Death of languages. [Archive]

Arkayik

17th October 2009, 10:20 PM

This smacks a bit of guilting the survivor.

I concede that different languages represent unique processes for describing and interacting with the world, if we don't have a word for it, we can't think about it... So too the loss of a language represents the loss of a certain weltanschauung...

But to blame English - or any other tongue - for the demise of a language is pandering to emotion.

Fix the problem, not the blame...

Miss_Kitt

17th October 2009, 10:22 PM

I think that certain cultures have died or are dying, and the languages disappearing is a marker of that. There isn't a whole lot of usefulness in speaking a language that--however significant this linguist may find it in terms of uniqueness--has only ever been used in an area smaller than most counties in the state of California. Now that connection to the outside world is established, it is up to the people of that formerly insular region to decide whether they want to preserve their language, or not.

I am opposed to a government denying people the freedom to speak, publish in, document, or teach their language(s) of choice. But flooding a bunch of money and effort into "preserving" a language whose users don't see it as valuable seems to me misguided at best, and condescending as well. ("We, the Great White Language Hunters, will tell you grubby natives what you ought to speak...")

In my state (Washington) there was a decision by a number of local tribes to preserve and revive their tribal language and heritage, and it has proven surprisingly successful--because the young people of the tribes wanted to preserve and/or recover that heritage.

Just my thoughts, MK

fuelair

17th October 2009, 10:36 PM

Not a problem for me - as long as data on them has been gathered and safely stored.

BPScooter

17th October 2009, 11:43 PM

Akhenaten, kudos on the avatar, bellisimo. Arkayik--Weltanschauung? Que pasa? I agree there is a je-ne-sais-pas about the whole enchilada. Or is that je ne sais quoi? Que será, será I suppose. *****.

[That's about the best I can do. I can't think of any Asian pan-glosses at the moment]. Ciao.

Hokulele

17th October 2009, 11:47 PM

[I can't think of any Asian pan-glosses at the moment.]

Mu.

BPScooter

18th October 2009, 12:25 AM

Oh-- right. Not sure how far that one goes in the global world order, though! I'm still figuring out the difference between my finger and the moon, FWIW, honestly.

"Hai" or "arigato"? Gway-lo? Haole?

BPScooter

18th October 2009, 12:26 AM

Maybe "in-ch'allah" is getting there too.

JJM 777

18th October 2009, 12:53 AM

Also BASIC programming language may soon be extinct. Very few young people learn this language any more. A generation might soon arise in which nobody masters this language.

Also horse carriages are virtually extinct from many cities nowadays. Metal wagons have replaced them at an alarming pace.

So many things in the world come and go, this is horrible. We should do something about it!

MikeSun5

18th October 2009, 01:16 AM

So we're closer to having everyone able to understand each other and that's a bad thing? :rolleyes:

I wouldn't say the death of a language extinguishes the culture. There are only a tiny number of people in Peru who can speak the Inca language of Quechua (most people claiming fluency speak some bastardized form), yet the Inca culture is alive and heavily studied.

What of Aramaic? Nobody speaks it, but that culture's remnants are still around today. Latin's pretty much dead too, right? Nobody really has conversations in Latin anymore, yet there is an abundance of information on ancient Rome available.

The OP article says:
Because of the close links between language and identity, if people begin to think of their language as useless, they see their identity as such as well.

That's absurd. I live in Florida and know Native Americans that can only speak English, yet are enormously proud of their heritage.

BPScooter

18th October 2009, 01:28 AM

I think it would be incredibly useful to know all the cuss words, just so I could recognize them if applied by others to me, and then be able to tastefully apply them.

Hey, that reminds me there is a website like that I once saw. If one needs to remind another person about their ancestry, or the activities of their mother, or their own preferences, in any language.

Cuss words, words for tools, words about people tend to travel the seas and mountains of human history.

Travis

18th October 2009, 01:28 AM

Actually it's a good idea to have fewer languages because it allows for greater economic efficiency. Different languages are nice, from a romantic angle, but impractical in a modern age where communication capability is extremely important. After all differentiation of languages only happened in the first place because of the relative isolation that many distinct groups of people lived in.

BPScooter

18th October 2009, 01:44 AM

MikeSun5

18th October 2009, 01:45 AM

BPScooter

18th October 2009, 02:53 AM

Nice post, there. For a mealy-faced twaddling puttock. (I just made that one up!)

http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/

MikeSun5

18th October 2009, 02:56 AM

I guess my dream is a Universal Cursing Language, in which previously unheard-of insults could be created through careful quasi-random combinatorial efforts. I have actually known living humans that have reached this level of swearing.

I've used the word "slunt" before in reference to, uh... well, she was a slunt. Am I near the level yet?

I'm a big fan of evolution.

BPScooter

18th October 2009, 03:05 AM

"slunt" says it all, in your context. "Sl-" as a start, matched with "-unt" at the end. Very good word.

Slunty! That would be an adjective, right? or "Slunt Rock" could describe a band in a club.

Akhenaten

18th October 2009, 07:29 AM

I like referring to certain folks as 'bints'. If I'm not infringing your intellectual rights, I believe I might start adding 'slunty' for the more deserving bints that I meet.

It just rolls off the tongue, really.

"Pull yer frabbing head in, ya slunty bint!"

Words to live by, those are.

'ron

;)

Jeff Corey

18th October 2009, 07:55 AM

Ain't that "berks"?

Gate2501

18th October 2009, 08:20 AM

This seems like a good thing to me. Can you imagine being able to watch the news feed from say, Russia, without a translator? I feel that this would benefit an understanding of other cultures, because exposure to them would be increased exponentially since you wouldn't need to learn their native tongue(or hope that someone has translated or subbed) to experience their media, festivals, etc.

I welcome the death of languages.

Kritikos

18th October 2009, 08:52 AM

Maybe "in-ch'allah" is getting there too.
Do you mean "inshallah" (Arabic)? "In-challah" would be what you get when you drop something into the dough from which the braided loaf for shabbat is made.

This seems like a good thing to me. Can you imagine being able to watch the news feed from say, Russia, without a translator?
National languages are not going to disappear anytime soon, if ever. The languages that are disappearing are those of isolated or scattered peoples who live in countries in which their language is not that of the majority.

Gate2501

18th October 2009, 08:59 AM

National languages are not going to disappear anytime soon, if ever. The languages that are disappearing are those of isolated or scattered peoples who live in countries in which their language is not that of the majority.

Well, even if that may be the case, it will still give us slightly more access to their cultures, and it will certainly give them more access to the world at large, and more importantly, teh interwebz(I am assuming that by 2100 everyone even isolated cultures will have some manner of access to teh interwebz).

Kritikos

18th October 2009, 09:14 AM

Well, even if that may be the case, it will still give us slightly more access to their cultures, and it will certainly give them more access to the world at large, and more importantly, teh interwebz(I am assuming that by 2100 everyone even isolated cultures will have some manner of access to teh interwebz).
You assume that distinct cultures will survive the disappearance of their distinctive languages. I find that highly unlikely.

Gate2501

18th October 2009, 10:00 AM

You assume that distinct cultures will survive the disappearance of their distinctive languages. I find that highly unlikely.

Why?

The culture obviously wouldn't be totally unchanged by a change in their primary language and exposure to other cultures as a result, but I think that it would still survive in the form of traditions and festivals, heritage, things of this nature.

I also would go as far as to say: Even if these isolated populations expienced some manner of cultural death due to adopting a language that gave them more access to the rest of the world, the trade off would be worth it for the individuals living there who now will be able to improve the quality of their lives through the exchange of information.

parky76

18th October 2009, 10:01 AM

"If we are not cautious about the way English is progressing it may eventually kill most other languages,"- Claude Hagege.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8311000/8311069.stm

Your opinions, please.

I found it very charming to hear Hasidic Jewish mothers speaking to their many children in Yiddish, on the NYC Subway last week.

parky76

18th October 2009, 10:03 AM

What of Aramaic? Nobody speaks it, but that culture's remnants are still around today.

I thought some Syrians still do speak Aramaic.

Also, there are several Jewish prayers in Aramaic.

drkitten

18th October 2009, 10:15 AM

Why?

Well-documented experience.

The culture obviously wouldn't be totally unchanged by a change in their primary language and exposure to other cultures as a result, but I think that it would still survive in the form of traditions and festivals, heritage, things of this nature.

Well, first of all, a static culture is not a living culture; Colonial Williamsburg is not 17th century American culture.

And since most of the traditions, festivals, heritage, and what not are in the native language (which is disappearing), they tend to disappear as well.

Latin is actually a pretty good example. Latin culture is dead even though remnants of the language still exist in formal speech such as the mottos on universities diplomas. That's even the standard pattern -- the last holdouts of the language are in rote speech on formal occasions.

Gate2501

18th October 2009, 10:22 AM

Well, first of all, a static culture is not a living culture; Colonial Williamsburg is not 17th century American culture.

This is a good point, which I hadn't really considered.

Still, I believe that it would do more good than harm to the planet and it's people to have fewer languages. This of course, is my own subjective assessment. Someone who like to study other cultures in the wild, for example, may think that it does much more harm than good. I am thinking in terms of the quality of life of those isolated people who speak rare languages which few outsiders understand. Again though, that is a bit subjective.

Hokulele

18th October 2009, 10:40 AM

Rasmus

18th October 2009, 10:51 AM

The OP article says:

Because of the close links between language and identity, if people begin to think of their language as useless, they see their identity as such as well.

That's absurd. I live in Florida and know Native Americans that can only speak English, yet are enormously proud of their heritage.

And even if they weren't proud of their heritage: Why would that say anything about how they see and value themselves?

Kritikos

18th October 2009, 11:29 AM

Why?

The culture obviously wouldn't be totally unchanged by a change in their primary language and exposure to other cultures as a result, but I think that it would still survive in the form of traditions and festivals, heritage, things of this nature.

I also would go as far as to say: Even if these isolated populations expienced some manner of cultural death due to adopting a language that gave them more access to the rest of the world, the trade off would be worth it for the individuals living there who now will be able to improve the quality of their lives through the exchange of information.
I think that one would have to consider specific cases, or at least specific types of case, to settle the matter (of whether disappearance of a language means disappearance of the distinctive culture of those who speak the language). For instance, for roughly 500 years, the Jews who were expelled from Spain and their descendants (of which I am one) preserved their distinctive language and culture. In the past few generations, they have increasingly adopted the language and culture of the countries in which they live. What survives of the Judeo-Spanish culture among Sephardic Jews of younger generations (such as I) is vestigial. That culture is now more an object of historical study than a living phenomenon. The case with culturally and linguistically distinct populations within a larger population, such as the native peoples of the Americas, may be very different.

I don't dispute your view that, at least in most cases, more is gained than lost in these assimilations. My ancestors preserved their distinct language and culture for nearly 500 years partly because they could not pursue the opportunities for education and work that the non-Jewish population around them could pursue. A hundred years ago, they left "the Old Country," as my grandfather called it, to come to the United States where opportunities were much greater. I think that they were right to do so (they and their children would have died in a Nazi death camp if they hadn't, anyway). My point is just that the assimilation of a people of one language and culture into the language and culture of a larger population is not all gain and no loss.

McHrozni

18th October 2009, 11:51 AM

Language is one of hallmarks of a national culture, and probably the best way to preserve a national identity. Sure, identity can survive for some time without it, but it is eventually doomed to fail.

That said, is putting all cultures in the same melting pot and taking some of each such a bad idea? Every culture has good points and bad points. We can usually identify which are which, and we often strive to absorb the good points and discard the bad. It's not easy, it's not even always possible, but the general movement is here.
Objectively, there is nothing wrong with the world culture melding into a conglomerate of all cultures, while retaining regional variations. It may not be a realistic possibility in the foreseeable future, but in a century or two, anything may happen.

McHrozni

hgc

18th October 2009, 01:08 PM

After all differentiation of languages only happened in the first place because of the relative isolation that many distinct groups of people lived in.

Huh. I always thought it was because Babylonians tried to build a tower to Heaven...

drkitten

18th October 2009, 01:18 PM

That said, is putting all cultures in the same melting pot and taking some of each such a bad idea? Every culture has good points and bad points. We can usually identify which are which, and we often strive to absorb the good points and discard the bad.

Well, no. We can't identify which are which, which is part of what makes it a bad idea.

Partly because it's not clear that the points are good or bad except in reference to other circumstances. (I.e. is eating lots of meat a good or a bad cultural point of the modern USA? Is reliance on government-funded health care as done in most of Europe a good or a bad culture point?)

Partly because the people who make the judgement about what is good or bad are usually the people in the dominant culture already; the minority groups don't even get a vote.

But mostly, because we don't even realize what we're destroying as we destroy it. The people who push English-based shortwave radios neither know nor care what languages are spoken in the villages to which they're transmitting.

Akhenaten

18th October 2009, 05:53 PM

Ain't that "berks"?

Well, technically yes, but I've noticed that a couple of members here are from Newbury, so I thought I might avoid getting those berks mixed up with the other berks.

Although I probably needn't have worried ;)

There are some cases where the language reflects a completely different way of looking at the world.

You know, I was just thinking about National Cosmopolitan . . .

Huh. I always thought it was because Babylonians tried to build a tower to Heaven...

Wasn't that Jimmy Page and Robert Plant. Oh, wait . . .

sackett

18th October 2009, 07:58 PM

What's the problem? We already have a universal word that means ANYTHING depending on how you say it.

Okay? Okay. Okay, okay! OooooKAY! Oh -- kay.

etc. and u.s.w.

(A variant spelling is mmmmokay. Is that okay?)

Akhenaten

18th October 2009, 10:41 PM

Marduk

18th October 2009, 10:46 PM

Ain't that "berks"?

no, thats an English county, quite close to Devonshire
;)

Marduk

18th October 2009, 10:49 PM

Huh. I always thought it was because Babylonians tried to build a tower to Heaven...

ya, thats what the Heebs say
the Babylonians tell a different story, it wasn't them but the Akkadians. No ones managed to ask an Akkadian, theyre dead and so is their language
:D

ddt

19th October 2009, 03:03 AM

Language is one of hallmarks of a national culture, and probably the best way to preserve a national identity. Sure, identity can survive for some time without it, but it is eventually doomed to fail.

The above statement - and the article from the OP, and many other posters on this thread - makes the fallacy that language equals nation equals state.

In the western world, we're used to having nation-states where each state has a single language, and at most, minority languages are a regional affair. This does not apply to the rest of the world. Languages do not adhere to state boundaries and it's completely normal that in the same town or village, people live with different mother tongues. Being bilingual is completely normal then, to simply being able to communicate with your neighbors and business contacts; or trilingual, when you also have to do business in the capital and yet another language is spoken there.

In fact, English has held that latter position for a long time in, e.g., India, and I don't see the native languages dying out. The same holds for French in large parts of Africa.

Most people in the world are used to employ different languages. I don't see why the global dominance of English as a lingua franca challenges that. In fact, there's been quite an upsurge in attention for minority languages and dialects in most European countries for more than 20 years now.

McHrozni

19th October 2009, 08:40 AM

is eating lots of meat a good or a bad cultural point of the modern USA?

Lots of red meat is bad. I thought this was readily obvious.
The conditions that enable even the poor to eat lots of red meat are a good point.

Is reliance on government-funded health care as done in most of Europe a good or a bad culture point?

Given the variations that exist within this very Europe, this could easily come under "regional variations" that I mentioned.

But mostly, because we don't even realize what we're destroying as we destroy it.

You really should read again what I wrote. You missed the point entirely.

McHrozni

McHrozni

19th October 2009, 08:41 AM

The above statement - and the article from the OP, and many other posters on this thread - makes the fallacy that language equals nation equals state.

How many cultures survived 4 generations without their language?

McHrozni

Cleon

19th October 2009, 08:46 AM

Lots of red meat is bad. I thought this was readily obvious.
The conditions that enable even the poor to eat lots of red meat are a good point.

Red meat isn't bad for you. It's the fuzzy, green meat that's bad for you.

drkitten

19th October 2009, 09:51 AM

The above statement - and the article from the OP, and many other posters on this thread - makes the fallacy that language equals nation equals state.

No, it specifically does not. It claims that languages is "one of the hallmarks" of a national culture, which is actually pretty uncontroversial among linguists. (Cf. "A language is a dialect with an army.")

In fact, English has held that latter position for a long time in, e.g., India, and I don't see the native languages dying out.

I can only conclude you didn't look very closely. Ethnologue (http://www.ethnologue.com/nearly_extinct.asp) actually lists India as one of the countries with a fairly large number of languages dying out.

The same holds for French in large parts of Africa.

See the same list. Look in particular at the list for Chad and Cameroon.

And bear in mind that this is a conservative list (as they themselves point out); these are languages that are "nearly extinct" and probably beyond saving no matter what.

Most people in the world are used to employ different languages. I don't see why the global dominance of English as a lingua franca challenges that. In fact, there's been quite an upsurge in attention for minority languages and dialects in most European countries for more than 20 years now.

Because the global dominance becomes a local political and economic dominance; David Crystal has documented this quite well in "Language Death." Minority-speaking children can't get decent jobs with their minority language; the very words they need to work are often not in the minority language -- and the words they have in the minority language get forgotten as the things they refer to fade into insignificance.

The language gets eliminated along with the culture and lifestyle; a language with six words for the different life stages of a chicken but none for a truck isn't the sort of thing you can pass down to your child who sees trucks every day, but never sees a live chicken.

BPScooter

20th October 2009, 02:34 AM

So the flimps are slunty? Am I acting all ?Kknu? on you? Shall the language halt, whilst some obserficate?

commandlinegamer

20th October 2009, 02:41 AM

This smacks a bit of guilting the survivor.

Ouch! Never mind other languages, with people verbing their nouns, it's the death of English I worry about.

Akhenaten

20th October 2009, 03:45 AM

So the flimps are slunty? Am I acting all ?Kknu? on you? Shall the language halt, whilst some obserficate?

Cromulently spoken. Your words embiggen you.

brodski

20th October 2009, 03:59 AM

How many cultures survived 4 generations without their language?

McHrozni

The Scots, Irish and Welsh are the most obvious examples from where I sit.

H3LL

20th October 2009, 04:25 AM

The Scots, Irish and Welsh are the most obvious examples from where I sit.

You forgot those nice people that sometimes speak ice cream in the south west somewhere.

:p

.

H3LL

20th October 2009, 04:46 AM

Back to topic.

When someone lets me know how thousands of different languages are beneficial to a world where international communication is vital for the prosperity of every nation I'll be bothered.

Hands up those of you with a burning desire to spend time money and effort to learn Ket, spoken in Central Siberia.

Linguists record it? Definitely yes (if they can).

Lose sleep over it dying out as a living language? Not really.

In reality, should global communication and trade continue for long enough (and perhaps inter-planetary communication if we're lucky), language will blend and evolve. I doubt very much that what would be spoke in the future could be immediately recognisable as any language spoken today.

As long as they get rid of "the" (totally useless) and its ridiculous gender specific equivalents, I'll be happy ... probably.

The End.

:D

Belz...

20th October 2009, 04:49 AM

Wow. Excellent post. :clap:

Cultures can be preserved without languages. Universal communication seems like a better goal anyway.

Maybe, but I'd rather not lose French, if at all possible. :(

Akhenaten

20th October 2009, 05:42 PM

Maybe, but I'd rather not lose French, if at all possible. :(

In pre-soviet Russia, the French lose YOU! VOUS!

Travis

21st October 2009, 12:11 AM

How many cultures survived 4 generations without their language?

McHrozni

Consider how much a culture that hasn't lost it's language changes in that same four generations.

Cultures change and morph as do languages. We can't look at the whole world, and it's people, as some sort of zoo exhibit where things are kept as they are. Preserving languages with just a few thousand speakers is a luxury. Now, maybe some want to take the time and effort to do so, but I'm not going to be behind the creation of some large pan-language-park-preserve.

BPScooter

21st October 2009, 11:57 PM

Travis, you just reminded me of the Savage in Huxley's Brave New World novel. Born and raised on a reservation that was used as a cautionary tourist destination. The Savage leaves, and his experience in the novel is made more poignant by the fact that he had read Shakespeare by accident, and had developed some refinements on his notions of romantic love from Romeo and Juliet (as I recall) that were totally absent from the techno-world without. I think Huxley knew what he was doing when he made these things up--he was illustrating the trade-offs. The sad thing is that I now remember the end of the book. Go back and read it with this in mind and I bet a donut you'll agree that Aldous Huxley had a darn good handle on these trade-offs.

MikeSun5

23rd October 2009, 02:32 AM

Cromulently spoken. Your words embiggen you.

hahaa... Jabberwock much?

Back to topic.

When someone lets me know how thousands of different languages are beneficial to a world where international communication is vital for the prosperity of every nation I'll be bothered.

Hands up those of you with a burning desire to spend time money and effort to learn Ket, spoken in Central Siberia

:clap: Yep, that's about right... we do not need a gajillion languages. I have a hard enough time trying to decipher English dialects.

The guy mentioned in the OP article, Claude Hagege (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Hag%C3%A8ge), is a polyglot and can speak like 13 languages, but he doesn't speak any of the really obscure languages he worries will be destroyed by Englsih. He actually doesn't speak a few common languages like Spanish or German (both of which I speak -- suck on that, Claude). Besides, blaming stuff on people who speak English is typical French behavior. ;)

If it's so important to save these languages, why don't people learn them and teach them rather than complain about them dying? :rolleyes:
I don't really see anything wrong with saving a language, but one shouldn't be retained in place of a more common one.

Akhenaten

23rd October 2009, 04:34 AM

hahaa... Jabberwock much?

Funny you should ask.

Diolch Akhenaten.

Siaberwoci. Lewis Carroll. trans. Selyf Roberts

Mae'n brydgell ac mae'r brochgim stwd
Yn gimblo a gyrian yn y mhello:
Pob cólomrws yn féddabwd,
A'r hoch oma'n chwibruo.

'Gwylia'r hen Siaberwoc, fy mab!
Y brathiad llym a'r crafanc tynn!
A rhed pan weli'r Gwbigab
A'r ofnynllyd Barllyn!'

Cym'rodd ei gleddyf yn ei law
I geisio ei fanawaidd brae--
A gorffwys ger y goeden Taw,
I feddwl--fel pe tae.

A thra pendronai ymhlith y coed
Y Siaberwoc a'i lygaid fflam
A ddaeth, mor wallgof ag erioed
Gan ffrwtian gam a cham!

Un, dau! Un, dau! drwy'r awyr oer
Aeth min y cledd ysgiw, ysgôl!
Fe'i lladdodd, a chan gludo'i ben
Hwblamodd yn ei ôl.

'A lleddaist ti y Siaberwoc?
Tyrd yma, hapllon fachgen!
O jiwblus ddydd! Hwrê! Hwroc!'
Gan wenu arno'n llawen.

Mae'n brydgell ac mae'r brochgim stwd
Yn gimblo a gyrian yn y mhello:
Pob cólomrws yn féddabwd,
A'r hoch oma'n chwibruo.

Well, there's a language that certainly ain't daid.

:WALES:

BPScooter

24th October 2009, 03:01 AM

Akhenaten

24th October 2009, 04:12 AM

Call me a fool, but that looks like the poem about the Jabberwock, initially in English, translated to Welsh. Do correct me if I'm wrong. It was initially intended by its author to be confusing, poetic, and neologistic.

Nup. No fool at all and your analysis is spot-on. It is indeed Jabberwocky, and I found this version to be quite well aligned with Carroll's original intent, and perhaps goes even a delghtfully whimsical step further.

Does the translation suffice to transmit that level of linguistic fun to others?

Absolutely. Even more so in the context of the converstion in which dafydd originally quoted it. It was, and remains for me, an hilarious and skillful use of a living language, and a counterpoint to the premise of the OP.

Cheers,

Daff

BPScooter

24th October 2009, 05:05 AM

Holy smokes, brothers and sisters, I googled a bit and found:
http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/translations/
which appears to be enough to keep me busy for a while!

O frabjous day!

MikeSun5

24th October 2009, 06:24 PM

It was, and remains for me, an hilarious and skillful use of a living language, and a counterpoint to the premise of the OP.

Well it made me go crosseyed.

Holy smokes, brothers and sisters, I googled a bit and found:
http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/translations/
which appears to be enough to keep me busy for a while!

O frabjous day!

:D The best one is "Die Flabberjak" in Afrikaans.

Jorghnassen

25th October 2009, 09:13 AM

Vortigern99

26th October 2009, 11:33 AM

Ah oui, c'est pas efficace pour l'écônomie que d'avoir plusieurs langues. Parce que l'unique et l'ultime but de l'existence humaine est de se conformer à la mentalité capitaliste et de faire du profit d'abord et avant tout, et que toute entrave à ce processus doit être éradiquée, aplanie, éliminée. Comme si, si tout le monde pensait et s'exprimait de la même façon, tout le monde serait heureux, et que ça ne donne rien du tout d'avoir plus qu'une langue.

Évidemment, il y a juste les gens unilingues et isolés du reste du monde qui peuvent penser comme ça...

Translation*: Ah yes, it's not effective for the economy to have several languages. Because the unique and ultimate goal of human existence is to conform to a capitalist mentality, and to generate profits first and foremost, and that all hindrances to that process should be eradicated, ironed out, eliminated. Thus, if the whole world thought and expressed themselves in the same way, the whole world would be happy/lucky/fortunate, and it would be pointless to have more than one language.

Evidently, there are enough people with one language who are isolated from the rest of the world and who can think like that...

*using my memory of French grammar and vocabulary, and a trusty paperback AMSCO French-English dictionary!

Jorghnassen

26th October 2009, 01:55 PM

Translation*: Ah yes, it's not effective for the economy to have several languages. Because the unique and ultimate goal of human existence is to conform to a capitalist mentality, and to generate profits first and foremost, and that all hindrances to that process should be eradicated, ironed out, eliminated. Thus, if the whole world thought and expressed themselves in the same way, the whole world would be happy/lucky/fortunate, and it would be pointless to have more than one language.

Evidently, there are enough people with one language who are isolated from the rest of the world and who can think like that...

*using my memory of French grammar and vocabulary, and a trusty paperback AMSCO French-English dictionary!

Not bad. I was actually impressed by Google translator as well, with only a few mistakes:

Ah yes, it is not efficient for the economy than having multiple languages. Because the sole and ultimate purpose of human existence is to comply with the capitalist mentality and make a profit first and foremost, and that any interference with this process must be eradicated, flattened, discarded. As if, if everyone thought and spoke the same way, everyone would be happy, and it does nothing at all to have more than a language.

Obviously, there are just people monolingual and isolated from the rest of the world who can think like this ...

My own translation of my own text, to English:

Ah yes, it's not efficient for the economy to have many languages. Because the only and ultimate goal of human existence is to conform with capitalist mentality and to generate profit first and foremost, and that all hindrances to this process must be eradicated, flattened, eliminated. As if, if everybody thought and expressed themselves the same way, everyone would be happy, and that there is no purpose in having more than one language.

Of course, only unilingual individuals that are isolated from the rest of the world can think that way...

As you see, there's more than one way to put it, and none quite match the original text. Thus you see why I do care about the extinction of languages. Not that they should all be preserved at any cost, but it's not wise to simply let them die or try to accelerate that process.

Piscivore

26th October 2009, 01:59 PM

...if we don't have a word for it, we can't think about it...

Don't we just invent one, in that case?

chaggle

26th October 2009, 02:06 PM

Not bad. I was actually impressed by Google translator as well, with only a few mistakes:

My own translation of my own text, to English:

As you see, there's more than one way to put it, and none quite match the original text. Thus you see why I do care about the extinction of languages. Not that they should all be preserved at any cost, but it's not wise to simply let them die or try to accelerate that process.

Maybe your post shows that translation between different languages causes confusion and misunderstanding and that therefore one world language would be a boon to different peoples' understanding of each other?

Jorghnassen

26th October 2009, 03:38 PM

Maybe your post shows that translation between different languages causes confusion and misunderstanding and that therefore one world language would be a boon to different peoples' understanding of each other?

Then answer me this: do you know the difference between rivière and fleuve, savoir and connaître, puissance and pouvoir? Your "understanding" comes at the cost of diversity, flavour and vision. There's a whole lot of people who speak the same language I do that I yet cannot "understand" because of their occupation, choice of lifestyle, political affiliation, gender, orientation, religion, etc. Wouldn't we understand each other better if we only had a single type of each?

Retrograde

26th October 2009, 07:28 PM

Then answer me this: do you know the difference between rivière and fleuve, savoir and connaître, puissance and pouvoir?

'savoir' and 'connaitre' are the same as 'wissen' and 'kennen' in German; English is weird in only having one way of knowing. Puissance v pouvoir is more difficult: I think of them as might v influence, but I'm sure it's more nuanced than that. As for the first pair, I think of the first as Canadian and the second as European, but that's base on how I've seen them used in the two places.

All languages change over time and geography. I'm trying to learn Spanish now, and I know I'll have problems in Spain since what I'm practicing is primarily the Mexican version.

Paulhoff

26th October 2009, 07:47 PM

English isn't replacing other languages, it is eating them and they are becoming part of it.

Paul

:) :) :)

Jeff Corey

26th October 2009, 07:57 PM

'savoir' and 'connaitre' are the same as 'wissen' and 'kennen' in German; English is weird in only having one way of knowing. Puissance v pouvoir is more difficult: I think of them as might v influence, but I'm sure it's more nuanced than that. As for the first pair, I think of the first as Canadian and the second as European, but that's base on how I've seen them used in the two places.

All languages change over time and geography. I'm trying to learn Spanish now, and I know I'll have problems in Spain since what I'm practicing is primarily the Mexican version.

Coche versus carro?

Retrograde

26th October 2009, 10:46 PM

Coche versus carro?

Right now it's mainly pronunciation - can't stand the Castillian lisp - but what struck me the last time I was in Spain was gambas vs camerones. Not to mention tortillas vs. tortillas.

English has a lot of regionalisms as well, especially when it comes to fish. They have different names on both sides of the Atlantic, and the Pacific names are another thing altogether.

brodski

27th October 2009, 01:03 AM

if we don't have a word for it, we can't think about it...

That's not true at all, any time anybody asks the question "what's the word for..." they disprove this notion.

Akhenaten

27th October 2009, 02:55 AM

English isn't replacing other languages, it is eating them and they are becoming part of it.

Paul

:) :) :)

In ur langwidges, nommin' ur wurdz.

I assume l33t counts as English?

brodski

27th October 2009, 11:37 AM

In ur langwidges, nommin' ur wurdz.

I assume l33t counts as English?

It's an argot within English, but then you were using lolspeak which isn't 1337, I'm not sure what lolspeak counts as, a sociolect of English maybe?

It certianly is English.

Akhenaten

27th October 2009, 01:26 PM

Stoopid hoomin typed that bit.

Soz,

teh kitteh

BPScooter

28th October 2009, 03:11 AM

So, is proper English dead now? Or..has it only held itself betweenst the lurk, licking its lips in anticipatory quiverhood?

brodski

28th October 2009, 03:24 AM

So, is proper English dead now? Or..has it only held itself betweenst the lurk, licking its lips in anticipatory quiverhood?

What do you mean by "propper English"?

BPScooter

28th October 2009, 03:31 AM

:-) the version of English we seem to be speaking, so kind of you to ask! Which sort of English did you imply that I was intending, if I might be so forward in the asking?

brodski

28th October 2009, 12:40 PM

:-) the version of English we seem to be speaking, so kind of you to ask! Which sort of English did you imply that I was intending, if I might be so forward in the asking?

I didn't imply that you were asking about any particular form of English.
I assumed you didn't mean the mish-mash of idiolects which are used on this forum or even on this thread, as it's a bit odd to ask if the language which we are currently using is dead.

Akhenaten

29th October 2009, 04:50 AM

Idiolects :)

I knew there'd be a proper name for my language. It sounds so right.

Jeff Corey

29th October 2009, 08:34 PM

I though it was "moi aussi".
Or did I have a frog in...
oh forget it,

Akhenaten

30th October 2009, 02:31 AM

Cuppa tea, a Bex, and a good lie down, old son.

You'll be fine.

ETA:

Actually, that's kinda relevant to a discussion of language. Here's a linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Cup_Of_Tea,_A_Bex_and_A_Good_Lie_Down) to a short article on my above phrase.

BPScooter

30th October 2009, 03:17 AM

You folks have summed me up, confounded and a little vexed on the side. From what I know (which could be totally wrong) the English language has a s***load of very specific nouns, as well as a soupily absorbtive way of using nebulous and ephemeral stuff like adjectives and adverbs from other tongues. The spelling is way confusing, but the bread-crumb trail of how the words and saying-ways got lodged in the old bean is some sort of help. Single-syllable Anglo Saxon words are good.

JJM 777

1st November 2009, 01:08 AM

Do you mean "inshallah" (Arabic)?
I really have nothing better to do right now, so: It always annoyed me at school when an otherwise smart and well educated IT teacher used the phrase "ins'Allah" or something like that. I hate grammatical inaccuracies.

:eusa_naughty:

The Arabic saying is "In shaa'a el-Lahu" (pronounced "in shaa'a llah"), literally "If wills God" (= "God willing"), where "in" means "if", "shaa'a" is a verb "wills / wants", and "el-Lahu" means "the God" -- a variant of the better known basic form "al-Lahu", which includes a definite article "al" that becomes "el" (with silent e) in the middle of a sentence.

People's Arabic skills are so extinct.

Akhenaten

1st November 2009, 07:08 AM

Mine never existed, and I know not one whit of Arabic, but I've always found that phrase to sound pleasant.

As an aside, despite sometimes describing Arabic script as "some squiggly lines", I actually think it looks quite beautiful. Do people who can read it feel the same?

I wouldn't, for instance, regard my normal Roman characters as inherently attractive.

JJM 777

1st November 2009, 11:13 AM

I think that many traditional Latin "Handwriting" / "Script" fonts are very attractive, more attractive than Semitic scripts. The obligatory Semitic calligraphy pen in 45 degrees angle feels monotonous after you have seen a few thousand texts with the same basic style.

Akhenaten

1st November 2009, 12:10 PM

Well that's a real insight for me. Thank you.

Akhenaten

1st November 2009, 12:27 PM

Is this correct?

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Inshallah.jpg

JJM 777

2nd November 2009, 10:16 AM

The two "L"s in "Allah" look unusual, these are word ending forms of L, normally should be middle-of-word forms of L. But technically, all the correct letters are in there, some variants of them anyway.

The same is true for SH + AA, normally they are tied together. Never mind.

Akhenaten

2nd November 2009, 10:48 AM

Thank you.

That was fun to draw, but it will be my last attempt. The subtleties are way beyond me and I could easily end up writing something offensive without realising it.

I still find it a beautiful-looking language though.

All in the eye of the beholder, as they say.

Cheers JJM,

Dave

JJM 777

6th November 2009, 12:00 PM

Beauty and functionality don't always go hand in hand.

No vowels, and all the beautiful calligraphy... you will realize its meaning if you stare long enough, but quickly finding interesting pieces of information from masses of text is difficult. I swear that native writers of Arabic and Hebrew read their university books essentially slower than native English writers do. I would love to see that proven with a statistical survey.

Akhenaten

7th November 2009, 12:22 AM

I do understand what you mean. As something of a fan of ancient Egypt I've come to appreciate the beauty of the glyphs, and I understand the ways in which functionality was secondary to appearance for their creators.

The lack of vowels is common too.

I feel that you're right about the speed of reading, but can't support that feeling in any way. I also understand, I hope, your meaning with the masses of text.

Am I wrong in beliving there's a connection between Coptic Egyptian and early Arabic?

Thank you again for your answers. This is the first time I'm hearing many of your insights.

Cheers,

Dave

JJM 777

8th November 2009, 12:52 AM

Am I wrong in beliving there's a connection between Coptic Egyptian and early Arabic?
Remotely yes, but very remotely.

Nearly all alphabets (representing single sounds, rather than syllables or ideas) in the world descend from the earliest known Proto-Sinaitic alphabet, whose earliest samples are from around 2000 BCE:

http://www.ancientscripts.com/protosinaitic.html

The last common ancestor of Coptic and Arabic scripts is Early Phoenician script (1100 BCE), essentially a simpler and faster way of writing the Proto-Sinaitic icons:

http://www.ancientscripts.com/phoenician.html

Greek and Latin scripts evolved from Early Phoenician script around 750 BCE.

http://www.ancientscripts.com/greek.html
http://www.ancientscripts.com/latin.html

The Coptic script evolved from Greek script in 2nd century CE (not "BCE" as accidentally written on top of this linked page):

http://www.ancientscripts.com/coptic.html

The Arabic script is not a descendant of Greek, Latin or Coptic scripts. It has evolved a different line from Early Phoenician, through Aramaic and Nabatean scripts, around 3rd century CE:

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/24evolmideast.gif
http://www.ancientscripts.com/arabic.html
http://www.ancientscripts.com/ws_timeline.html

Akhenaten

8th November 2009, 02:36 AM

Thank you very much for those links. They laid it out very nicely.

The biggest surprise for me was the later than I had expected emergence of Coptic. I'm glad you noted the error in the link as I would have regarded the "BCE" as approximately correct.

You seem to share a great deal of knowledge that my friend Marduk has studied. I will point him to this thread and hopefully gain from reading your exchanges.

Again, thank you for your time.

Marduk

8th November 2009, 01:07 PM

Akhenaten

8th November 2009, 01:46 PM

Well met Babylonian, good to see you matey.

I'm looking forward to some of your excellent Cuneiform stuff.

Cheers,

Dave

JJM 777

9th November 2009, 12:40 PM

Talking about language-related things that I wish to become extinct, I have tried to learn some Chinese, but strictly with Romanized Pinyin characters. I have no intention whatsoever to learn those zillion Chinese characters. I don't use much other technology from that era either, I prefer the latest technology, latest tools, and latest languages.

Akhenaten

9th November 2009, 10:58 PM

I think I can relate to what I aee as a desire for simplification on your part, and it would be impossible for me to disagree that this would be a good thing.

Where we might differ is from a less practical point of view.

As I've already stated, I love the way Arabic 'looks' without understanding a word of it, and I'd have to say the same about Chinese and Japanese characters when done as calligraphy. Hindi looks cool too, for that matter.

It reminds me again of the way in which the ancient Egyptians persisted with the glyphs long after they had developed the need for a more efficient language, simply because they were so damned beautiful.

The language of ancient Egypt might have died, but those little symbols are lasting quite well, it seems.

;)

Nepher is popular:

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Desktop2.jpg

I might be a little subjective.

Akhenaten

10th November 2009, 04:16 AM

Oops!

I meant 'kheper', of khourse.

:blush:

The Fallen Serpent

10th November 2009, 04:42 AM

I believe the Chinese government is moving towards adopting a version of the western alphabet as the official form of writing. At least the younger Chinese immigrants I know in the US were given that impression and passed it along to me. The idea as I understood it was that most people would not have a full knowledge of the old system and it would end up being something left to scholars and artists. Already there is a difference in Mandarin writing between China and Tawain as China sought to simplify it over the past 50 years. It is enough of a difference that Chinese people have difficulty with the traditional system still used in Tawain and vice versa.

MikeSun5

10th November 2009, 02:46 PM

Just a thought...

What about stuff like Esperanto and Klingon? Don't people speak Elvish nowadays? Some languages may be dying, but new ones pop up as well. I have a few Rastafarian friends from Jamaica. Granted, they're speaking a bastardized form of English, but their language is constantly evolving.

BPScooter

10th November 2009, 10:51 PM

This reminds me of something William F. Buckley wrote as part of a preface section in an American Heritage Dictionary copyright 1982. [Aside, that shows how geeky I must be, to actually read and remember the *preface* to an old dictionary!] Longish quote, but interesting. He's coming down on the side of correctness and usage in language (no surprise) but makes an interesting point:

"Language is an aesthetic as well as an analytical tool. And to slur language is as painful to the well-tempered ear as to slur music. In music the individualist seeks to introduce a new modality. He may emerge as a great artist, or he may be held to be witless; juries will judge. Usually, in serious music, a genuinely new style requires fifty years to win acceptance. In language some words have been paying court to the admissions committee for centuries, while thousands upon thousands have simply given up. Some win almost immediate acceptance. But the question is always, acceptance by whom?"

Granted he's talking about words and usages rather than languages in the whole cloth, but I thought the aesthetic argument was interesting and I suppose that's why the preceding discussion reminded me of this.