Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

78 Indigenous Languages Are Being Saved By Optical Scanning Tech (fastcompany.com)

Posted by msmash on from the for-the-record dept.

Researchers at UC Berkeley are using futuristic technology to save a piece of the past. From a report: Project IRENE is using cutting-edge optical scan technology to transfer and digitally restore recordings of indigenous languages, many of which no longer have living speakers, Hyperallergic first reported. The recordings were gathered between 1900 and 1938 when UC anthropologists asked native speakers of 78 indigenous languages of California to record their songs, histories, prayers, and vocabulary on wax cylinders. Many of those cylinders are housed at Berkeley's Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, and they are in a state of disrepair, degraded and broken. It's a frustrating state of affairs, as many of the languages recorded on the cylinders have fallen out of use or are no longer spoken at all. The "Documenting Endangered Languages" initiative, which has support from the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities, is hoping to save this important history.

75 comments

  1. huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    does literally saving the recording to digital format really count as saving a language?

    1. Re: huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      It does for idiot millenials who think making a copy of something is a lifetime accomplishment lol

    2. Re: huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is when you have to crack the DRM first.

    3. Re:huh by mikael · · Score: 2

      They managed to recover Egyptian hieroglyphic language through a single stone tablet which had a peace treaty written in four languages.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  2. Comprehensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hope COBOL is in there somewhere.

    1. Re:Comprehensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Goat C.

    2. Re:Comprehensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you had RTFA, you'd know that the years only included those between 1900 and 1938.
      There is no mention of them going back to the time of Moses, who was a huge COBOL user.

      CAP === 'karate'

    3. Re:Comprehensive? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      and APL

    4. Re:Comprehensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had RTFA

      Thanks for the larf.

    5. Re:Comprehensive? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Ada.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Comprehensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Ubbi Dubbi.

    7. Re:Comprehensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or ALGOL, Modula, or even Object Pascal!

  3. Unimportant history by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1, Troll

    Human language naturally fragments. It's the way our brains work. There are more dead languages than there are live ones, and it will only get worse. Even this language we call English isn't English. Old English is so dead it can't be interpreted without training. Middle English is dead, but you can at least guess at the meaning as a modern English speaker. Eventually "modern" English will also be dead. Give it a thousand years.

    Meanwhile, the history of vanished nondescript agrarian cultures is in no way important. Throughout history there have been millions, if not billions (depending on your definition of what's a human), of tiny little subsistence enclaves of humans that never did anything other than subsist. It's not bad. It's just not important. Salvaging the language recordings themselves might be useful to linguists and people studying the human brain, but it's not important history. We're just being told it's important because "Aborigines!"

    1. Re: Unimportant history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jee bro no me know what U say

    2. Re:Unimportant history by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isnt an example of West Germanic turning into Anglo-Saxon. Most indigenous languages were victim to active campaigns to stamp them our.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re: Unimportant history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Covfefe! Kanye! Kim Jong-un!

    4. Re:Unimportant history by mcswell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Salvaging the language recordings themselves might be useful to linguists and people studying the human brain..." Speaking as a linguist who has worked on endangered languages (and other languages), agreed. Language, in the sense of a means of communication with a syntax at (at least) the context free (and possibly higher) level in the Chomsky Hierarchy, is a uniquely human ability. (Well, I keep waiting for ET to phone home so I can find out how his language works, but no luck so far.) Every child (apart from the extremely retarded) picks up a first language (and in the right situation, a second language, or even more), while no linguist has ever completely and accurately described the grammar of any language. Which is very odd, when you think of it.

      So agreed, language is a unique window into the human mind.

    5. Re:Unimportant history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't decide what's important, moron.

    6. Re: Unimportant history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isnâ(TM)t aborigne another word for ignorant nigggggger?

    7. Re:Unimportant history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >it's important because...

      No, it's important because 'history." We treasure fossils, even routine ones,because they fill in gaps in our knowledge of the history of life. These languages are linguistic fossils which should be preserved because they fill in gaps in our knowledge of the history of humans.

    8. Re:Unimportant history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bollocks... language is more than just a means to communicate,
      Ancient languages hold the culture, heritage and wisdom of the people, this stuff can't just be translated it is intrinsically tied to the language. To suggest that the wisdom of peoples who "never did anything but subsist" isn't worth keeping is the height of arrogance and ignorance. Some of these peoples "subsisted" for 60,000+ years... think about that, you really think in that time they gathered nothing worth saving?

      I for one mourn for what has already been lost and applaud any attempt to prevent more!

    9. Re:Unimportant history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simpletons agree! #MAGA

    10. Re:Unimportant history by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      while no linguist has ever completely and accurately described the grammar of any language. Which is very odd, when you think of it.

      Not really. Most things in nature cannot be described completely and accurately.

    11. Re:Unimportant history by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      I don't see the cause as particularly relevant though. Languages die out, whether stamped out, or naturally. One is as deserving of preservation as another.

      I do find it notable that were no less than 78 different languages (they claim languages, not mere dialects) in just the California area alone, which is indicative of how fragmented, tribal, and culturally segregated the native Americans actually were.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    12. Re:Unimportant history by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      It's no different than how Europe was up until the 19th century, when efforts to create common universal dialects became more formalized and proscriptive. There were "dialect continuums", whether they were the continuums in the Romance languages stretching from Italy all the way to the Iberian Peninsula, the Adriatic and into France, or the Germanic languages which stretch from the various West Germanic languages (like English, Dutch and German), with mutual intelligibility of some degree between neighboring languages, but going further geographically reduced that mutual intelligibility, until finally an Austrian had a hard time understanding someone from Saxony, and had no hope in hell of understanding someone from the Low Countries.

      The fact is that most people historically did not travel, so dialects and regional languages were far more persistent. Even in England, from the Scots English all the way to London there was wide variation in pronunciation and vocabulary, but that has faded significantly with universal education and mass media. They still exist, as the final traces of the original Anglo-Saxon invasions, when different Anglo-Saxon tribes had already diverged in their language even on the Continent by the 5th and 6th century, and carried their dialects with them to England. But just a century and a half of effort has caused those dialects to merge and begin to fade.

      So when you look at pre-industrial populations that remained fairly static, where families might have called the same village or territory home for centuries, if not thousands of years, you can understand why even a relatively contained geographical area might have harbored dozens of different dialects and even different languages, sometimes languages in entirely different language families. But what happened in many places; whether it be overt campaigns to kill a language (like the long-standing English campaign to stamp out anything vaguely Gaelic in Ireland), or the even more overt efforts in North America to wipe out Native American culture and language, this isn't simply natural evolution of languages.

      From a purely linguistic, anthropological and archaeological point of view, preserving even deal and dying languages is of an enormous importance. Studying the relationships between languages, when coupled with genetic and archaeological studies, can give us a very good picture of migration patterns, and can tell us how existing populations came into existence. A lot of effort has been put into the major Old World language families; Indo-European languages are probably the most studied languages in the world, with the Afro-Asiatic and Sino-Tibetan close behind, because these are language families with a fairly lengthy written record, and where comparative and genetic linguistics have allowed us to actually map the evolution of proto-languages into the diversity we see today.

      From a cultural point of view, language, more than any other human construct, defines who we are. When you look at an indigenous people; whether they're in the Americas, or Africa, or Australia, these people are trying to recover something of themselves after centuries of active hostility and benign neglect by their colonial masters. Why shouldn't a Native American tribe try to at least retain as much of their linguistic tradition as possible? I doubt there's any expectation in many cases that they will produce any large number of new speakers, but like the preservation of languages like Welsh and Irish and Scots Gaelic, these languages are a part of those peoples' identity, and even if only a small number speak it actively, it still represents an important part of what makes those people who they are.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Save English, too by jfdavis668 · · Score: 0

    The way the Internet is going, all languages are in jeopardy.

  5. More focus should be given to this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Kurdish, a number of Japanese aboriginal languages, and others in Russian, China, Africa and other parts of the world are *STILL* being actively stomped out through forced education only in a national language that regions inhabitants had forced on them for cultural conversion reasons, rather than a choice given over time.

    As a result many other languages are dying out today not because there are no speakers, but because it is illegal for regional schools to teach them and they are instead forcibly taught the nationalist tongue in an effort to separate them from their heritage.

    1. Re:More focus should be given to this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill yourself, incel neckbeard.

    2. Re:More focus should be given to this... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 0

      To clarify, you're saying that failing to burden your children with a dead language is a BAD thing, right?

    3. Re:More focus should be given to this... by del_diablo · · Score: 2

      No, he is talking about the systematic extermination of a language by the passive means of not using it.
      The same is true of TV, Media and Internet. Schools is just a far more proactive way of doing it, since you encounter kids at a young enough age to properly get them native in their second language.
      This isn't a problem of a moral dilemma, its more a fact that the communities might be large enough to support their language for internal use, but the proactive means of forced language in school kills it in a few generations. If you ask a educated Frenchman about this, he might give you a lot of history on this topic, since they are now speaking Parisian.

  6. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because the homeless would just eat and shit and make more homeless. What kind of investment is that?

  7. Hold on....language evolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it was a horrible thing that was done to stamp out those languages. It was part of racist programs.

    However, if we the human race are going to finally band together and solve our problems as a species, we are going to need one language.

    We're not talking about an important piece of our ecosystem where if it were no longer to exist, our lives would collapse - like all the pollinators (like bees) dying off.

    We're talking about an abstract construct - language - invented by humans. It's purpose is for communication. And nothing inhibits communication than multiple standards.

    Preserving languages for merely their "art" form is one thing; but for future use as a communication medium? Nope. Let'em die.

    And as we are seeing in our digital age. English is winning the Darwinian race. It's perfect for representation with computers - unlike languages like Chinese and it has the leg up of being the language of the Creators of the Digital Age.

    1. Re:Hold on....language evolution. by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, if we the human race are going to finally band together and solve our problems as a species, we are going to need one language.

      Doesn't mean it has to be one and only one language though. Most people are more than capable of being bi-lingual, their native language and the common language.

      It's purpose is for communication.

      Yes - but also from one generation to the next, passing down a heritage. It would be very strange to not speak or write the language of my parents and their generation.

      And as we are seeing in our digital age. English is winning the Darwinian race. It's perfect for representation with computers - unlike languages like Chinese and it has the leg up of being the language of the Creators of the Digital Age.

      English is a cluster fuck of a language and the single reason it's becoming the global language and not yet another regional language like Russian, Chinese or Arabic is the British Empire. It's the only language with reach in Europe (UK), North America (US & Canada), Africa (bunch of former colonies), Asia (India) and Oceania (Australia and New Zealand). And with the Germans losing two World Wars and the French being insufferable they cornered the market as the business language in Europe too. It helps that the Internet was started in the US, but if nobody else spoke English other countries would just make their own enclaves. There's many Russian, Chinese, Spanish etc. speakers that don't know the English-speaking part at all.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Hold on....language evolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no "we the human race". There are many people and many cultures. We've had the concept of lingua franca (one widely spoken language used for interactions between different cultures) for quite some time. I can speak four languages fluently and I know many who can easily speak six or more. There is more to humanity than computers, you know. Grow up, stupid little nerd.

    3. Re:Hold on....language evolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (AC because moderated yadda yadda.)

      English is winning the Darwinian race. It's perfect for representation with computers - unlike languages like Chinese...

      Say what? I have no problems reading or writing Chinese on my computers and I'm not even Chinese.

      The bytes making up glyphs are no different from any other bytes, and I'm pretty sure that a computer doesn't care what they look like to you or how many of them you use.

      --Z.

    4. Re:Hold on....language evolution. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      However, if we the human race are going to finally band together and solve our problems as a species, we are going to need one language.

      But which one? English is popular but entirely inadequate for many cultures. There are things that simply cannot be expressed in English, at least not in any useful and economical way.

      I guess we could all adopt one culture, presumably Chinese since that's the most popular... But then again, Chinese culture isn't homogeneous either. Neither is English of course.

      Hmm... I guess we had better just hope that we can somehow get along without a common language. Ironically most of the EU manages it just fine, except for the British who invented the world's most common tongue. It's almost as if being monolingual has some kind of negative impact on an individual's ability to understand other cultures.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Hold on....language evolution. by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      English is a cluster fuck of a language and the single reason it's becoming the global language and not yet another regional language like Russian, Chinese or Arabic is the British Empire. It's the only language with reach in Europe (UK), North America (US & Canada), Africa (bunch of former colonies), Asia (India) and Oceania (Australia and New Zealand). And with the Germans losing two World Wars and the French being insufferable they cornered the market as the business language in Europe too. It helps that the Internet was started in the US, but if nobody else spoke English other countries would just make their own enclaves. There's many Russian, Chinese, Spanish etc. speakers that don't know the English-speaking part at all.

      Oh, come now; English is no worse than any other (any other which is actually spoken, anyway) - they've all evolved weird irregularities.

      Anyway, who cares how it became dominant, when it clearly is? I like Norwegian, but it's Norway (and everybody else) teaching their kids English, not us teaching our kids Norwegian.

    6. Re:Hold on....language evolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to mention that Germany also lost a World Cup.

    7. Re:Hold on....language evolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no rational justification for multiple human languages. Language isn't significantly relevant to culture because culture is a collection of ideas, traditions, arts, etc. The strongest argument for language as a part of culture is almost solely limited to vocal music arts.

      "Because it would feel weird" is one of the dumbest arguments to retain multiple languages.

    8. Re:Hold on....language evolution. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      We could always start using Esperanto. :)

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    9. Re:Hold on....language evolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, English is pretty damn terrible. Something that quickly becomes apparent if you actually learn another language or try to teach English to someone.

      A few hints since you don't appear to be have any idea of this well known fact:

      enough
      pharmacy
      light
      knoll
      kiln
      break
      snuck
      drove
      mice
      houses

      While all languages certainly have their idiosyncrasies, English is a mish-mash of other languages with different morphologies and conventions.

      A major reason for the adoption of English in many locales is simply that it is so flexible that you can be intelligible even when heavily abused. Two speakers of pidgin English from different parts of the world can communicate better between each other than with a native English speaker because they both use this pidgin.

      Of course, English (at least as used in America) is on a rapidly descending spiral into pre-literacy forms so it may eventually be relatively indistinguishable from a pidgin. But the trick with pidgins is expressing things more sophisticated than basic communication.

    10. Re:Hold on....language evolution. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      While I can't argue your points, (English has more exceptions to the rules than rules, and the phonetics are totally screwed due to its being a mutt language), at least it's gender agnostic. The fact that latin languages give inanimate objects gender attributes irks the bejesus out of me.
      The closest we get to that in English is referring to a boat as "she" or "her", which is more of an affectionate quality, not a hard grammar rule.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    11. Re:Hold on....language evolution. by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 2

      Not trying to troll...if it can't be expressed in English, why can't it be "borrowed" into the language like other words/concepts? Or any other language for that matter.

    12. Re:Hold on....language evolution. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3

      It could be borrowed, but then you would just have a bunch of different English dialects that are incompatible so it wouldn't really help much.

      To give you an idea, the entire Japanese way of thinking is impossible to express in English because it's based around linguistic concepts that simply don't exist in that language, and adding enough Japanese to support them would make it incomprehensible. For example, the concept of animate and inanimate things.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Hold on....language evolution. by mikael · · Score: 1

      Take a trip down the Unicode page sheets. My favourite language is Vai. It looks like a cross between chemical plant design and electronics.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    14. Re:Hold on....language evolution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While all languages certainly have their idiosyncrasies, English is a mish-mash of other languages with different morphologies and conventions.

      A major reason for the adoption of English in many locales is simply that it is so flexible that you can be intelligible even when heavily abused. Two speakers of pidgin English from different parts of the world can communicate better between each other than with a native English speaker because they both use this pidgin.

      Which is a good thing, compared to many other languages English is very fault-tolerant and like you said it is part of what drives it's adoption worldwide.

  8. Geeze! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Speaking as a linguist....

    Your post was pretty hard (for me) to read (I just have a graduate degree). I think that maybe (your time permitting), you take a basic writing class (I'm NOT denigrating your intelligence). I think you have great points (but are distracting us) and maybe need to work on writing skills (just for posting on social media). Although, I find (some) of your points moot, your point is complete lost (at least on me) and maybe more (or less).

    1. Re:Geeze! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post was pretty hard (for me) to read

      Really?
      Oh, damnit, I forgot to login (again) so I've posted this reply as (Anonymous Coward).

      CAP === 'exterior'

    2. Re:Geeze! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the poster's fault if you were born with very limited intelligence. There was nothing hard to understand. Maybe with some professional help you can still hope to lead a fulfilling life, within the limits that Nature has imposed on you.

  9. The purpose of language is to communicate by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The purpose of a language is to communicate.

    If there is nobody left who speaks or writes that language, why is it suddenly important (other than in an abstract way) to preserve it?

    The Canadian government is currently spending $90 million (Canadian, about $70 million USD) to preserve endangered aboriginal languages.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigen...

    The first line of that article says "Indigenous languages in Canada are dying out at an alarming rate and in desperate need of saving".

    My question is why, and what makes it worth spending all of that taxpayer money on?

    If someone is interested in an obscure language to want to preserve it and learn it, I see no problem with doing that as an academic exercise. But I honestly don't see why it's suddenly a responsibility for governments to preserve it.

    Again, a language is intended to facilitate communication. If nobody's communicating in that language any more then it's obsolete.

    --
    If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    1. Re:The purpose of language is to communicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why isn't it worth spending money on? Once those language are gone, they're gone forever. If for some reason knowing the language becomes important, it's too late. Plus, the more we know about one language or another, the more opportunities there are for linguists to understand how languages work.

      This whole attitude about how it needs to be immediately of some commercial value is disgusting and it's literally killing America, why on Earth are you going to let it do the same thing to Canada?

    2. Re:The purpose of language is to communicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because these languages are much, much more than just a means to communicate,
      Ancient languages hold the culture, heritage and wisdom of the people, this stuff can't just be translated it is intrinsically tied to the language. To suggest that the wisdom of peoples who "never did anything but subsist" isn't worth keeping is the height of arrogance and ignorance. Some of these peoples "subsisted" for 60,000+ years... think about that, you really think in that time they gathered nothing worth saving?

      I for one mourn for what has already been lost and applaud any attempt to prevent more!

    3. Re:The purpose of language is to communicate by sysrammer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "My question is why, and what makes it worth spending all of that taxpayer money on?"
      "But I honestly don't see why it's suddenly a responsibility for governments to preserve it."

      Maybe a little refund on what they took?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    4. Re:The purpose of language is to communicate by religionofpeas · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ancient languages hold the culture, heritage and wisdom of the people

      And how many people are still alive that care about that particular culture, and would actually take the trouble to go listen to the restored recordings and understand what's being said ?

      Looks like it's mostly a hobby project for people who aren't even part of that culture.

    5. Re:The purpose of language is to communicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already know how an isolated people continue to exist for 60,000 years, there's an island off of India for example with inhabitants that are very stereotypically alike to the American Indians, loin cloths, war paint, bows and arrows, feather hats, etc.

      They simply eat what they find, learning which plants and animals are edible from their parents, build primitive shelters, make babies, start wars, etc. Not much different from any other primitive culture.

      There's lots of information already about "savages".

    6. Re:The purpose of language is to communicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And how many people are still alive that care about that particular culture, and would actually take the trouble to go listen to the restored recordings and understand what's being said ?

      It helps fill in gaps in history, and we have a lot of historical gaps in pre-Columbian America. For example, we only know about the largest native American massacre because we started digging up remains - otherwise, all we can say is that something bad happened between two groups of people. We've barely been able to preserve the knowledge and evidence that SE US was a center of plant domestication. We barely know anything about the massive civilizations that rose and fell before they could be adequately recorded, and most of us are still operating under the outdated belief that the US was pristine woodland with a few hunter-gatherers, even though the evidence of large populations and managed land use has been growing. We even have sites where we're mostly in the dark about who did what.

      As for its usefulness, it's pure research. It's hard to tell what we'd determine from it. Some of these groups dealt with climate change, some dealt with pandemics, some with other difficulties. Some managed to survive. Others did not, or saw a fall from previous heights. At the very least, understanding the differences between those who survived and those who failed could be useful.

    7. Re:The purpose of language is to communicate by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

      What we wouldn't give today for accurate recordings of how the Greeks and Romans spoke 1200 years ago. Over time, languages change, so there is also a difference between Greek 2000 years ago.

      I can think if so very many reasons why we'd want to keep a language that is no longer spoken -- but the point is; if we don't preserve it before it's lost, what can we do if we find a really, really good reason?

      In science, fundamental research supports huge progress and commerce and it all came from something that had no viable business use at the time. Quantum entanglement will one day yield communication devices.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    8. Re:The purpose of language is to communicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > The Canadian government is currently spending $90 million (Canadian, about $70 million USD) to preserve endangered aboriginal languages.

      Accurate Citation please?
      https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1490379083439/1490379208921
      $89.9 million over the next three years to preserve protect and revitalize Indigenous languages and cultures.

      Im just one ACoward.

      But i think its incredibly stupid to not PRESERVE languages that are about to die out --- such that an academic could, if so desired, learn it, read it, comprehend it. It would likely be prudent to dictate all existing information / documents of an old language for easier reference; and make vast recordings if possible of speakers. This is incredibly important.

      However, I personally see zero use in trying in spending public resources in teaching (to the masses) dieing languages.

      Now.... spending money on CULTURE is also very important, i feel. which is part of that 90 million you reference.

      Documenting the culture is incredibly important, as well as some forms of cultural continuance.

      morern culture business cycle driven capitalism / consumerism is ..... quite lacking, and more 'frames of reference' for what other cultures value, its of great importance.

  10. Analog media are underrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Note that the wax cylinders are still more accessible than a ZIP drive. Or a broken hard drive. Or a DVD encrypted with a key that's been lost.

    1. Re:Analog media are underrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they took down the Edison DRM server a while back so the cylinders are now useless.

  11. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Seattle kind, of course!

  12. Re:Who gives a fuck? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Why don't the homeless stop being a burden on the rest of humanity?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  13. Northern Pomo is the most endangered language by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Postmodernists were a briefly popular academic cult whose polysyllabic but totally non-referential coined language, though impenetrable to outsiders, once dominated at liberal arts schools and was the written language of numerous papers.

    Because the Pomo tribe has been exclusively vegan and abstains from heterosexual relationships it has been unable to pass on its culture to new generations, so its numbers have been steadily declining in recent years as older tenured chieftains die off. Today, native speakers are confined to a few small campuses in northern California.

    1. Re:Northern Pomo is the most endangered language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Porno tribe? No hetrosexual relationships? I feel a mysterious affinity with these guys.

    2. Re:Northern Pomo is the most endangered language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that many of them are actually hetroes who fucked plenty of girls and only took that major to begin with in order to convince girls that they are

    3. Re:Northern Pomo is the most endangered language by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I'm not claiming that the Postmodernists were totally joyless. The tribe did at one point open Casino Derrida on one of their campuses to bring in some income as their grants dried up. But because of their belief that mathematics is a "patriarchal colonialist construct" the Casino's games and slots are easy to manipulate in the player's favor, and the place did not last long.

  14. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, we should put the homeless in extermination camps with the option to work or die.

  15. Digital audio has holes in it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I prefer wax cylinders because it has a warmth that can be reproduced with an electrical reproduction.

  16. same project, tech & press release 10 years ag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Stupid republishing of what was done at the Library of Congress for the same IRENE project over ten years ago
    https://www.loc.gov/preservation/scientists/projects/confocal.html

    1. get High resolution image of a grooved media
    2. write computer program to unwind the curves in the image
    3. Split into 2 audio signals, one for each side of a horizontally grooved recording - or 1 audio signal for a vertically grooved 78 rpm
    4. Use audio editor program to piece together a sound recording
    5. Denoise, declick, .... in audio editor