|
No need to keep em forever... what do u think?
i like language diversity but what can we do with 6000 that we cant do with 500? even 100? We should record them for linguistic purposes
|
|
|
Every language is an invaluable part of the cultural heritage of the mankind, an extremely delicite and fine-tuned entity, a whole system how to explain the world. Do you also think, Zero, that it doesn´t matter if blue whale or white rhinoceros or ivory wood-pecker dies out if we have them on video tape or in the collections of zoological museums? No recordings can replace the real living thing in nature, whether a language or a biological species.
|
|
Zero and suomalainen,
I think that both of you have your points.
The trend since the beginning of written history has been for languages to steadily die out at almost exponential rates. The graveyard includes Summerian, Hittite, Punic (Phoenecian), Iberian, Pisidian. Phrygian, Galatian, Old Prussian, Polabian, Cornish and Dalmatian just to mention a few; even several languages which are still alive like Greek, Irish Gaelic, Ainu and Cherokee have lost some dialects.
Still, I support any attempts by speakers of foreign languages to try to preserve their languages if it is feasible and in this respect, my sentiments are more with suomalainen. Two of the best success stories in this area have been Hebrew and Catalan which were both dying out until about the middle of the 19th century when they experienced vigorous nationalistic revivals. The Scots and Irish have been less successful with Gaelic, unfortunately. English seems to have their languages in a headlock.
|
|
Brennus: >>The Scots and Irish have been less successful with Gaelic, unfortunately.<<
The case of Welsh seems to be more of a success story, although it is maybe debatable if it has ever been an "endangered" language in the first place, and even if there are very few people who use exclusively Welsh. Today, it may be the Celtic language with the largest number of active speakers (those who use it for communication every day).
On the whole, I think it is reasonable to try to keep a language alive as long as it has enough speakers to have a potential of surviving (by encouraging its use in schools and the media, for example, and through parents using it in communicating with their children). However, as some languages gain predominance in various multilingual countries, it is may be inevitable that some minority languages decline and ultimately arrive at the verge of dying out. IMHO, the critical point is reached when speaking a minority language is perceived as a stigma, a sign of backwardness, or, in the nastier case, its use is officially discouraged. One of the above has been the case for such, once thriving languages as Low Saxon and Occitan, and also Scots and Irish Gaelic. Perhaps the best examples for the opposite (at least in Europe) are Catalan, Basque and Welsh, although the latter are all affected by the majority language of their respective country, too.
|
|
|
My answer is short and simple: As long as there is people interested in the language, even if it is endangered or dying out, it will survive.
|
|
Many languages are disapearing but at the same time new languages are being created ("artificial" languages). It is as if human beings are constantly looking for a point of balance between the need of having a large number of people/speakers that understand you and keeping a distinctive identity from other people around you. It´s like the balance between nation and comunity, between collective and individual.
I would dare suggest that most of the new invented languages have been invented by english-speakers, that language that everyone seems to speak or understand.
It is as if for some english-speaking persons they actually have a need, sometimes, of not being understood...
|
|
Brennus > >"The trend since the beginning of written history has been for languages to steadily die out at almost exponential rates. The graveyard includes Summerian, Hittite, Punic (Phoenecian), Iberian, Pisidian. Phrygian, Galatian, Old Prussian, Polabian, Cornish and Dalmatian just to mention a few; even several languages which are still alive like Greek, Irish Gaelic, Ainu and Cherokee have lost some dialects."
Yet again you claim the Irish language is dead. Please produce your definition of extinct!!!!!!
Regards,
Ben.
|
|
|
Brennus did not claim Irish Gaelic was dead. He claimed it was still alive, but had lost some dialects. You might want to reread it Ben.
|
|
Ooops!!!!!
That'll teach me for skim reading.!!
Many appologies Brennus!
Regards,
Ben.
|
|
Ben,
Apology accepted although I don't think you really mean to offend,
rather you are just a strong spokesman for the Gaelic language.
Nevertheless, in 1850 slightly more than half of the Irish population still spoke Gaelic according to the linguistic atlases I've seen. Today, the most generous Gaelic-speaking figures are for 10% of the Irish population; others place it at just 3%, primarily in Donegal, Connemara and Country Kerry. The Tyrone and East Ulster dialects of Irish Gaelic died out as recently as the 1950's. I am even more skeptical about figures for Scottish Gaelic. All the Scottish immigrants I have met here in Seattle tell me that they've never heard the Scottish Gaelic language spoken or met anyone in Scotland who spoke it.
In the United States, Irish Catholics are being rapidly assimilated into the Anglo-American mainstream making it unlikely that most of them will ever try to learn Gaelic. Even in their more ethno-conscious, nationalistic days of the 1930's and 40's, Irish-Americans never sent their children to "Gaelic school" the way many Jewish- and Greek-Americans send their kids to Hebrew school and Greek school although the Catholic Church always liked Irish-American candidates for the priesthood who managed to learn some Gaelic.
|
|
Cheers! Right you are, I'm a strong Irish language supporter. ;)
An Ghaeilge abú!!
Ben.
|
|
I'd like to update the situation.....
....I am Irish, was raised in Ireland. More than 3% of the country speak Irish (Gaelic). We're very proud of our ancient language and while our parents may have resented having it forced down their throats in school, the younger generations recognise the importance of keeping the language alive.
I went to school in Munster and learned Irish there. Moved to Leinster and they made fun of my Irish (different dialect). But in senior years had an Irish teacher from Connacht (another different dialect) who put us all in our place! So much for dialects dying out...
Would like to add that the fourth dialect..Ulster Irish...is so very similar to Scots Gaelic.
|
|
Re: "Would like to add that the fourth dialect..Ulster Irish...is so very similar to Scots Gaelic." --- Dogmoon
This is true. The Tir Chonaill and Ulster dialects of Irish are roughly midway between standard Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic with a few quirks of their own which are not found in either. However, from what I've read, Ulster Irish has been extinct since the 1950's. The Gaelic which the IRA has been using there is definitely standard Irish Gaelic.
|
|
|
I strongly disagree with the title of this thread. Who are you to declare that minor, insignificant languages should be done away with? Each language has its own uniqueness, no matter how rare it may be. Regarding the Celtic languages, they're barely hanging on. Any student of history knows that history hasn't been kind to the Celts. At one time, they dominated Europe. They even sacked Rome. But as Rome's power grew, the Romans Latinized most of Europe. Even in more recent history, Ireland's next door neighbor and neighborgood bully, England has acted to eradicate Gaelic. As England's power and influence grew, so did the English language. The Celtic languages have been the biggest victims of English's ascent and dominance in the world.
|
