# Why is it sad when a language dies out? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 1, 2015, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-sad-when-a-language-dies-out/726695 "2015-08-01T00:25:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![AnaMen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dfb087/32.png) [@AnaMen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnaMen)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-sad-when-a-language-dies-out/726695/141 "2015-08-11T14:47:07Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I’m sad I have no one with which to practice Irish Gaelic with in my life, but that’s the breaks. I still speak two other languages (granted, my French is not and never has been fluent). That isn’t even remotely the same thing, plus you can find someone to Skype or similar with if you try. > [@](#): > > It’s more of a tragedy because she’s the _last_ speaker, but it’s not like she’s in solitary confinement. Yes, she is not the worst-off person in the world, it’s true. > [@](#): > > Given the poverty of Nepal, and that a lot of 75 year old people are _unable_ to engage in physical labor but she is, I’m not entirely convinced this is the worst of all possible worlds here. Granted, it would be _better_ if she could spend her golden years in idle comfort but most people aren’t that lucky. That’s like saying a slave in the 1800s was actually doing okay, since not everyone is even ABLE to pick cotton all day. > [@](#): > > Seriously - she obviously CAN “strike up a conversation with someone” because she DOES. Otherwise she couldn’t be interviewed. I meant someone who could have helped her take her life in a different direction, not just have a conversation with someone. Such a person may not speak Nepali. > [@](#): > > MOST people who speak such a moribund language do, in fact, speak another language. Or several such. Yes, there are some unfortunate cases where people are monolinguist speakers of nearly dead languages _but they are the exception_. What is the minimum number of people required before my sadness on their behalf is appropriate? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-sad-when-a-language-dies-out/726695/142 "2015-08-11T16:53:00Z")
> [@AnaMen](#): > > That isn’t even remotely the same thing, plus you can find someone to Skype or similar with if you try. And people in remote areas of, say, Nepal, can gain internet access and Skype with linguists interested in learning their dying language, cripes, people make phone calls from the summit of Everest these days - win-win all around, right? Maybe even pay her a stipend for being a research subject or something, wouldn’t have to be much because a little money by First World standards will go a long way in a place like Nepal. > [@](#): > > That’s like saying a slave in the 1800s was actually doing okay, since not everyone is even ABLE to pick cotton all day. Wouldn’t say that was _okay_, but a slave working in the field might prefer that fate, harsh as it is, to, say, being [the human guinea pig for a surgeon working out new techniques, being operated on up to 30 times or more without anesthesia even though it was available at the time.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Marion_Sims#Medical_experimentation_on_slaves) Yes, it’s sad a 75 year old woman has to make a living “crushing rock”. On the other hand, she made it to 75 and is still able to work for a living. Hey, why not lobby some linguists to give her a stipend for language lessons? That should keep everyone happy, right? > [@](#): > > I meant someone who could have helped her take her life in a different direction, not just have a conversation with someone. Such a person may not speak Nepali. Such a person almost certainly doesn’t speak Nepali. That doesn’t mean that encouraging people to give up Nepali will automatically make them better off. > [@](#): > > What is the minimum number of people required before my sadness on their behalf is appropriate? You can be sad for just one person, what I don’t get is why you think a language disappearing is such a _good_ thing when the problem isn’t what obscure language someone happens to know but rather the way that wealth and good jobs are distributed in the world. Plenty of people who speak a “useful” language like English are still poor as dirt. You want to make someone’s life better don’t take away their native tongue(s), find a way to encourage better jobs where they currently reside. ---
**Author:** ![AnaMen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dfb087/32.png) [@AnaMen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnaMen)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-sad-when-a-language-dies-out/726695/143 "2015-08-11T17:36:32Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > And people in remote areas of, say, Nepal, can gain internet access and Skype with linguists interested in learning their dying language, cripes, people make phone calls from the summit of Everest these days - win-win all around, right? Maybe even pay her a stipend for being a research subject or something, wouldn’t have to be much because a little money by First World standards will go a long way in a place like Nepal. She can’t be online all the time like you, she has rocks to crush. > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t say that was _okay_, but a slave working in the field might prefer that fate, harsh as it is, to, say, being [the human guinea pig for a surgeon working out new techniques, being operated on up to 30 times or more without anesthesia even though it was available at the time.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Marion_Sims#Medical_experimentation_on_slaves) Yes, there is always someone worse off, except for one person, who is not this elderly rockcrusher. So what? > [@](#): > > Yes, it’s sad a 75 year old woman has to make a living “crushing rock”. On the other hand, she made it to 75 and is still able to work for a living. Hey, why not lobby some linguists to give her a stipend for language lessons? That should keep everyone happy, right? I have my own problems, I can’t take on fixing hers too. Plus, then someone else will be stuck being the last at some point in the future. Her useless language can be put to rest with her, one last uncrushed rock as their tombstone. > [@](#): > > Such a person almost certainly doesn’t speak Nepali. That doesn’t mean that encouraging people to give up Nepali will automatically make them better off. I don’t care if they give up Nepali, but learning a world language is likely to make at least some of them better off. One could translate to enable better communication between Everest tourists and Sherpas, for example. Everest tourists are typically well-able to throw some cash around and rarely speak Nepali. > [@](#): > > You can be sad for just one person, what I don’t get is why you think a language disappearing is such a _good_ thing when the problem isn’t what obscure language someone happens to know but rather the way that wealth and good jobs are distributed in the world. Plenty of people who speak a “useful” language like English are still poor as dirt. You want to make someone’s life better don’t take away their native tongue(s), find a way to encourage better jobs where they currently reside. When the obscure language has completely died, there is no chance anyone is left stuck speaking only it, so I think that is good. When people want their children to master a minority language, they are often advised to make that the _only_ language spoken at home (the assumption being that the child will pick the majority language up anyway). They will of course, but possibly have been cheated of a bit of native fluency by the delay. I don’t like that. Yes, there are poor English-speakers. I didn’t say knowledge of a world language was sufficient in and of itself for wealth did I? I don’t want to take away anyone’s native tongue. It’s the language speakers who are choosing NOT to pass on the language that often leads to its decline. I applaud and support their decision. Whining about a language’s passing is often coupled with whining about a primitive culture’s collapse. I like it when people flee primitive cultures in favor of knowledge and reason, PLUS I like it when anthropologists are sad about these “losses” and lament the fact that everyone in a tribe has died or left and now they have no one left to spy on. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-sad-when-a-language-dies-out/726695/144 "2015-08-11T18:11:57Z")
> [@AnaMen](#): > > I don’t want to take away anyone’s native tongue. It’s the language speakers who are choosing NOT to pass on the language that often leads to its decline. I applaud and support their decision. > > Whining about a language’s passing is often coupled with whining about a primitive culture’s collapse. But you do know that people can still keep the language of their “primitive” culture and be modern, yes? Take Welsh (the only minority language I’m fluent in). People had to come up with a way to talking about using their computer to go online and access the internet. So _maen nhw’n defnyddio eu cyfrifiaduron nhw i fynd ar-lein i gael mynediad i’r rhwngrwyd_. “ar-lein” is from “[on] line” but none of the other words come from English. Now, you can still find plenty of people who talk about Welsh the way you’re talking about hypothetical languages: better for this relic of the primitive past to die out. But you’re proposing a false dichotomy between minority language and modern. Furthermore, by accessing the modern world through their own language, they get to keep access to their traditional culture. Even the sound of words is important: hearing a choir sing “hollalluog, hollalluog” is so much more meaningful than the literal English rendering “omnipotent, omnipotent” (the stressed syllable, “llu,” means “host” as in “group of people” and is part of the word for “family”). Though the two are equivalent they’re not equal. They refer to their language as “tafod y ddraig” (the dragon’s tongue) and “iaith y nefoedd” (the language of heaven), metaphors which (a) don’t apply to English and (b) are hard to translate because they’re so deeply embedded in a cultural context. Multiply that by a billion infinities, and you get why language preservation is important. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-sad-when-a-language-dies-out/726695/145 "2015-08-11T18:18:16Z")
> [@AnaMen](#): > > She can’t be online all the time like you, she has rocks to crush. \*\>snort\< \* I just had a 5 day run without being on line, I’m hardly on “all the time”. > [@](#): > > I have my own problems, I can’t take on fixing hers too. Why not? I’m not saying taking her on as a dependent. Just… hey, folks, why don’t we opt to support linguists who can give a decent, non-laboring retirement to Nepalese rock-crushers? > [@](#): > > Plus, then someone else will be stuck being the last at some point in the future. Her useless language can be put to rest with her, one last uncrushed rock as their tombstone. See, that’s what I don’t get - this notion that a language is “useless”. But then, silly me, I think more knowledge rather than less is a good thing. Granted, very obscure languages might not be useful outside of academic circles, but such languages have been useful to those who study languages, which had lead to all sorts of interesting stuff about language acquisition, human brains, rehabilitation of people like stroke victims, and probably lots of other stuff. > [@](#): > > When the obscure language has completely died, there is no chance anyone is left stuck speaking only it, so I think that is good. But NO ONE is “stuck” speaking JUST a dead language! (Absent people with brain damage) Even adults retain the capacity to learn new languages. I don’t understand why you think the loss of a language is _good_. > [@](#): > > When people want their children to master a minority language, they are often advised to make that the _only_ language spoken at home (the assumption being that the child will pick the majority language up anyway). They will of course, but possibly have been cheated of a bit of native fluency by the delay. I don’t like that. Uh… on what do you base this? Cite, please? WHO is telling people that? Polylingual households often speak more than one language in the home. Assuming the kid has contact with people outside the home yes, they’re going to pick up the majority language anyway. Even more so if there is also TV, radio, etc. in the language used in the home. You seem to be operating on a notion of language acquisition from the early 20th Century. > [@](#): > > I don’t want to take away anyone’s native tongue. It’s the language speakers who are choosing NOT to pass on the language that often leads to its decline. I applaud and support their decision. I do not. I think they are doing a disservice to their children if they raise them as monolinguals. There is no harm in a child growing up using more than one language, evidence that being polylingual is actually good for the brain, and the kid can always choose to stop using one of the languages later in life. To me, it’s like applauding people who refuse to give their children music lesson or color with crayons. Teaching them music and art as children might take away from something else, they can do that later if they want! :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Whining about a language’s passing is often coupled with whining about a primitive culture’s collapse. I like it when people flee primitive cultures in favor of knowledge and reason, PLUS I like it when anthropologists are sad about these “losses” and lament the fact that everyone in a tribe has died or left and now they have no one left to spy on. Right, because it’s impossible for a “primitive” culture to evolve, right? I mean, how dare the Cherokee develop a written language, right? They should have just spoken and written everything in English, right? Anthropology, by the way, isn’t “spying” on people - the people being observed know darn well who the stranger amongst them is. It’s also becoming more common for anthropologists to give these groups the means to do their own documenting and preserve what matters to those tribes and groups. Not a bad trade in my book. ---
**Author:** ![AnaMen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dfb087/32.png) [@AnaMen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnaMen)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-sad-when-a-language-dies-out/726695/146 "2015-08-11T18:36:23Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > But you do know that people can still keep the language of their “primitive” culture and be modern, yes? > > Take Welsh (the only minority language I’m fluent in). People had to come up with a way to talking about using their computer to go online and access the internet. So _maen nhw’n defnyddio eu cyfrifiaduron nhw i fynd ar-lein i gael mynediad i’r rhwngrwyd_. “ar-lein” is from “[on] line” but none of the other words come from English. > > Now, you can still find plenty of people who talk about Welsh the way you’re talking about hypothetical languages: better for this relic of the primitive past to die out. But you’re proposing a false dichotomy between minority language and modern. Furthermore, by accessing the modern world through their own language, they get to keep access to their traditional culture. Even the sound of words is important: hearing a choir sing “hollalluog, hollalluog” is so much more meaningful than the literal English rendering “omnipotent, omnipotent” (the stressed syllable, “llu,” means “host” as in “group of people” and is part of the word for “family”). Though the two are equivalent they’re not equal. They refer to their language as “tafod y ddraig” (the dragon’s tongue) and “iaith y nefoedd” (the language of heaven), metaphors which (a) don’t apply to English and (b) are hard to translate because they’re so deeply embedded in a cultural context. Multiply that by a billion infinities, and you get why language preservation is important. Yeah, I’m not really talking about Welsh, which is not an obscure language. It might be fair to call it “dying,” in the sense that it’s probably on its way out, but we will not be down to the last Welsh-speaker any time soon. The question was “why is it sad when a language dies out?,” not “is there value to languages that are not spoken by gobs of people?” That said, I don’t care if Welsh stays or goes. Cultural traditions are neat to observe or participate in and all, but individual cultures are “in crowds” that exclude people and I want us to move forward together as a species, not squabble over membership in antiquated groupings. Yes, there are losses along the way for tourists, but I think the gains would ultimately be worth it. We can travel to nearly any populated area of Earth in a few days, so it’s time to move past the geographical happenstance of our ancestors and share the world’s resources with everyone. ---
**Author:** ![AnaMen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dfb087/32.png) [@AnaMen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnaMen)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-sad-when-a-language-dies-out/726695/147 "2015-08-11T19:07:30Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > \*\>snort\< \* I just had a 5 day run without being on line, I’m hardly on “all the time”. The fact that you think that’s a long time proves my point. > [@](#): > > Why not? I’m not saying taking her on as a dependent. Just… hey, folks, why don’t we opt to support linguists who can give a decent, non-laboring retirement to Nepalese rock-crushers? I don’t want to support linguists. I like when languages die, remember? Maybe you or another dying-language-lover should start a GoFundMe for this. Bonus: raise enough money to pay yourself a salary to curate the project long term. > [@](#): > > See, that’s what I don’t get - this notion that a language is “useless”. But then, silly me, I think more knowledge rather than less is a good thing. Well, not even she is using it, so it’s useless. Language is for communication and this one has not made the cut. The rest of us are communicating without it. Are we short 63 specific terms for yak milk that this language could have provided? Maybe, but I think we’ll all stumble on without it. > [@](#): > > Granted, very obscure languages might not be useful outside of academic circles, but such languages have been useful to those who study languages, which had lead to all sorts of interesting stuff about language acquisition, human brains, rehabilitation of people like stroke victims, and probably lots of other stuff. Well, they’ve managed without this one, and will have to continue to do so. > [@](#): > > But NO ONE is “stuck” speaking JUST a dead language! (Absent people with brain damage) > > Even adults retain the capacity to learn new languages. To a degree, but learning a language later in life will not result in native fluency for most people. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand why you think the loss of a language is _good_. I just like to see the best in things, I suppose. It’s progress, it’s jettisoning unneeded baggage, it’s one tiny step closer to global communication… It’s one less thing for an elderly rock-crusher to suffer from… It’s sad for people who promote certain viewpoints that I feel are harmful, and I like that they aren’t getting their way. > [@](#): > > Uh… on what do you base this? Cite, please? WHO is telling people that? Eh, maybe I’ll throw a link up later. This window likes to diisappear my typing if I leave it too long. It’s not actually bad advice, IF your goal is for your child to be bilingual and no one else around speaks the minority language. > [@](#): > > Polylingual households often speak more than one language in the home. Assuming the kid has contact with people outside the home yes, they’re going to pick up the majority language anyway. Even more so if there is also TV, radio, etc. in the language used in the home. > > You seem to be operating on a notion of language acquisition from the early 20th Century. Well, I’m not like 130 years old or a time-traveler, so I don’t know what to tell you. > [@](#): > > I do not. I think they are doing a disservice to their children if they raise them as monolinguals. There is no harm in a child growing up using more than one language, evidence that being polylingual is actually good for the brain, and the kid can always choose to stop using one of the languages later in life. I think we should respect their choices. Maybe they agree that their obscure language is unnecessary. They should know better than we would. > [@](#): > > To me, it’s like applauding people who refuse to give their children music lesson or color with crayons. Teaching them music and art as children might take away from something else, they can do that later if they want! :rolleyes: There are only so many hours in a day. We can’t teach children everything, so it makes sense to prioritize. > [@](#): > > Right, because it’s impossible for a “primitive” culture to evolve, right? I mean, how dare the Cherokee develop a written language, right? They should have just spoken and written everything in English, right? Huh? If they can get the rest of us to start using their language, more power to them. What’s it to me whether it has a written form? > [@](#): > > Anthropology, by the way, isn’t “spying” on people - the people being observed know darn well who the stranger amongst them is. It’s also becoming more common for anthropologists to give these groups the means to do their own documenting and preserve what matters to those tribes and groups. Not a bad trade in my book. I didn’t say they were secretly spying, but of course they want to, so as not to corrupt the subjects with their presence like they usually do. They should just leave people alone and quit interfering, especially if they think these cultures are so wonderful. Keeping them around to study for our benefit is creepy, dehumanizing, and wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-sad-when-a-language-dies-out/726695/148 "2015-08-11T22:25:16Z")
> [@AnaMen](#): > > The fact that you think that’s a long time proves my point. It still proves you are factually wrong by your statement I am on line “all the time”. Possibly I hang out here more than YOU want me to, but it’s not your decision. > [@](#): > > I don’t want to support linguists. I like when languages die, remember? Maybe you or another dying-language-lover should start a GoFundMe for this. Bonus: raise enough money to pay yourself a salary to curate the project long term. I would actually support a GoFundMe for such a purpose. > [@](#): > > Well, not even she is using it, so it’s useless. Gee, I dunno, maybe she talks to herself. Maybe she sings song she learned in childhood in the language. I have no idea what she does or doesn’t do with her native language. > [@](#): > > To a degree, but learning a language later in life will not result in native fluency for most people. The primary purpose of language is communication. You don’t need to be _fluent_ to communicate effectively. You can even communicate _well_ without needing native fluency. > [@](#): > > I just like to see the best in things, I suppose. So… mere survival makes a language inherently superior in your mind? I just want to be clear on that. > [@](#): > > It’s progress, it’s jettisoning unneeded baggage, it’s one tiny step closer to global communication… So, your end goal with all this is to eliminate every single language but one? That’s like saying we should have only one landscape painting - after all, why would you need more? Want a landscape, here you go! What you call “unneeded baggage” I call “welcome variety”. > [@](#): > > It’s not actually bad advice, IF your goal is for your child to be bilingual and no one else around speaks the minority language. Or you could have one parent speak to the child in one language and one parent speak in another - I once knew a Turkish family where when the kids were infants and toddlers the father only spoke to them in Turkish, the mother only in French, and they picked up English from neighbors/friends/schools. The kids grew up completely fluent in all three. > [@](#): > > I think we should respect their choices. Maybe they agree that their obscure language is unnecessary. They should know better than we would. And if such parents do “impose” their obscure languages on the kids maybe they know better than we do, right? > [@](#): > > There are only so many hours in a day. We can’t teach children everything, so it makes sense to prioritize. That’s the funny thing about languages - you can teach them simultaneously with teaching other things. Like how I learned about French literature and European history in my more advanced French classes. You know, because languages communicate things and that’s how you learn stuff. > [@](#): > > Huh? If they can get the rest of us to start using their language, more power to them. What’s it to me whether it has a written form? Languages that are strictly oral are more easily lost entirely. Languages that are written down can still communicate even when no one knows anymore how they really sounded. Because Ancient Greek and Ancient Egyptian and Mayan hieroglyphs are _written language_ we have access to historical facts we would otherwise be unaware of and unable to know. The Cherokee are also an example of how a “primitive” culture can evolve and remain a viable and unique culture even while existing in a thoroughly modern world. > [@](#): > > I didn’t say they were secretly spying, but of course they want to, so as not to corrupt the subjects with their presence like they usually do. Why do you say “of course they want to”. Can you substantiate that claim at all? > [@](#): > > They should just leave people alone and quit interfering, especially if they think these cultures are so wonderful. Keeping them around to study for our benefit is creepy, dehumanizing, and wrong. It’s not like they’re locking these people up in a zoo! Studying how cultures adapt to the modern world, how they go from stone age tech to modern tech for example, is part of anthropology and by studying that they can help to minimize negative impacts while allowing these people to _choose_ what they want to keep and what they want to discard. Adopting a “no interference” policy would just leave them vulnerable to exploitation or even extermination because there are some thoroughly nasty and greedy people in this world. ---
**Author:** ![AnaMen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dfb087/32.png) [@AnaMen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AnaMen)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-sad-when-a-language-dies-out/726695/149 "2015-08-12T01:24:54Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > It still proves you are factually wrong by your statement I am on line “all the time”. Possibly I hang out here more than YOU want me to, but it’s not your decision. Why would I want you to be here less? I’d want you here more, if anything. > [@](#): > > I would actually support a GoFundMe for such a purpose. There are certainly plenty of worse ones out there, so why the heck not? > [@](#): > > Gee, I dunno, maybe she talks to herself. Maybe she sings song she learned in childhood in the language. I have no idea what she does or doesn’t do with her native language. Whatever she does though, it isn’t enough. She said she was sad that she had no one to use it with. > [@](#): > > The primary purpose of language is communication. You don’t need to be _fluent_ to communicate effectively. You can even communicate _well_ without needing native fluency. You can communicate basic things, but there are limitations to the depth of your communication. It’s like how when you are translating a poem, something is always lost or changed. > [@](#): > > So… mere survival makes a language inherently superior in your mind? I just want to be clear on that. Yeah, I believe in evolution. I don’t just mean I think it describes how things change over time–I like it. > [@](#): > > So, your end goal with all this is to eliminate every single language but one? I don’t have a goal. I’m not the one stomping out obscure languages, I just like that they’re going away. Do I only want one language left? Not in my lifetime, but longer-term, maybe it would be good if every person on the planet could communicate with each other. I don’t think that necessarily means there should ideally be one language only though. > [@](#): > > That’s like saying we should have only one landscape painting - after all, why would you need more? Want a landscape, here you go! It’s nothing like that though. > [@](#): > > What you call “unneeded baggage” I call “welcome variety”. That seems kind of selfish. I enjoy the variety as well, but I’m not convinced that that’s a valid reason to keep it around. > [@](#): > > Or you could have one parent speak to the child in one language and one parent speak in another - I once knew a Turkish family where when the kids were infants and toddlers the father only spoke to them in Turkish, the mother only in French, and they picked up English from neighbors/friends/schools. The kids grew up completely fluent in all three. The bilingual English + another language people I have known were frequently frustrated by their incomplete knowledge of either language, and most parents do not have the linguistic chops to pull that off. > [@](#): > > And if such parents do “impose” their obscure languages on the kids maybe they know better than we do, right? Yup, but since an insufficient number of people do this, their languages are dying. Yay! > [@](#): > > That’s the funny thing about languages - you can teach them simultaneously with teaching other things. Like how I learned about French literature and European history in my more advanced French classes. You know, because languages communicate things and that’s how you learn stuff. Yes, I am pro-multilingualism too. > [@](#): > > Languages that are strictly oral are more easily lost entirely. Languages that are written down can still communicate even when no one knows anymore how they really sounded. Because Ancient Greek and Ancient Egyptian and Mayan hieroglyphs are _written language_ we have access to historical facts we would otherwise be unaware of and unable to know. I don’t care about those so-called facts. > [@](#): > > The Cherokee are also an example of how a “primitive” culture can evolve and remain a viable and unique culture even while existing in a thoroughly modern world. Ha, sure they are. > [@](#): > > Why do you say “of course they want to”. Can you substantiate that claim at all? Interfering with the observees is like the most basic problem of anthropological field studies. > [@](#): > > It’s not like they’re locking these people up in a zoo! Nor are they forcing them to crush rocks, so I guess all is well? > [@](#): > > Studying how cultures adapt to the modern world, how they go from stone age tech to modern tech for example, is part of anthropology and by studying that they can help to minimize negative impacts while allowing these people to _choose_ what they want to keep and what they want to discard. Adopting a “no interference” policy would just leave them vulnerable to exploitation or even extermination because there are some thoroughly nasty and greedy people in this world. They don’t need to be “allowed” anything or studied for our benefit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-sad-when-a-language-dies-out/726695.md?page=7)