Saving endangered languages

piloteer

Meh. Languages should be free to evolve in a manner that suits society. Nieztche was a fruit loop. It's rather naive to think we can directly control languages. 

daria_p

Every 2 weeks the world looses a language. Nearly half of (approximately) 7000 spoken languages are under threat, so they are likely to disappear in this century. 

I guess there are a few people in the modern world who cares of it or even thinks of it. There are major languages (Chinese, English, Arabic, Spanish etc.) so why should we care about the minor languages? Yes, there’s some truth in it. 

But can you really imagine that the World has only 2000 languages for example? An the number is decreasing every 2 weeks. 

piloteer

@daria_p

What would be the ramifications if these "minor languages" were to disappear? I'm a little skeptical that this is an issue of any real concern, but I can be persuaded.

Alec

I hope these minor languages disappear eventually.  It prevents separatist movements and language clingers often are on welfare or have a low GDP per capita in general if they don't know the language of their home country.  How are minor languages important in the first place?  The BoP is on those wishing to preserve them.  Preserving them is too expensive and has virtually no use in the 21st century whatsoever.  For those citing the Navajo war stuff, that strategy is ineffective now because enemies can easily translate into other languages and they can pretty easily find a Navajo that hates America to translate all the messages that were intercepted from America.  This can happen for many of the minor language that exists.

piloteer

@Alec

What are you talking about?!?!? What minor languages are you referring to, what separatists are you talking about, what evidence do you have that "language clingers" are on welfare, what's a "language clinger" anyway, and how is it that someone on welfare can have a low Gross Domestic Product per capita?!?!? How is preserving a language expensive, or any money at all?!?!? Who's the adult at your house? I want to speak to them, because I don't think they're right in giving you permission to use the internet!!!!!!

daria_p

@piloteer ;I mean it’s like the concept “one implying the other” and that “one” is always getting bigger. Maybe the situation is not yet prevalent on a great scale, but it is definitely in the process of making that (as I’ve already mentioned - 1 dead language a fortnight). It’s obvious that the disappearance starts from the minor languages, but don’t you think it will continue to go on and on? Especially in days of globalization, when people abandon their not so prestigious native languages, move to another country and start to speak e.g. English.  
For the time being there are no ramifications as such, it’s all about long-term perspective. I mean one day it will also reach major world languages. Just a matter of time. 

Alec

"what separatists are you talking about".  Here are some historical and current examples of separatist movements that happen on the basis of language differences:

1:Austria Hungary vs their multiculturalism
2:Ukraine vs Russia Influenced East Ukraine/Crimea 
3:Spain vs Catalonia and Basque 
4:Mexico vs Texas and Mexican Cession 
5:Belgium vs Flanders 
6:Various Middle east nations vs Kurds 
7:United Kingdom vs Wales 
8:Canada vs Quebec 
9:Egypt vs Hala'ib 
10:Belize vs Southern Belize
11:United States vs Puerto Rico
12:Roman empire vs their multiculturalism

"what evidence do you have that "language clingers" are on welfare"  Not all of them are but some of them are because they don't know the language of their country.  If they assimilated into the major language of their country, they could get a good job and therefore are less likely to be on welfare.

A language clinger is a term used to describe someone who believes that preserving minor languages is important.  I don't see the importance in preserving minor languages and I think it hampers the world's ability to unite impart because of the history of minor languages breaking away from countries as mentioned in my list above..

"how is it that someone on welfare can have a low Gross Domestic Product per capita"  Because they are on welfare.  More often then not, they are poor.  They therefore tend to have a lower GDP per capita.

"How is preserving a language expensive, or any money at all"  Because people are often taught the minor language in a class and this costs money.  This money can be better spent on learning a language that would actually help them in life (i.e. a major language) instead of sticking to the past.

piloteer

@Alec

*"Egypt vs Hala'ib"*

Hala'ib is a sea port town. There's an ongoing dispute of ownership between Egypt and Syria, it has nothing to do with language. It's a territorial dispute. 

*"Puerto Rico vs the United States"*

Puerto Ricans don't speak a "minor language" they speak Spanish. Spanish is by far the most prominent non-English language in the US. Most Puerto Ricans in the US can speak English, and English is the second most common language in Puerto Rico. Many second generation Puerto Rican families in the US speak English at home. And exactly how will making Puerto Ricans speak English cause less of them to go on welfare (keeping in mind that the vast majority of them already speak English)?

*"The Roman empire vs their multiculturalism"*

 The Roman empire used slave labor. It was them who brought the "multiculturalism" into their domain. The Roman empire was very large, of course they had multiculturalism. They ruled over  all of the northern Mediterranean (modern day Spain/Italy/Greece) and most of the southern end of it (North Africa/Egypt) and the eastern edge of the Mediterranean (modern day Israel, Syria, Lebenon, and into the Arabian peninsula). They ruled all of southern and western Europe, and England. They used slave labor from all these areas. If they were at odds with their multiculturalism, they had only themselves to blame.

*language clingers*
  
People are NOT taught how to speak their language in school, they are taught at home by their families. The only time it costs money is when "language clingers" are forced to be taught the native language in school. You're idea of making people learn the native language costs more than letting them speak their "minor language".

*language clingers on welfare*

Of the 12 countries you've mentioned, numbers 2 thru 7 are/were not societal or cultural rifts that have/had anything to do with welfare, they are/were disputes over territories and who rightfully governs them. I'm not even sure what 10 is about, you'll need to show an article on that one, I've never heard of it. 12, I covered that one, that also had nothing to do with welfare. The vast majority of people on welfare in the US are native citizens. In 2017, the national academies of sciences, engineering, and medicine did a study and found that second generation immigrants contribute more in taxes to the US budget than native born citizens. That means they're less of a tax burden than people who already live in the US.

"@daria_p

It almost seems like you think we're going to have a global language some day. Although, I still have yet to see what the problem of that would be, I should probably point out that, that has never happened in the history of modern civilization. What makes you think that it is going to happen in the future? Civilizations are constantly evolving, and languages reflect that evolution. Perhaps language diversity is on a downward trend (although, I've yet to see any evidence that you have to prove that) but what makes you think that, that trend won't reverse in the future? Do you have any links you can post to give us a clearer view of what's happening to these languages, how it's happening, and what the ramifications could potentially be? I find it kind of strange that you and Alec are in total disagreement on this issue, but you both think that the root cause of the "problem" is multiculturalism. 

Alec

"There's an ongoing dispute of ownership between Egypt and Syria, it has nothing to do with language. It's a territorial dispute."  Why does the dispute exist?  When decolonizing the region, the U.K. first drew the 22nd parallel as the border between Egypt and Sudan.  However, they redrew these borders when they found out there was a large portion of people more culturally similar to Sudan then to Egypt.  If Egypt assimilated the local Halaib people in their country, then they would want to be part of Egypt and Egypt would keep the land.  However, the Egyptian government instead allowed them to keep their culture, which lead to a separatist movement.

"Puerto Ricans don't speak a "minor language" they speak Spanish."  Any language that is not English is a minor language in the US since it is not the most common one in the US, at least in this context.

"Most Puerto Ricans in the US can speak English."  http://www.puertorico.com/reference/translation/ states that most Puerto Ricans don't understand English.  

"The Roman empire used slave labor. "  There is some truth to this, I'll admit that.  However, other countries had slavery too.  Did slavery cause other empires to fall?  If Rome assimilated all that they conquered, then they would have a higher chance of existing today.

"People are NOT taught how to speak their language in school, they are taught at home by their families. The only time it costs money is when "language clingers" are forced to be taught the native language in school."  Sometimes they are taught by their families.  Sometimes they are taught by schools.  Being taught a minor language by their family is fine.  Being taught by schools is a waste of money, time, and energy.  The resources instead could go to learning a more prominent worldwide language.  This way, the world is more connected.

"You're idea of making people learn the native language costs more than letting them speak their "minor language"."  They can speak it as long as there:

-Is no cost to other people.
-Has virtually no chance of causing a separatist movement now or in the future.

"Of the 12 countries you've mentioned, numbers 2 thru 7 are/were not societal or cultural rifts that have/had anything to do with welfare, they are/were disputes over territories and who rightfully governs them."  Why were there disputes in the first place?  In #2 for example, since Crimea is mostly Russian, the locals are trying to get that province to be part of Russia.  If Ukraine had assimilated the Russians in their territory, then the province of Crimea would not want to secede.  It would also eliminate the threat of a separatist movement like Crimea.

On the Belize point, I found something that confirms that the dispute exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes.

"The vast majority of people on welfare in the US are native citizens."  I want welfare for everyone abolished.  If their job doesn't pay enough money, the government can provide them with a job.

piloteer

@Alec

I don't disagree with you on abolishing welfare, but that point is neither here nor there when it comes to "minors language" speaking citizens. It also does nothing to dispute the findings of the national academy of sciences, engineering, and medicine. The overall tax burden/contribution of each group was factored in, this includes any subsidies that each group receives. In the end, American born citizens contribute less to the federal budget than second generation Spanish speaking people do. For you to make a persuasive case of that "language clingers" are on welfare, you'll need to show some convincing evidence, and you'll have to prove minor language speaking citizens and welfare use is linked.

If you read my claim correctly, you'd know that I said "most Puerto Ricans IN THE US can speak English, which is absolutely true. Actually, the overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans in the US, do speaking English, and the overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans in the US speak English at home. I never made a claim about ALL Puerto Ricans, just the ones in the US. Spanish is the second most spoken language in the United States, it pretty difficult to claim it's a "minor language" in the US with that fact in place. It's also the fastest growing language in the US. 
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/01/22/262791008/english-only-for-mainland-puerto-ricans-the-answer-is-often-yes

You've addmited yourself that the dispute between Sudan and Egypt had nothing to do with language. The dispute arose because the British redrew the border, not because of language. Why was that region not a part of Sudan in the first place? Perhaps because the people of Sudan didn't embrace them as legitimate Sudanese citizens.

Your assertions that the Roman Empire were more likely to exist today if they had assimilated those slaves is merely conjecture, you have no evidence of it being true. Also, who's to say that the slaves used by the Romans didn't speak the native language. It's hard to believe they didn't. I would suspect that to have an efficient slave labor force, you'd want at least some of them to understand your language. Case and point, African slaves in America could speak English and eventually that was the only language they spoke.

If there are schools that are teaching kids "minor languages" it is up to the taxpayers of those communities to decide if that's a useful program to implement with taxpayers money, it's not the jurisdiction of the federal government. If people who are "language clingers" are forced to speak English, than that would no question be a cost to taxpayers, nobody will teach them for free!

The Crimea dispute is because Russia asserts that all of Ukraine is Russian territory. The indigenous people of the Crimea were deported by the Soviet Union during WWII. The population of modern day Crimea is not the legitimate population of the Crimea. The Soviet citizens who live there now were resettled there because the native population rejected Russian rule. Ukraine has every right to consider the majority of the Crimean population an invasion by the Russians. I think you're trying to claim that if Ukraine had assimilated the Crimean population, there wouldn't be a dispute, but regardless of any effort to assimilate the Crimean population is there to oppose Ukrainian independence. It has nothing to do with language, it has to do with an invasive population that was implanted in their own country by the Russians. There is no truth whatsoever that the Crimean population would ever want to assimilate with Ukraine. That's not their purpose for living there.

Happy New Year to you "@Alec and "@daria_p by the way. Although it's a little confusing on exactly what we're supposed to be discussing here, it's turning out to be interesting anyway.