The death of Languages

[Teddy]

Just an interesting article I read..... Id like to see a map of all those who speak Spanish, English ad Mandarin. How far those spoken words are used. It would be cool to see. Also, its a bit much to read, so if you follow the link, it's spread out a little better (no dirty jokes pls)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8311000/8311069.stm

WAR OF WORDS

6% of the worlds languages are spoken by 94% of the world's population

The remaining 94% of languages are spoken by only 6% of the population

The largest single language by population is Mandarin (845 million speakers) followed by Spanish (329 million speakers) and English (328 million speakers).

133 languages are spoken by fewer than 10 people

SOURCE: Ethnologue

An estimated 7,000 languages are being spoken around the world. But that number is expected to shrink rapidly in the coming decades. What is lost when a language dies?

In 1992 a prominent US linguist stunned the academic world by predicting that by the year 2100, 90% of the world's languages would have ceased to exist.

Far from inspiring the world to act, the issue is still on the margins, according to prominent French linguist Claude Hagege.

"Most people are not at all interested in the death of languages," he says. "If we are not cautious about the way English is progressing it may eventually kill most other languages."

According to Ethnologue, a US organisation that compiles a global database of languages, 473 languages are currently classified as endangered.

Chief Marie Smith Jones

The death in 2008 of Chief Marie Smith Jones signalled the death her language

Among the ranks are the two known speakers of Lipan Apache alive in the US, four speakers of Totoro in Columbia and the single Bikya speaker in Cameroon.

"It is difficult to provide an accurate count," says Ethnologue editor Paul Lewis. "But we are at a tipping point. From here on we are going to increasingly see the number of languages going down."

What is lost?

As globalisation sweeps around the world, it is perhaps natural that small communities come out of their isolation and seek interaction with the wider world. The number of languages may be an unhappy casualty, but why fight the tide?

"What we lose is essentially an enormous cultural heritage, the way of expressing the relationship with nature, with the world, between themselves in the framework of their families, their kin people," says Mr Hagege.

"Its also the way they express their humour, their love, their life. It is a testimony of human communities which is extremely precious, because it expresses what other communities than ours in the modern industrialized world are able to express."

For linguists like Claude Hagege, languages are not simply a collection of words. They are a living, breathing organisms holding the connections and associations that define a culture. When a language becomes extinct, the culture in which it lived is lost too.

Cross words

The value of language as a cultural artefact is difficult to dispute, but is it actually realistic to ask small communities to retain their culture?

One linguist, Professor Salikoko Mufwene, of the University of Chicago, has argued that the social and economic conditions among some groups of speakers "have changed to points of no return".

The tower of Babel

The story of Babel bestowed great power on societies with one language

As cultures evolve, he argues, groups often naturally shift their language use. Asking them to hold onto languages they no longer want is more for the linguists' sake than for the communities themselves.

Ethnologue editor Paul Lewis, however, argues that the stakes are much higher. Because of the close links between language and identity, if people begin to think of their language as useless, they see their identity as such as well.

This leads to social disruption, depression, suicide and drug use, he says. And as parents no longer transmit language to their children, the connection between children and grandparents is broken and traditional values are lost.

"There is a social and cultural ache that remains, where people for generations realize they have lost something," he says.

What no-one disputes is that the demise of languages is not always the fault of worldwide languages like our own.

An increasing number of communities are giving up their language by their own choice, says Claude Hagege. Many believe that their languages have no future and that their children will not acquire a professional qualification if they teach them tribal languages.

"We can do nothing when the abandonment of a language corresponds to the will of a population," he says.

Babbling away

Perhaps all is not lost for those who want the smaller languages to survive. As the revival of Welsh in the UK and Mouri in New Zealand suggest, a language can be brought back from the brink.

A section of the Torah in Hebrew

Hebrew was successfully revived from a written to a living language

Hebrew, says Claude Hagege, was a dead language at the beginning of the 19th century. It existed as a scholarly written language, but there was no way to say "I love you" and "pass the salt" - the French linguists' criteria for detecting life.

But with the "strong will" of Israeli Jews, he says, the language was brought back into everyday use. Now it is undeniably a living breathing language once more.

Closer to home, Cornish intellectuals, inspired by the reintroduction of Hebrew, succeeded in bringing the seemingly dead Cornish language back into use in the 20th Century. In 2002 the government recognised it as a living minority language.

But for many dwindling languages on the periphery of global culture, supported by little but a few campaigning linguists, the size of the challenge can seem insurmountable.

"You've got smallest, weakest, least resourced communities trying to address the problem. And the larger communities are largely unaware of it," says Ethnologue editor Paul Lewis.

"We would spend an awful lot of money to preserve a very old building, because it is part of our heritage. These languages and cultures are equally part of our heritage and merit preservation.

[Mister Moobs]

The various languages of the people of the earth are interesting. I wont deny that. I love to pick up a phrase or two from the places to which I travel. Even so, why do we need to speak so many languages?

Is there a true need for all of them? It seems to me that the language barriers often lead to physical barriers which often lead to misunderstanding, polarization and physical conflict.

Take Afghanistan as an example of that. At least 5 languages spoken here and each tribe thinks that those who don't speak theirs is the devil and worthy only to be shot and skinned. Urdu, Tajik, Farsi, Dari, Pushtoo and probably a few more that I left out.

One language and open communication. What could be more beautiful than that?

Languages often polarize.

Keep the languages alive forfuture generations of interested students and switch to a global language. Record them. Store them. Leave them for those who are interested.

Maintain your cultural language AND learn a Global Standard.

English,Mandarin, Spanish, whatever. As long as it's not one of those ugly gutteral languages.

[Stramash]

...the single Bikya speaker in Cameroon.

so who the f*ck do they talk to??

:?

[Teddy]

...the single Bikya speaker in Cameroon.

so who the f*ck do they talk to??

:?

They were issued mirrors from the government.

8)

[English_Bob]

We should... you know.... like, keep some old words or something... for posterior... or whatever.

That'd be like totally awesome.

[Rob]

Languages often polarize.

True . . .

. . . and aptly illustrated:

English,Mandarin, Spanish, whatever. As long as it's not one of those ugly gutteral languages.

However . . . even if there were no differences in language, ethnicity, skin color, gender, or nationality, people would still find a way to divide themselves and subsequently fight, wage wars, bicker, or whatever.

[Sukhumvit_Farang]

In 1992 a prominent US linguist stunned the academic world by predicting that by the year 2100, 90% of the world's languages would have ceased to exist.

It took a cunning linguist to make such a prediction!

[Mister Moobs]

Languages often polarize.

True . . .

. . . and aptly illustrated:

English,Mandarin, Spanish, whatever. As long as it's not one of those ugly gutteral languages.

However . . . even if there were no differences in language, ethnicity, skin color, gender, or nationality, people would still find a way to divide themselves and subsequently fight, wage wars, bicker, or whatever.

Not if you listen to the Tranzy-Progs. Nationalism is the root of all evil.

...but the improvement in the ability to communicate globally would cut down on some of the issues.

[Mister Moobs]

We should... you know.... like, keep some old words or something... for posterior... or whatever.

That'd be like totally awesome.

DUDE!!!

[Stramash]

Not if you listen to the Tranzy-Progs. Nationalism is the root of all evil.

but...there is nationalism and there is nationalism.

If your above statement is correct (which it's not) then how would you equate my alleged tranzy prog status with my nationalist politics and voting?

:roll:

[Mister Moobs]

contradiction....self-conflicted

I give you Thomas Jefferson

Owner of Slaves

Author of the Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident

that ALL men are created equal

are endowed with certain INALIENABLE rights

that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

yet,he held that wolf by it's tail until he died...

And the list of others is legion

UN Human Rights Commission

Moammar Qaddafi

Iran calling those who suicide bombed their Revolutionary Guards Commander a terrorist.

Shall I go on....

Are you a Tranzy-Prog?

There is really only one person on here who I have seen declare that he has no use for nationalism.

I won't mention his name. He'll go back and delete the post and ask me to prove it. :wink:

Hell, I feel that Iran has a right to determine their nuclear status and attain nuke wpn tech if they so desire. Even so, I think the world would be idiots to allow it.

etc, etc and so on and so forth...

[Stramash]

fairy nuff...

would not describe myself as a tranzy prog.

Am a nationalist and, I suppose, a socialist (if a disillusioned one), but definitely not a national socialist!!!

Had we had control of our own resources, Scotland would be the 3rd richest country in Europe and the 7th richest in the world.

Not a fairy tale.

Nor biased research or reports from disgruntled nationalists, socialists or tranzy progs.

Those predictions come from a secret report commissioned by the Conservative Party and kept secret for 30 years. (and the oil production figures in that report were actually way underestimated)

The fact is; we have been subsidising UK spending for decades.

We are the last true colony, and frankly, it's time for change.

Hell, if we get independence and f*ck it up, then at least we only have ourselves to blame. But maybe the lessons of the Darien misadventure will still be valid 3 centuries later and we wont f*ck it up.

But the current opposition of the non governing parties in Scotland to even allow a referendum on independence is undemocratic. Have the referendum; if the majority support the Union then fair enough. But if the result goes the other way then...

:twisted:

[Mister Moobs]

then...

GET SOME!!!