Irish, and other minority languages

[Kralizec]

Maybe, but first Norway has to settle on a single language. Dialects are permissable as long as they're mutually intelligable

For the record, I don't support any effort to replace the world's languages with a single lingua franca. I just don't see any particular reason to feel sad when a language dissapears because it's abandoned or superceded.

[Montmorency]

as soon as you've forcibly purged all the other languages your new super-language will begin to diverge.

Grammar police.

[Beskar]

We have a Lingua Franca - it's called English, before that it was called Latin. Demanding that everyone have the same first language is like demanding the tide not come in. as soon as you've forcibly purged all the other languages your new super-language will begin to diverge.

Not really. Setting a set standard of practise will keep it mutually the same with minor diverges and evolutions which end up getting incorporated within the dictionaries as the language evolves and adapts. The world at the moment is a heavily chalked up blackboard full of scribbles, what it needs is a good wipe down with new instructions written up, taking the best bits from all the scribbles, forcing a revolutionary change. After that, it is simply done and with how information technology works today it, would keep going for a very long time.

Lots of languages have "hangers on", infact, American English was an attempt to modernise the English language by removing some of them. A fundamental shake-up would force an revolutionary advancement in language (such as a new alphabet, based on the principles I mentioned). Other examples would be the metric system compared to the imperial system. There are ways to make things better, so lets make them better.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In many ways, the language you grow up with shapes the way you think. Not all languages are structured the same, so when you make statements however mundane in German, your brain is processing the information in a different way than someone saying the same thing in English, or Latin or Irish or Indonesian. There are words with meanings that do not have a comparable word in other languages, feelings and abstract notions that have arisen in certain cultures that have not appeared else where.

Diversity is what makes life great, diversity of political thought gives us great places like this backroom where ultimately competing views brings us closer to the truth than a single monolithic political view. Such diversity in language brings its benefits as well, there is a character or perhaps a spirit embedded in Irish that I as a native English speaker lose out on, and I do not want a world where everyone else lacks that spirit as well, anymore than I want a world of all atheists or of all conservatives.

[HoreTore]

We have a Lingua Franca - it's called English, before that it was called Latin.

No, before that it was called "French". Funny how an englishman would forget that

No need for everyone to have english as a first language though - english as a second language is plenty. We loose a ton of resources globally on learning languages and defective communications. If everyone understood the same language, there would be a huge economic boost for everyone except language teachers(and they're a weird bunch anyway). English fits the bill because of its spread, not its phonetic qualities btw. But meh, the world is moving in that direction already, so I'm happy.

Maybe, but first Norway has to settle on a single language. Dialects are permissable as long as they're mutually intelligable

The sooner we throw out new-norwegian the better. Blasted thing has no positives at all, it can burn in hell for an eternity.

And I wouldn't cry if it took some of the weirder dialects with it. I'm looking at you, Telemark.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not really. Setting a set standard of practise will keep it mutually the same with minor diverges and evolutions which end up getting incorporated within the dictionaries as the language evolves and adapts. The world at the moment is a heavily chalked up blackboard full of scribbles, what it needs is a good wipe down with new instructions written up, taking the best bits from all the scribbles, forcing a revolutionary change. After that, it is simply done and with how information technology works today it, would keep going for a very long time.

Lots of languages have "hangers on", infact, American English was an attempt to modernise the English language by removing some of them. A fundamental shake-up would force an revolutionary advancement in language (such as a new alphabet, based on the principles I mentioned). Other examples would be the metric system compared to the imperial system. There are ways to make things better, so lets make them better.

I'm sorry - it didn't work. Can a Frenchman understand a Spaniard?

No.

You're trying to fight against human nature again - and you're trying to enforce your idea of "better" again as well.

No, before that it was called "French". Funny how an englishman would forget that

Except French was never really a common language despite being the literal Lingua Franca. It nearly made the jump but then Charlemegne's empire collapsed - and Latin took over again. Yes, the language of Europe's Courts might have been French but they wrote treaties in Latin.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Except French was never really a common language despite being the literal Lingua Franca. It nearly made the jump but then Charlemegne's empire collapsed - and Latin took over again. Yes, the language of Europe's Courts might have been French but they wrote treaties in Latin.

At least in 18th/19th century higher education you were expected to learn French, much as you are expected to learn English today. Latin was the language of science and medicine, French was the language of commerce and international (business) relationships -- on the continent, at least.

It's therefore not entirely unfair to say that while French might not be a true lingua franca, its status was certainly as comparable to that of English today as Latin ever was.

[HoreTore]

Except French was never really a common language despite being the literal Lingua Franca. It nearly made the jump but then Charlemegne's empire collapsed - and Latin took over again. Yes, the language of Europe's Courts might have been French but they wrote treaties in Latin.

French was the language of diplomacy and literature - in other words the educated elite.

And as every good leninist knows: the masses are irrelevant.

[gaelic cowboy]

I read an article similar to this the otherday on the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20716344


@<a href="https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=275" target="_blank">gaelic cowboy</a>
I also noticed the weather woman started talking about the "Irish Empire", what is she talking about when she mentions this?
[14-15 seconds within the clip]

The Irish Empire was a programme about Irish emigration across the world.



Irish Empire imdb

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

At least in 18th/19th century higher education you were expected to learn French, much as you are expected to learn English today. Latin was the language of science and medicine, French was the language of commerce and international (business) relationships -- on the continent, at least.

It's therefore not entirely unfair to say that while French might not be a true lingua franca, its status was certainly as comparable to that of English today as Latin ever was.

French was the language of diplomacy and literature - in other words the educated elite.

And as every good leninist knows: the masses are irrelevant.

And yet it could not supplant Latin, non?

Today we tend to write contracts in English, because it is an exacting language, historically we wrote them in Latin.

Was there ever a time when contracts were generally​ written in French, or diplomatic treaties for that matter?

[Sarmatian]

All languages except English should go down the toilet as fast as possible.

One world - One language.

One language is hardly gonna suffice. I'm gonna go on a limb here and say 3 languages for 21st century - English, Chinese and Spanish...

[a completely inoffensive name]

One language is hardly gonna suffice. I'm gonna go on a limb here and say 3 languages for 21st century - English, Chinese and Spanish...

There will be more than three languages by the end of the 21st century.

English, Russian, Spanish, French, Chinese, Indian and Arabic will still be spoken frequently by a large number of people in a large geographic area.

If I was to make a bet, the final two (in the distant future) will be English and Spanish.

[HoreTore]

There will be more than three languages by the end of the 21st century.

English, Russian, Spanish, French, Chinese, Indian and Arabic will still be spoken frequently by a large number of people in a large geographic area.

If I was to make a bet, the final two (in the distant future) will be English and Spanish.

New-Norwegian will also be spoken. The guys who speak that language rarely has any contact with anyone but their sheep, so there will be little outside influence.

[Kralizec]

Language is not so simple. There are fields of science that study how the structure of your native language (and therefore your inner dialogue) affect the way you think, behave, reason, and so forth. It will always diverge based on local reasons that can't be "legislated" if you will.

In many ways, the language you grow up with shapes the way you think. Not all languages are structured the same, so when you make statements however mundane in German, your brain is processing the information in a different way than someone saying the same thing in English, or Latin or Irish or Indonesian. There are words with meanings that do not have a comparable word in other languages, feelings and abstract notions that have arisen in certain cultures that have not appeared else where.

That’s the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It’s actually quite controversial whether your language actually restrains your way of thinking, compared to others.

If it has any truth at all, it would probably be only a minor influence on behaviour. Nothing quite as dramatic as, say, “Russians have no word for freedom, therefore…” like president Reagan would have you had believe (and yes, he did say that – although as usual, you’ve got to wonder whether he was entirely serious)

[ajaxfetish]

From a linguistics (and rather selfish) perspective, losing languages like Irish is bad news because we're losing data. It's much like a biologist trying to figure out the principles of living organisms after a huge drop in biodiversity. You've got less to work with, so you get a murkier picture of how things work. Linguistic theory can't account for aspects of human language if the individual languages that make those bits apparent are gone.

Here's the Wikipedia page on endangered languages, including a link to their lists of currently endangered languages worldwide, if anyone's interested.

Demanding that everyone have the same first language is like demanding the tide not come in. as soon as you've forcibly purged all the other languages your new super-language will begin to diverge.

A process already well underway with English.

I don't think anyone believes the result to be so Dramatic as something like Russians being unable to comprehend freedom. Most likely it would be subtle things that create large cultural rifts that are hard to identify precisely because they are cultural.

Its only that controversial if you are hellbent on refusing to believe in serious cultural differences.

It is indeed very controversial, with a lot of ink spilt and a lot of experimentation done giving mixed results. The existence of cultural differences is not proof that language spoken has a determinative impact on thinking, since language is not the sole source of culture. Current work in favor of Sapir-Whorf uses a much toned-down version of the original, but does have some interesting arguments. One example is Beth Levinson's claim that differences in how languages encode spatial relationships--either relativistic (eg: the table is to my right) or absolute (eg: the table is to the east of me)--affect speakers' spatial reasoning ability. Here's some notes from a relatively recent UCLA course for anyone who wants a basic background on the related issues.

Ajax

[Hax]

And yet it could not supplant Latin, non?

Today we tend to write contracts in English, because it is an exacting language, historically we wrote them in Latin.

Was there ever a time when contracts were generally​ written in French, or diplomatic treaties for that matter?

I think the treaty of Maastricht in 1843 and that of London were both written in French. Of course, that's fairly late. I don't think you can dismiss the importance of the French language by saying: "oh, because nobody wrote treaties in French, I guess it wasn't a lingua franca".

An interesting comparison would be the use of Greek in the eastern Roman Empire. I believe (but I might be mistaken here) that the educated part of the population used Greek as a primary language for communication whereas official business was done in Latin. Am I wrong here?

As for other endangered languages, Cajun French comes to mind, as well as some indigenuous (non-Arabic) languages of Yemen and southern Oman. The Arabic spoken in Central Asia has also seen a dramatic decrease in native speakers since the Soviets. Of course, languages appear and vanish over time. That's what they do.

[Kralizec]

Latin was the language of law and the state institutions even for some time after the western Roman empire fell. In most other regards, AFAIK, Greek was more important in the eastern half.

@ ajaxfetish: what is your opinion about the piraha language in this context?
Since the first time I've read about it I can't get past my earlier impression that language and numeral skills are mostly seperate - and that the tribesmen who tried and failed to learn them failed because of their age (decreased brain plasticity) and not because of some structural impairment of language.

[Montmorency]

An interesting comparison would be the use of Greek in the eastern Roman Empire. I believe (but I might be mistaken here) that the educated part of the population used Greek as a primary language for communication whereas official business was done in Latin. Am I wrong here?

I heard that Greek was the primary administrative and transactive language during the Roman period (in Egypt, at least), was only replaced by Coptic in the 7th or 8th c., yet persisted even into the 10th c., by which time Arabic was hegemonic. Latin, apparently, was only used on the highest level of military and admin affairs.

But you'd know better, I think.

[Hax]

I heard that Greek was the primary administrative and transactive language during the Roman period (in Egypt, at least), was only replaced by Coptic in the 7th or 8th c., yet persisted even into the 10th c., by which time Arabic was hegemonic. Latin, apparently, was only used on the highest level of military and admin affairs.

I know that the Umayyads adopted Greek for about a hundred years as an administrative language, but I'm wondering about the use of Latin in the period where the two Empires were still one, so up until the 300's CE, or something.

Interestingly, Coptic was still being spoken up until the 16th century. Rather interesting.

In most other regards, AFAIK, Greek was more important in the eastern half.

This is what I basically was aiming at. So that's rather comparable to Latin and French in Europe, I'd think.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Greek was absolutely the lingua franca of the ancient world, even the Roman one. Thank Alexander for that.

Yes - somewhat ironically - Greek was to the Romans what Latin was to the post-Roman world.

The point being - divergence is natural. All you do by enforcing a language is temporally reduce linguistic variety - but that's just an act of pointless cultural vandalism. Much better to have a common Lingua Franca (like Latin was) which leaves a space form the local vernacular to develop.

[ajaxfetish]

@ ajaxfetish: what is your opinion about the piraha language in this context?
Since the first time I've read about it I can't get past my earlier impression that language and numeral skills are mostly seperate - and that the tribesmen who tried and failed to learn them failed because of their age (decreased brain plasticity) and not because of some structural impairment of language.

Piraha's definitely a weird one. Unfortunately, I'm not well-informed enough on it to really have a helpful opinion. Here's a few relevant posts from Language Log, though, if you'd like some fairly well-informed opinions (including some disagreement) on the topic: One, two, many -- or 'small size', 'large size', 'cause to come together'? , Life without <strikethrough>counting</strikethrough> throwing, On counting and throwing, all from August 2004, and here's a recent listing of (all?) their posts on Piraha topics: Squabble.

[Fragony]

All languages except English should go down the toilet as fast as possible.

One world - One language.

English is a good choice for a universal language, it isn't very hard to learn. But we still wouldn't be able to understand eachother even if we are all fluent in it. Languages evolved within a cultural context and that can't be taken away. But it would be ok if it would be the universal language at universities and company's, there is really no excuse for not being able to speak it at least a bit. We will never be great at it though, the subtleties are lost to us, a truly universal language would be the death of 99% of poetry and literature. Some things in Dutch can simply not be translated to English (and vica versa)

[Hax]

Yeah, like apartheid.

[Fragony]

Yeah, like apartheid.

That's not Dutch it's Afrikaner, it's older than Dutch actually.

[Hax]

Afrikaans is by all means a sort of koiné of 17th century Dutch dialects.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Afrikaans is by all means a sort of koiné of 17th century Dutch dialects.

Nope, Koinè has a very different genesis. Not entirely unlike how the "official" Dutch language was created by one dialect becoming dominant and absorbing some traits of the others (Saksisch and Brabants mainly).

Afrikaans is what happens when you dump a few 17th century Dutchmen, with a lot of English crew. And let it stew in the very peculiar social and historical dynamics of South Africa.

[Hax]

But you would be able to classify Afrikaans as a koiné: from what I understood, Afrikaans was formed as something of a common mixture of several Dutch dialects in that particular period of colonisation. Of course, later, English would have served as something of a superstrate, which would have influenced the language.