But they could get a spot or two among the 10 scientifically important languages. It really isn’t much in comparison with the number of languages involved and their academic relevance, but their demographics don’t look good.
Perhaps it would be Navajo and Cree, the most spoken North American native language, and the most spoken among the biggest family (Algonquian) respectively. Personally, I’d love to include an Iroquoian language, but that would leave only 7 spots for the interesting languages from the rest of the world. And I know very little about Central and South American languages.
I didn’t consider that, but they may be dynamic. Really, it was the criteria that interested me, and reading about some of the lesser-known languages that you’d like to save.
The most practical thing would be to just go by the currently-top-50-most-used languages, unless some language outside the top-50 happens to be exclusively used by a single nation (I can’t think of any such example).
And as some pointed out upthread, even just the top-30 or top-40 would probably do. Even just English, Hindi, Mandarin, French, Portuguese and Spanish alone would cover the majority of the world’s population, IIRC.
If we’re to shoehorn them into the 10, then you’d want at least two South/Central American languages in there before any N-North American ones, never mind 2-3. Nahuatl and Quechua, for sure.
Again then I’d make the seed bank analogy argument. Just as I would select primarily for broad genetic diversity in … embryos? sperm and ova? … on a ship designed to possibly spread humanity across the galaxy, I would for languages as well. It may be that for both criteria those candidates native of Africa would be over represented.
I was talking about a language whose structure can incorporate, for example, the 421 different terms the Scots use to describe wintry weather. A language which limits adjectives, adverbs, and other descriptors seems constrictive to me.
Because (A) nobody needs French; and (B) if it disappears off the face of the earth tomorrow it won’t make a bit of difference to anything that actually matters.
A language that’s spoken by only one dozen people is of greater importance to society than French is. Etruscan is more deserving of preservation than French is.
Digger11, I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. The primary justification for a language’s existence is to allow people to communicate with each other. So a language’s usefulness and importance is directly tied to the number of people who use it to communicate. Everything else that evolves from that, including culture, is secondary. Over 200 Million people speak French on a daily basis, even if it is not their 1st native language. You can thank colonialism for that, but the fact remains.
Its usefulness is. Its importance isn’t, as long as people do have some way to communicate; which has been posited.
Suppose that by some miracle we found two or three living speakers of the language humans spoke while painting the caves at what we now call Lascaux. Wouldn’t the importance of that language be immense?
Any claim that no one now or in the future “needs”, or even would significantly benefit from, having any specific language available is the debate posed. Statements claiming the lack of or greater need over any other for any specific language are just silly until supported by reasoned argument.
Why is French more or less needed on this hypothetical? How about if if we have another moderately closely related language already included? Prejudice against French culture or love of?
The posts I responded to were irrational, hence my tone. Emotional ranting does not constitute an argument, especially when it is so utterly removed from reality.
As to why French is a shoo-in, well, demographics, amount of translations done to and from it, historical, literay and scientific relevance. It scores high in all aspects.
Moderating:
Based on your premise in the OP, it is hard to accept your post as anything but Junior Modding as you simply don’t like another posters opinion. If you feel it is a hijack, flag the post.
That said, @Digger11 it is time for you to desist from this thread. If the only support for your opinion is it is your opinion, then you are once again derailing a thread.
So everyone drop the meta-conversation about Digger11’s and Moonrise’s posts
FYI, just a reminder as the posters involved in this note are fairly new to the SDMB. Do not argue moderation in thread. Try ATMB or via PM to “moderators”.
What happens to the knowledge currently found only in a particular language that doesn’t make the cut? Does it get translated to one of the 50, or is it lost forever? If it is lost forever, then we must choose the languages which have the most knowledge contained in their writings as of the time of choosing.
Another crucially important question is in the science of how language shapes our ability to even conceive of things. I have heard of a few experts giving statements along the lines of having words in a language actually affect our ability to think of things; I’ve gotten that from random pop-sci articles I’ve read, so I have no idea of the veracity of it, but if that is indeed the case, then we would need to choose a variety of languages that maximizes the theoretical conceptual space we have in the future.
One, demographics and amount of translation done are objective measures, but historical, literary, and scientific relevance are very subjective calls, that many in this world could reasonably disagree with. And the large amount of translations done if so may argue against it: the science of significance has been widely translated, for example. No need to read it in French. Reading math maybe matters more!
Two, you have prematurely accepted which metric matters most. Does it matter most how many speak the language? How many speak only the language? Or other factors, like how different it is from others in the group?
I thought your intent included to discuss what the objectives should be?
The strong version (language determines thought) has been abandoned, but the weak version (language influences thought) looks more promising.
Scientific relevance could be quantified. One could list features that are rarely found cross-linguistically and give priority to the languages that display the most of these. Using the example of Malagasy I mentioned above, one could say :
Extreme geographic outlier in its family +1
Bantu substratum (unique in an Austronesian language) +1
Extremely rare VOS basic word order (eat meat I) +1
I see what you mean, but it could also be seen as an objective sign of the importance and the vitality of the language.
True, I got a bit carried away. I was curious to see which languages would be saved and couldn’t resist the temptation of trying to catch a glimpse.
I find it difficult to decide.
On the one hand, using only the number of purely native speakers is appealing. On the other, the global number of speakers is a significant metric, but what doesit include exactly ? Only those who are fluent speakers of L2. Anyone who can say only a couple of sentences in L2 ? Something in between ?
Perhaps we could have two metrics, one for the number of native speakers and another for the number of L2 speakers.
Then if we don’t save Sentinelese, they’re all going to die.
The chances that any other language has all the locally relevant information, learned over many generations, that they need to stay alive must be minuscule. There goes an entire culture – along with anything we might possibly learn someday about human cultural development from one of the few remaining ones minimally influenced by outside exposure. (My guess is that there may be a couple of others in the Amazon; we’d better save those too, or at least one of them if they’re similar to each other and the members of the one we don’t save wake up speaking the other’s language.)
Whereas if all the French speaking people suddenly speak Cantonese or English, they’re gonna be just fine.