Dying Languages

[SD_Film Artists]

Indeed- if you go back far enough we are all Ethiopian.

In a cultural, or national sense? No.

In any real sense? Well, I already answered that question right there. ^

It's an extreme example, though I my point is that people can pick-and-choose their heritage (are you Celtic, Norman, British or Roman?) and thus it is a social construct.

[Angleter]

The Celt nationalists invest entirely in their Celtic heritage and forgo their united British heritage- this is especially ironic in Southeast Scotland, where the inhabitants have never had a Gaelic heritage and have an Anglo-Saxon one dating back as far as Gaelic Scotland.

The little Englanders who advocate jettisoning the other nations are little, if at all, better.

"British heritage" is a social construct, carefully engineered by the English and Scottish ruling classes during the time of the British Empire to give the common man something to work for. The fact that Celtic nationalists are finally wising up is a sign that those imperial days are at an end.

Rubbish. British heritage was created organically over the years of the British Empire as the British nations, which share genetics and an island separated from the rest of Europe in the first place, achieved great things together and made the UK the strongest on Earth, exporting the composite British culture across the seas to the Old Commonwealth, and influencing the cultures of the New Commonwealth and beyond. Indeed, with the spread of popular culture, this unity has become even more profound. Scottish nationalism at least intends to get rid of 300 years of history and cultural development.

[Varazhdin]

That is the the worrying part - that people don't consider their language worth saving, and that others find such behaviour acceptable.

Those who consider their language (or culture) worth saving should fight for it. Cultures, or languages that are unable to secure their own futures have not earned futures.

But that is what I said it was worrying - that in so many cases people weren't willing to fight for their language/culture. THAT is what should be fought against.

[Esternial]

In a cultural, or national sense? No.

In any real sense? Well, I already answered that question right there. ^

It's an extreme example, though I my point is that people can pick-and-choose their heritage (are you Celtic, Norman, British or Roman?) and thus it is a social construct.

If you go back even further, we're all African.

[Vestr-Norig]

Nynorsk users in Norway often meet discrimination, because so many jobs denys people to write Nynorsk. I have often met such discimination, being a user of Nynorsk myself, and have often been refused to have Nynorsk-school books, even if I have right to it ,and beein denied to write Nynorsk many places. If you think that is funny, I really feel sad for you

Can you write, or speak in Norwegian?

Have you fought to secure the future of your preferred language?

Yes, I can write in Norwegian, but it's not Norwegian itself which is in danger of dying, its Nynorsk, one of two of the Norwegian languages.
And no, but I am planning to become a member of "Noregs Mållag", a organization that is working for the language. And I have wrote letters to newspapers about their language policy, even though I have not got answers from them

[SD_Film Artists]

It's an extreme example, though I my point is that people can pick-and-choose their heritage (are you Celtic, Norman, British or Roman?) and thus it is a social construct.

If you go back even further, we're all African.

Which is what Esternial was calling me on.

[Lackadaisical2]

Nothing wrong with subsidising museums and the arts. Though putting the contents of said museum on road signs and other public notices, I would object to.

But shouldn't something be prevented from becoming just a museum exhibit in the first place?

Not necessarily.

[Varazhdin]

But shouldn't something be prevented from becoming just a museum exhibit in the first place?

Not necessarily.

Why not?

[The Archregimancy]

Welsh survived as well as it did largely due to a single book published in 1588: Henry Morgan's Welsh Bible.

It was the only one of the British Celtic languages where a Bible translation was sanctioned, and where church services were permitted in the local language. In a period where Church attendance was both religious and political, the importance of Elizabeth I's decision to sanction an official Welsh Bible - some decades before the King James Version - is hard to underestimate.

Psst, William Morgan. Henry Morgan's the Pirate/rum.

Oops!

You're absolutely correct, of course.

[Der Teutoniker]

It's an extreme example, though I my point is that people can pick-and-choose their heritage (are you Celtic, Norman, British or Roman?) and thus it is a social construct.

Germanic. I recognize that heritage is a social construct.

[Naurobia]

No I don't really think that is all that important to keep them from dying out. I mean sure we should try to archive as many as possible for research purposes but only research purposes.The fact is that an inferior or increasingly unpopular language will die out and that is circle of society. And I don't think that all cultures should be preserved either. I mean should we preserve and keep alive the cannibal, war mongering, sexist, homophobic, and ignorant cultures? No I think that those are a good riddance.

[Der Teutoniker]

Yes, I can write in Norwegian, but it's not Norwegian itself which is in danger of dying, its Nynorsk, one of two of the Norwegian languages.
And no, but I am planning to become a member of "Noregs Mållag", a organization that is working for the language. And I have wrote letters to newspapers about their language policy, even though I have not got answers from them

Then fight harder for the language you love. Gather together other like-minded proponents, and secede. Lobby harder. Wage war.

If you do not do to the last what it takes to preserve your preferred culture, you have done nothing to earn preservation.

[SD_Film Artists]

Nothing wrong with subsidising museums and the arts. Though putting the contents of said museum on road signs and other public notices, I would object to.

But shouldn't something be prevented from becoming just a museum exhibit in the first place?

People tend to look at old obsolete things with misty rose-tinted eyes. Windmills are being replaced by wind-turbines (albeit not directly). Should windmills be preserved? Yes; should they still be used; no.

[Gheimhridh]

"British heritage" is a social construct, carefully engineered by the English and Scottish ruling classes during the time of the British Empire to give the common man something to work for. The fact that Celtic nationalists are finally wising up is a sign that those imperial days are at an end.

Rubbish. British heritage was created organically over the years of the British Empire as the British nations, which share genetics and an island separated from the rest of Europe in the first place, achieved great things together and made the UK the strongest on Earth, exporting the composite British culture across the seas to the Old Commonwealth, and influencing the cultures of the New Commonwealth and beyond. Indeed, with the spread of popular culture, this unity has become even more profound. Scottish nationalism at least intends to get rid of 300 years of history and cultural development.

Well, they don't share genetics, for a start. And Scottish nationalism wants to get rid of those 300 years because over 10,000 years were lost in favour of "Britishness".

But shouldn't something be prevented from becoming just a museum exhibit in the first place?

People tend to look at old obsolete things with misty rose-tinted eyes. Windmills are being replaced by wind-turbines (albeit not directly). Should windmills be preserved? Yes; should they still be used; no.

Um...windmills and wind turbines do different things.

[Arumdaum]

So, militaristic barbarian cultures over cultural peaceful ones?

"Barbarian" in what wise? As in, "not Roman" the original definition, or as in "stronger than others" as it generally means?

Militaristic? Yes.

Cultural? So you subscribe to an objective idea of culture based on... pacifism? Ridiculous.

Peaceful? No.

Militaristic, and cultural. That sounds about right.

I'm pretty sure you know what I meant. In fact, I know that you knew that I meant "uncivilized". Stop trying to just look smart, and just put in the parts that are actually towards the argument.

And no, I'm not.

Like for example, the Huns and the Romans. Pretend the Huns screwed the Romans over, and burned all of their important writings and innovations. And then they didn't do anything, only destroyed their culture. You'd support that?

[Sovereign Spirits]

Nothing wrong with subsidising museums and the arts. Though putting the contents of said museum on road signs and other public notices, I would object to.

The reason I would be against public funding of such an institution is that it's partly coming out of my pocket without my consent. If I wanted a museum of languages, I would either create one or help in creating one (monetary donation being one way to help, volunteering of labor being another). I don't want to help fund a museum of languages. I'd rather put my money and effort into other things. Those who would like to put theirs towards a museum are more than welcome to do so.

But shouldn't something be prevented from becoming just a museum exhibit in the first place?

If you'd rather that something not become a mere museum exhibit, you are free to put your independently-acquired funds and time into propagating its existence outside of such an environment. Depending on what it is and what I can spare, however, you might not get any help from me in this endeavor.

[Varazhdin]

But shouldn't something be prevented from becoming just a museum exhibit in the first place?

People tend to look at old obsolete things with misty rose-tinted eyes. Windmills are being replaced by wind-turbines (albeit not directly). Should windmills be preserved? Yes; should they still be used; no.

I fail to see the analogy between technology and language.

[Vestr-Norig]

Yes, I can write in Norwegian, but it's not Norwegian itself which is in danger of dying, its Nynorsk, one of two of the Norwegian languages.
And no, but I am planning to become a member of "Noregs Mållag", a organization that is working for the language. And I have wrote letters to newspapers about their language policy, even though I have not got answers from them

Then fight harder for the language you love. Gather together other like-minded proponents, and secede. Lobby harder. Wage war.

If you do not do to the last what it takes to preserve your preferred culture, you have done nothing to earn preservation.

Honestly, I would be ready to kill, or even die for my language, but as said, in the future I will most likely fight in other ways. I am planning on maybe becoming an journalist, or maybe a politician too, to fight for what I stand for.

[Lackadaisical2]

Psst, William Morgan. Henry Morgan's the Pirate/rum.

Oops!

You're absolutely correct, of course.

Its OK, Captain Morgan is way more important than a silly old language. We must preserve the booze!

[H-Alba]

"British heritage" is a social construct, carefully engineered by the English and Scottish ruling classes during the time of the British Empire to give the common man something to work for. The fact that Celtic nationalists are finally wising up is a sign that those imperial days are at an end.

Rubbish. British heritage was created organically over the years of the British Empire as the British nations, which share genetics and an island separated from the rest of Europe in the first place, achieved great things together and made the UK the strongest on Earth, exporting the composite British culture across the seas to the Old Commonwealth, and influencing the cultures of the New Commonwealth and beyond. Indeed, with the spread of popular culture, this unity has become even more profound. Scottish nationalism at least intends to get rid of 300 years of history and cultural development.

Yeah, we want to get rid of those 300 years of history and "cultural development" because we had a culture that developed over thousands of years that was thrown out in favour of "Being British", a nice way to say "Being English". We want our country, our culture, and our heritage back.

[Esternial]

But shouldn't something be prevented from becoming just a museum exhibit in the first place?

People tend to look at old obsolete things with misty rose-tinted eyes. Windmills are being replaced by wind-turbines (albeit not directly). Should windmills be preserved? Yes; should they still be used; no.

The possibility of something being preserved relies entirely on chance. The Eiffel tower would have been gone now if it wasn't so terribly useful during the war, it was originally intended to be demolished after the Expo.

The statue of Marc Anthony in Rome was preserved because Christians thought it was Constantine. Marc Anthony had hundreds of Christians executed when he reigned, and they would have destroyed it if they knew. Pure chance determined its survival.

[Conscentia]

Nope...languages should be left to die...most of those dying languages are obsolete anyway.
I demand want Quenya; Latin; or English become the international language of all humans.

We can start by making every government in the world enforce English/Latin/Quenya teaching alongside their country's main language in their education system...soon all shall speak English/Latin/Quenya. All that will remain are the illiterates and un-educated and those isolated from the national education system.

Over time English/Latin/Quenya shall take over.

[SD_Film Artists]

Rubbish. British heritage was created organically over the years of the British Empire as the British nations, which share genetics and an island separated from the rest of Europe in the first place, achieved great things together and made the UK the strongest on Earth, exporting the composite British culture across the seas to the Old Commonwealth, and influencing the cultures of the New Commonwealth and beyond. Indeed, with the spread of popular culture, this unity has become even more profound. Scottish nationalism at least intends to get rid of 300 years of history and cultural development.

Well, they don't share genetics, for a start. And Scottish nationalism wants to get rid of those 300 years because over 10,000 years were lost in favour of "Britishness".

Are you kidding? Britain as a union is only about 300-400 years old, and the English and Welsh share alot of genetics with Scotland, even after the Norman invasion of England.

Um...windmills and wind turbines do different things.

That's why I said "albiet indirectly". It amuses me how people hate wind-turbines yet love windmills.

[Der Teutoniker]

I'm pretty sure you know what I meant. In fact, I know that you knew that I meant "uncivilized". Stop trying to just look smart, and just put in the parts that are actually towards the argument.

And no, I'm not.

Like for example, the Huns and the Romans. Pretend the Huns screwed the Romans over, and burned all of their important writings and innovations. And then they didn't do anything, only destroyed their culture. You'd support that?

"Civilized": another subjective term given totally undefined objective boundaries. Good choice. Two in a row.

I support the victory of the strong.

[Shper]

Can you write, or speak in Norwegian?

Have you fought to secure the future of your preferred language?

Yes, I can write in Norwegian, but it's not Norwegian itself which is in danger of dying, its Nynorsk, one of two of the Norwegian languages.
And no, but I am planning to become a member of "Noregs Mållag", a organization that is working for the language. And I have wrote letters to newspapers about their language policy, even though I have not got answers from them

I've been wondering, are Nyorsk and Bokmål mutually intelligible? By which I mean could a Nyorsk-speaker understand what a Bokmål-speaker was saying?