Dying Languages

[Indeos]

Hilariously false, or perhaps misguided. Biological Darwinism is the only reason we even exist, Social/Cultural Darwinism is why we exist in the society we exist in, and Linguistic Darwinism is why we speak the language we speak.

Social Darwinism is long discredited, sir. Don't fall for Fascist* ideas.

*Social Darwinism is a tenet of Fascism.

It was applied in Fascism, and in places like the British Empire, as an excuse for purposely killing off a culture. Social Darwinism shouldn't be a conscious action, it should be a passive series of events.

[SD_Film Artists]

British Army used them, how is that not a good thing?

The way they spread, not the fact they used them. They only spread because another country / in union with the country of orgin used them, not because the Gaelic culture spread out.

While bagpipes may have been played in the British Army by non-Scotts, I'd bet that the majority of people playing the bagpipes in the British Army were Scottish.

[Varazhdin]

Just because it happened, doesn't mean it should have.

Why not?

Because, human beings have reason that enables them to co-operate with themselves to promote the species, so it can bypass the survival of the fittest.

[Indeos]

Why not?

Because, human beings have reason that enables them to co-operate with themselves to promote the species, so it can bypass the survival of the fittest.

The cooperation is what makes us fittest. Nothing can escape survival of the fittest, and understanding the system does not allow humans to bypass it.

[Conscentia]

Why not?

Because, human beings have reason that enables them to co-operate with themselves to promote the species, so it can bypass the survival of the fittest.

Try telling that to an evolutionary biologist.

[SD_Film Artists]

Why not?

Because, human beings have reason that enables them to co-operate with themselves to promote the species, so it can bypass the survival of the fittest.

Funny that, I thought that you were all for dividing humanity into different groups for supremacy.

[Premislyd]

It depends if the language is worth saving or not. If its an old language like Latin then yeah you should save it, but if its the numerous Chinese or Russian dialects then you should get rid of them.

[Varazhdin]

Because, human beings have reason that enables them to co-operate with themselves to promote the species, so it can bypass the survival of the fittest.

Funny that, I thought that you were all for dividing humanity into different groups for supremacy.

Exactly the opposite, since human beings have reason, they can cooperate together for their mutual benefit, instead of fighting against each other.

And what do you mean by "us all" ?!!

[SD_Film Artists]

Funny that, I thought that you were all for dividing humanity into different groups for supremacy.

Exactly the opposite, since human beings have reason, they can cooperate together for their mutual benefit, instead of fighting against each other.

And what do you mean by "us all" ?!!

Mutual benefit? Sounds like Empire, sounds like something you're against...


And I didn't say "us all"

[Varazhdin]

Exactly the opposite, since human beings have reason, they can cooperate together for their mutual benefit, instead of fighting against each other.

And what do you mean by "us all" ?!!

Mutual benefit? Sounds like Empire, sounds like something you're against...


And I didn't say "us all"

What exactly do you think I am against?
Empire implies that ine group dominates other groups within that Empire. That I am against.

Sorry about that one, I should have said "we all", I guess.....
(my languages has 7 cases, it's sometimes confusing to use English which doesn't have any)

[SD_Film Artists]

Mutual benefit? Sounds like Empire, sounds like something you're against...


And I didn't say "us all"

What exactly do you think I am against?
Empire implies that ine group dominates other groups within that Empire. That I am against.
Sorry about that one, I should have said "we all", I guess.....

But it brings benefits, the science used in the invasion turns into the science put into the "dominated" nation. The Romans gave Britain Roads, Britain gave India railways and perhaps someday India will give someone else maglevs and teleporters.

And I said "were all", though what if I did say "us all"?

[Rhineland Magna]

I thought I would add my 2 cents to the discussion.

I personally do not think we should go out of our way to save these languages. For one, I do agree that a language is invariably ties to the culture of its native speakers. However, a lot of people here seem to assume that all cultures are entirely equal. Clearly this is not the case; some have proved more effective that others in preserving themselves and ensuring the political and economic hegemony of the countries in which they are spoken. It makes perfect sense for these more advanced cultures to completely overtake and assimilate the less advanced ones. And before anyone thinks I an a genocidal maniac, what I mean is not the actual forceful extermination of said cultures but the gradual willing acceptance of the superior cultures by their members. From here it follows that when this assimilation happens, the languages of the now defunct assimilated culture have to go.

My other argument is purely scientific -- in terms of the actual ways the languages work. I will try to illustrate this with an example. I have been living in Thailand for a little more than an year now. The language here not only has an insanely complicated writing system and sounds quite alien, but it's grammar is so very basic. They have no tenses (!), no inflections or conjugations. They literally say things like "I go shops". Compare that to "I am going to the shops" or "Je vais aux magasins." I could not even imagine how they can express complex, abstract ideas (e.g. philosophical ones) like this. It therefore makes sense to promote languages that have the rich vocabulary and precise grammar needed to suit any type of communication.

[Zairoon]

Eventually I hope every language dies out, and that only english prevails. So that everyone could atleast Understand what youre saying.

I can understand why you didn't say Mandarin or something because they have a weird alphabet, but why not, say, Spanish? Compared to English, it's easier to learn...

[SD_Film Artists]

Eventually I hope every language dies out, and that only english prevails. So that everyone could atleast Understand what youre saying.

I can understand why you didn't say Mandarin or something because they have a weird alphabet, but why not, say, Spanish? Compared to English, it's easier to learn...

Are genders really that easy to learn? Is a table a male or a female?

[New East Ireland]

No one speaks ancient Aztec anymore, do they?

[Varazhdin]

What exactly do you think I am against?
Empire implies that ine group dominates other groups within that Empire. That I am against.
Sorry about that one, I should have said "we all", I guess.....

But it brings benefits, the science used in the invasion turns into the science put into the "dominated" nation. The Romans gave Britain Roads, Britain gave Africa railways and perhaps someday Africa will give someone else maglevs and teleporters.

And I said "were all", though what if I did say "us all"?

True, but the point is that they did it to them by force, against their will. Practical benefits are a secondary issue. It was completelly up to those nations, that where in this case subjugated by force, to develop or not to develop.

Funny that, I thought that you were all for dividing humanity into different groups for supremacy.
Who is "you all"?

[Varazhdin]

No one speaks ancient Aztec anymore, do they?

Yes, they do.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuatl

[SD_Film Artists]

But it brings benefits, the science used in the invasion turns into the science put into the "dominated" nation. The Romans gave Britain Roads, Britain gave Africa railways and perhaps someday Africa will give someone else maglevs and teleporters.

And I said "were all", though what if I did say "us all"?

True, but the point is that they did it to them by force, against their will. Practical benefits are a secondary issue. It was completelly up to those nations, that where in this case subjugated by force, to develop or not to develop.

Initially, yes. Many Britons had a good life under Roman rule.

Funny that, I thought that you were all for dividing humanity into different groups for supremacy.
Who is "you all"?

But they're united under one flag. Indeed, many pilots in the Battle of Britain and even more so in the army in the rest of the war were from British colonies. Same with the Romans too; many and in some cases most Roman soldiers of any rank weren't actually from Rome.

[Verdisia]

I don't really think we should go out of our way to stop the dying of languages. I figure the eventual result of the trend will be one global language, or at least a handful of regional languages.

Of course, that's not to say we should let those languages slip into the darkness of history, to be lost forever.

[New East Ireland]

No one speaks ancient Aztec anymore, do they?

Yes, they do.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuatl

'The More You Know', I guess...

[Esternial]

Yes, they do.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuatl

'The More You Know', I guess...

Ignorance is bliss.

[Varazhdin]

Funny that, I thought that you were all for dividing humanity into different groups for supremacy.
Who is "you all"?

But they're united under one flag. Indeed, many pilots in the Battle of Britain and even more so in the army in the rest of the war were from British colonies.[/quote]

But I don't think they became colonies by their own free will, did they?

And that sentence was a quote from you. I wanted you to you to explain who is "you all" that was dividing humanity into different groups for supremacy?

[New Acardia]

If the people who speak those languages want to save them they will if not let them die.

[SD_Film Artists]

Funny that, I thought that you were all for dividing humanity into different groups for supremacy.
Who is "you all"?

But they're united under one flag. Indeed, many pilots in the Battle of Britain and even more so in the army in the rest of the war were from British colonies.

But I don't think they became colonies by their own free will, did they?

And that sentence was a quote from you. I wanted you to you to explain who is "you all" that was dividing humanity into different groups for supremacy?

That depends, they would have to ask their grandparents if it was willingly.

And I said "you were all for X", as in- "you greatly supported X". 'All' meaning 'greatly' or 'entirely'. It's a phase.

[Meryuma]

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.

We'd lose so much great literature and so many interesting grammatical, semantic and phonological features if we had only one language.

No one speaks ancient Aztec anymore, do they?

My boyfriend does.

My other argument is purely scientific -- in terms of the actual ways the languages work. I will try to illustrate this with an example. I have been living in Thailand for a little more than an year now. The language here not only has an insanely complicated writing system and sounds quite alien, but it's grammar is so very basic. They have no tenses (!), no inflections or conjugations. They literally say things like "I go shops". Compare that to "I am going to the shops" or "Je vais aux magasins." I could not even imagine how they can express complex, abstract ideas (e.g. philosophical ones) like this. It therefore makes sense to promote languages that have the rich vocabulary and precise grammar needed to suit any type of communication.

You don't know how languages work. Language doesn't determine thought, nor are analytic (non-inflecting) languages necessarily less complex then synthetic (inflecting) ones or less capable of expressing complex ideas.

For instance, here is a Thai Wikipedia article on metaphysics (the branch of phillosophy dealing with the basic nature of reality):

http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%AD% ... D%E0%B8%B2

Also, ironically "I am going to the shops" is mostly analytic (don't know enough about French to comment on "Je vais aux magasins"). No tenses means no grammatically inflected tenses, not no way to express time.