Should we preserve languages?

[Nathaniel]

We always hear about the need to preserve languages that have only a tiny group of speakers. Indeed there are entire government departments dedicated to the preservation of Gaelic, Irish, Welsh etc. I do not see the benefits. It's not as if a language brings benefits in communication. Quite the opposite, there's a complete communications block when two people don't speak the same language. The problem is even worse when we consider how easily a language aids the spread of nationalism and we all know that usually ends in tears.

Shouldn't we try to (gradually and peacefully) eliminate as many spoken languages as possible? Maybe I'm missing something?

[Zablorg]

On a purely practical standpoint, probably. But languages often have a great deal of cultural significance attached to them, and many people would be upset if they were to be removed.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think better to let them die a slow death and let them figure it out the speakers to figure how best to preserve them.

[Dark Flame]

On a purely practical standpoint, probably. But languages often have a great deal of cultural significance attached to them, and many people would be upset if they were to be removed.

I mostly agree with that. However, some languages that aren't spoken anymore are still in use, such as Latin for scientific purposes. Would getting rid of extraneous languages also include languages that are dead except for a specific application?

[Zablorg]

Nah, I think we're definine laguages by that they are actually spoken. Latin is not really spoken, more of an accessory to scientificalness.

[Shinova]

If they're not spoken, fine, but keep records of them. Experience in other languages have taught me that some concepts and ideas simply cannot be conveyed well in one language that can be easily conveyed with another.

[hongi]

Diversity. Languages are a part of culture. I for one would not like to see a uniform language, a uniform culture, a uniform race/people etc.

[rhoenix]

Though I would like to see an agreed-upon "common" language, I absolutely believe that indigenous languages should be studied and preserved.

For instance, if tomorrow all the nations of the world agreed to adopt Esperanto as the "common" language of the world, this would nearly require children all over the world to be bilingual in their culture's language, as well as Esperanto for communicating easily with others. This is something I think would only bring benefit.

[Masami von Weizegger]

English is already the de facto world language, just give it time.

[Knife]

While I in no way endorse someone making a language die, I see no real reason to keep one about for no other reason that because it's about to die off. We can record the history on the language and it's people and culture without specifically saving the language.

[Darth Wong]

Language is the means of communication of people. If no people use a language, it is thoroughly useless and has no reason for existence. In that case, why not let it die?

[SirNitram]

When a language is not going to sustain itself naturally, file away all data you have on it on as many redundant records as is feasible, and let it die. It might be handy to read stuff written in it someday, but no point in continuing to speak it.

[Szass Tam]

It's extremely important for historians and anthropologists to be able to read original documents, carvings, paintings, et cetera, therefore preserving at least the fundamental grammar and vocabulary of written languages is important. Pronunciation is important for understanding songs and poems to some extent as well, so it's important to preserve languages for scholarly pursuits.

As far as keeping people around speaking a language, it seems somewhat pointless, but some people are going to be able to marginally speak a language as long as there are people who read it anyway.

[/i]

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

There's no real practical benefit to preserving non-medicinal/ scientific plant species either, (or animals for that matter) however, it's something that I believe should be done. It preserves a certain aspect of Life that would otherwise be diminished and muted. I travel alot, and I can honestly say I sure as fuck wouldn't like it if everyone from Turkey to Singapore spoke English. It would make things less... interesting. Less lively, less exotic, less of the feeling that you're in a truly different place from your homeland.

But this is all tangential to the topic.

Yes, I think languages should be preserved in some manner, but the resources for it should only come from private donations. Governments have more important things to do, like preserving rare plant species.

[FSTargetDrone]

Yes, it's one thing to actively get rid of the extant records and another thing entirely to file them away somewhere for future use or study.

There's no real practical benefit to preserving non-medicinal/ scientific plant species either, (or animals for that matter) however, it's something that I believe should be done. It preserves a certain aspect of Life that would otherwise be diminished and muted.

Are you assuming that the loss of these non-medicinal/scientific plants and animals wouldn't have an unforeseen, negative impact on the very plant species that are useful to humans? Because if you can guarantee that...

Yes, I think languages should be preserved in some manner, but the resources for it should only come from private donations. Governments have more important things to do, like preserving rare plant species.

I agree with this. Save existing records/information for historical reasons, but to publicly fund the ongoing preservation of the everyday use of such languages seems silly.

[Phantasee]

Languages should be preserved because of how they differ from one another. Different languages have different structures, and these structures influence the speaker's perception of the world. I can't recall the exact example, but it's something like this: The meatball rolled out the door. In English, the action tells us the manner in which it moved. Rolled.

In Spanish, the action tells us where/place, and in Dene, language of the people living in the North of Canada, they would note that it was a meatball.

All three sentences in the three languages would mean similar things, but because of the way the grammar is different, the message would have a different interpretation.

I'll post up the examples I have in my Linguistics notes later when I get them back.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm with "let it die". A dying spoken language should die, while written and audio records of it should remain. That way the natural or artificial evolution of language would not be offset by useless efforts to maintain a naturally dying verbal communication type.

[Zixinus]

There is a great deal of nationalism surrounding old Hungarian languages. Specificially, there are people in Romania where they speak Hungarian and claim themselves to be Hungarian. While they are Romanian on paper.
That in itself would not be a problem, especially since Romania recently joined the European Union.
But that doesn't stop bullshitting on the political side, oh no.

Personally, I'm sick of it, and nationalism died within me way back in general school.

My country's proper language is somewhere among the records books and in the daydreams of university professors, while the common man defiles it grammatically, contextually and in purity on a daily basis. It is a beautiful language, but so is Latin and a whole series of other dead languages.

So should we make big efforts to preserve dying languages? No, not really worth it, unless the people do speak it commonly enough for a renewal to be practical. Otherwise, it is not worth it. Let it die. We are a small world, it is unnecessary to put extra barriers between people.

[Lagmonster]

It's clearly important to document and record languages for historical purposes, but for practicality purposes it makes far greater sense to have a world where everyone can communicate effectively without need of a translator or years of schooling just so you have a damn clue what other people are saying. Of course, this always boils down to each culture claiming that YOU should learn THEIR language, not the other way around.

This thread ties into a story on CBC some weeks ago about how the Native peoples were squealing about how the government isn't giving them enough money to force their kids to keep speaking the various dying native languages. They were all teary-eyed that one particular language has something like four living speakers left, and how good it was that some lady had been given millions of government dollars to start classes in said deceased language, and to translate thousands of government papers - for the four people who speak it only as a third language after English and French.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm fine with maintaining major national languages, since they carry a very large cultural baggage for existing populations.

However, should some of them perish in the future, I can't say I'll be sad.

[FSTargetDrone]

This thread ties into a story on CBC some weeks ago about how the Native peoples were squealing about how the government isn't giving them enough money to force their kids to keep speaking the various dying native languages. They were all teary-eyed that one particular language has something like four living speakers left, and how good it was that some lady had been given millions of government dollars to start classes in said deceased language, and to translate thousands of government papers - for the four people who speak it only as a third language after English and French.

That's it, isn't it? Money. It's all well and good if a civic group decides to spend its own money to do something like this, but the moment public funds have to be spent on these kinds of funds, you really need to start asking how is that money best spent? Perhaps they could have used that money to build a new school, buy some computers, whatever. I'd rather see those millions go towards helping students' basic education and not spend a lot of resources on trying to propagate some dying tongue.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

It's clearly important to document and record languages for historical purposes, but for practicality purposes it makes far greater sense to have a world where everyone can communicate effectively without need of a translator or years of schooling just so you have a damn clue what other people are saying. Of course, this always boils down to each culture claiming that YOU should learn THEIR language, not the other way around.

This thread ties into a story on CBC some weeks ago about how the Native peoples were squealing about how the government isn't giving them enough money to force their kids to keep speaking the various dying native languages. They were all teary-eyed that one particular language has something like four living speakers left, and how good it was that some lady had been given millions of government dollars to start classes in said deceased language, and to translate thousands of government papers - for the four people who speak it only as a third language after English and French.

It's times like this I would like to say it into their face: Either you do something about it, or let the damn language die. It's your fault you didn't teach it for free or something. Quite a lot of Chinese dialects for example are handed from parent to child and if the parents don't do anything about it, why should the government do anything?

[Rye]

You only need one language, you only need one currency. I wouldn't care if we all started using American spellings or dollars, even. Makes no real difference.

[Balrog]

For historical/anthropological reasons, of course. However, if it's dying it should be let to it die, and if someone years later wants to take it up there'll be the audio and written records left.

[AniThyng]

You only need one language, you only need one currency. I wouldn't care if we all started using American spellings or dollars, even. Makes no real difference.

Gee, it's not like people can be bi or trilingual, right?