There are around 7,000 languages spoken in the world, but that number is shrinking. Unesco estimates that half could disappear by the end of the century. So how are languages lost, and what does that mean for the people who speak them?
By sheer coincidence, I just came across a thread on Reddit about a system that’s been invented for training AI speech models on languages when there’s not enough actual recorded examples to serve as training data. Speech Instruction Training Without Speech for Low Resource Languages. ArXiv link to the paper for those who want to bypass Reddit, though the reddit link also has links to the actual models and code used.
Relevant to this thread.
So how are languages lost, and what does that mean for the people who speak them?
If the language stops being spoken then there are no people who speak them, and asking what something means for those nonexistent people is kind of weird.
I’m thinking that the loss of distinct languages in active use is not necessarily a bad thing overall. It means more people can communicate with each other more widely. By all means document these disappearing languages as much as possible before they’re gone, but there’s likely a good reason most of them are disappearing.
Gaeilge (Irish) is barely spoken because of Britian banning it, if people give up on speaking it it means a massive loss of an important piece of Irish culture.
There’s a saying: tír gan teanga, tír gan anam, meaning a country without a language is a country without a soul. A native language to a country can be an integral part of its culture.
there’s likely a good reason most of them are disappearing.
This belief is called the “just world fallacy”. Sadly, the world is not just.
Most of these languages are disappearing due to colonialism. People’s traditional ways of living have been forcibly upended by capitalists and state governments, who have seized the commons around the world, and by colonialist policies such as residential schools. No longer able to support themselves using their traditional ways of living, people have been mde into wage slaves who must compete on the market to survive. That means using English or another widely-spoken language. Indigenous languages are much less useful to capitalists, and so gradually they wither and die.
We are at risk of killing 95% of the world’s languages, on top of the incalculable cultural damage that goes along with all of this, just to prop up a single way of being: liberal nation states. It is reprehensible beyond words.
If the language stops being spoken then there are no people who speak them, and asking what something means for those nonexistent people is kind of weird.
Just because you have none who speaks your language, doesn’t mean you’re dead or don’t exist. Language is lost in pockets, not all at once. Communities dwindle until it’s just a few, then practicality of life makes them use their language less so language can even die while multiple speakers still engage in dialogue, of that dialogue isn’t in that language.
If there’s someone who speaks the language then it isn’t lost yet.
I suppose it’s interesting to muse about what it means for the last person to speak a language before it becomes lost, but that’s still just one person so it’s kind an abstract, academic concern.
Okay…
I suppose it’s interesting to muse about what it means for the last person to speak a language before it becomes lost,
I speak – badly, but I’m fluent with my limited vocabulary – Low Saxon. Fuck I can do with it but embarrass supermarket cashiers whose skills are worse to non-existent. I could pass someone who knows the language perfectly, a true native speaker without the burden of generational gap in native proficiency, be asked for directions – and never know we could have talked in Low Saxon because the default language is the local Standard German.
It means that a mode of expression is dying. For us, as a people, it means that the natural expression of culture, of our modes and habits of interaction, is diluted due to the overwhelming influence of Standard German.
All this talk about “probably deserves to die”, “languages can’t be lost before there’s no people who speak it”, whatnot… point of interest: Do you happen to be monolingual.
I suppose it’s interesting to muse about what it means for the last person to speak a language before it becomes lost, but that’s still just one person so it’s kind an abstract, academic concern.
There is nothing academic about it, this is as much a question of humanism as there is.
I’m thinking that the loss of distinct languages in active use is not necessarily a bad thing overall. It means more people can communicate with each other more widely.
I don’t think I understand what you’re trying to get at, here. Are you implying that it’s not possible for people to speak more than one language?
Surely less languages means the chance of overlapping a language with someone else goes up?
Not really because there’s only a limited set of Lingua Francas and, say, Mali turning away from French in favour of e.g. English won’t make French disappear.
Yep…
I don’t get why people are up in arms over lost languages or lost cultures, unless of course if it’s due to genocide.
But USA was inhabited by people from alol over the world, but it’s damned practical that they almost all speak English.
Having as many languages as we have is a mess, and speaking the same language is a clear advantage for everybody.Regarding culture, people don’t lose their culture in general, they adopt other cultures over time.
Just like people have evolved biologically over time, so do we also evolve culturally, but the cultural evolution is much much faster.And it’s fucking great that cultures evolve, because that’s the way to get rid of religion and other traits of our cultures that are detrimental to in general.
I can’t believe I just read this…and I can’t believe so many people upvoted this chauvinistic take on language.
You should know that I come from a country of only 6 million people, so it’s definitely not because I’m chauvinistic about my own first language. So calling it that is pretty stupid.
But on the contrary because I know first hand the many problems of coming from a small language.
Obviously in my country most people speak more languages than our native language, because you frigging have to, if you want to know anything, or just watch movie. Or have cultural exchanges outside our own country.The romanticizing of small languages is idiotic.
What is your argument for wanting people to not have the privilege of belonging to a bigger language group?Let me guess, you don’t speak natively one of your country’s minority languages. But you have a grudge you have to live with those pesky insignificant dialects. You are not special. People like you are a dime a dozen in countries with linguistic minorities.
You are defending the disappearance of languages with fewer speakers, languages you assume as less important because you are a chauvinist. You’re not advocating the learning of other languages as L2, which would be a good thing. Lingua francas are a good thing. Pressuring minorities to reject their own native language is just chauvinistic and racist/xenophobic, no matter how hard you try to defend it as simple pragmatism (which is always just an excuse).
We don’t have the slightest common ground here. Our values are much different do there’s no point in discussing this with you. I’ve known lots of people like you. The country next to mine is filled with such people. My own smaller country was the only one lucky enough to stay independent and I’ve heard speeches like yours way too many times.
Let me guess, you don’t speak natively one of your country’s minority languages
WTF?! Are you on meth or something?
Pressuring minorities to reject their own native language is just chauvinistic and racist/
I NEVER argued for that, I explicitly in my first post stated that that is immoral, although my example was genocide, the meaning is the same.
I’ve known lots of people like you.
Again with the boxing people into some sort of category with no basis.
Funny how you don’t present a single argument, but rely exclusively on personal insults?
I don’t get why people are up in arms over lost languages or lost cultures, unless of course if it’s due to genocide.
Which it often is, as I’m sure you know. We are in an awful situation for Indigenous languages.
Regarding culture, people don’t lose their culture in general, they adopt other cultures over time.
These are the same thing. People don’t just lose their culture and become cultureless. They lose their culture as they adopt another culture, but this process is largely driven by colonialism.
Just like people have evolved biologically over time, so do we also evolve culturally, but the cultural evolution is much much faster.
“Evolve”? Do you think European culture is superior to Indigenous cultures? We are destroying the planet in record time, and you are talking about “cultural evolution”? This is the language of 19th century racists who were blind to the nuances of culture. Different cultures are different ways of being in the world, each with its own pros and cons.
And it’s fucking great that cultures evolve, because that’s the way to get rid of religion and other traits of our cultures that are detrimental to in general.
Unfortunately, the cultures that have replaced Indigenous cultures around the world have largely been bigoted Christian cultures. Language loss is not caused by cultures becoming healthier – it is caused by unhealthy cultures killing other cultures.
Gaeilge (Irish) is barely spoken because of Britian banning it, if people give up on speaking it it means a massive loss of an important piece of Irish culture.
There’s a saying: tír gan teanga, tír gan anam, meaning a country without a language is a country without a soul. A native language to a country can be an integral part of its culture.
It makes sense to speak english or since its effectively the linga franca, but people can know more than one language.
Yes language can be part of national and cultural identity, and i agree oppressing it is absolutely 100% wrong, it’s actually also considered genocide to do so, exactly because it erases a culture against the will of the people who ascribe to it. And I specifically stated that of course genocide isn’t acceptable.
But in a situation where different cultures integrate, like in USA, people from different backgrounds get married and have children.
So if a Polish and a Spanish person for instance fall in love, it’s a huge advantage that they have a common language, and when they raise their children it would be obvious to use that. They probably keep many elements from their old culture, but at the same time adopt new things from other cultures.
This way over generations this new American culture which consist of elements from many cultures arises, and elements of the old cultures disappear.
As I see it, this has created one of the worlds richest cultures in USA in record time. And for by far the most Americans I bet this is a net gain, compared to the singular culture they were originally limited to.In my country we have also seen an influx of immigrants, mostly since the 60’s. And it’s very obvious to me that this has enriched our culture tremendously. Especially on food.
So modern day danish culture has changed a lot since the 70’s, and that change is enrichment IMO, and hopefully to the immigrants too. But Muslim men can’t have multiple wives here, because that’s illegal. Is that cultural oppression?
For any pair of languages there are plenty of subjects where one is clearly inferior to another.
That’s why they have evolved in the first place.
because that’s the way to get rid of religion and other traits of our cultures that are detrimental to in general.
Religion is biological, not cultural. The cultural part associated with it being destroyed doesn’t change human nature.
And leads to uglier religions.
Having as many languages as we have is a mess, and speaking the same language is a clear advantage for everybody.
A language and a piece of knowledge are in symbiosis, you can’t just “translate” everything without losing half the meaning.
If your only language is English, then please don’t make statements like this.
I speak 3 languages.
Then it’s even harder to justify.
I do not need to justify myself to you, you are the one who needs to justify your backwards view to me.
And you probably couldn’t answer why, which is why you made a response with absolutely no substance containing no argument.So I ask again, what is your argument for wanting people to not have the privilege of belonging to a bigger language group?
Since you are putting statements into my mouth, you can invent arguments the same way, do that, I don’t have time
Which languages, out of interest?
Danish, English, German, and also Swedish and Norwegian because they are close to Danish, so I don’t really count those.
I’m a skeptic on this as well but wow you completely dismissed the entire question of loss of cultural diversity and that is a little too far for me. I think you may also be ignoring that humans are built to speak 3-4 languages without strain, and so having just one is unnecessary, and for people to have alternates is not necessarily harmful.
But USA was inhabited by people from alol over the world, but it’s damned practical that they almost all speak English.
Having as many languages as we have is a mess, and speaking the same language is a clear advantage for everybody.Only if your understanding of human language is that it is simply a tool for life, not an expression of life or intelligence itself.
No you are catastrophically wrong, but most people agree with you all the same and damn us all for that.
When we all speak exactly the same language, that will be by definition the moment we have reached a point of no return in the destruction of our own species.
I disagree, if we use English as an example, there are clear differences between the English spoken in NY and Texas even though both are within USA, and there are differences between England and Scotland, these differences are even within the same country. The advantage is that the understanding of a concept framed in one of these regions, can spread more easily across all English language regions.
Which is probably a major reason English is one of the richest languages we have. On the downside it’s also a mess, but it enables you and I to communicate, while a 100 years ago there would be near zero chance I would understand any English at all!
So you can’t deny the very clear advantage of being able to communicate and share ideas.not an expression of life or intelligence itself.
Of course any language is an expression of life intelligence and defining abstract ideas. It’s not just an expression of it, but also how we think. Language is a tool to both form and express our thoughts.
So what exactly is your point? Because I don’t get it from your other post either.
It’s not the richest language (en), but it likely the most flexible.
The advantage is that the understanding of a concept framed in one of these regions, can spread more easily across all English language regions.
Which is probably a major reason English is one of the richest languages we have.
I know this is how you think, this is the rigid terms in which computer programmers, engineers and people bound up in totalitarian thinking in some form or another ALWAYS frame things and honestly I understand, it is very similar to how to very effectively tackle a technical problem… but this is not a technical problem this is a question of life.
You will never come up with the concept or learn how to explain it to people without the diversity, intelligence, creativity and new ideas that a diversity of languages and really everything brings to the table in the first place and the person you are speaking to won’t be intelligent enough to understand in a meaningful way either. You are looking at the inefficiencies of diversity and dismissing the stability, growth and innovation it brings in a way that worries me because I see the ideology everywhere.
How is you argument fundamentally different than just rephrasing a totalitarian argument in terms of language, “It would be better and more efficient if we only had ONE LANGUAGE, ONE GOVERNMENT, ONE WAY”. No it wouldn’t, it would be efficient at conveying simplistic, empty instructions across an utterly broken populace unable to think for themselves in any meaningful way which is in my opinion quite a distasteful form of efficiency.
You have just reframed the concept, role and artistry of language in a way where you have disguised how threatening a loss of diversity in it will be towards pushing things toward collapse, degradation and violence of some kind.
You will never come up with the concept or learn how to explain it to people without the diversity, intelligence, creativity and new ideas that a diversity of languages and really everything brings to the table
You do not demonstrate or indicate any mechanism whatsoever that would support this claim. Also it’s VERY unclear what you mean by “everything” in this context?
You also haven’t shown how being able to communicate is a disadvantage, or how NOT being able to communicate helps learn new concepts?Is there a single philosophical idea or abstract concept you can point to that originated only because the philosopher spoke a specific language?
Or do you have anything to demonstrate how “life” is better in one language as opposed to another.
Or even just how it makes us culturally “richer” that there are hundreds of languages we don’t understand?You also haven’t shown how being able to communicate is a disadvantage
Well, after wasting my time reading their verbal diarrhea, I think they may have a point.
On a more serious note, while communication efficiency increases productivity, it also alters the balance of power. In our case, it allows larger structures (i.e. the UN, US, international businesses) to more effectively exert their will over local structures. If you are for instance, a Chilean anarchist, a Russian businessman, or a Papuan village elder, it’s not in your interest at all.
Chilean anarchist, a Russian businessman, or a Papuan village elder, it’s not in your interest at all.
Further, if you are afraid of the misinformation potential of AI to manipulate people recognize that a person can easily learn two languages and learn to understand how to leap in ways between them that a LLM could never do.
If you want an LLM to learn how to speak fluently in two languages you have to create two ecological catastrophies in order to make it happen, I just have to read a book.
Just by virtue of conversing in different languages and more importantly finding a joy in their confounding diversity and endless lessons they subvert our worldviews with, we make it harder and harder for LLMs to be used by authoritarian entities to steer the conversation in ways that are evil, disrespect the opinions of others or degrade the nuance of conversations that are too important for them to let us have.
People mistake AI being shown to be able to copy human language in a given context so well that humans can’t distinguish between robots and humans anymore in that context as proof that AI is more intelligent than us and we are hopeless against it, but in reality it is simply an exhaustive proof the vital diversity (in that particular context) necessary to create new ideas died long ago.
Ima be real I’m not 100% sure what you’re on about. I’d agree that LLMs can’t really function to dissolve identitarian barriers, though they are clearly much more effective than prior methods. Things change and they rarely roll back, unfortunately.
to more effectively exert their will over local structures.
Those interests are not defined by language, what you are implying did not help the British against the Americans, or anywhere else for that matter.
Having your own thoughts and culture as an anarchist or businessman or as a village elder does not depend on language. And being isolated from other cultures tend to result in less developed cultures that have lower quality of life.So why would you want to keep lesser developed cultures less developed?
Differences in language never prevented an authoritarian power to exert their will over minorities or neighboring countries. I have not seen any example of this advantage shown anywhere ever, and I’ve been hearing about “the problem” of lost languages for 50 years now.
First, want to note that I’m not arguing for anything like the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, I don’t think that language can really change your cognition, though it clearly has some affect on social organisation.
Those interests are not defined by language
While this may seem true in a sort of logical, definitional sense (one cannot construct a symbolic method for determining a person’s interests, given their language, or vice versa). It’s not true in a connectionist sense. The human brain picks up on associations between everything, and one of those associations is language-&-behaviour. In my experience people will often prefer people with similar socio-linguistic signifiers. One might call it irrational, but I’m not sure I would label it that, when there really is a probabilistic link between language and political alignment. Though, If you speak a prestige dialect you may not have experienced this, I would encourage you to keep your eyes open for it.
being isolated from other cultures tend to result in less developed cultures that have lower quality of life.
I’m not 100% sure what you mean by developed, as this is a notoriously difficult to define word. However if you’re talking about technological development, as in, the ability of the culture to impose its will over reality, then yes I would agree. I didn’t intend to make any moral statements in my original post. Note however, that if the goal of the people of the culture is (axiomatically), to retain their culture & language, then assimilating is not an effective way to achieve that goal, even if it grants them access to more effective tools.
Differences in language never prevented an authoritarian power to exert their will over minorities or neighboring countries. … I have not seen any example of this advantage shown anywhere ever
I would really encourage you to do some reading, if you look at the historical record, this is something that happens frequently, though it comes and goes throughout different periods. A few examples.
- The Romans were easily able to conquer Greece & (Greek) Egypt, in part due to the willingness of the Roman & Greek elites to cooperate, due to their shared use of the Greek language & its cultural-aesthetic signifiers. Contrast this with the rebellion-fest in Western Europe, where the Gallic speaking people were othered & subject to ethnicisation.
- During the middle ages, language was less politically important, because the nobility of each nation primarily identified themselves as members of a Latin-speaking internationalist group, (Christendom, or, the imperial sphere of the Catholic church).
- Austria-Hungary’s failed imperial project in Bosnia. Language was a major factor in this, as various groups called for a counter-force on the basis of their shared language. This contributed to the start of WW1.
- The decolonisation movement had a strong national & language-based character, though this is recent history so I’m sure lots of people would love to argue about the causes of it.
But again, it’s not binary. Language differences are not sufficient to prevent imperial influence, but decrease the probability of effective power projection. They also interlink with other factors i.e. cultural & religious differences often cause communities to resist external rule, and language mediates the spread of those ideas.
Differences in language never prevented an authoritarian power to exert their will over minorities or neighboring countries.
Forget the wisdom of the Navajo at your peril because not everyone else will.
We named it after an indigenous people from our home, a home some of us invaded into while some of us were brought against their will precisely for the trauma it bore (and yet the rainbow of rhythms they brought to share despite!), the some of us that were already here are from a family that experienced this gift first and yet it took war in response to genocide for those in power to see their wisdom and yet even as we paid dearly for that lesson we still struggle to admit we are actively trying to erase our teachers.
Before you dismiss the responsibility of entering into a foreign conversation and honoring our grief, our love and our sorrow by living together with us, consider the kind of animal that may rise from the hills that have witnessed it all and yet persisted, if you do not listen.
Even when they chain this animal to genocide, we know the truth of what it was intended to remember and never to forget, just ask Chelsea Manning,
Is there a single philosophical idea or abstract concept you can point to that originated only because the philosopher spoke a specific language?
There are no philosophers if there is only one mind and one language because ideas are constructed of intersections (or is it puns? I have confused myself), and the ports of the world have and always will speak pidgin even if we pretend it is Official English or whatever the language of the next empire is.
You do not demonstrate or indicate any mechanism whatsoever that would support this claim.
I don’t need to, try actually talking to an indigenous person, evolutionary biologist or an environmental scientist and if they can stand talking to you for more than 5 minutes they may explain it to you.
You also haven’t shown how being able to communicate is a disadvantage, or how NOT being able to communicate helps learn new concepts?
I don’t need to, that isn’t my point, my point is you are trying to take a shortcut to intelligence and communication that involves hurling empty symbols back and forth at strangers, that will never lead anywhere unless you and that stranger start to develop a unique language specific to that context that honors and remembers that context… and yes we can do that right now but guess what makes human language such a gift to us that it was passed down to us and entrusted in our stewardship? Do you not see how you are spitting on that gift with your words?
Yes, you can always plant a new 200 year old tree if you cut the 200 year old tree down… but you will have to wait 200 years to experience the true complexity and power that is latent in the seed again.
If you think I am arguing for NOT understanding each other you aren’t actually listening to what I am saying, what I am saying is you are lying to yourself about being able to convey anything once you reach the point you desire and admire and seem to think would be a highwater mark for communication and intelligence.
edit another thought on why I used everything here, you are right I was vague and gesturing at like… everything but that really is the point, there is no intelligence without a fecund context in which to weave it together and that requires diversity in as many different axis as possible to increase the likelihood of it being possible in a given context.
Nothing. Languages live and die by their usage. If nobody uses it, it can be tombstoned, like ܐܪܡܐܝܬ, Latinum, Olde Englisċ, etc…
There’s not a single revitalizing project. Instead, I see conlangs being supported instead (Esperanto, öᵕꘖ, lojban, etc.), which RFI omits in their plea.
עִבְרִית is being enforced through colonialism. While wôpanâak barely get funding. The only exception is līvõ kēļ.
How many vanished last century?
If need to, just preserve them into training material, movies, and other content, anyone wanting to learn them for whatever reason can do so in the future. Linguist are probably already doing this. Preserving them in some kind of library could also be useful resource when making movies/games from those olden period and using the actual spoken language from that time in the film/game.
I think most people learn/acquire languages for economic reasons to feed their families. Shouldn’t be forcing people to learn language they don’t need.
Actually, looking at history, no language will survive. Modern English is only 400 years old. In a few hundred years, all languages will be very different from what they are now. Different enough to be considered a different language. It is normal.
"Old English, a Germanic language, was spoken in England for centuries. The Norman Conquest in 1066 brought French into England, and the two languages gradually merged, resulting in Middle English. " war caused the “death” of old english.
Even language that will go extinct may be related to other languages so technically part of the language is still around. Korea share similarities to chinese, jap. Korean even share many words with Tamil language. So, just like old english went extinct or lost because it merged with others and became something else. Or a king could decide to create a new language, killing off existing language.
Actually, looking at history, no language will survive. Modern English is only 400 years old. >In a few hundred years, all languages will be very different from what they are now. Different enough to be considered a different language. It is normal.
This is a completely different process than what’s outlined in the article. The article is about outright language death, like if Old English had died so that it never became Modern English.
Language change is normal. Language death is, in our world, largely a result of colonialism, racism, and anti-Indigenous policies.
Basically the story of Metal Gear Solid V.
ألهذا السبب كان الجميع يتحدثون العربية في اللعبة؟
I don’t see a problem with this, generally speaking.
So how are languages lost
I keep telling my coworkers I can’t wait for this whole internet fad to die down.
Half the world’s population is going away so yeah
Gurl the world’s population has been growing for hundreds of years and is still growing 🤦♂️ It is expected to peak at around 10 billion people.
The loss of human languages is a direct result of colonialism + nationalism, which go hand in hand. People that want to unite a region under one government push for only a single language to be used in that region. Italy and China are prominent examples of this. The natural linguistic diversity of the region is decimated to grow a monoculture.
Language loss is largely unrelated to people dying. Indigenous people live on, just without their languages, as they adopt the languages of their colonizers. This is very common across the world.
When a language dies in a community, the transmission of that community’s culture is heavily impacted. Monolingual elders can no longer communicate (or communicate well) with younger generations, and the words in other languages do not capture the same nuances and connections as the words in their native language. The death of a language quickens the death of a culture, and that in turn quickens the death of indigenous knowledge systems.
The different languages of humanity – our different ways of speaking, thinking, and being human – are treasures. They show us other ways of treating each other, other ways of organizing society, other ways of experiencing beauty and fear and anger. They show us that the world is broader than our narrow lens. We can never really escape the lens of our native language and culture, but we can step out of it for a while. And in doing so, we gain a greater perspective on what it means to be human.
Gurl the world won’t reach 10bil with the vast majority of countries falling below replacement rate
We can’t blame colonialism for everything lol
People stop speaking languages and they die out.
IMO the world would be a better place if everyone was on the same language
This is the second most damning evidence for catastrophic collapse of humanity, the MOST damning evidence being a lot of people are aware human languages are going extinct at an alarming rate but they don’t care because their brains are so broken by tech hype fads they don’t see we are truly destroying the last bits left to our humanity and home.
How is it that I can more easily convince someone to care about the diversity of the natural environment than it is to get someone to care about the diversity of human languages that represent generations of human intelligence honing thinking, communication and categorization tools in an unimaginable number of different contexts and situations’?
This is dire.
The key here is that techbro brainworms make you think communication is ALWAYS a means to an end instead of the genesis point for intelligence itself, and so techbros are always tying to skip past the artistry because they can’t control that, they can’t scale it up, they can’t stuff it into neatly categorized boxes or structured approaches and they can’t automate it, they just want the magic without allowing the conditions for magic to happen in the first place which is meeting every moment carrying the knowledge that it will be different in some new way than the last moment but being cautious not to pretend to know how.
The incomprehensible inefficiency in energy use of AI is a forced admission by people that want to play a 4x space empire game or Factorio-like factory games and dominate everything except in real life that this kind of mindset never leads to creation, only destruction… exhausting destruction that never ends. There is never a single place that kind of mindset can actually create anything, it is kind of shocking and disorienting and is the reason so many people spiral around endless denial finding solace in the fact that while this mindset is tragically and dangerously incomplete it is still very good for creating normal computer programs.
Techbros can only dissect love and shove it into woodchippers and show us the result covered in human blood while saying “Look what I made!” while they literally burn the world down, they are not only incapable of making art they are actually ideologically opposed to it at a basic level and will resort to hurting themselves to avoid accidentally making art and letting it become it’s own creative idea that escapes them.
“Wait! That is mine!!!” they will say grabbing at the thing as it unfolds its wings and becomes a living work of art, and then they will go into their house and get a shotgun before it can fly up into the sky too far risen into the day to be snuffed out by a meager gunshot.
While I am not a linguist, I am a herstorian, I don’t get this line of logic fully. I understand wanting to keep languages around and wanting things to be as they were. But when it comes to languages they evolve, merge and die off.
We should do what we can now to persevere these languages for future generations to look back on. We also shouldn’t force communities to be stuck with a language that cannot change or adapt to the world that is changing around it.
Modern day English doesn’t just come out of thin air, it comes from other languages and from its own evolution. Modern day England experienced multiple invasions and those invaders brought their own languages with them. Words from those languages were then added to English and we still use those day! And yes obviously the English’s own conquests and empire helped propel the language outwards. It also allowed new dialects of the language to sprout up all overworld and it has mixed with local languages.
We should not try to imitate what the French do with sectioning off the evolution of language as much as possible. Instead we need to let it evolve as naturally as we can. There will always be varying languages, no two groups will always agree on what’s best afterall.
Right now we are experiencing how the modern world (which has its own problems) and languages clash and change each other. The languages that are dying off now are in the exact same place past languages were in.
deleted by creator
We should do what we can now to persevere these languages for future generations to look back on. We also shouldn’t force communities to be stuck with a language that cannot change or adapt to the world that is changing around it.
The only dead language of any use is latin, and who said anything about violence?
My point is there is no such thing as a preserved language only a living or dead one.
Instead we need to let it evolve as naturally as we can.
The thing I am screaming into the void is that we are letting nothing evolve, we are in a mass extinction.
Too few and too late!
Push Esperanto (or something else similarly adequate) to the masses and leave those local languages to historians and poets.
Unfortunately I don’t think Esperanto can succeed unless a multinational agreement makes it a requirement in school.
As it is, the international language to learn is English.
