Slashdot Mirror
The World's Languages Are Fast Becoming Extinct
Ant sends news of a report, released a couple of weeks back by the Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages in Oregon, on the alarming rate of extinction of the world's languages. While half of all languages have gone extinct in the last 500 years, the half-life is dropping: half of the 7,000 languages spoken today won't exist by the year 2100. The NY Times adds this perspective: "83 languages with 'global' influence are spoken and written by 80 percent of the world population. Most of the others face extinction at a rate, the researchers said, that exceeds that of birds, mammals, fish and plants."
I for one welcome our new Chinese/English speaking overlords.....its the first step to having Firefly back on TV.
Wouldn't this be a good thing? Less languages will mean more people speaking the same one, thus promoting better communication.
Not everything that is old, traditional, or entrenched has the value nostalgia makes us want to apply to it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
To me, extinction of lots of languages is a good thing ( especially if it includes COBOL :). With one common language, we may have a better chance of understanding each other. Remember the biblical tale of Babel, in which the profusion of languages was supposedly a punishment? How did we acquire the idea that languages have some values of their own? A language is a tool, to be replaced with a better one when it comes along.
Heh. That reminds me of an old joke. What do you call a person who knows 3 languages? 'trilingual' What do you call a person who knows 2 languages? 'bilingual' What do you call a person who knows 1 language? 'American'.
A few decades from now, we'll all be speaking spanish!
This is my sig.
Not quite sure how yet, but have a feeling that SUV's are in part responsible for this.
Table-ized A.I.
What will happen to the grammatical, pronunciation, and spelling differences between British English and American English (as well as others)?
For example, British English uses collective nouns (Microsoft are instead of Microsoft is) while American English thinks of the collective noun as singular.
In the contrary, American English uses subjunctive form while it seems British English doesn't use it .
Then you have all of the people that don't understand the differences between intransitive (takes no object) and transitive. (Lay and lie, anyone?)
What is going to happen to the English language? Increasingly, I see blatant grammatical errors on signs in big box stores, advertising, and even documentation!
Is grammatically correct English where the native speakers understand the differences of English in different countries?
How students possible learn a native language like German and hope to speak it correctly with the proper articles if they don't even the grammar rules of a language with commonalities with the language that they would like to learn?
Is this why foreign languages are dying? Or is it imperialism? Or is modern communication technology giving English even more priority over other languages?
Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:
www.openbsd.org
Protected mode > real mode
Maybe things will turn out like Firefly/Serenity predicted: Mandarin Chinese and English would be left as the two languages spoken by all humans.
I know that Mandarin is slowly taking over in China with its a hundred plus dialects of Chinese. Even dialects with millions of speakers are falling into disuse by the younger people who prefer to speak Mandarin instead of their native dialect. The government has put no effort into this but since they use Mandarin in school everyone in my generation can speak it. It then becomes a networking effect or Metcalfe's law. Mandarin is just much more useful than the other dialects because you have a billion speakers instead of just a few million. Why bother using those? Plus the regional dialects are what the parents and grandparents use. Mandarin is the cooler, hipper dialect.
It'll be sad when the regional dialects die out because some of them are much older than Mandarin and some classical Chinese poems only rhyme properly in the south dialects such as Cantonese.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Damn you global warming.
According to a report released Monday by the Modern Language Association, speakers of the Star Trek-based Klingon language outnumber individuals fluent in Navajo by a margin of more than seven-to-one.
"Navajo, a 3,000-year-old Native American tonal language belonging to the Athabaskan/Na-Dené group of tongues, is clearly dying and will likely be extinct by 2010," MLA president Frederick Toback said. "Fortunately, though, the sad, steady decline of this once-proud Native American tongue has been more than offset by a rising interest in Klingon culture."
I recently heard that a language goes extinct every 14 days, which for some reason pisses me off. No, I'm not pissed off that languages are going away (though I can see more value in them than some here), but rather that it would be expressed that way. Clearly it is meaningless to talk about this kind of change in a time frame of days, so the only reason to state "every 14 days", instead of a more meaningful figure like 250/decade would be to try to manipulate the listener into action.
But while linguists would like to make this out to be a calmity similar to wildlife extinction (hence the manipulation), there really is no practical solution to this situation; you can't force a language to live on - people either have a use for it, or they don't.
70% of the world can't even read or write their own languages.
a single language will go a long way towards resolving disputes and possibly even wars.
Different cultures must assimilate into the global culture or become obsolete.
On the other hand, these disappearing cultures have a lot to teach us.
Tribal wisdom must be translated and passed down to be preserved for the remainder of human history.
They're using their grammar skills there.
No it won't, don't you see? If languages continue to disappear at this rate, we will soon have none left! And without words, how can we attain a first post? The horror... it's unthinkable.
This is merely another symptom of humanity lurching steadily toward a drab, gray, intellectually sterile future, where cultural diversity will be eclipsed by monotony. In a monolingual, monocultural future, people all around the globe will be able to talk alright, but there will be much less to talk about.
Ah, well. As the late great Kurt Vonnegut wrote, "So it goes."
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Yes! Now that everyone is finally picking up on THE language, Esperanto, soon everyone will understand everyone else!!
tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Who cares? The ones who seek to gain political power by setting us against one another. These folks wish to accentuate the differences between different ethnic groups. when the majority is portrayed as evil and the minority as victims both guilt and false empathy become very strong political tools. These tools are used to control the actions of both majority and the minority. When all humans can speak the same language(s) it will be the beginning of the end of this artificial dividing line. Perhaps then all can celebrate our inherent sameness. Perhaps then mankind can learn compassion and come to understand one another on a deeper level than even word alone can allow.
There have been thousands of cultures that have developed, sometimes to world-conquering levels, then faded and disappeared. Some did so naturally through being unable to self-sustain, others were the result of genocide or forced assimilation. Whether you feel sad about it or not, if Hitler had succeeded the Jewish culture would definitely not be the first to disappear through violent means. Not by a long shot.
The difference now is that there are forces that speed up the extinction of non-self-sustaining types of cultures. Here in Canada there are more than a few First Nations languages which no more than a couple of people still speak. These are being recorded and documented as quickly as possible but it is understood that these will die out as soon as there is no one who needs to use them as part of their daily existence.
Is it sad that this is happening? Only if you don't realize the fact that the only reason there are so many different languages on earth is because of historic geographic isolation of all the different peoples. With instant worldwide communication and the ability to travel to just about any spot on the earth within a day or two, the conditions that allowed disparate languages and cultures to develop in the first place no longer exist.
That being said, languages are still developing and evolving, but now due more to artificial forces such as intentional introduction of slang as personal identification and new technologies and methods that need new terms to describe. e.g.: "Double-click the minimize control to select the desired HDMI input". Perfectly understandable to you and me, complete gibberish to most people over 50. And that's just in English.
We live in interesting times. The second case of technological development having a profound effect on all mankind, the first being the industrial revolution. I believe this second phase will have a much greater effect than the first.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Various words just have no real translation. "Gesellig" (Dutch) just means so much more than the dictionary equivalents: genial, social. Similarly "mana" (Maori) means more than just pride or spirit.
Kill a language and you kill a culture. Kill a culture and you end up with disaffected people. You just need to look at Inuit, Uustalian Aboriginal and various other groups to see that this is a bad thing.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
would it be a good things if most of the worlds religions are facing extinction, wouldn't that be a good thing? Less wars? ...
Just out of curiosity,
What religion was China with 129,000,000 dead in the 20th century?
What religion was the USSR with 72,000,000 dead in the 20th century?
What religion where the Nazi's with 21,000,000 dead?
What religion was Cambodia with 2,035,000 dead?
That brings us to ~200,000,000 for Communism, and atheist creed, and 21,000,000 for Nazism a pseudo-religious creed (IIRC, its official religious view was a state concocted Lutheranism with Paganism and a heavy dose of militarism, obviously designed to ween the population off Christianity and onto state controlled propoganda)
Yeah, obviously religion is the problem.
In fact, the only major religion that has Holy War as a major tenet of its religion is Islam. Islam actually divides the world into The House of Submission and the House of War.
Christianity doesn't have it. Not anywhere in the New Testament. The Crusades where a response to Islamic Holy War. Christianity didn't have the concept until then. And, the Crusades started because the Byzantines requested Frankish aid to defend against the Muslims (and got much more than they bargained for).
Judaism may have religious war in the Mosaic books, but they haven't practiced religious war since they Assyrians (IIRC).
In fact, most major religions have that "Do not murder" thing (The King James Bible mis-translated the Hebrew as "Do not kill"). So, wars occur despite the moral constraints put in place by religion.
Yes, it is good that people can communicate as we move towards a one-world language. It breaks down a powerful barrier to understanding, as language is deeply intertwined with culture, history, and worldview.
So thats good, practically speaking.
Unfortunately, since language is so powerful in molding minds, we lose a lot when a language dies. We lose profound knowledge about a culture and the way it sees the world. To an anthropologist or linguist, this loss is irreplacable, which is why there are projects about whose goal is to record native languages before thier last speaker dies. Piecing together the natural history of humanity becomes that much harder when language dies.
Like everything else, you take the good with the bad.
My father spoke five languages - none of which I learned to speak more than a few mumbles here and there. But I could see how different languages were better at expressing different emotions, different ideas, different viewpoints in life. Some languages have such a strong system of honorifics and class in them - others are deviod of that, but have different terms spoken by the different sexes as a reflection of cultural differences. There are some with phonetic alphabets, others more pictoral, some with a blend of the two. The variety and beauty of human languages is every bit as beautiful as works of music, painting, sculpture.... Should we let the last man who knows how to build a piano die because there are enough other musical instruments out there?
Forget the structure of languages - what about all the ideas WRITTEN or SPOKEN in them that become forever inaccesable? How many of the Shakespeare's, Archemedes', Sun-Tzu's will be gone forever?
Should we apply the same concepts to computer languages? Data structures? 'Who cares, we have better stuff now, we'll never need to read that old stuff again.'
Language is a unique expression of humanity, and I think it is something worth preserving - even if it is not as practical as having Chinglish taking over the world.
We're seriously behind schedule on that Tower of Babel project.
About the only good thing here is the introduction of newer materials. Labor costs have gone way up, and you can't even get slaves anymore.
But seriously. This reminds me of the Futurama episode where Prof. Farnsworth shows Qbert his universal translator that, "unfortunately only translates into some incomprehensible dead language." Qbert says "hello" into the machine which translates it as "Bon Jour."
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The Living Languages Institute is just the latest of a number of organizations devoted to the study and/or maintenance and revitalization of endangered languages. Here are some other organizations and sources of information:
I am just stunned. I realize the majority of people here are probably monolingual and probably living in North America, but the majority of posts here seem to be along the lines of "Well it doesn't affect me, so who gives a f**k?" or "If they are dying out, they are just cruft". At least some people see the value in everyone having a common language - but thats the best argument for everyone to learn a SECOND language, not for us to just abandon all of the smaller languages out there.
You see, a lot of those languages are dying out because the speakers of the more monolithic languages have forced them into extinction. We have made speaking many Native American languages illegal in the past, abused the cultures and people involved and slowly strangled their native language speaking populations to the point where they have all died off or are doing so daily. We have marginalized many small linguistic groups by the overwhelming power of Western culture and advertising, by refusing to learn their languages and insisting they learn ours or suffer the consequences. Thats a tragedy, nothing less.
Each language is more than just a medium of communications between people, its the encapsulation of an entire way of thinking, of a cultural world-view. When a language dies out, a small piece of humanity and human achievement goes with it. We are all lessened by the death of each language, and with it each culture that dies out.
I would think the programmers here would be the first to get it: You can program some things in certain programming languages, express some concepts, much more effectively and efficiently than in others. You can do anything in any language certainly, but some lean one way or another, some are more expressive and some more rigidly defined. Luckily we rarely lose a programming language, they just go out of style for the majority of users, but as long as someone is willing to write a compiler, we can keep using one. That is not true of human languages. Once they are gone, they are gone completely, and with them a unique way of thinking, and a unique way of viewing the world and expressing ideas about it. Languages quite honestly give you a completely different way of thinking and its a shame to lose that.
New languages effectively don't happen, or at best rarely and I imagine its almost impossible for a new language to evolve in the modern day. Human linguistic evolution is essentially a living version of the Highlander maxim "there can be only one", or at best maybe 2. It doesn't have to be inevitable though, we can preserve dying languages, and with them the cultures they belong to. It just takes more effort than most people are willing to engage in, and sadly - like the majority of posters here - it doesn't seem to worry those who speak the major languages, particularly the world's piranha of a language English.
If you want to have some good insight into this issue, I would suggest reading this book: Spoken Here and perhaps: When Languages Die: The Extinction of the World's Languages and the Erosion of Human Knowledge The steady extinction of our world's languages is a human crisis in my opinion, and we all lose when another language dies, even if we don't realize it."The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
We will all speak Common. The intelligent ones will still get bonus languages.
I realize that much, though certainly not all, of the Slashdot crowd is monolingual, and I do realize that there are great benefits to having a single lingua franca.
But as one who speaks 2 additional languages (Spanish and French) at an advanced conversational level and a third additional language (Arabic) at a very basic (and I mean very basic) level, I can't say I'm fond of this.
It's hard to understand if you haven't learned another language, but certain thoughts are more easily expressed in a foreign language once you've learned it. Certain phrases and words are simply idiomatic - they don't translate. "Che Pibe" is one that, for example, can kind of be explained in English, but loses its real meaning. I still want to say "trucho", a word without an adequate translation, when I see something that meets the characteristics. English contains a great deal of French words, true, but the real meaning, tied to cultural context, just can't be conveyed unless you are speaking in French. Arabic and, I imagine, Chinese are light years away from English.
I can accept a lingua franca, but language is an extremely important element of culture and expression. Most languages now dying were, arguably, dead long ago. But I shudder to think what would happen if the world adopted a "one language" stance rather than simply a lingua franca.
I'm OK with the linguists trying to mothball those old languages for the sake of knowledge and history.
But the priority for a universal understanding should be to teach new generations a logical language instead of trying to keep these alive.
http://www.transparency.org
In New Zealand, the Maori language was arguably "dying out" a few decades ago. It was certainly on the decline. It is likewise arguable that Maori culture was going the same way. A concerted effort was put in place to teach Maori language and culture both in purpose built schools (Kohanga Reo) and to a lesser extent in mainstream schooling.
Since the 70's, there has been a marked resurgence in Maori language, but more interestingly, in the culture itselft and pride in it. This has led to Maoridom pushing itself out onto the global stage in a much more assertive and confident manner than I think it had in the past. Something which I would argue has not only been of benefit to Maori, but to NZ society in general.
I'm not opposed to there being a 'lingua franca' of the modern world, and if that happens to be English, I will be all the more pleased. But I also see that there is a real cost of languages disappearing from the world, because the words are not all that is lost: there are whole lives, whole other worlds wrapped up in particular languages. It seems to me, however, that languages do not save themselves. Unless there are a group of people willing to actually teach and actively support the usage of languages (Maori is an official language of NZ) then the task will not be managed.
I don't think we can nor would want to save all languages, but where a significant chunk of unique culture is bound up with a disappearing language, I would encourage the guardians of the culture to make real moves to save it because the alternative is to lose much more than you bargained for.
I know you're just joking, but, just in case, consider this: how much manipulation is facilitated by the fact that those doing it can cherry-pick what they translate, and rely on a mass of sheep who don't know the other language and can't be arsed to check?
If someone in, say, America were to tell you that the Canadians as a whole are preaching holy Jihad upon the infidel Americans, everyone would just call him nuts. There are maybe millions of people who live close to the border or travel across the border, and can tell you relatively first hand what the Canadians actually say. Or if not, you can just order a newspaper and read for yourself what they do say. Even if they were to manage to find one nutcase preaching holy war, everyone would point out just that: it's just one idiot that noone else takes seriously.
Now try Americans vs Arabs, Arabs vs Jews, or whatever other manipulation across a language barrier. Now that works much better, doesn't it? You can cherry-pick which extremists (on both sides) to translate out of context, to make it sound like a whole language or ethnic group is hell-bent on wiping you off the face of the Earth. (Never mind that no group that size ever agreed on anything else, for as long as we have a recorded history.)
It goes sorta like this: Some fringe group on side A does a bit of fist shaking and maybe sabre rattling. Idiot politicians or journalists on side B take that out of context, maybe even mis-translate it a bit, present it as "Look what side A is saying about us!" Then some easily excitable nutcase on side B goes, basically, "yeah, well, I say nuke the idiots until they glow and let their god sort them!" Then idiot politicians or journalists on side A (or whoever has a vested interest in stirring up the pot) take _that_ out of context, maybe even take a pick of words when translating to sound even more ferocious, and present it as "Look what side B is saying about us!" Loop.
Sometimes even the subtle meaning of one word can be altered enough in translation to cause a big rift, although technically it is a honest-to-god translation.
E.g., a lot of the relatively early Christian problems leading schisms and heresies, a good thousand years before Hus and Luther, were... translation problems. Stuff that made sense about Christ in Greek, sounded like a major heresy when translated in Syriac, because the nuances of some words were different.
And that was guys who did a good faith effort to translate the scriptures and the dogmas decided in the church councils. Now imagine what you can do when you aren't that honest, and don't stop short of outright distorting the other side's words.
Or the even shorter version: if that quote was right, the USA, the UK, Canada and Australia should be the greatest enemies in history.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"a lot of those languages are dying out because the speakers of the more monolithic languages have forced them into extinction.": Sad, but unrelated to the issue at hand. This is consequence of oppression. There are several organizations that address that: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, ...
"Languages quite honestly give you a completely different way of thinking": Now there's a statement that requires a lot of backup. Language does not encapsulate ways of thinking; it's a means of conveying thoughts. Do you think that the Chinese cannot understand Plato? Their languages are about as far apart as possible.
"New languages effectively don't happen": well, there's a plainly wrong statement. New languages do arise. Not very frequently, but they do. Usually Creole, but there are more interesting cases. Check e.g. the sign language developed by deaf Nicaraguan children.
"the world's piranha of a language English": that's funny, but not really true either. Chinese is really gobbling up large portions of Asia and Spanish also seems to be spreading still.
I honestly think there is no way to stop the process of language extinction. It has always happened: my native tongue (Dutch) is quite different from what it used to be and that holds for many languages. They develop. Small groups tend to disappear. That also has always been the case. You can find remains of settlements everywhere with signs of a lost culture, and probably a lost language.
There is nothing inherently bad about that. It's not a question of ethics. Join Amnesty, support the Kurds and the Tibetans, but don't do it to save their language. Human life and thought is worth more than the precise way that they use to communicate.
Ya know, screw both English and Chinese. That's a problem created by humans, so maybe we should just take a step back. A UK cat has no problem communicating with an Asian breed, for example. (Well, when it can be arsed to communicate, anyway;) It's a global language. So I say let's all learn to meow.
.txt file, is it in UTF-8, UTF-16 -- big or small endian at that? --, or one of the two dozen ISO-8859 flavours, or EBCDIC, or what?) Good old fashioned 7 bit is enough for whole words.
On the upside, IIRC they have like 100 words total, so we can give up on the whole character set madness. (If I give you a
Plus, it'll be easier to know if your cat is actually plotting against you.
Plus, think how much easier poetry will be. E.g., you have to rhyme with "meow", you can't go wrong with "mew" or "mrow".
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
There, I hope I got your attention there: I really just wanted to add a few points here about languages, their uses and development.
Firstly, I speak 5 languages fluently (English, Afrikaans, Dutch, German, Swiss-German and French) and can get by in two more (Spanish and Turkish). I'm a South African, my girlfriend is Afrikaans, I've lived in Switzerland for some 17 years now, and in Germany and Spain before that and in Turkey for a year as well. My father was French speaking. I'm not reciting all this to brag. The knowledge of different languages has been of vital use to me in my life and has actually saved my life on a number of occasions, literally.
When I first got to Europe 21 years ago, I could only really speak English and Afrikaans. I knew a smattering of French from my dad, but I only really learned from my French girlfriend at the time. I worked in what was then West Berlin for the US Airforce, but before that, for my first year, I survived by doing odd jobs and basically pestering people to let me stay somewhere, and I learned German really quickly, because in those days, not many Germans could or wanted to speak English. The USAF people I knew, on the other hand, lived in American bases, went to American shops and watched American movies, and almost none of them understood a word of German. They had no need, but they had plenty of problems when out in the city doing shopping etc.
When I worked in Turkey, as usual, I made the effort to communicate with the locals, who surprise surprise, generally only spoke Turkish and perhaps enough German to sell stuff to tourists. Knowing Turkish made me friends and made my life that much more pleasant, and cheaper, since I could order in Turkish I paid the prices that locals paid for drinks and food which is considerably less than tourists pay.
A tidbit of info is that the Turkic languages are so closely related that knowledge of Turkish will enable you to make yourself understood from Turkey to Kazakhstan, including parts of Russia where Tartar is spoken, which is quite a span of territory. Not that I ever plan on visiting that part of the world, but if I ever do get the chance to see the Altai mountains, I'll be able to get around without too much trouble.
Another tidbit of info is that Turkic grammar gives you a head start if you ever need to learn Hungarian, Finnish or want to chat up a blond Estonian beauty. They all work the same way.
Another one is traveling in France. The French are also somewhat monolingual, like most English speakers, and I know a lot of Americans having a bad time in France because they find the French resentful of having to speak English. The joke is that the French generally don't mind if you don't speak French, but they really appreciate it if you just try a few words.
Switzerland is another special case. Swiss German is a dialect of Alemannic that is unintelligible to most Germans from the North of Germany, with some subdialects that are incomprehensible to almost all Germans. It is the most spoken language in Switzerland, but it is not a written language. The written language of Switzerland is German. You can get by perfectly with standard German in Switzerland, but knowledge of the spoken language is what will make you friends or get you business contacts with the locals. There is even a local language that is endangered, called Rumantsch, which is a direct descendant of the vulgar latin the Romans soke here 2000 years ago. It is kept alive by the Swiss not for its practical value, since all of its speakers are also fluent in German, but for its cultural heritage. It adds colour to the landscape, so to speak.
I'm telling all these stories in an attempt to show that just because you think English is a universal language doesn't make it so. In Zurich, where I work, everyone in my company speaks English to some degree, but the one guy who only spoke English at work constantly had to fight against the language barrier. I don't think he was very happy. It's often the same in large parts of
I find it very difficult to read anything that is littered with blatant spelling and grammar errors.
I take it you are not a big fan of Shakespeare or Chaucer then?
English follows other languages down dark alleys, hit them over the head, and rifles through their pockets for loose grammar.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
A language is just a communication protocol. Would you say that having 7000 incompatible networking protocols is a good thing? No, it patently isn't. Thousands of incompatible languages simply help create pockets of ignorance and deprivation. The only people who benefit are those who can translate.
Having said that. The corollary is that learning multiple languages is a good idea for an individual. If you live in the UK and speak only English then you are excluded from the largest economies on the continent; France Germany etc. The French and Germans all speak English. If their economies tank, they can always look for work in the UK.
Speaking of which, I have a German lesson this evening.
Deleted
Of course it's going to be easier to communicate. But we'll lose a lot. Mostly, a lot of people will lose their way of thinking, having to conform to a language that does not fit into their thinking pattern.
When you look at a language and its composition, you'll notice that every language reflects its users and their culture. No, I'm not going for the 20 words for snow in Inuit. I'm going for the very, very finely tune nuances of reverence in Japanese, something that cannot even remotely be reproduced in any other language I know. And of course, that way you simply cannot understand the culture that is behind it. You can promote and punish a coworker with the use of a syllable.
How to translate it? Not at all. There is no way to translate it. There is not even a way to express it. Because explaining it or using "stronger" words (that would have to be used in English or other languages) would, you guessed it, already break the unwritten laws of etiquette. You're not supposed to really 'hear' it, you're supposed to know it from listening closely.
And I can only assume it's similar with other cultures and languages. Maybe (or most likely) in other areas, areas in everyday life that are more important than social status, but nontheless parts of their culture. This will most likely suffer from a lack of an own language that lends itself to the needs of the culture.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Or Slashdot, for that matter.
There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
I'm not sure about the 'historical documents that will no longer be readable' comment..
People nowadays may not be able to read Latin as the Romans did, but it is still readable.
Also, many of the languages which will be lost probably have no written form, so there will be no 'documents' which cannot be translated. There may be stories/myths/histories which are known in the spoken form, which may be lost - but that is a coincidental loss due to the loss of a language, not a direct result - the stories could easily be kept in a different language, and could also be lost despite the language surviving, and should really be written down to avoid losing them - which isn't possible without some form of translation if there isn't a written form to the language.
As another thought - English is still a living language - but Chaucer's English isn't.. As one document I've read put it, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Jefferson and Dubyu Bush all speak English; Shakespeare would probably have been able to converse with Chaucer and Jefferson (with some difficulty), but Jefferson (and certainly Bush) would need to have an interpreter to speak to Chaucer - even though it's the "same" language. So, does this mean that Chaucer's English is a dead language, or just a language that has evolved into something else?
If we say that it's a language which has evolved into something else, does this mean that other languages which 'die' by 'merging' have evolved or died out? If a language from the Andes becomes 'Spanish with some extra words' has it died out or evolved?
Start learning Sumerian next week.
Firstly, there is no standards body that defines standard rules of English. Secondly, although I agree that poor grammar and spelling can make something unreadable, it is also possible to make a grammatically correct statement that is unreadable. (for instance, the Buffalo sentence.) I'm all for bitching people out that write so poorly they can't even be understood, but the constant criticism of minor errors that don't affect meaning or readability pisses me off.
Half of the comments on this fucking site are people bitching about someone using "There" instead of "Their" or some other ridiculously insignificant grammatical error. If you knew what the correct word to use was, you were obviously able to understand the meaning of the comment, so just keep your fucking mouth shut.
This is just horrible! We have to get the U.N. to start massive programs to preserve all these different languages. We can't let them become extinct. What will future generations do? We have to keep things as diverse as possible. This is worse than global warming. I wonder if Al Gore knows about this!
Why are so many people worried about languages dying off? In the long run this may solve some of the major problems we have in this world. If there were better communications between people we might not have so many misunderstandings that seem to be the cause of so many of the conflicts that are going on now. Just imagine the difference if most of the world spoke the same language? This is something that would bring everyone closer together on issues instead of dividing us.
We have to strive to reach common ground. But if this goes like most things there will be groups that will push to preserve all these languages. I can see it now, there will be walls erected around certain sections in each country where only the local dialect can be spoken under penalty of law. How else to preserve the spoken language but to isolate groups of people that speak that particular dialect?
The 2nd pony is probably Mandrin. China has a HUGE economy and with their one child policy they have a built in reduction over the next few decades which will leave the Chinese with say guess 500 million in population... about 2x the USA.
Only because of the vast population of China. It is incredibly difficult to learn a tonal language if you grow up speaking a non-tonal one. I don't see Chinese making any serious inroads in the West just for that reason alone. As someone who has studied several foreign languages, I can say I'd rather deal with grammar complexities than trying to figure out which tone is being used.
Meanwhile Europe and many parts of Asia are already speaking English. My guess is that English wins the race. It doesn't win because its best mind you.
No language is the best. English became a major world language in part because of the spread of the British Empire and in part because English grammar is pretty simple. Yes, much of the spelling makes no sense (well, there are reasons for it, but I'll skip the long explanation), but the grammar is basically easy. English is non-inflected, lacks grammatical genders, and the verbs have very simple conjugations. All of these make the language relatively easy to learn. Let's take Russian for an example now. It is inflected (6 cases), has 3 genders (masculine, feminine and neuter) and almost all verbs come in pairs (perfective and imperfective). English got a big boost from the rise of American culture, but the relative simplicity of the grammar is why it became a world language. Mark Twain wrote a famous piece on his attempts to learn German and the insane grammar of the language where the word for "wife" in German is a masculine (!!!) word. Twain said that any reasonably intelligent person could come to grips with English a lot quicker than they could German just because the grammar of English is so much easier.
When languages die out, it's because of an 'official language' that children must learn ( and learn in ) in school, and also use to interact with the government and other official entities. When children live in environments of multiple ethnicities with relatively similar levels of power, they learn many languages. When there is one dominant ethnicity and language, the members of which run the schools, government, businesses, and churches, children learn that dominant language ( and get ridiculed for speaking any of that silly country language ). The child quickly learns that speaking the dominant language means being successful, while speaking your mother tongue ( or grandmother's tongue ) means poverty and low social status ( i.e. being a 'dirty indian' or 'po white trash/black folk'). It's a matter of assimilation, not natural evolution.
Personally, I believe with projects like the OLPC, a global lingua franca will arise, or perhaps continentally regional lingua francas, for communications on the global communications network. However, people will continue to speak their native language at home. I have friends in Finland who are very conversant in 'digital english' -- written English over the internet. You would never guess they weren't English speaks from their online writings. More formal written English, not so good, and spoken English, sometimes pretty bad. However, they all continue to speak Finnish at home.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Eurobarometer survey on language skills makes interesting reading:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_en.pdf
56 % of Europeans can have a conversation in 1 foreign language
28 % with 2 foreign languages
11 % with 3 or more foreign languages
Clearly, there are lots of benefits from knowing another language in Europe, and it's probably also a status symbol to some extent. For a college educated European being able to speak 2 foreign languages is a norm. This is what I've always loved about in Europe - an endless supply of true cosmopolitans.
I call bullshit on that one.
I have said it before, I will repeat it FSM knows how many times until I die, and I still won't get the message across to the uneducated masses: There. Is. No. Hardest. Language. To. Learn.
Not one. Not two. Not few. Not many. All natural languages are equally complex, as they are all designed to describe everything we come in contact with - therefore, they are all just as complex as the world that surrounds us.
Some people have trouble with certain subtleties of English; some have problems with some of the most fundamental concepts of my native Croatian; others find German impossible to learn, and don't get me started on Finnish, Hungarian, Chinese or !Xu (which you probably cannot even pronounce).
It's all about what you're used to; a language similar to your native one is easier to grasp than a completely unfamiliar one.
Ignore this signature. By order.
While modern day English uses an apostrophe to indicate the possessive, it wasn't always the case. It evolved from the English genitive form, which looked like either "-his" or "-es" (and a few other variations) depending on your location.
So to say "The stone's" it'd be "stones" Or "stonhis". Eventually the h was lost (H's are are common to be dropped, they don't sound too much) and the ' replaced the "i" in the written language, as little written aid. So in a sense it is still to indicate a missing letter.
No, to indicate the possessive, English uses an inflectional suffix (with weird syntax/morphology, but I digress).
You're making a Linguistics 101 error: the grammar of a language must be stated in terms of its spoken form, not in terms of its orthography. Orthography is a very imperfect and inconsistent rendition of the language.
Are you adequate?