Language Extinction

[Caligastia]

I just got the latest issue of "Scientific American", and there is an article in there about "Multilingualists" who have created organisations with the aim of preserving languages.

Here is a link to a similar article.

http://www.colorado.edu/iec/alis/articles/langext.htm

Why is language extinction being seen as a bad thing? Sure, unique means of expression will be gone, but are these means of expression really crucial to human advancement? Wouldnt it be better to work on improving existing popular languages to enable greater expression within them than to try and preserve every language on the planet? Its interesting to note that the least advanced peoples of the world are the ones with the most languages. No doubt their inability to communicate with one another is at least partialy responsible for holding them back.

I can see the value of studying these languages in order to observe common human sounds used in language etc, but to encourage "lingual diversity" for the sake of diversity seems pointless. A more productive goal would be to establish a common language among the speakers of almost-extinct languages to encourage unity. Lingual diversity in the absence of a common language only creates disunity.

[Dan Severn]

Why is unity a good thing? I think cultural differences help make sure there is never only one side to any issue. The death of language often kills interesting cultures, and makes history that much more distant. It serves to homogenize thought and reduce the places the mind can go. What is wrong with multiple nations? If there is an ujust government, it must be destroyed. How can this be done if there is only one? Divergent Ideas must always be tolerated, lest freedom be lost.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Dan Severn
Why is unity a good thing? I think cultural differences help make sure there is never only one side to any issue. The death of language often kills interesting cultures, and makes history that much more distant. It serves to homogenize thought and reduce the places the mind can go. What is wrong with multiple nations? If there is an ujust government, it must be destroyed. How can this be done if there is only one? Divergent Ideas must always be tolerated, lest freedom be lost.

You seem to be confusing different languages with dissenting points of view. Obviously the exercising of freedom of speech does not require more than one language.

[Bereta_Eder]

Caligastia, go and buy: Hamelink's Cultural Autonomy.

It will help you answer your question.

[RGBVideo]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=397961#post397961

[RGBVideo]

Why is unity a good thing? I think cultural differences help make sure there is never only one side to any issue. The death of language often kills interesting cultures, and makes history that much more distant. It serves to homogenize thought and reduce the places the mind can go. What is wrong with multiple nations? If there is an ujust government, it must be destroyed. How can this be done if there is only one? Divergent Ideas must always be tolerated, lest freedom be lost.

Monotonizing could bring more efficiency in the world; but IMO the cost's outnumber the benefit's.

[Bereta_Eder]

That's the book and where you can find it in the US (I think that's where you live not Australia?)


Hamelink (C.), Cultural autonomy in global communications. Planning national information policy, New York, Longman, 1983.

[Starchild]

Languages bind the mind as much as they free it. Translations confuse as much as they enlighten. A diversity of languages serves to help express ideas that may otherwise be unexpressable.

Look at "normal" English compared to highly techical scientific dialects of English, the kind you see in advanced research. Even though they are the same language, "scientific" English can express highly abstract concepts far more efficiently than conversational English.

If, for what ever reason, speakers of "scientific" English were to ever die out, huge amounts of detail and precision would be lost and technical papers would be near gibberish to anyone trying to read them.

Language diversity is a way of preserving history. If it wasn't for linguistic diversity, then a dead language would be forever dead. It was the diversity of languages that gave us the Rosetta Stone. Without that, Ancient Egyptian would be untranslatable. If langauges die out now, what are the chances of the history of those languages surviving and being understood in another 5,000 years?

[Boris Godunov]

It's a shame that a language as inefficient and unattractive as English is becoming the dominant language. You'd think that the simplest languages would be the most successful...

[Bereta_Eder]

I can't possibly relate everything that exists in this cornerstone book (for what you are talking about).

Just some tiny bit of personal exp.:

I was thinking about Europe and the english language. And I was thinking Scandinavian countries, Greece, Germany and I was thinking if enlgish could ever become a language of these countries. (I already know it can't for Greek, hell-5000 years of existance have created a monster of a language that noone wants to trade, but I also thought that it can't replace the other countries' languages as well).

Anyway, I was thinking about that and my route at that time had brought me to Italy (Rome to be specific). And I realized that very few Romans even knew english... I mean they only knew some words. Communication was very difficult and I started to use Greek and I could actually communicate more easily since Latin derives from Greek and Italian derives from LAtin and there are a lot of words in common.

Anyway, this has brought me to believe that it will never actually happen.

The best is to have a language in Europe that each one understands partly, like english for example. But that can never substitute a national language. The expression mecahnisms provided by your native tongue are vastly superior than what a foreign language will ever give you.

But a lingua franca will always be useful. It used to be Greek then Latin then french. Now it's english. Later who knows.

But it can never account for your own native language since it's too restrictive.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Starchild
Languages bind the mind as much as they free it. Translations confuse as much as they enlighten. A diversity of languages serves to help express ideas that may otherwise be unexpressable.

But with 6000+ languages in the world, who will get to hear those ideas if only 20 people speak your language?

Look at "normal" English compared to highly techical scientific dialects of English, the kind you see in advanced research. Even though they are the same language, "scientific" English can express highly abstract concepts far more efficiently than conversational English.

If, for what ever reason, speakers of "scientific" English were to ever die out, huge amounts of detail and precision would be lost and technical papers would be near gibberish to anyone trying to read them.

But the difference is that scientific language is spoken by many of the greatest minds on the planet, whereas an obscure polynesian dialect may only be spoken by a few people.

Language diversity is a way of preserving history. If it wasn't for linguistic diversity, then a dead language would be forever dead. It was the diversity of languages that gave us the Rosetta Stone. Without that, Ancient Egyptian would be untranslatable. If langauges die out now, what are the chances of the history of those languages surviving and being understood in another 5,000 years?

That is an excellent point, and for this reason it is worth preserving the languages in some form (like on a computer), but to have people continue to speak it is not necessary.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by paiktis22
I can't possibly relate everything that exists in this cornerstone book (for what you are talking about).

Just some tiny bit of personal exp.:

I was thinking about Europe and the english language. And I was thinking Scandinavian countries, Greece, Germany and I was thinking if enlgish could ever become a language of these countries. (I already know it can't for Greek, hell-5000 years of existance have created a monster of a language that noone wants to trade, but I also thought that it can't replace the other countries' languages as well).

Anyway, I was thinking about that and my route at that time had brought me to Italy (Rome to be specific). And I realized that very few Romans even knew english... I mean they only knew some words. Communication was very difficult and I started to use Greek and I could actually communicate more easily since Latin derives from Greek and Italian derives from LAtin and there are a lot of words in common.

Anyway, this has brought me to believe that it will never actually happen.

The best is to have a language in Europe that each one understands partly, like english for example. But that can never substitute a national language. The expression mecahnisms provided by your native tongue are vastly superior than what a foreign language will ever give you.

But a lingua franca will always be useful. It used to be Greek then Latin then french. Now it's english. Later who knows.

But it can never account for your own native language since it's too restrictive.

We actually agree because you are in support of a common language. I have nothing against people learning other languages, as long as there is a language that everyone can understand.

[Bereta_Eder]

BTW I didnt talk about France or other countries because there is really no question about these countries. The penetration of the enlgish langauge is I THINK more dominant in the Scandinavian countries.

But I may be wrong.

Anyway, get the book it has some great applied examples of policies for cultural autonomy (language included of course) and what happens when countries do not apply them or when they do.

It also has an extensive chapter about Australia...

[RGBVideo]

But with 6000+ languages in the world, who will get to hear those ideas if only 20 people speak your language?

According to National Geographic, ~4500, and 2000 of them near extinction (sp?) in the next 50 years.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by Caligastia


You seem to be confusing different languages with dissenting points of view. Obviously the exercising of freedom of speech does not require more than one language.

You missed my point. One language could lead to one state, and that would lead to repression. Different languages preserve different states preserve freedom. I dubt if paiktis would want greece to be ruled from washington. Unity is overrated.