linguistic evolution be tagged as good or bad?" is quite relevant to this discussion, in my opinion. I'm not directing it particularly to you, of course, anybody could answer.


----------



## Veraz

Sorry, I hadn't seen you had already introduced the answer to my last question in your previous post.

I think that both communicational and socializing ends of language are good, so trying to keep both is also good.


----------



## Hulalessar

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I can see your point but in many cases, someone's language _is_ their identity.


 
I do not wish to over-emphasise the point when I say that language is above all a means of communication. I would put it on a par with saying that a house is above all somewhere to live. That does not mean that one may not have a sentimental attachment to a house. However, to insist that language is a somehow a decisive part of ones identity, or rather to take the question of language too seriously, is to go too far.

Obviously the situation varies widely over the world. There is really no specific unique identity associated with the English language simply because it is spoken by so many people in so many places around the world. The position is rather different for Catalan speakers. But even if you are a Catalan speaker there are many other aspects to your personality. You will, for example, probably be a Catholic (even if not practising) and as a Catholic will have much that you share with Austrians. 



Pedro y La Torre said:


> The reasons for the destruction of the Irish language are well documented so there's no need to go in to them here suffice to say that if we let the language die (as it may very well do, only 50,000 people or less use it at home) then a huge part of Irish culture and identity dies with it.


 
I am not convinced that this is the case. I feel, with respect, that you are quite close to suggesting that you cannot be properly Irish if you do not speak Irish. The fact is that the Irish language is not really an issue for most of the inhabitants of the Irish Republic. The case of Irish is a clear example of how you cannot keep a language alive, or at least increase its numbers of speakers, if no one wants to speak it. If anything, the measures taken have been counter-productive. If people cease to speak Irish it will be a sad day, but I doubt that the body of literature in Irish will ever become totally inaccessible because there will always be people who will study it. So whether people speak Irish or not, the culture will not be lost and for those who have never spoken Irish there will be no change.


----------



## Veraz

Hulalessar said:


> Obviously the situation varies widely over the world. There is really no specific unique identity associated with the English language simply because it is spoken by so many people in so many places around the world. The position is rather different for Catalan speakers. But even if you are a Catalan speaker there are many other aspects to your personality. You will, for example, probably be a Catholic (even if not practising) and as a Catholic will have much that you share with Austrians.



I share your main point about language being above all a means of communication, but as such it is also a way to relate with other people, the people around you. There is nothing unique about speaking English (just as there is nothing unique about speaking Catalan in Catalonia, or being Catholic for that matter (especially if you do not practise), but nevertheless many English speakers, especially when they come from the same country (and hence speak quite alike) tend to group in communities abroad.


----------



## ManPaisa

> The reasons for the destruction of the Irish language are well documented so there's no need to go in to them here suffice to say that if we let the language die (as it may very well do, only 50,000 people or less use it at home) then a huge part of Irish culture and identity dies with it.



That's like saying that the Irish do not want to be Irish or want to change their identity.  They themselves are letting the Irish language die.


----------



## Mate

*Moderator note*:

Regrettably, this thread has gradually transformed itself into a collection of posts containing little more than chat and personal opinions, that do not address the thread topic.  

Most of them are now deleted.

Should anyone have some cultural insight that directly addresses the thread topic as stated in the first post, please contact the CD moderators.

Thanks to all and sorry for the inconvenience.


*Thread closed*.


----------

