[Draft?] Linguistic Protection Act

[Zarzbeckistan]

If languages are to be kept in a library, perhaps there should be a maximum limits of the amount of languages stores. Only languages of major importance in the past could be kept for historical research.

"You seem to forget that there is a reason Latin is still used in lyrics and such. It sounds cool. Who knows? Perhaps Zarzbeckistanian, or Bigtopian, or whatever the Tentacles & Grapes Union speaks could inspire a future fictional language."

[Jackonia]

If languages are to be kept in a library, perhaps there should be a maximum limits of the amount of languages stores. Only languages of major importance in the past could be kept for historical research.

"You seem to forget that there is a reason Latin is still used in lyrics and such. It sounds cool. Who knows? Perhaps Zarzbeckistanian, or Bigtopian, or whatever the Tentacles & Grapes Union speaks could inspire a future fictional language."

Perhaps, but Latin is not a dead language. It is the official language of the Vatican and is used in areas of Germany. Latin is not dead, just not used as much as the others. If people choose to be inspired by languages such as Latin, then fine, but languages die because no one intends to keep them alive.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

If languages are to be kept in a library, perhaps there should be a maximum limits of the amount of languages stores. Only languages of major importance in the past could be kept for historical research.

"You seem to forget that there is a reason Latin is still used in lyrics and such. It sounds cool. Who knows? Perhaps Zarzbeckistanian, or Bigtopian, or whatever the Tentacles & Grapes Union speaks could inspire a future fictional language."

But this resolution would do nothing towards promoting that. It prioritizes languages which are going extinct - which can only happen if those languages are somehow irrelevant in a cultural or political context. If any language is actually being used in significant works of art, it would have to be spoken by sufficient numbers of people to constitute some sort of artistic culture or shared heritage over a long period of time. No such language would be in any foreseeable danger of extinction. No languages would be preserved except the thousands of irrelevant tribal languages which have no utility in the modern world, and are dying BECAUSE of that lack of utility, not the other way around. Nobody would ever get to preserving latin, all resources would have to be devoted to the language of the week: spoken by 15 people in an isolated valley or tiny island, with no written component whatsoever, a language that will never be spoken after another generation passes. The resolution does nothing but attempt to preserve languages which cannot and should not be saved.

[Mizentia]

"You seem to forget that there is a reason Latin is still used in lyrics and such. It sounds cool. Who knows? Perhaps Zarzbeckistanian, or Bigtopian, or whatever the Tentacles & Grapes Union speaks could inspire a future fictional language."

But this resolution would do nothing towards promoting that. It prioritizes languages which are going extinct - which can only happen if those languages are somehow irrelevant in a cultural or political context. If any language is actually being used in significant works of art, it would have to be spoken by sufficient numbers of people to constitute some sort of artistic culture or shared heritage over a long period of time. No such language would be in any foreseeable danger of extinction. No languages would be preserved except the thousands of irrelevant tribal languages which have no utility in the modern world, and are dying BECAUSE of that lack of utility, not the other way around. Nobody would ever get to preserving latin, all resources would have to be devoted to the language of the week: spoken by 15 people in an isolated valley or tiny island, with no written component whatsoever, a language that will never be spoken after another generation passes. The resolution does nothing but attempt to preserve languages which cannot and should not be saved.

Languages tend to go extinct in parallel with the extinction of a culture or ethnic group. So it's not a utility thing, it's a globalization/socioeconomic thing.

I don't understand the modern obsession with invoking these types of cold, pessimistic interpretations of darwinism where everything that dies and sputters normatively deserves a lowly fate in the grave of eternity. It's not 'good' for languages to die out any more than it's 'good' for drunk drivers to die in car crashes or daredevils to die in an accident

[Jackonia]

If languages specific to a tribal group dies out with them, then why would we need to keep their language in an archive. Surely if it was their's and only their's then that means they are unwilling for others to preserve it and want to study it. Perhaps we should let people keep their languages to their immediate community.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

But this resolution would do nothing towards promoting that. It prioritizes languages which are going extinct - which can only happen if those languages are somehow irrelevant in a cultural or political context. If any language is actually being used in significant works of art, it would have to be spoken by sufficient numbers of people to constitute some sort of artistic culture or shared heritage over a long period of time. No such language would be in any foreseeable danger of extinction. No languages would be preserved except the thousands of irrelevant tribal languages which have no utility in the modern world, and are dying BECAUSE of that lack of utility, not the other way around. Nobody would ever get to preserving latin, all resources would have to be devoted to the language of the week: spoken by 15 people in an isolated valley or tiny island, with no written component whatsoever, a language that will never be spoken after another generation passes. The resolution does nothing but attempt to preserve languages which cannot and should not be saved.

Languages tend to go extinct in parallel with the extinction of a culture or ethnic group. So it's not a utility thing, it's a globalization/socioeconomic thing.

I don't understand the modern obsession with invoking these types of cold, pessimistic interpretations of darwinism where everything that dies and sputters normatively deserves a lowly fate in the grave of eternity. It's not 'good' for languages to die out any more than it's 'good' for drunk drivers to die in car crashes or daredevils to die in an accident

The only cultures that die are the aforementioned ones - the group of 15 people hidden away for centuries. That culture is going to die, the language with it, and there is nothing that anyone could ever do to stop it. It is an issue of globalization and increased communication, but it still is an issue of utility. It is impossible for such a language to perform well in the modern world. They have no written component whatsoever - and therefore no more history than the oldest member of the tribe remembers. They will not have words for anything that we use every day. Those people have no choice but to slowly die off in their seclusion or come into the modern world - which requires learning a modern language. This issue comes up even today, with languages spoken by huge and long-standing populations. Ever hear a group of scientists speaking mandarin? Half the words are in english. In that case it is mostly a historic quirk where such jargon was invented exclusively in the west as the east was in isolationism, then had no choice but to take that which the world already used. For the dying languages, the problem is orders of magnitude greater. They might not have a word for pants, or metal, or table. Many have no linguistic capability to perform anything more than basic arithmetic, and are therefore unable to cognitively perform anything more than basic arithmetic. There are no options. The language dies off in a few generations if they isolate, or in a few generations if they interact with the modern world and are absolutely swamped with a one-way transfer of culture. We're to big for any of them to assimilate us at all. They simply dissolve into modern nations without leaving behind a trace.

Because languages are unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring, unliving, and completely without any capability of experiencing harm in the slightest, they should indeed evolve and be eliminated in a darwinian fashion. Such selection processes always produce something that works, along with human intervention in the process it is capable of producing something that works superbly. The same applies to humans, we do not do so because it would be immoral in the extreme. We get to be as pessimistic as we want with our artifice, and language is our artifice. A language has no inherent value, and therefore there is no necessary loss when one dies out.

[Mizentia]

If languages specific to a tribal group dies out with them, then why would we need to keep their language in an archive. Surely if it was their's and only their's then that means they are unwilling for others to preserve it and want to study it. Perhaps we should let people keep their languages to their immediate community.

If they don't want to cooperate then yeah, their language won't be preserved, but at least somebody tried and asked them.

Rather than gambling that these small and often internally-focused indigenous communities will take the initiative to recognize their endangered status in the schema of historical linguistics and reach out to seek preservation, much better I think for the WA to take the initiative and reach out to them to try and document their language

[Mizentia]

Languages tend to go extinct in parallel with the extinction of a culture or ethnic group. So it's not a utility thing, it's a globalization/socioeconomic thing.

I don't understand the modern obsession with invoking these types of cold, pessimistic interpretations of darwinism where everything that dies and sputters normatively deserves a lowly fate in the grave of eternity. It's not 'good' for languages to die out any more than it's 'good' for drunk drivers to die in car crashes or daredevils to die in an accident

The only cultures that die are the aforementioned ones - the group of 15 people hidden away for centuries. That culture is going to die, the language with it, and there is nothing that anyone could ever do to stop it. It is an issue of globalization and increased communication, but it still is an issue of utility. It is impossible for such a language to perform well in the modern world. They have no written component whatsoever - and therefore no more history than the oldest member of the tribe remembers. They will not have words for anything that we use every day. Those people have no choice but to slowly die off in their seclusion or come into the modern world - which requires learning a modern language. This issue comes up even today, with languages spoken by huge and long-standing populations. Ever hear a group of scientists speaking mandarin? Half the words are in english. In that case it is mostly a historic quirk where such jargon was invented exclusively in the west as the east was in isolationism, then had no choice but to take that which the world already used. For the dying languages, the problem is orders of magnitude greater. They might not have a word for pants, or metal, or table. Many have no linguistic capability to perform anything more than basic arithmetic, and are therefore unable to cognitively perform anything more than basic arithmetic. There are no options. The language dies off in a few generations if they isolate, or in a few generations if they interact with the modern world and are absolutely swamped with a one-way transfer of culture. We're to big for any of them to assimilate us at all. They simply dissolve into modern nations without leaving behind a trace.

Because languages are unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring, unliving, and completely without any capability of experiencing harm in the slightest, they should indeed evolve and be eliminated in a darwinian fashion. Such selection processes always produce something that works, along with human intervention in the process it is capable of producing something that works superbly. The same applies to humans, we do not do so because it would be immoral in the extreme. We get to be as pessimistic as we want with our artifice, and language is our artifice. A language has no inherent value, and therefore there is no necessary loss when one dies out.

Alright but I just don't agree. I think we've resolved the debate to its deepest level

EDIT: okay one point I do want to make: even if there is merit in letting languages go extinct, which I personally don't feel there is, surely we at least want to save a record of those languages? When information is lost, it's lost forever. You won't ever get it back. Why even allow that to happen when there could be some unforeseen need for or benefit from that information?

Nor do I think that eliminating languages really "improves" existing ones rather than merely eliminating diversity

[Separatist Peoples]

You won't ever get it back. Why even allow that to happen when there could be some unforeseen need for or benefit from that information?

"Funny, that's the same line of logic hoarders use with junk."

[Mizentia]

You won't ever get it back. Why even allow that to happen when there could be some unforeseen need for or benefit from that information?

"Funny, that's the same line of logic hoarders use with junk."

Is it hoarding to keep books in a library? Is it hoarding to keep research in a database?

Think about what you guys are really advocating. Doesn't it feel bad to you to promote letting things die? Don't you feel better promoting the preservation and respect of things?

It's not like we're gonna make random people go out and do this against their will. These would be students and professors of linguistics and anthropology, doing the work because they like it and care about it

The distinction between junk and a thing of value is, apparently, a subjective matter, but to me languages fall quite comfortably in the former category

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

"Funny, that's the same line of logic hoarders use with junk."

Is it hoarding to keep books in a library? Is it hoarding to keep research in a database?

Think about what you guys are really advocating. Doesn't it feel bad to you to promote letting things die? Don't you feel better promoting the preservation and respect of things?

It's not like we're gonna make random people go out and do this against their will. These would be students and professors of linguistics and anthropology, doing the work because they like it and care about it

The distinction between junk and a thing of value is, apparently, a subjective matter, but to me languages fall quite comfortably in the former category

Books have value in the knowledge or entertainment value of their words. Most doomed languages are incapable of recording anything at all due to lack of a writing system.
Research is conducted to gather knowledge, deleting research data would be an act of gross stupidity. The research has value, the language it is written in does not.

Languages deserve no more respect than a mound of dirt, and the current state of language in the world means that the destruction of certain languages has objective value. If we were to take this train of thought to its logical end, we would record every inch of the world at all times for fear of losing any moment at all to non-eternity. A language has no value, and neither does a recording of an empty alley.

They can do so on their own without WA interference if they enjoy it.

[Cardoness]

Is it hoarding to keep books in a library? Is it hoarding to keep research in a database?

Think about what you guys are really advocating. Doesn't it feel bad to you to promote letting things die? Don't you feel better promoting the preservation and respect of things?

It's not like we're gonna make random people go out and do this against their will. These would be students and professors of linguistics and anthropology, doing the work because they like it and care about it

The distinction between junk and a thing of value is, apparently, a subjective matter, but to me languages fall quite comfortably in the former category

Books have value in the knowledge or entertainment value of their words. Most doomed languages are incapable of recording anything at all due to lack of a writing system.
Research is conducted to gather knowledge, deleting research data would be an act of gross stupidity. The research has value, the language it is written in does not.

Languages deserve no more respect than a mound of dirt, and the current state of language in the world means that the destruction of certain languages has objective value. If we were to take this train of thought to its logical end, we would record every inch of the world at all times for fear of losing any moment at all to non-eternity. A language has no value, and neither does a recording of an empty alley.

They can do so on their own without WA interference if they enjoy it.

Actually, the language those books are written in are very important. Most of our knowledge of history comes from the written word of civilizations long dead. These were not 15 savages with only basic languages, I am referring to people who built things we, thousands of years later, have only a limited idea of how and why. Without a written record, we would truly be lost as would a great amount of knowledge.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Books have value in the knowledge or entertainment value of their words. Most doomed languages are incapable of recording anything at all due to lack of a writing system.
Research is conducted to gather knowledge, deleting research data would be an act of gross stupidity. The research has value, the language it is written in does not.

Languages deserve no more respect than a mound of dirt, and the current state of language in the world means that the destruction of certain languages has objective value. If we were to take this train of thought to its logical end, we would record every inch of the world at all times for fear of losing any moment at all to non-eternity. A language has no value, and neither does a recording of an empty alley.

They can do so on their own without WA interference if they enjoy it.

Actually, the language those books are written in are very important. Most of our knowledge of history comes from the written word of civilizations long dead. These were not 15 savages with only basic languages, I am referring to people who built things we, thousands of years later, have only a limited idea of how and why. Without a written record, we would truly be lost as would a great amount of knowledge.

Virtually no knowledge comes from dead civilizations. All of it could get lost one tuesday and almost nobody would notice.

There are no such things. If it was built thousands of years ago, we know how. We don't need their historical records, even though we sometimes do. And even from those dead civilizations with dead languages - we got the information. Nobody preserved the language, but we figured it out anyway.

Without languages capable of writing, civilization would indeed collapse. However, it would take nothing less than the total collapse of civilization to reduce us below the level of literacy. We're better at survival than cockroaches.

[Normlpeople]

"It appears there are others beating me to my points, so I shall sit on the sidelines, with another point of my own: you may find my expressed view to be 'gross', however, it is quite valid and clearly, others share it. Rather than argue the merits of your proposal, you have instead made laughable analogies to drunk drivers as well as repeat that when something is gone, its gone. I would suggest showing us why its worth the time and resources to catalog dead and useless languages.

As to the draft, your wording regarding policies 'aimed at preventing language destruction' could well be seen as forbidding designation of an official language or mandating the learning of a conmon one. Such is a non-starter.

Many of us can be swayed by a decent argument, I am one of them. You have not made one however."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The author appears to have assumed out of panic a predictable position of impotent moralistic fist-shaking against the classic overflowing river of objectivist/social darwinist bullshit maneuver. Allow me to dam the flood with practical concerns.

We do not know everything there is to know about linguistics or language in general.

Assembling data about languages helps us get a grasp of theoretical possibilities and advances our understanding of the field.

Intentionally ignoring data is the hallmark of ignorance and wishful thinking; in a word - stupidity.

Therefore every language is worth, if not "saving," at least cataloging and studying and deconstructing and understanding.

The WA can provide a little extra means for experts to carry out such cataloging, where they might not have had the opportunity or budget to do so with currently available resources; therefore (and by the very nature of what is being studied) this is reasonably an international issue.

There are less than infinity languages to catalog; thus the endeavor is not fruitless.

Therefore the fundamental intent of this resolution is sound and worthwhile (though, please, argue all you want about means and scope).

Thus:

• "They're dying? Let them die!" arguments are useless both to this debate and to people in general (whoever they are and wherever they may live; misanthropy for misanthropy's sake is so... adolescent);
• "...and we shouldn't bother to learn about them on the way out!" arguments are just plain wrong, whether they stem from smug self-satisfaction that I myself speak a cool, popular language that I share with billions, or from the silly and absurd notion that some data isn't worth gathering and you can know whether it is or not before you gather it.

Therefore the resolution is worth discussing in specific terms.

[Mizentia]

The author appears to have assumed out of panic a predictable position of impotent moralistic fist-shaking against the classic overflowing river of objectivist/social darwinist bullshit maneuver. Allow me to dam the flood with practical concerns.

We do not know everything there is to know about linguistics or language in general.

Assembling data about languages helps us get a grasp of theoretical possibilities and advances our understanding of the field.

Intentionally ignoring data is the hallmark of ignorance and wishful thinking; in a word - stupidity.

Therefore every language is worth, if not "saving," at least cataloging and studying and deconstructing and understanding.

The WA can provide a little extra means for experts to carry out such cataloging, where they might not have had the opportunity or budget to do so with currently available resources; therefore (and by the very nature of what is being studied) this is reasonably an international issue.

There are less than infinity languages to catalog; thus the endeavor is not fruitless.

Therefore the fundamental intent of this resolution is sound and worthwhile (though, please, argue all you want about means and scope).

Thus:

• "They're dying? Let them die!" arguments are useless both to this debate and to people in general (whoever they are and wherever they may live; misanthropy for misanthropy's sake is so... adolescent);
• "...and we shouldn't bother to learn about them on the way out!" arguments are just plain wrong, whether they stem from smug self-satisfaction that I myself speak a cool, popular language that I share with billions, or from the silly and absurd notion that some data isn't worth gathering and you can know whether it is or not before you gather it.

Therefore the resolution is worth discussing in specific terms.

Thanks

[Bears Armed]

" We all know what a language is,"

Really? And what rule do you use to determine whether two differing forms of speech are actually separate languages or just dialects of one single language?

[Jackonia]

If a Language is recognised by the WA as a Language, then it is a Language. What I would like is that, going back to the original proposal, the WA ban Nations from suppression people's freedoms to speak a different language but encourage all to learn a Universal language (perhaps English). If a Language is in danger of dying out then it should either;
- die out with the people if the said people choose not to teach the Language to others,
- be collected by WA experts to store in a Language Archive for future study if the Language was of major historical importance.
- be taught by the speakers of the dying Language with help from WA experts.

Stopping Nations from suppressing Languages is a good idea.

[Mizentia]

If a Language is recognised by the WA as a Language, then it is a Language. What I would like is that, going back to the original proposal, the WA ban Nations from suppression people's freedoms to speak a different language but encourage all to learn a Universal language (perhaps English). If a Language is in danger of dying out then it should either;
- die out with the people if the said people choose not to teach the Language to others,
- be collected by WA experts to store in a Language Archive for future study if the Language was of major historical importance.
- be taught by the speakers of the dying Language with help from WA experts.

Stopping Nations from suppressing Languages is a good idea.

I can put a 'SUGGESTS' clause in there regarding a universal language, sure, why not

[Jackonia]

I would encourage it. It would make everything a lot easier in terms of communication.

[Imperium Anglorum]

PROHIBITS member states from enacting policies aimed at the eradication of any particular language or dialect

This is the only section in your bill in which the Imperium Anglorum carries objection. It would ban our recent efforts culminating in the Living Latin and Language Reform Act. The recent passage of the Act carries an express clause which denies the teaching of languages other than Latin as a primary foreign language or the teaching of non-standard RP English.

The Empire would change its current status on your bill if you were to change the wording to something like this:

PROHIBITS member states from enacting policies aimed at the total eradication, by force, of any particular language for reasons other than linguistic standardisation.

[Chester Pearson]

PROHIBITS member states from enacting policies aimed at the eradication of any particular language or dialect

This is the only section in your bill in which the Imperium Anglorum carries objection. It would ban our recent efforts culminating in the Living Latin and Language Reform Act. The recent passage of the Act carries an express clause which denies the teaching of languages other than Latin as a primary foreign language or the teaching of non-standard RP English.

The Empire would change its current status on your bill if you were to change the wording to something like this:

PROHIBITS member states from enacting policies aimed at the total eradication, by force, of any particular language for reasons other than linguistic standardisation.

Was it really necessary to necro a moth old thread?