World Language Extinction by 2060?

[lexico]

A statement from the International Linguistics Congress, 1992, Quebec:

As the disappearance of any one language constitues an irretrievable loss to mankind, it is for UNESCO a task of great urgency to respond to this situation by promoting and, if possible, sponsoring programs of linguistic organizations for the description in the form of grammars, dictionaries and texts, including the recording or oral literatures, of hitherto unstudied or inadequately documented endangered and dying languages.

UNESCO's response at the General Assembly, Endangered Languages Project Progress Report, 1994:

Although its exact scope is not yet known, it is certain that the extinction of languages is progressing rapidly in many parts of the world, and it is of the highest importance that the linguistic profession realize that it has to step up its descriptive efforts.

Response from the Foundation for Endangered Languages, 1995, London:

There is agreement among linguists who have considered the situation that over half of the world's languages are moribund, i.e. not effectively being passed on to the next generation. We and our children, then, are living at the point in human history where, whithin perhaps two generations, most languages in the world will die out.

Do you think this is actually going to happen?

Do you think language description by linguists can help salvage some of the dying languages?

If your mother tongue isn't English, what do you think will happen to it in say 2100 in comparison to English?

W. Wayt Gibbs, Saving Dying Languages, Scientific American 2002:
http://www.language-archives.org/docs/sciam.pdf

David Crystal, Language Death, full text:
http://assets.cambridge.org/052101/2716/frontmatter/0521012716_frontmatter.pdf

UNESCO, Language Vitality and Endangerment:
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en...9200105language_vitality_and_endangerment.pdf

UNESCO, Safeguarding of Endangered Languages:
http://lesla.univ-lyon2.fr/IMG/pdf/doc-447.pdf

Links#1: http://www.unesco.org/most/ln2lin.htm#resources

Links#2: http://www.longnow.org/about/press.htm

 

[Glenn]

I don't really care. I think that it's a good idea to document all languages so that we have an account of them for posterity, but if languages die out and we end up with only 100 languages in the world (or less), I think that it isn't such a big deal. It could help to ease communication with peoples all over the world.

 

[lexico]

The Redbook of the Peoples of the Russian Empire

You might if you have the time to read this, Glenn-san. :genji:

The Redbook of the Peoples of the Russian Empire @ http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/

More on the book @ http://www.redbook.ee/english.html

Preface to the book by Ants Viires, Ph. D.

INTRODUCTION
In the cliche ridden propaganda of the Soviet era tsarist Russia was frequently dubbed the Prison of nations. When the Soviets came into power this prison, by virtue of new national policies, transformed into a family of friendly and brotherly nations in whose bosom all the national cultures flourished. To boast of the achievements under the Communist Party leadership, grandiose cultural festivals were arranged in the Soviet republics, folkloristic dance, song and instrumental groups were established and the revival of old peasant culture was encouraged. The slogan socialist in content, nationalist in form, came to be applied to the new Soviet culture. Behind this deceptive facade of ethnographic originality, the tsarist prison of nations never ceased to exist: russification was carried out on a large scale, nationalist intellectuals were persecuted, a policy of extensive exploitation of land was pursued and nations were continuously resettled and mingled. The desired result was the birth of a new, Russian-speaking Soviet nation, and to lay the theoretical foundation for this a whole army of scholars was employed. The evolution of the Soviet nation was seen as the process of history within the cognizance of Marxist-Leninist principles which was as inevitable as the process of life itself.
The recent rapid collapse of the Soviet economic and political system has revealed the consequences of these brutal colonization policies: hundreds of culturally and economically crippled nations, with the smallest of them nearing the crucial point of extinction.

Similar developments have been observed in other parts of the world throughout the course of history. Brutal forces hiding behind beautiful slogans have been imposed on the weak and the small. Only in the second half of the 20th century has there been a painful attempt which has suffered from many setbacks to set out on a path of greater justice and mutual respect. The voices of all communities and groupings, however small, deserve to be heard in the large choir of mankind.

The authors of the present book, who come from a country (Estonia) which has shared the fate of nations in the Russian and Soviet empires, endeavour to publicize the plight of the small nations whose very existence is threatened as a result of recent history. Perhaps it is not too late to give a supporting hand to them without an attempt at either ideological brainwashing or economic exploitation.

Tallinn,
20th August 1993

On the occasion of the second anniversary of the restoration of independent statehood in Estonia.

 

[No-name]

five hundred years ago, about five hundred languages from some twenty to forty distinct groups were spoken by the millions who inhabited North and South America. Two hundred years ago, the number was cut by more than half. Today, over 90% of the millions living in the Americas primarily speak one of four European languages. Almost all of the other languages are dead.

 

[lexico]

Actually you pointed out two iteresting points of view:

I think that it's a good idea to document all languages so that we have an account of them for posterity

Why is documenting languages for posterity good? For keeping the linguists busy? Because of the innate curiosity by being human? I'd like to know more.

but if languages die out and we end up with only 100 languages in the world (or less), I think that it isn't such a big deal. It could help to ease communication with peoples all over the world.

So you're saying that by having many languages, communication has been hindered, and with other losses as a result of it. Do you think we will have less problems arising from miscommunication if we had fewer languages, and if there were only one language left, if it were a more uniform one thruout the areas? Less conflict or wars, maybe? This is an interesting topic on its own, I think.

 

[Glenn]

Actually you pointed out two iteresting points of view:
Why is documenting languages for posterity good? For keeping the linguists busy? Because of the innate curiosity by being human? I'd like to know more.

I think it's good to see how diverse human languages can be and also how similar they are. I suspect that it could also give insight into where modern languages may be headed. Also, having them recorded allows for more accurate historical analysis, which I believe to be important. What would we know about ancient Egypt if we knew nothing of hieroglyphics? If there are languages that exist in spoken form only then this wouldn't apply, but I'm not sure that there are any of those. In such a case I think that it would be of interest to linguists; I'm not sure it would be useful beyond that.

So you're saying that by having many languages, communication has been hindered, and with other losses as a result of it. Do you think we will have less problems arising from miscommunication if we had fewer languages, and if there were only one language left, if it were a more uniform one thruout the areas? Less conflict or wars, maybe? This is an interesting topic on its own, I think.

I'm saying that fewer languages means that more people speak a common language, and that eases communication between people in general. I'm sure there would still be plenty of conflict and wars, however.

 

[Zauriel]

That is a shame. One language's death is the death of a culture.

Spaniards should never have destroyed most of the languages in the Latin America.

 

[Kama]

I don't really care. I think that it's a good idea to document all languages so that we have an account of them for posterity, but if languages die out and we end up with only 100 languages in the world (or less), I think that it isn't such a big deal. It could help to ease communication with peoples all over the world.

That's a clear idiotism.

I suppose, that you don't understand that language is a very important part of culture. It reflects the values, history, culture of the group (nation, ethnic group etc.) Your world lies in your language. The words you are using shapes your world (I agree on this with Suzuki).

I wouldn't ever give up my identity just for some assholes to easier communicate with me.

There will be always FEW common languages, depending on the area of the world. You will always have to learn other languages to communicate. I don't see where you have problem. You can talk to a lot of people using English. Want to talk even more? Learn more languages.

Also common language has a culture of their native speakers. I can't believe f.ex. Polish now becoming an English native speaker, cause it's just don't get together at all. English doesn't reflect points of view Polish has. So it's quite impossible to use it as a first language for Polish.

"I missed a bus" is in Polish "Bus escaped me". (this is literal translation). Changing language means changing culture. And I don't think it's a good idea. In my country's history there were attempts to destroy my language and thus my nation. Luckily, it didn't succeed.

 

[Glenn]

I don't see where you have problem. You can talk to a lot of people using English. Want to talk even more? Learn more languages.

I don't see where I have a problem either, because I said:

I don't really care.

I am learning more languages, by the way.

I wouldn't ever give up my identity just for some assholes to easier communicate with me.

Uh, I never asked you to give up your language at all, nor have I asked anyone to give up their language. All I said was that I don't really care if some languages died out at some point in the future. It doesn't have to be genocide that kills a language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_death.

On a related note, you could say that Old English is a dead language now, because the English we speak is far removed from it. This occured due to borrowing. Is that such a bad thing? Cultures change over time, and if they change enough to allow 100 languages in the world I don't think it'll be a big deal.

By the way, Cajun French is dying out. I think that soon it will be dead, like in the next fifty years. I don't really see this as a bad thing. We do, however, still have words in our local lexicon from the language even though the language isn't used. Also, there are some usages in our local English that most likely follow the Cajun French phrasings, so perhaps the culture isn't going to die completely. So the death of the language isn't that big a deal to me.

One more thing, are you really that upset that Latin, Ancient Greek, Ancient Egyptian, Arimatheic, etc. are all no more?

 

[Ikyoto]

Language, like cultures, grow and change. CLinging t a culture or languge for the sake of zeonphobia is what causes some problems. Keeping a language alive as a sence of history and cultural respect is a healthy psychological process.

But in the end ALL languages change drastically over time. The languages spoken 500 years ago were different enough so taht even if you are from tath culture and the vocabulary is essentially the same, the context, syntax and structure would be almost like another language.

Go back another 1,000 and you would be hard pressed to understand anyone!

Languages and cultures atha have more exposure to others grow and adapt quicker. Those that do not will unfortunatly find themselves squeezed into smaler and smaller populations as the rest of the world becomes more global in nature.

I for one enjoy diversity and hope that people who do not speak the same language as me keep their language "pure", and when i travel I try to learn enough to be able to make myself understood - But on the other side a globally acceptable language woudl help defuse a LOT of problems!

 

[Shas]

thats definitely true - the german language is allready full with american and english terms and its getting a lot less german.

i dont like this development

 

[Kama]

If there are borrowings form the dead language in another language, it doesn't mean that the culture is alive.

And languages evolve. They change with time, it doesn't mean that the old language is dead.

I tried to show you that the cultures won't ever allow 100 languages to be spoken all over the world, because choosing another language changes the culture. There are no 2 the same languages which could do. Language and culture is strongly related.

And yes, I do care that these languages do not exist. It's a pity, really. I'd like to speak Aramean, it's a fine language.

 

[Ikyoto]

As far as German being full of English and American words, well... English is made up of a lot of words and the sentence structure of German.

The one semester course I took in Linguistics (History of Language) had a great line in one of the papers I saw - "To speak English you should learn to do both of the following. Speak German with a Frecnh accent and French with a German accent."

It's not something to fear. It is something to watch grow. You are seeing evolution of language in your lifetime. It happens. The only way to stop it is by isolating the culture as closely to 100% as you can, and that would result in stagnation.

 

[bossel]

It's not something to fear. It is something to watch grow. You are seeing evolution of language in your lifetime. It happens. The only way to stop it is by isolating the culture as closely to 100% as you can, and that would result in stagnation.

Even total isolation wouldn't mean stagnation. Languages evolve continually with or without foreign factors. Even inside one language you have so many (regional, social, functional) variations that it's virtually impossible to preserve the language as it is at one stage of its development.

 

[Martialartsnovice]

Yeah But still, Can Linguists predict which languages will survive. I think English, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, French, Japanese and German. Might survive, but what about Polish, Korean, etc. will these languages and cultures fade into time, as a lost memory.

 

[Kama]

Why should Polish fade away?

 

[lexico]

Diversity is strength

Should the world become uniform, it would only mean that the ability to cope with new challenges will get so much more diminished.
The unifromity of our human community will turn into the achilles' heel at some dramatic point after which civilization as we know it, or the biological continuation of the human species will all come to an end.
Language diversity is one measure for the human capacity to cope; losing that will be the harbinger of ultimate doom, cultural or biological.

Hey, Kama, why don't we start language threads so Polish and Korean, among others, do not perish for the sake of all humanity.

 

[Mycernius]

I think in order for a language to survive it must adapt and evolve. Fair enough a lot of native languages in the Americas and Australia were forced to exinction by the controlling authorities of the countries. By making the population speak the offical language and supressing the local languages the children will eventually start to speak the dominating language. This was usually done by making out that the native languages were primitive and rough compared to the offical language, see Provencal, Breton as examples of the government oppressing local languages. Nowadays people are starting to see that minority languages are worth preserving, although they are still oppressing native languages in Australia, and people are working to keep these languages alive. Unfortunalty in a world that is 24/7 and English becoming the common language of the world it is an uphill struggle and many will die and fade away. I personally see the dominating languages of the future be English and Spanish. Both languages are willing to adapt to the enviornment and change in world culture. In fact there might be a time when the two languages might merge and a different could evolve from the two. Unfortuantly, and this might upset a few people, I see French, once a world language, become less and less used as the french government itself could end up killing it because they will not let the language expand and evolve. It will stagnate and the younger generations woyuld drift towards English or Spanish instead. There are offical French words for the Weekend and Areoplane, but how many french people actually use then instead of the anglified forms in french? You could say in a hundred years time that only the older generations of a lot of countries will be able to speak their native language as the younger generation will only want to learn the languages that are important to them to get on in a smaller and smaller world.

 

[Kama]

Should the world become uniform, it would only mean that the ability to cope with new challenges will get so much more diminished.
The unifromity of our human community will turn into the achilles' heel at some dramatic point after which civilization as we know it, or the biological continuation of the human species will all come to an end.
Language diversity is one measure for the human capacity to cope; losing that will be the harbinger of ultimate doom, cultural or biological.

Hey, Kama, why don't we start language threads so Polish and Korean, among others, do not perish for the sake of all humanity.

I agree.

Yes, we could do that. What exactly should we write?

BTW, learning Korean I suppose I know how foreigners feels about Polish. How do you manage to learn this?


Mycernius, all languages adapt to the world. Sometimes just their linguists don't.

I don't like too many foreign words in Polish. I heard things like "moje hery" ("my hair") where hery is polish declension of english word while of course we have "włosy" (hair). Foreing words are not always desirable.

 

[Glenn]

If there are borrowings form the dead language in another language, it doesn't mean that the culture is alive.

Sounds like you're saying language = culture to me. I disagree. I believe culture is made up of many factors, language being one of them.

And languages evolve. They change with time, it doesn't mean that the old language is dead.

So Latin and Old English aren't dead?



I must admit that I'm at a loss as to why you attacked me in the first place with this:

That's a clear idiotism.

and then proceeded with a bunch of responses to things I never said. I'll quote my original message again:

I don't really care. I think that it's a good idea to document all languages so that we have an account of them for posterity, but if languages die out and we end up with only 100 languages in the world (or less), I think that it isn't such a big deal. It could help to ease communication with peoples all over the world.

Let me rephrase this so that it may be clearer. I said that I don't care if half of the world languages go extinct by 2060. Here's a list of some other things I don't care about:

- who wins the NBA Finals
- who wins the World Cup
- what kind of bacteria live in Antarctica
- whether there are pigeons in Calcutta
- whether my neighbors smoke pot all the time
- whether my neighbors fail their finals

This doesn't mean that I have a preference about any of the above; in fact, it means the opposite. I have no preference about any of them. As a result, whatever happens with them I don't see as a big deal. The last sentence was looking for a possible advantage in having only 100 languages in the world. How you turned that into my wanting the destruction of languages is not clear to me, but I get the feeling that it has something to do with this:

In my country's history there were attempts to destroy my language and thus my nation. Luckily, it didn't succeed.

I was talking about natural evolution of languages, anyway, like the extinction of the dinosaurs was natural. I in no way endorsed the idea of extinguishing languages.

I tried to show you that the cultures won't ever allow 100 languages to be spoken all over the world, because choosing another language changes the culture. There are no 2 the same languages which could do. Language and culture is strongly related.

So are you saying that you don't believe the linguists' prediction that half of the world's languages will be extinct by 2060? If so, it would have been better to respond to the original post. Also, I'm not so sure I agree with you here, either, because many languages have gone extinct already, with many more to come, and culture didn't stop that from happening.