 |
| |
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
I just got the latest issue of "Scientific American", and there is an article in there about "Multilingualists" who have created organisations with the aim of preserving languages.
Here is a link to a similar article.
http://www.colorado.edu/iec/alis/articles/langext.htm
Why is language extinction being seen as a bad thing? Sure, unique means of expression will be gone, but are these means of expression really crucial to human advancement? Wouldnt it be better to work on improving existing popular languages to enable greater expression within them than to try and preserve every language on the planet? Its interesting to note that the least advanced peoples of the world are the ones with the most languages. No doubt their inability to communicate with one another is at least partialy responsible for holding them back.
I can see the value of studying these languages in order to observe common human sounds used in language etc, but to encourage "lingual diversity" for the sake of diversity seems pointless. A more productive goal would be to establish a common language among the speakers of almost-extinct languages to encourage unity. Lingual diversity in the absence of a common language only creates disunity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dan Severn
|
|
Wellborn, Texas The Warrior Dennis Miller
May 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
Why is unity a good thing? I think cultural differences help make sure there is never only one side to any issue. The death of language often kills interesting cultures, and makes history that much more distant. It serves to homogenize thought and reduce the places the mind can go. What is wrong with multiple nations? If there is an ujust government, it must be destroyed. How can this be done if there is only one? Divergent Ideas must always be tolerated, lest freedom be lost.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Caligastia, go and buy: Hamelink's Cultural Autonomy.
It will help you answer your question.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
That's the book and where you can find it in the US (I think that's where you live not Australia?)
Hamelink (C.), Cultural autonomy in global communications. Planning national information policy, New York, Longman, 1983.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
I can't possibly relate everything that exists in this cornerstone book (for what you are talking about).
Just some tiny bit of personal exp.:
I was thinking about Europe and the english language. And I was thinking Scandinavian countries, Greece, Germany and I was thinking if enlgish could ever become a language of these countries. (I already know it can't for Greek, hell-5000 years of existance have created a monster of a language that noone wants to trade, but I also thought that it can't replace the other countries' languages as well).
Anyway, I was thinking about that and my route at that time had brought me to Italy (Rome to be specific). And I realized that very few Romans even knew english... I mean they only knew some words. Communication was very difficult and I started to use Greek and I could actually communicate more easily since Latin derives from Greek and Italian derives from LAtin and there are a lot of words in common.
Anyway, this has brought me to believe that it will never actually happen.
The best is to have a language in Europe that each one understands partly, like english for example. But that can never substitute a national language. The expression mecahnisms provided by your native tongue are vastly superior than what a foreign language will ever give you.
But a lingua franca will always be useful. It used to be Greek then Latin then french. Now it's english. Later who knows.
But it can never account for your own native language since it's too restrictive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starchild
Languages bind the mind as much as they free it. Translations confuse as much as they enlighten. A diversity of languages serves to help express ideas that may otherwise be unexpressable. |
But with 6000+ languages in the world, who will get to hear those ideas if only 20 people speak your language?
quote:
Look at "normal" English compared to highly techical scientific dialects of English, the kind you see in advanced research. Even though they are the same language, "scientific" English can express highly abstract concepts far more efficiently than conversational English.
If, for what ever reason, speakers of "scientific" English were to ever die out, huge amounts of detail and precision would be lost and technical papers would be near gibberish to anyone trying to read them. |
But the difference is that scientific language is spoken by many of the greatest minds on the planet, whereas an obscure polynesian dialect may only be spoken by a few people.
quote:
Language diversity is a way of preserving history. If it wasn't for linguistic diversity, then a dead language would be forever dead. It was the diversity of languages that gave us the Rosetta Stone. Without that, Ancient Egyptian would be untranslatable. If langauges die out now, what are the chances of the history of those languages surviving and being understood in another 5,000 years? |
That is an excellent point, and for this reason it is worth preserving the languages in some form (like on a computer), but to have people continue to speak it is not necessary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
I can't possibly relate everything that exists in this cornerstone book (for what you are talking about).
Just some tiny bit of personal exp.:
I was thinking about Europe and the english language. And I was thinking Scandinavian countries, Greece, Germany and I was thinking if enlgish could ever become a language of these countries. (I already know it can't for Greek, hell-5000 years of existance have created a monster of a language that noone wants to trade, but I also thought that it can't replace the other countries' languages as well).
Anyway, I was thinking about that and my route at that time had brought me to Italy (Rome to be specific). And I realized that very few Romans even knew english... I mean they only knew some words. Communication was very difficult and I started to use Greek and I could actually communicate more easily since Latin derives from Greek and Italian derives from LAtin and there are a lot of words in common.
Anyway, this has brought me to believe that it will never actually happen.
The best is to have a language in Europe that each one understands partly, like english for example. But that can never substitute a national language. The expression mecahnisms provided by your native tongue are vastly superior than what a foreign language will ever give you.
But a lingua franca will always be useful. It used to be Greek then Latin then french. Now it's english. Later who knows.
But it can never account for your own native language since it's too restrictive. |
We actually agree because you are in support of a common language. I have nothing against people learning other languages, as long as there is a language that everyone can understand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
BTW I didnt talk about France or other countries because there is really no question about these countries. The penetration of the enlgish langauge is I THINK more dominant in the Scandinavian countries.
But I may be wrong.
Anyway, get the book it has some great applied examples of policies for cultural autonomy (language included of course) and what happens when countries do not apply them or when they do.
It also has an extensive chapter about Australia...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starchild
Languages are tied into culture and life. A computer could never tell you what translation of a word feels the most "right". Take cultural expressions. "The pot calling the kettle black" for example. It's absolutely nonsensical unless your part of the culture and language. If you are part of it, a completely meaningless phrase suddenly gains meaning. How would a computer translate that into another language and still let it retain it's meaning? |
There is no reason why these meanings cannot be recorded on a computer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
What is interesting though is the level/amound of penetration of the english langauge in different european countries.
that would be very interesting to know.
I think all EU countries have foreign classes in primary school onwards. You can chose but most chose as first foreign langauge english.
But that dont meant much. if you dont use it, you lose it or at least you forget it temporarily.
i think the scandinavian countries have the biggest peneration of english language in their populations. Denmark has even made english its second OFFICIAL language.
(which means whetever dealings you have with the state of Denmark you have a RIGHt to do them also in english).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
About complete language extinction...
As mentioned, there are subtle nuances in each langauge. These can be primarily understood completely by the popel who actually speak that language. If those very same words are spoken to a person which has not been brought up in that linguistic environemnt the words might very well lose part of their subtle nuance and their meaning might very well be microscopically altered.
Thus the existance of a language and the peopel who speak it is necessairy for the continuation of existance (even in the... etheral plane for those who dont understand the language) of those subtle meanings. Which, mind you, may actually not exist in other languages.
Culture and langauge are indeed intraconnected.
In teh 18th century there was this philosophical trend which said that those who speak a certain language will in fact start THINKING one certain way.
This some times went to extremes.
As a side note, there was the proposition that the official langauge of the new born US was Greek. It was in the middle of that philosophical era that said if people start speaking Greek they will again be able to repeat the deeds of the ancient Greeks. It was also because you didnt want to be associated with your former masters. (Britain) It was ceremonial proposition if nothing else since your new born nation was speaking english anyway. How can 100.000 cowboys learn Greek in a sunday? Still there are very interesting texts about that.
While that philosophical trend was obviously ridiculous in its exageraton it nevertheless contained seeds of accurace. Namely that a language is one very important vehicle of expression of culture.
with one gone the other is lost too. and it may be unique.,
the "feelings"/"meanings" one word might conjure in one specific linguistic envoronment cannot be stored in a computer BTW. The vehicle for their interpretation can only be a person.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Al'Kimiya
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
Communication was very difficult and I started to use Greek and I could actually communicate more easily since Latin derives from Greek and Italian derives from LAtin and there are a lot of words in common.
|
Latin does NOT derive from Greek, not anymore than English derive from Latin. Latin has borrowed lots of words from Greek though (as English has from Latin).
They both derive from the same ancestor though (Proto-Indo-European).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
there's another reason why language is tied into culture. since language is an organic thing, growing and developing over time alongside a cultural group, often times the wisdoms and the concepts generated over many thousands of years find their ways embedded into the language.
for instance, in the korean language, there is a word for every single member of the family, depending on who you are in relation to that familial member-- girl calls older bro oppa, older sis unnyi, whereas boy calls older bro hyung, older sis nuna....
why would this be? it's simple. the korean culture tends to be focused a great deal on the confucian ethics of rank-- and thus, that cultural tradition finds itself a part of the language.
but the thing is, that's just a brief explanation. there are often connotations with how those words are used; for instance, it could be a grave insult to use one form of familial address during a certain time period, while a compliment in another.
you don't get that in many other languages; and thus, translations will usually miss all the intricasies of familial bonds.
that's one reason why culture and language are closely linked.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2002 20:43
but they do the job 
|