For a fresh perspective on this, try to imagine that the language that wins out in the end is not English.
In 2180, the whole planet speaks Mandarin. There are academic books (written in simplified Chinese script) about how English used to be, including the difference between “its” and “it’s”, and the debates on split infinitives. There are also recordings showing the differences between the Chicago, New Jersey, Cockney and Australian accents. The works of Walt Whitman and Mark Twain are studied in Chinese translation, although a copy of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in English has been preserved in a museum somewhere. There’s even a .ZIP of the SDMB available online, although few non-scholars can understand the contents.
It’s not just a theory. The same argument can be made now.
You talk about all the culture we would lose access to if we didn’t speak English as a primary language. That’s what’s lost if you tell people they should speak Kumeyaay instead of English.
It’s actually worse. If the entire world spoke Mandarin, there would be billions of other people you can speak to. There would be a large body of literature in Mandarin that everyone could read. There would be news sources and educational material and archives in Mandarin for people to learn from. There would be internet sites and message boards in Mandarin. There would be Mandarin pop songs and movies and comic books. Street signs and menus would be written in Mandarin.
But what does a Kumeyaay speaker have in the contemporary world? He can speak to approximately five hundred other people. He can read the books that have been published in Kumeyaay. A Kumeyaay speaker lives in a much smaller world than an English speaker does.
Obviously, it’s not an either/or question. I’m sure there isn’t a single person who only speaks Kumeyaay. But if you’re going to be bilingual, are you better off speaking Kumeyaay and English or Spanish and English? Or Mandarin and French? Or Arabic and Russian?
As I’ve said before, the objective value of a language is best measured by how many people use that language. The more people that use a language, the more content there is in that language.
How about these attempts to revive extinct languages? like Cornish (which died out about 1750). Surely, nobody is really going to use such a language? Face it, “dying” languages are dying because there is no point in using them anymore-like coach whips.
The Bible is certainly one of the best-selling books in the western world (and in many places beyond), and the vast majority of Bibles are not printed or sold in the original language, and hardly anyone seems to mind.
I agree with **iiandyiiii **-- I’m not sure anything of the utmost importance has been lost in your scenario.
People speaking obscure languages typically speak more than a few languages. It was rare in Cameroon to meet people who spoke less than 3 (their home village language, the local town language, and the trade language.) Many would throw French and Hausa on top, and maybe some English and a second local language just because.
I’m not sure we have much place for lecturing them on speaking useful languages.
Good point. However, Hebrew was in use as a language of prayer, so it wasn’t entirely extinct. Where do you go to even find how Cornish was pronounced? All we have is written texts. And (of course) modern Hebrew is probably quite different from Biblical Hebrew.
Language is often part of people’s identity. Even when people speak the same language, they will split off a kind of dialect for themselves and their ‘group’(whatever size or shape that takes). It’s not very likely that there will ever be only one language spoken in the world because people will make new ones, over time. Since this is inevitable, you may as well keep around the languages that have history, culture and identity already attached, so that people can link themselves to their pasts.
Also, it would be pretty rare to have a comprehensive description of most endangered languages. Maybe a word list with a few thousand words and a quick grammar. Future linguists may start to make incorrect assumptions about language, because they are not aware of the full range of possibilities.
From a purely linguistic/historical perspective, if a language dies and is not recorded then you’ve lost a piece of the puzzle. It might be possible some day (although not likely) to successfully do what Joseph Greenberg claims to have done in part-- extrapolate back to the first language, in the way we extrapolate back to P.I.E (Proto-Indo-European).
But of course we have no idea how many language are already gone forever. There could easily be tens of thousands of them.
Because that was a unique case. A combination of one completely crazy obsessed guy / strong nationalism / nation building / the fact that the smattering of Hebrew was the only language that all Jews had in common (as opposed to English/Russian/French/Spanish/Arabic/Yiddish/Ladino that most Jews at the time spoke).
I am pleased when a language or culture that is not sustainable goes away. Now no innocent children will be globally handicapped and trapped by its limitations, and that is not a tragedy.
How would you like to speak ONLY a language that a few hundred other people speak? Now the only ideas you have access to are theirs. Sure, it’s fun for the rest of us to gape at you, but you deserve native understanding of a whole big batch of stuff, not a tiny limited menu.
Straw man. Preserving minority languages does not require monolingualism, and no minority language preservation efforts that I’m aware of preclude people from acquiring competency in the majority language.
That doesn’t make it a straw man. Some cultures do purposely try to keep children from learning other languages, in order to preserve their culture. When a language is good and dead, it cannot be used for this purpose.
To some extent, it is necessary to prevent the child from speaking the dominant language—for a time, and to a limited degree. If you’re aware of specific cases where, in order to preserve the minority language, children are actively prevented from acquiring competency in the dominant language, I’d be interested in seeing the evidence.
What you’re saying sounds like the old arguments against linguistic diversity, the ones that prevented my grandmother from being competent in her first language. “If we let them speak anything other than English, it will hold them back! Better to stamp out our heritage for the sake of their economic well-being.”
Most Jews knew no Hebrew (aside from a few prayers they had memorized). I learned to read it aloud, but I learned nothing, absolutely nothing, about what it all meant. I could read prayers and chant something called the Haftorah (I had no idea what it was about or even what a haftorah was) without learning any of the language. My parents new even less than that. They did speak Yiddish, although only father had native fluency.
When I took an anthropolgy course in college 60 years ago, they mentioned the attempted revivals of Hebrew and Irish Gaelic as interesting experiments in language revival. From our perspective it is clear that one succeeded and the other failed. I think an important reason was that there was no common language otherwise. I don’t think there were many Irish who couldn’t speak English?
One difference between biological extinction and language extinction is that the latter is forever. When a language goes extinct, we can keep records from and, yes, even revive it is needed.
I have to admit, I cannot find any reason to grieve when a language goes extinct.
Almost none, and all elderly, by the time the Irish achieved independence. But that’s not the whole story. The Irish government tried to tread a middle ground, and ultimately their passivity meant that the forces of language shift were blunted but not really much slowed. As usual, there are economic reasons for this: an English-speaking nation is vastly more competitive internationally than an Irish-speaking one, and when push comes to shove that’s what it’s about. In short, while some people dedicated their lives to the cause, as a whole neither people nor government were ever serious about reviving it.
Another factor, of course, is that if you speak English but not Irish, Irish is really very difficult: perhaps not as bad as Chinese but a few orders of magnitude more difficult than German or Spanish.
