Jump to content

Death of Languages


Rezzy
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/2/2017 at 6:07 PM, Rapier said:

Seems like a lot of nitpick, but I'll take on the challenge. I'm kinda rusty, anyway.

Counterproductive to progress, as its death by disuse is unavoidable and all we can do is slow it down in futile attempts to stop change, development or death. Languages are like Theseus' Ship.

Culture is utilitarian because its elements only exist to serve humanity in some way, once its elements become obsolete/unhelpful they become useless and die (or go to the museum, which is its consequence). Dead languages, rituals and religions are some examples of that.

Language in disuse is generally unecessary (latim is an obvious exception but there's a reason for that) and thus irrelevant because it does not help. If languages are made to communicate and no one uses a language to communicate, it lost its function and became useless. Claiming that it is useful for you because your greatgreatgreatgrandfather used to speak it and you like it does not refute its general uselessness, which makes it... useless.

let's go bit by bit.

language has cultural, historical, and traditional value to communities tied by one. a population's attempt to keep a language from going extinct is counterpreductive to nothing; its "unavoidable death" being cut short doesn't exactly slow down progress in any other particular area where it might have significant impact.

your view on what culture is is outdated, reductionist, and largely dismissed in modern anthropology, sociology, and other fields of social science. culture is mostly affective and adheres to traditions and customs, and is shaped by material conditions. many have argued that certain aspects of culture arise in response to a certain need (be it biological, social, or so on) and that's entirely valid, but implying the evolution (for lack of a better word) of culture is almost purely rational is not. cultural change is much more nuanced than "thing is useless, cavemen stop using thing"

this is a very narrow view of what is useful and what isn't. if a language is part of a community's cultural heritage and their identity as a people it is definitely not "irrelevant," or "useless," simply because it isn't english and they aren't trading stocks internationally. excuse my hyperbole. you don't need to explain that isn't what you meant.

you seem to have a very robotic and dissociated perspective on human matters. i could recommend some authors if you'd like to read up on anthropology!

 

Quote

Language assimilation is progress because languages develop, change and die, and those elements are part of progress.

oh dear.

Edited by fuccboi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/02/2017 at 0:09 AM, Rezzy said:

Preserving a language seems like a nice thing and helps preserve a culture, but is languages dying off necessarily a bad thing?

It's neither good nor bad, it just happens, whether it's due to colonization or simply an attempt to make communication less difficult. German as we know it today for example wasn't even a thing before Luther translated the Bible to German. The German populations spoke in countless dialects (some persisting to this day) and Luther's Bible translation helped unite people by language.

It's not progress, nor is it bad, it's just change. It cannot be considered progress because I consider English (which is the dominant language today) not as efficient as some of the other major languages (including my own primary language) and even minor ones. Progress implies replacing something with something better. I remember reading that some indigenous languages are far more precise when communicating things related to nature than the languages of the major European colonizers. On the other hand, the European languages were more suited to the world they wanted to create and expand. It's all a matter of perspective.

Edited by Cerberus87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mixed feelings regarding this, considering that I can see the validity on both sides of the argument.

I'm a native (Western Canadian) English speaker, almost fluent in Spanish (been a couple years), somewhat knowledgeable in French (though that was years ago, I could pick it up again if I had to), and currently learning Japanese. Once I learn that, I'm planning on learning either Mandarin or German. I've immersed myself in languages, so half of me sees languages as an art that should be preserved, but the other half of me sees the potential obsolescence of languages, and that all languages will eventually meet with its demise, provided that languages constantly evolve with the times. 

Living where I live, I see it happening right before my eyes with various Native American languages in my area. My community is trying to preserve them. One of those ways is that they made it part of the curriculum; middle school students have a choice between French and local First Nations languages. I only know this because my brother was forced to take First Nations languages when the curriculum was updated last year (he didn't have to take a language before, since disability students weren't required to learn a second language then).

On the other end, we have the Chinese government and Cantonese. Unlike the local Native American tribes, they are trying to eliminate it, for lack of a better word, in favor of Mandarin. I am not nearly as knowledgeable in this as the previous paragraph, but from what I do know, I heard that they were [trying] to implement something so that schools were only allowed to teach in Mandarin. That's only a modern day example though. As ridiculous as it sounds, it's happened before with First Nations languages and French in Canada around the time it became a country; (from my recollection,) schools would only teach in English, and use of other languages were punishable (this was part of my grade 11 history class). 

I think it'd be good if people could collaborate and write some grammar books for such languages so that the language can "die off" when the time comes, whilst still being preserved for historical purposes. But that's just my fence sitter solution, trying to accommodate for both sides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A language is a unique mindset and a unique perspective of the world. There are countless stories, thoughts, and viewpoints that will be lost if we just allow these languages to die.

 

I am, in fact, trying to learn Irish, the language of my ancestry. It's very different from English in how words function, for instance "I have the cat" is "Tá an cat agam", literally "The cat is to me". Such things will be lost if we allow a few languages to outcrowd the rest. It's why I support Esperanto - use something extremely simple to facilitate world communication, while allowing everyone to keep their native languages.

Edited by Bandido Banderas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I obviously don't know everybody's background in this thread -- and certainly, maybe some of the "let dying languages die" people really do think that's for the best. But I think you'd have a very, very different view of things in different circumstances.

I'm a speaker of a dying language (specifically, as somebody else in this thread mentioned, a language being actively suppressed by the Chinese government in favor of Mandarin). The culture is dying with he language because there are no proper translations of many words into Mandarin, only approximations that lose all the nuanced meaning inherent in the original traditional script. I'm perfectly fluent in English and Mandarin, everybody is capable of learning multiple languages, and thus I fail to see why anybody should celebrate the death of a distinct language and its linked culture.

It is not an accident that the Chinese government pursues a policy of forced Mandarin education. It is to eliminate minorities, which the government sees as a threat to its authority. There is nothing progressive about the death of languages. It is a process of forcibly assimilating other cultures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think striving for a unified, common language is a well intentioned thing. But it's also a wonderful excuse for ill-intentioned people to wipe out the memory of conflicting cultures. Similar to how regimes like Russia and China would censor media and the internet so that people aren't exposed to new ideas. Mexico and MesoAmerica are a good group of nations to watch and see how indigenous language is preserved, as schools attempting to teach indigenous language alongside or instead of english can risk losing federal funds. There are several dozen legally recognized indigenous languages alone in Mexico, and you'll find the most buzz around preservation of Nahautl (Aztecan) and Mayan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm from Quebec, and the desire to preserve the French language and the Québécois culture is a big part of who I am. Although I see culture as something to be built for the future with intercultural exchanges (without ever forgetting our history or our language), rather than the conservative isolationism (aka living in the past) that "patriots" from any country will praise. I don't hate Canada. It is a wonderful country. It just feels... foreign to me. And so does France... I love to travel, and I love to learn about foreign cultures. If I were to move in another country, I would make great efforts to become part of their culture, while never betraying my Quebec roots (I would make sure my children could speak French and know about Quebec, etc.)

Still, part of what I'm saying is somewhat hypocritical of me, I guess, since I have some Native American ancestry (and really look the part), yet don't speak a word of the dying language of my ancestors, and know very little about their culture (I'm not even 100% sure which Nation they were from). Their language is far more endangered than French, and I feel like I'm the living example of its gradual disappearance...

Sorry if my syntax is awkward, my English is not that good...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/02/2017 at 7:53 PM, Thane said:

Or it can fail halfway and create an enormous rift between cultures even within the same country, like Spain and Catalonia. 

Can you define what you mean by progress? There are many native Americans in South America who practically only speak Spanish, yet are not part of the country where they reside's society. It also sounds very cold to say that small groups of people should just stop speaking their language because Spanish is bigger; should they drop their culture too? Is that too much in the way of progress? 

But I didn't say that.

I didn't say small groups of people should ditch their cultures and join the bigger groups'. I said that their language (culture is too broad a term) will eventually fade because it is a tendency, the lower the numbers become, the less people will speak said language, and the chances of adhering to a majority culture increase (unless we're talking about a specially reactionary group).

Quote

language has cultural, historical, and traditional value to communities tied by one. a population's attempt to keep a language from going extinct is counterpreductive to nothing; its "unavoidable death" being cut short doesn't exactly slow down progress in any other particular area where it might have significant impact.

your view on what culture is is outdated, reductionist, and largely dismissed in modern anthropology, sociology, and other fields of social science. culture is mostly affective and adheres to traditions and customs, and is shaped by material conditions. many have argued that certain aspects of culture arise in response to a certain need (be it biological, social, or so on) and that's entirely valid, but implying the evolution (for lack of a better word) of culture is almost purely rational is not. cultural change is much more nuanced than "thing is useless, cavemen stop using thing"

this is a very narrow view of what is useful and what isn't. if a language is part of a community's cultural heritage and their identity as a people it is definitely not "irrelevant," or "useless," simply because it isn't english and they aren't trading stocks internationally. excuse my hyperbole. you don't need to explain that isn't what you meant.

you seem to have a very robotic and dissociated perspective on human matters. i could recommend some authors if you'd like to read up on anthropology!

Ok, counterproductive is not exactly the best word, but what good does it do? Arguing that it doesn't do anything negative anyway isn't exactly a good response to that question.

I see, maybe I tried to appeal too much to reason when emotion plays a big part in culture, traditions and customs. Here's my theory: I do believe certain aspects of culture arise in response to a certain need (well, I'd argue that all of them do, even if it is merely analogous). If those needs are no longer fulfilled by the thing that was created to fulfill them, that thing should be critically reavaliated and possibly discarded. I believe that culture, tradition and customs must eventually be sent to such judgment - they do not justify their existance by themselves (hi, circular reasoning) and our emotions aren't really good motives (alone) for keeping them alive. What good does the prevention of a near death language do? Should I really stick to it just because I feel emotionally attached to it? Does that emotion justify my actions or am I being blinded by a faulty personal preference that doesn't justify itself rationally when I could choose to, for example, adhere to a majority language and improve my social relations by being closer to their culture? Ok, this is a false dilemma (for language, at least), but integrating into another culture eventually makes you drop other other cultural elements in favor of the new, out of habit. I honestly don't see the problem.

Cultural change is much more nuanced because it is much easier to the blinded by emotions, instincts and impulses, doing "what people have been doing for centuries / what my parents and grandparents did and taught me", few actually see through them and think "hey, is this really worth it? Why do I care so much?". Cavemen stopped using caves and clubs eventually, whatever their tradition/custom/culture of staying in caves and thwomping heads meant to them. Excuse my hyperbole, you don't need to explain that isn't what you meant.

This is basically my point, using a post as an example:

 

Quote

[...]Still, part of what I'm saying is somewhat hypocritical of me, I guess, since I have some Native American ancestry (and really look the part), yet don't speak a word of the dying language of my ancestors, and know very little about their culture (I'm not even 100% sure which Nation they were from). Their language is far more endangered than French, and I feel like I'm the living example of its gradual disappearance...

This is a tendency. People migrate, deal with other languages and cultures, assimilate and integrate into the society they're currently living on and eventually drop cultural elements from their ancestry. Should this happen to a majority of people and that language/culture become near death, what is the point of forcibly keeping it alive? I mean, if you're part of said small group and you'd like to speak your native language, that's perfectly fine, but otherwise it makes no sense. You said culture is not purely rational and that my views are incongruent with modern human sciences, but is this not a living example that cultural elements eventually fade in disuse and die? This is not due to rational thought but habit. As I said before, dropping some cultural elements in favor of others, until the former falls into disuse and dies.

 

Also, last but also important (which is why I spaced this sentence), I'd be glad if you could recommend me those books, just mind my lack of specialization if you think about recommending more advanced books. You seem to be well versed in those topics (or, at least, better than me) and it's been good to read your points and interact with you. Thanks.

 

---

 

Quote

A language is a unique mindset and a unique perspective of the world. There are countless stories, thoughts, and viewpoints that will be lost if we just allow these languages to die.

Dead languages can be kept for studies/museums. Falling into disuse doesn't mean they can't be studied or analyzed. It just means they won't be spoken. We study "dead cultures" on History ("dead languages" is probably limited to being a linguistic topic), don't we? We did not lose stories, thoughts and viewpoints from the Romans or Ancient Greeks/Chinese (they're still living cultures, but they went through rough Theseus' Ship treatment at the very least).

 

It's neither good nor bad, it just happens, whether it's due to colonization or simply an attempt to make communication less difficult. German as we know it today for example wasn't even a thing before Luther translated the Bible to German. The German populations spoke in countless dialects (some persisting to this day) and Luther's Bible translation helped unite people by language.

But isn't that a good thing, a form of progress that happens naturally when people aggregate and eventually become more and more alike, forming families, communities etc.?

 

As for Esperanto, I believe it was a good idea, but a very impractical one. As Fuccboi said, cultural change is much more nuanced than taking a cold, rational decision and dropping your culture for something else. Yet I believe it is a tendency for us to be united by a dominant language and probably become more alike in customs as we interact. English is pretty much our Esperanto on early alpha state right now. I'd really like to live enough to see if my Babel Tower theory will hold, but I know I won't.

Edited by Rapier
BBCodes hate my guts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ١٣‏/٢‏/٢٠١٧ at 6:26 PM, Fly_or_Die said:

I obviously don't know everybody's background in this thread -- and certainly, maybe some of the "let dying languages die" people really do think that's for the best. But I think you'd have a very, very different view of things in different circumstances.

I'm a speaker of a dying language (specifically, as somebody else in this thread mentioned, a language being actively suppressed by the Chinese government in favor of Mandarin). The culture is dying with he language because there are no proper translations of many words into Mandarin, only approximations that lose all the nuanced meaning inherent in the original traditional script. I'm perfectly fluent in English and Mandarin, everybody is capable of learning multiple languages, and thus I fail to see why anybody should celebrate the death of a distinct language and its linked culture.

It is not an accident that the Chinese government pursues a policy of forced Mandarin education. It is to eliminate minorities, which the government sees as a threat to its authority. There is nothing progressive about the death of languages. It is a process of forcibly assimilating other cultures.

a common issue with translation is that there are some words that simply aren't present. but yeah, this is an example of what i was trying to say.

on another note, i'm learning mandarin, and i was wondering if you or others had some solid yt channels or shows or other media (music, etc) that are entertaining/informative/educational? can be canto too i suppose. i'm not yet at a level where i can search this stuff confidently lol. still need to use most of the words in english, which severely limits my searches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2017 at 8:33 AM, Rapier said:

Dead languages can be kept for studies/museums. Falling into disuse doesn't mean they can't be studied or analyzed. It just means they won't be spoken. We study "dead cultures" on History ("dead languages" is probably limited to being a linguistic topic), don't we? We did not lose stories, thoughts and viewpoints from the Romans or Ancient Greeks/Chinese (they're still living cultures, but they went through rough Theseus' Ship treatment at the very least).

You can say that in the case of languages of large cultures, such as Rome or Greece. But what of the smaller ones? The Susquehannock language, spoken by the original inhabitants of my region, is utterly dead. All of its speakers were massacred centuries ago, and the only proof we have of its existence is a phrasebook of around 80 words. Their culture was utterly destroyed, and we don't have any scholars studying them. And that's the big problem with endangered languages - 6,500 spoken today, and only around 50 are commonly spoken. 2,000 of these have fewer than 1,000 speakers remaining, and documenting them all would be an impossible task, since we'd need someone fluent in both languages, and many of these are spoken in isolated areas. It's difficult to comprehend just how much perspectives will never be examined because of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...


Important response questions would be:
-Just because it isn't worth it, does that mean it wasn't worth it?
-If it was worth it, it may still be worth it for some people, so isn't it maybe still worth it?

Cultural change is much more nuanced because it is much easier to the blinded by emotions, instincts and impulses, doing "what people have been doing for centuries / what my parents and grandparents did and taught me", few actually see through them and think "hey, is this really worth it? Why do I care so much?". Cavemen stopped using caves and clubs eventually, whatever their tradition/custom/culture of staying in caves and thwomping heads meant to them. Excuse my hyperbole, you don't need to explain that isn't what you meant.

The survival of different cultures/languages/etc. probably allows different realms to exist, and for people not to feel constantly trapped.

Assuming we see some value in like, the human race existing, variety is not worthless. Even though it slows transmission, slowing transmission slows random, erratic change and consolidation towards something that seems momentarily valuable.

Writing with pen and paper is probably not a totally worthless skill, for instance, even though typing is more easily made uniform in a lot of cases and (for me at least) is much faster. Since electronics sometimes fizz out, a fallback is good.

Dead languages can be kept for studies/museums. Falling into disuse doesn't mean they can't be studied or analyzed. It just means they won't be spoken. We study "dead cultures" on History ("dead languages" is probably limited to being a linguistic topic), don't we? We did not lose stories, thoughts and viewpoints from the Romans or Ancient Greeks/Chinese (they're still living cultures, but they went through rough Theseus' Ship treatment at the very least).

I think it is probably valuable to have dead languages. So that people can correspond with a possible basis point. However, I'm not sure a dead language is needed to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On 2/1/2017 at 8:09 PM, Rezzy said:

Doing reading on the history of language evolution and in modern history, there's been a lot of discussion about how many languages are in danger and/or have been getting revival movements.  These seem to be mostly with indigenous populations, but it's also been a thing with Gaelic languages and such in Europe.  Preserving a language seems like a nice thing and helps preserve a culture, but is languages dying off necessarily a bad thing?

The world moving to fewer, more dominant languages definitely helps people communicate.  You can speak in English with people all over the world, and French, Spanish, and Mandarin also serve as lingua francas.  That would hardly be possible, if people two cities over each had their own unique language.  Languages dying or being absorbed isn't a new thing, either.  I remember reading somewhere that only a few centuries ago, only the area surrounding Paris spoke French as we know it today, and the rest of France spoke different dialects of French that were almost unintelligible, depending on how far apart they were.  There was another anecdote I read, where in the middle ages, a man from London was visiting Kent, and thought they spoke French, because they spoke such a different version of English than him.

You are basing this on the mistaken assumption that people can only learn one language. Most people in the world speak their own language in addition to a lingua franca that they use with other groups. For example my native language is Pashto but I use English to communicate with other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Well I found out of the 7,000 or so languages about half are at risk of going extinct, mainly because of indigenous people are switching to languages spoking by the majority of people. And those 3,500+ languages are expected to be gone by 2100. Oklahoma, The Pacific Northwest, The Desert Southwest, Australia (Mainly in the Outback), Central and South America, and the Pacific Islands are the hardest hit by the shift of languages.

Edited by John Denver Fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
On 2/13/2017 at 3:39 AM, peener weener said:

let's go bit by bit.

language has cultural, historical, and traditional value to communities tied by one. a population's attempt to keep a language from going extinct is counterpreductive to nothing; its "unavoidable death" being cut short doesn't exactly slow down progress in any other particular area where it might have significant impact.

your view on what culture is is outdated, reductionist, and largely dismissed in modern anthropology, sociology, and other fields of social science. culture is mostly affective and adheres to traditions and customs, and is shaped by material conditions. many have argued that certain aspects of culture arise in response to a certain need (be it biological, social, or so on) and that's entirely valid, but implying the evolution (for lack of a better word) of culture is almost purely rational is not. cultural change is much more nuanced than "thing is useless, cavemen stop using thing"

this is a very narrow view of what is useful and what isn't. if a language is part of a community's cultural heritage and their identity as a people it is definitely not "irrelevant," or "useless," simply because it isn't english and they aren't trading stocks internationally. excuse my hyperbole. you don't need to explain that isn't what you meant.

you seem to have a very robotic and dissociated perspective on human matters. i could recommend some authors if you'd like to read up on anthropology!

U.S. imperialism is still a contentious topic today, but it needs to be discussed in order to obtain a more complete understanding of the situation. I've had a lot of knowledge about it at my disposal in specialized studies. There is a wealth of useful information on US imperialism at https://studydriver.com/american-imperialism-essay/ if you're also interested in learning more. that's worth reading in order to comprehend it better.

oh dear.

What about respect for the opinion of others, or is it no longer revered?

Edited by Tasaza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...