World Language Extinction by 2060?

[Kama]

So Latin and Old English aren't dead?

Latin is dead, because nobody speaks it. There is no nation/group who speaks this language.

English evolve through the time. Old English is just a period in the life of English, so it isn't a language that can be dead or not.

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.

Tell me what languages diednaturally, without any help of human, then.

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.

And how their culture changed after change of language? For a change of language in a group there MUST be a change in their culture.

Small languages can die. But with help of human. Go to the bigger town to look for a job, and they use official language, etc. It is not favored to be speaking minority's language in today's word. Everywhere they want a standard language. And young people goes for it, it's easier. And where the old ones die, the language die too. But I wouldn't call this "natural extinction".

many people are against dialects, and others are often discouraged from using something other than standard language. this isn't natural way of language extinction.

the only natural way, is when all the people die.

 

[Mycernius]

Latin is dead, because nobody speaks it. There is no nation/group who speaks this language.

English evolve through the time. Old English is just a period in the life of English, so it isn't a language that can be dead or not.

Didn't latin evolve through time to become Italian? Therefore, by your argument, Latin isn't a dead language.

Tell me what languages diednaturally, without any help of human, then.

Mayan and earlier mesoamerican languages.

Small languages can die. But with help of human. Go to the bigger town to look for a job, and they use official language, etc. It is not favored to be speaking minority's language in today's word. Everywhere they want a standard language. And young people goes for it, it's easier. And where the old ones die, the language die too. But I wouldn't call this "natural extinction".

Most of this I agree with. It is seen in Australia and North America with the tribal languages. As for natural extinction, the phrase can be a bit grey in nature. As a dominate language come to the fore the other languages die out. It is what happened to Etruscan when Latin took hold in the Roman Empire. As Latin became popular people just stopped using Etruscan. So it died out as the native speakers became latin speakers. You could say this is natural. In nature if a stronger species comes into the frame the weaker die.

 

[Glenn]

Latin is dead, because nobody speaks it. There is no nation/group who speaks this language.

English evolve through the time. Old English is just a period in the life of English, so it isn't a language that can be dead or not.

Adding to Mycernius's comments --
Nobody speaks Old English either, and I consider it very different from English, almost to the point of being a different language. So to me, it's a dead language. Also, what about all of the proto-european languages that became other languages through evolution? Would you say that they are still alive as well, or would you just say that they were a period in the life of other languages, as Latin was for the Romance languages?

And how their culture changed after change of language? For a change of language in a group there MUST be a change in their culture.

That's a change, that's not the death of the culture. That could be looked at as part of the evolution of the culture. Is that such a bad thing? People (in general) don't speak Latin anymore, and people (in general) don't think women are inherently inferior to men anymore. You could say that both are a change in culture.

That's a clear idiotism.

It doesn't look so clear to me.

 

[duff_o_josh]

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.

if languages go extinct japanese will be one of them do to the popularity of learning other languages in japan. all people do is talk about korean, chinese and english.

 

[zvira]

French, German, Chinese will not dissapear, within 300 years, these languages are too popular

 

[LeBrok]

2060 too soon. But at 3000 we might have one global language.
Though with genetic enhancements of future generation, it'll be super easy for our far future descendants to learn 10 or more languages. That will surely put a damper on one future language theory. Languages with strong history, population, movies and literature might never go extinct, so much so, that Latin and Old Greek might come back just for the enjoyment of ancient literature.

 

[ashendant]

Well in my opinion some languages are doomed to die crushed by the languages with more power in Europe when between 49%-51% of EU members population can speak english, with about 1.8 billions of total speakers around the world i only see the power of English rising, then there's the chinese and iberian languages which are growing the first much more since chinese's rise to power, it's just a matter of time for the ONE languange and the ONE culture

 

[Maciamo]

it's just a matter of time for the ONE languange and the ONE culture

It will never happen simply because language and culture vary with social class, natural genetic predispositions of characters among each ethnicity, and lifestyle which varies a lot according to the climate and environment.

Even if English were to take over the world, new varieties of English would quickly evolved in different parts of the world, becoming at first dialects with local slang, then different languages.

Despite modern telecommunications, the English spoken in North America, Britain and Australia keep evolving apart from each others - they do not become closer.

 

[edao]

Despite modern telecommunications, the English spoken in North America, Britain and Australia keep evolving apart from each others - they do not become closer.

While that might be true its all still regarded them as the same language, and modern education standard are unlikely to allow a significant evolution over time. Also the cultural exchange between the USA and other English speaking countries if fairly high to the point we use words like 'cool', 'man', and 'later' in new ways, showing how the dominant culture is influencing how the language is spoken in the other countries.

 

[bcrich67]

It will never happen simply because language and culture vary with social class, natural genetic predispositions of characters among each ethnicity, and lifestyle which varies a lot according to the climate and environment.

Even if English were to take over the world, new varieties of English would quickly evolved in different parts of the world, becoming at first dialects with local slang, then different languages.

Despite modern telecommunications, the English spoken in North America, Britain and Australia keep evolving apart from each others - they do not become closer.

I agree entirely. Despite the fact that modern education standards will try to keep the english language the same, people will invariably try to put their own perspectives on it.

Many individuals in this thread seem to be blindly championing the sapir-whorf hypothesis in its strongest form, which would be a phallacy. The change of a language would have a big influnce on the culture, but would not destroy it or change it entirely. The people of said culture would still have a unique outlook and thus, a different way of thinking about the world.

 

[Michael Folkesson]

We roughly speak some 6,500 languages in the world today, and languages seem to die out every year or so. I read a statement by Stuart Pimm, where he claims that the languages that will be passed on to our children will be some 600. I wouldn't be surprised if we land at some 200 languages in the world in a couple of generations only. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if that was totally wrong either.

Many languages have died out, and do die out regularly. Just look at the Celtic languages, once spoken throughout Europe.

I was more concerned about this before than I am now. I don't find it to be of such a big deal as I felt it was. My own language Swedish is a Scandinavian dialect. I can speak with other Scandinavian in my language with some occasional confusion. But I couldn't possibly speak with an Icelander. Once our languages were basically the same. Languages come and go, and they do change. And if they change into something unintelligible, it is in practice a whole other language.

I suspect that Swedish is spoken by enough people to survive but that it will change in the distant future to a Swedish I would not understand, meaning that the current Swedish that I speak will in practice be dead in time as well. With that in mind, we could just as well change from speaking Swedish into speaking French or Mandarin.

Don't take me wrong. Language is important, and culture is what makes us... us.

With the independence of Latvia, the country took a stand to fight for it's culture and language, due to decades of russification. I sympathize with that. The language do carry a big part of a peoples cultural soul.

Hebrew was basically a dead language a couple of generations ago, functioning only as a liturgic language. The revival of it as a spoken language with the birth of Israel is unprecedented.

In Iceland they are very protective of their language. It has been easier for them since they have been somewhat geographically isolated, even though the whole population of that island is like a medium European city.

But is it of vital importance that we keep all of our languages? We will always have language, and it seems less of importance which one it is as long as it is of use to us. I have lived in several countries. I am still me. I will still be me, and still be Swedish even if I never speak Swedish again.

Yes, language is important, but not as important as I ones thought. For the most - excluding genocide or anything from that part of the city - if a language dies out, it does so for a good reason.

I find it hard to believe though that we will get just a handful or one single world language even given time, and I still strongly believe that we Europeans need to learn and speak a couple of our Union languages, other than English.

 

[Regulus]

I find it to a terribly sad thing to see the amount of spoken languages decline the rate we see at this point in history.

I am not sure what should be done about it. I would like to see resources committed to preserve as much as possible, but I can't be certain of how much of a practical effect it would have. The most obvious would be to at least have not just the vocabulary and mechanics of the language, but a good idea if its intricacies, such as mentioned above "the bus escaped me" as opposed to "I missed the bus". (Not that I see Polish in particular going anywhere soon)

What happened here in the US and other places is to be sorely lamented. Language is such a major factor in a culture. It provides not only a preservation of some modes of local thought, but a tangible connection with a people's past and identity.

Some American writers in the 19th century, flush with proud ideas of the destiny of the US, confidently predicted that American English would change so much that it would become in effect mutually unintelligible with English. The breakthroughs in communications that the world has seen in the last 100+ years have put that idea largely to rest. American English regional accents themselves are steadily slipping away here, and how many Americans really don't know what a "loo" or a "lift" are?

The world in approaching a type of monoculture in many ways. Invasive animals, foci on production of particular types of productive foods, a global economy with corporations operating in multiple countries, and a possible minimal amount of languages up the road ahead all contribute to a less diverse world.

Imagine if we did not have the work of Jacob Grim, who saw what was happening with different forms of German, probably including what may have been left of the Eastern Branch, and set out to record as much of it as possible. I find his research fascinating. When finding it difficult to get isolated village people to "open up" to a nosy stranger, he changed gears and asked them to begin telling stories in their language.

 

[LeBrok]

We roughly speak some 6,500 languages in the world today, and languages seem to die out every year or so. I read a statement by Stuart Pimm, where he claims that the languages that will be passed on to our children will be some 600. I wouldn't be surprised if we land at some 200 languages in the world in a couple of generations only. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if that was totally wrong either.

Many languages have died out, and do die out regularly. Just look at the Celtic languages, once spoken throughout Europe.

I was more concerned about this before than I am now. I don't find it to be of such a big deal as I felt it was. My own language Swedish is a Scandinavian dialect. I can speak with other Scandinavian in my language with some occasional confusion. But I couldn't possibly speak with an Icelander. Once our languages were basically the same. Languages come and go, and they do change. And if they change into something unintelligible, it is in practice a whole other language.

I suspect that Swedish is spoken by enough people to survive but that it will change in the distant future to a Swedish I would not understand, meaning that the current Swedish that I speak will in practice be dead in time as well. With that in mind, we could just as well change from speaking Swedish into speaking French or Mandarin.

Don't take me wrong. Language is important, and culture is what makes us... us.

With the independence of Latvia, the country took a stand to fight for it's culture and language, due to decades of russification. I sympathize with that. The language do carry a big part of a peoples cultural soul.

Hebrew was basically a dead language a couple of generations ago, functioning only as a liturgic language. The revival of it as a spoken language with the birth of Israel is unprecedented.

In Iceland they are very protective of their language. It has been easier for them since they have been somewhat geographically isolated, even though the whole population of that island is like a medium European city.

But is it of vital importance that we keep all of our languages? We will always have language, and it seems less of importance which one it is as long as it is of use to us. I have lived in several countries. I am still me. I will still be me, and still be Swedish even if I never speak Swedish again.

Yes, language is important, but not as important as I ones thought. For the most - excluding genocide or anything from that part of the city - if a language dies out, it does so for a good reason.

I find it hard to believe though that we will get just a handful or one single world language even given time, and I still strongly believe that we Europeans need to learn and speak a couple of our Union languages, other than English.

Exactly my point of view too. Thanks for putting my thoughts in coherent and easy to read form Michael.

 

[Reinaert]

Languages change every day. They will not disappear.

A European will never learn to speak Chinese.

 

[Dagne]

The changes in languages happen at a different speed. The speed of change may well be increasing nowadays, it is true. However, we still have some words and gramatical structures as they were believed to be in Proto-Indo European or in Sanskrit

For instant the main Proto-Indoeuropean God is said to be Perkūnas (Zeus in Greek mitology) which is exactly the same in modern Lithuanian meaning "thunder", or the God of Thunder, which we know from our folktales.
I can still sort of figure out a proverb in sanskrit: God gave us teeth God will give us bread

Lithuanian-Dievas dave dantis,Dievas duos ir duonos.
Sanskrit-Devas adat datas,Devas dasyati dhanas.


The distance between modern Lithuanian and Sanskrit is very significant (R1a connection), but the language hasn't changed that much as one might have expected ...

 

[barbarian]

lets say english will be much more popular and will be 2nd language of the world (if it is not now) in about 50 years.

but native languages will never die.

 

[LeBrok]

Never say never.
Smaller languages, not mentioning dialects are dying already, and faster than ever.
Take a country where minorities live. The minorities were isolated in the past and lived in their own world, almost. Now with TV, internet, public schooling system and main official language, young generation is loosing interest in sustaining mother tongue.
Give it another 100 years and few generations and almost every country will have only one language. Many countries are former colonies, and already use one of major world languages as official language. In a hundred years there will be about 100 languages left, and everyone speaking English and Chinese too.
There are about 7,000 listed languages today. Most of them survived or even began because of isolation of the groups. In future world there will be no isolation in ever smaller global village, no need for 7000 tongues.

 

[LeBrok]

That’s interesting Dagne, I didn’t realize that Sanskrit and Lithuanians are still so close.

 

[Dagne]

Well, for Lithuania the issue is not so much about the loss of a language but the extintion of the nation as such. Since 1992 the population reduced by almost 10% due to negative growth and emigration. It is believed that population will decrease by 24% by 2060... So with this rate of negative growth and aging population the prospects for Lithuania as a country seem quite bleak...

Strange, during 1940-1952 Lithuania lost about 1/3 of the population, but was able to recover, whereas the current trend seems to be quite irreversible. It is typical for many Eastern European countries, ie. Ukraine. This extinction thread has been explained differently, but I think in there will always be fewer children in those societies where women are supposed to earn the living for the family. (Could that be a reason for Neanderthal’s extinction? J)
Or it could be that society becomes more egoistic and greedy focusing on material goods which again results in fewer children. One way or another, the fact is that the world belongs to countries with large families like in India.

 

[Dagne]

That’s interesting Dagne, I didn’t realize that Sanskrit and Lithuanians are still so close.

Lithuanian is said to be a very conservative language, and Lithuanians are very pround of it. Practically, there are some basic words which are similar to Sanskrit (and also in other indoeuropean languages), and there are some similarities in grammar, (I am, you are, they are, etc.), which makes it easier to learn for those who know Latin or Old Greek http://vilnews.com/?p=4425;