Dying Languages

[H-Alba]

Every year, all around the world, languages are dying out while cultures are being forgotten. On the list of Endangered Languages of 2005 182 American languages, 152 Pacific languages, 84 Asian languages, 46 African languages and 9 European languages are at risk of dying out... That's 473 languages around the world at risk of dying out. Some of the languages have 30 speakers or less!

My question is do you think it is important to try to prevent languages from dying out?

Personally, I believe it is important to prevent languages from dying out because when a language dies out an culture dies out. Languages allow stories, songs, and beliefs to live on and while stories and languages can be translated they often loose meaning or do not have as deep of an meaning as in the original language.

[Lackadaisical2]

I don't think we should be saving languages, we should be working towards exterminating more of them.

[Vellosia]

I don't think a language with 30 speakers is worth saving, to be honest.

[The Blaatschapen]

I don't think we should be saving languages, we should be working towards exterminating more of them.

Why?

And only if we start with the bastard language of English. Really, germanic structure with romance words, ugh.

[Lackadaisical2]

I don't think we should be saving languages, we should be working towards exterminating more of them.

Why?

And only if we start with the bastard language of English. Really, germanic structure with romance words, ugh.

To unite all humanity.

Nah, thats the one which will supplant all other languages.

[SD_Film Artists]

I don't think we should be saving languages, we should be working towards exterminating more of them.

This^

Multiple languages just makes things complicated with little to no advantage.

[H-Alba]

I don't think a language with 30 speakers is worth saving, to be honest.

No, I am not talking about the languages with thirty or less speakers - they are nearly impossible to to save. I am talking about the languages with 10,000 to 100,000 speakers, that are slowly dying out and loosing it's daily use that can be saved and it's death can be prevented. A language with 100 speakers can be considered safe because it is used and is the primary language of the next generation, but languages with 100,000 speakers can be considered endangered because the next generation is not speaking it as a primary or only language and it is not a community language. Yet that can be reversed, we can make attempts to prevent another culture and language from dying out, but languages that are near extinction (languages with less then 50 speakers) are not able to be saved.

[Moral Libertarians]

Languages with a handful of speakers aren't really worth saving. Just get one of them to translate any important cultural documents etc. into some other language.

[Vellosia]

I don't think a language with 30 speakers is worth saving, to be honest.

No, I am not talking about the languages with thirty or less speakers - they are nearly impossible to to save. I am talking about the languages with 10,000 to 100,000 speakers, that are slowly dying out and loosing it's daily use that can be saved and it's death can be prevented. A language with 100 speakers can be considered safe because it is used and is the primary language of the next generation, but languages with 100,000 speakers can be considered endangered because the next generation is not speaking it as a primary or only language and it is not a community language. Yet that can be reversed, we can make attempts to prevent another culture and language from dying out, but languages that are near extinction (languages with less then 50 speakers) are not able to be saved.

If a language is dying out, then that suggests it is no longer no needed. If the speakers of said language really wanted to preserve it, then it wouldn't be dying out in the first place. Hence, I am content with letting things run their course.

[SD_Film Artists]

I don't think we should be saving languages, we should be working towards exterminating more of them.

Why?

And only if we start with the bastard language of English. Really, germanic structure with romance words, ugh.

At least we don't have genders!

"mon for ange? Ahh...well I guess Gabriel was a guy so....."

And yeux (eyes) is male, yet I think you still say 'mon' rather than 'ma' if they are girl's eyes. *head asplodes*

[Brutland and Norden]

Why?

And only if we start with the bastard language of English. Really, germanic structure with romance words, ugh.

At least we don't have genders!

Really? How about he and she, hmmm?

[Vellosia]

At least we don't have genders!

Really? How about he and she, hmmm?

No need to be purposely pedantic.

[Forsakia]

At least we don't have genders!

Really? How about he and she, hmmm?

With rare exceptions (blond, blonde) that aren't always observed, words in english are the same. My foot, my pencil, my etc. Compared to say french with la/le mon/ma and so on.

[SD_Film Artists]

At least we don't have genders!

Really? How about he and she, hmmm?

But that's based on if they are a man or a woman, not if they are a table or a flower. And calling ships "she" doesn't count, as that's just naval tradition.

A flower being feminine is understandable, but there are many nouns that have no logical basis for being male or female.

[The Blaatschapen]

Why?

And only if we start with the bastard language of English. Really, germanic structure with romance words, ugh.

To unite all humanity.

Nah, thats the one which will supplant all other languages.

Perhaps humanity does not want to unite?

Before we start speaking the same language, perhaps we can first start valuing the same kind of things(like the place of women in society)? I think that's a more important step towards unity than trying to force everyone into one language.

[Drachmar]

At least we don't have genders!

Really? How about he and she, hmmm?

Not the same. He's talking about the genderfication of nouns (eg. German & Latvian), which can be quite confusing.

[Fuasgail]

No, I am not talking about the languages with thirty or less speakers - they are nearly impossible to to save. I am talking about the languages with 10,000 to 100,000 speakers, that are slowly dying out and loosing it's daily use that can be saved and it's death can be prevented. A language with 100 speakers can be considered safe because it is used and is the primary language of the next generation, but languages with 100,000 speakers can be considered endangered because the next generation is not speaking it as a primary or only language and it is not a community language. Yet that can be reversed, we can make attempts to prevent another culture and language from dying out, but languages that are near extinction (languages with less then 50 speakers) are not able to be saved.

If a language is dying out, then that suggests it is no longer no needed. If the speakers of said language really wanted to preserve it, then it wouldn't be dying out in the first place. Hence, I am content with letting things run their course.

I disagree. Scottish Gaelic was attacked by English Speakers from the south, and were often forced to learn English as the Highland Clearances forced the Gaels to move into English Speaking areas. The culture was limited and nearly destroyed because of it. The Breton language was outlawed by the French Majority for a century. Did these people have the choice to preserve it?

[Lackadaisical2]

To unite all humanity.

Nah, thats the one which will supplant all other languages.

Perhaps humanity does not want to unite?

Before we start speaking the same language, perhaps we can first start valuing the same kind of things(like the place of women in society)? I think that's a more important step towards unity than trying to force everyone into one language.

True, exterminating other cultures is an important first step in destroying their language.

[Urhem]

IMHO all languages are worth preserving. They show how our perception and values have evolved, not to mention the great ethnic values they contribute.

[Arumdaum]

I think they should all be saved.

But that's impossible. </3

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

Every year, all around the world, languages are dying out while cultures are being forgotten. On the list of Endangered Languages of 2005 182 American languages, 152 Pacific languages, 84 Asian languages, 46 African languages and 9 European languages are at risk of dying out... That's 473 languages around the world at risk of dying out. Some of the languages have 30 speakers or less!

My question is do you think it is important to try to prevent languages from dying out?

Personally, I believe it is important to prevent languages from dying out because when a language dies out an culture dies out. Languages allow stories, songs, and beliefs to live on and while stories and languages can be translated they often loose meaning or do not have as deep of an meaning as in the original language.

I coundn't agree with you more. If for no other reason, for preservation of history, but loss of culture would be the #1 reason in my book.

In actually angers me that I can go to my local community collage & learn vietnamese, chinese, spainish, russian, ethiopian, arabic, & on & on, but not one native amercan langauge. This country should put a much greater value on the language & culture of the 1st nations of this country & until it does, I will never believe that the united states gives a shit about the future of native america. In fact I still think they want to see it dead so there isn't any faces left to match up to the crimes that they commited. Those are my personal beleifs on the subject.

[Lackadaisical2]

IMHO all languages are worth preserving. They show how our perception and values have evolved, not to mention the great ethnic values they contribute.

I have no problem with preserving languages, we can put them where we keep all the stuff we don't really need, but are afraid we might one day and bring ourselves to throw out, whats it called? like in a museum type of thing... the attic, thats it.

[Menelmacar]

I'm of two minds on this. I think a dying language should be recorded for posterity and historical understanding. Should it be preserved as an active language? No; if there's only thirty fluent speakers, it's well past the point of no return. The point that was made that such a tongue is no longer needed is correct. How many languages, how many cultures, died out and faded away before anyone even cared about such things? Now we're interested in it, let's preserve the record of it for history, but there's no sense trying to keep a language and culture that is effectively already dead, on life support.

Also, just to hit on a few points: genderization of nouns is silly, irregular verbs are even sillier, and let's not pretend native Americans were all dancing and laughing and playing in rivers of chocolate with gumdrop smiles before the big bad white man came along, because that, my dear boy, is a crock. They warred with one another and conquered one another and slaughtered one another by the tens of thousands at a time for millennia before Europeans arrived and the fact they were at a Neolithic level of development doesn't make them any more innocent for having done it.

[SD_Film Artists]

If a language is dying out, then that suggests it is no longer no needed. If the speakers of said language really wanted to preserve it, then it wouldn't be dying out in the first place. Hence, I am content with letting things run their course.

I disagree. Scottish Gaelic was attacked by English Speakers from the south, and were often forced to learn English as the Highland Clearances forced the Gaels to move into English Speaking areas. The culture was limited and nearly destroyed because of it. The Breton language was outlawed by the French Majority for a century. Did these people have the choice to preserve it?

But Scottish Gaulic isn't needed. It's just an unfortunate leftover from the tribal days.

[Great Nepal]

No, if a language/ culture cant survive on its own, it perhaps is not worth saving in first place.