Hoji Takahashi builds consensus

[jts]

Language should be used to get your point across and not to preserve cultural heritage or whatever.

Your language is possibly one of the the most important parts of your cultural heritage. There's a (relatively modern) saying in Irish, "Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam" A country without a language, a country without a soul.

Is there historical evidence of countries where no language was spoken?

[Boidhre]

Language should be used to get your point across and not to preserve cultural heritage or whatever.

Your language is possibly one of the the most important parts of your cultural heritage. There's a (relatively modern) saying in Irish, "Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam" A country without a language, a country without a soul.

Is there historical evidence of countries where no language was spoken?

Tír gan teanga would imply a country without a language of its own. I'd read it that way in English as well.

[Boidhre]

To be fair, Boidhre, English spent centuries taking words from other languages. P*ss and sh*t used to be normal words for bodily functions until the Normans invaded and gave us urinate and defecate, making the earlier words vulgar.

Yes, however if you were born in the last 100 years you haven't lived in a world where your native English was being replaced by foreign words on a large scale.

[jts]

Your language is possibly one of the the most important parts of your cultural heritage. There's a (relatively modern) saying in Irish, "Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam" A country without a language, a country without a soul.

Is there historical evidence of countries where no language was spoken?

Tír gan teanga would imply a country without a language of its own. I'd read it that way in English as well.

Ah! Yes, of course. Thus the soulless literature of the Americans, the Canadians, the English, the monoglot Irish... forced to share one language between a community of 360 million native speakers, with sadly predictable results.

[paK0]

Language should be used to get your point across and not to preserve cultural heritage or whatever.

Your language is possibly one of the the most important parts of your cultural heritage. There's a (relatively modern) saying in Irish, "Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam" A country without a language, a country without a soul.

Well, if it is and we assume that it is worth preserving, shouldn't that be all the more reason to adapt it to modern times to keep it relevant and spoken.

Because a language will almost certainly die if no one speaks it anymore.

[Boidhre]

Ah! Yes, of course. Thus the soulless literature of the Americans, the Canadians, the English, the monoglot Irish... forced to share one language between a community of 360 million native speakers, with sadly predictable results.

Troll.

[Boidhre]

Well, if it is and we assume that it is worth preserving, shouldn't that be all the more reason to adapt it to modern times to keep it relevant and spoken.

Because a language will almost certainly die if no one speaks it anymore.

What do you mean by "adapt it to modern times?" Do you mean just update the lexicon to include modern words like "computer" and "mobile phone?" That rarely is the problem. Adapting it isn't the issue usually, finding a way to teach it to a large number of people however is. The Israelis managed it with Hebrew because they needed a common language, otherwise people couldn't speak to each other. When there isn't such a pressing need, e.g. when there is already a language that is dominant and common (i.e. few monoglot minority langauge speakers exist), it's far more difficult to increase the numbers of genuinely fluent individuals.

[Bonobo]

Language should be used to get your point across and not to preserve cultural heritage or whatever.

Your language is possibly one of the the most important parts of your cultural heritage. There's a (relatively modern) saying in Irish, "Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam" A country without a language, a country without a soul.

Is there historical evidence of countries where no language was spoken?

None I know of, but there have been many colonialist/imperialist countries which have imposed their languages onto the countries they colonialized/invaded, thus robbing the people a LOT of their cultural identity and history. This happens/happened also in countries that have several languages where govt. has decided to use one language as official language and the use of other languages, e.g. the former Soviet Union, Turkey; in India, at least, other languages than Hindi and English are not deprecated, they’re just not official, AFAIK.

[paK0]

Well, if it is and we assume that it is worth preserving, shouldn't that be all the more reason to adapt it to modern times to keep it relevant and spoken.

Because a language will almost certainly die if no one speaks it anymore.

What do you mean by "adapt it to modern times?" Do you mean just update the lexicon to include modern words like "computer" and "mobile phone?" That rarely is the problem. Adapting it isn't the issue usually, finding a way to teach it to a large number of people however is. The Israelis managed it with Hebrew because they needed a common language, otherwise people couldn't speak to each other. When there isn't such a pressing need, e.g. when there is already a language that is dominant and common (i.e. few monoglot minority langauge speakers exist), it's far more difficult to increase the numbers of genuinely fluent individuals.

For adapt I mean the following: If a word from a foreign language is recognized by a large enough number of people and used in the context of their native language on a regular basis, then I see no problem to make the word part of the native language.

I don't think teaching it is an issue, native speakers usually just pick up new words as they talk with people who use them, its not like people actually sit down and actively learn those new words(like a student would learn words for a second language for example)

[Boidhre]

Well, if it is and we assume that it is worth preserving, shouldn't that be all the more reason to adapt it to modern times to keep it relevant and spoken.

Because a language will almost certainly die if no one speaks it anymore.

What do you mean by "adapt it to modern times?" Do you mean just update the lexicon to include modern words like "computer" and "mobile phone?" That rarely is the problem. Adapting it isn't the issue usually, finding a way to teach it to a large number of people however is. The Israelis managed it with Hebrew because they needed a common language, otherwise people couldn't speak to each other. When there isn't such a pressing need, e.g. when there is already a language that is dominant and common (i.e. few monoglot minority langauge speakers exist), it's far more difficult to increase the numbers of genuinely fluent individuals.

For adapt I mean the following: If a word from a foreign language is recognized by a large enough number of people and used in the context of their native language on a regular basis, then I see no problem to make the word part of the native language.

I don't think teaching it is an issue, native speakers usually just pick up new words as they talk with people who use them, its not like people actually sit down and actively learn those new words(like a student would learn words for a second language for example)

You miss my point. I'm talking about when the number of native speakers has been nearly reduced to the point of extinction, e.g. by famine with Irish speakers, Government policy with speakers of Corsican and so on.

[paK0]

Ah, k, thats what you meant.

I think in that case it probably comes donwn to personal opinion.

I think you should let a language like that just die, but I also said that I think of language more as something practical.


I wouldn't know anything about preserving a language in that state you described, is it even reasonably possible?

[Boidhre]

Yeah it's complicated. In Ireland there's quite a division over to what extent we should try and help the Irish language. In France the Government blocks any attempts of bilingual life (signage, education etc). They're doing pretty well with Welsh though from what I've heard.

[paK0]

Not sure about the Welsh thing. I was there at a student exchange, and while they had to learn it in school for a few years hardly any of the students were capable of having a conversation in Welsh.

Same for the adults, the only people who were fluent with it seemed to be the ones that were raised essentially bilingual. But then this was 10 years ago and only a small sample of personal experience, I don't really know about the grand picture there.

But all this seems to me that for a language to sustain itself you need a large enough number of native speakers that are raising their kids with that language. (Or the language needs to be usefult e.g. in the business world, but that seems to be the case for languages that fulfill the above criteria in the first place)

Are there any languages that have a (relatively) small number of native speakers but a lot of people who try to learn it?

[John Fairbairn]

Are there any languages that have a (relatively) small number of native speakers but a lot of people who try to learn it?

Yes, Scots. Most Scottish people attempt, sometimes embarrasingly, to speak it on Burns Night, and many but increasingly fewer at Hogmanay. But for the rest of the year, thanks to what is known as the Scottish Cringe, they are forced, or try, to speak like English people - or, worse, like Edinburgh intellectuals.

Scots is not officially supported in Scotland, I believe, yet Ulster Scots receives government grants in Northern Ireland, and Gaelic gets subsidies in both countries.

(I am not a Scot and am not taking sides.)

[Boidhre]

Well, it depends which part of Wales you're in and the work they're doing won't really bear fruit for another while (there's been a decent push towards monolingual Welsh education starting crucially at pre-school level in some areas which will do wonders for fluency in the long term).