ICU for near-dead languages.
The associate director of something called The Living Tongues Institute, a linguist named K. David Harrison, has recently announced that a language goes belly-up every 14 days, when the last speaker of said language dies. There are about 7,000 distinct languages in the world and that seems to me a pretty rapid rate of extinction.
I have mixed feelings about news like this.
On the one hand, there's a certain Darwinian aspect to this. If a language ain't doing the job, it ain't gonna survive. How are you going to order breakfast at McDonald's in the American Indian language of Yuchi? Do they even have a word for Egg McMuffin?
And yet languages are more than lists of words. There is a richness to them, where words are given to relationships, social mores and even games that have no direct translation in English because those relationships and customs are not valued in the English-speaking world. A language goes away and we've lost a little bit of some deep grammar of the human soul.
I have mixed feelings about news like this.
On the one hand, there's a certain Darwinian aspect to this. If a language ain't doing the job, it ain't gonna survive. How are you going to order breakfast at McDonald's in the American Indian language of Yuchi? Do they even have a word for Egg McMuffin?
And yet languages are more than lists of words. There is a richness to them, where words are given to relationships, social mores and even games that have no direct translation in English because those relationships and customs are not valued in the English-speaking world. A language goes away and we've lost a little bit of some deep grammar of the human soul.
posted by Michael Riley at 1:34 PM
52 Comments:
If you "aks" me, I wish ebonics would become extinct (ekstink).
Word to your mutha!
Holla!
Did you really use the word "Darwinian"? What are you trying to do? Start a debate?
"Darwinian" may be an inapt description.
Evolution is supposed to improve a species. There is a benefit garnered through the loss of less-desirable characteristics. We reap no benefit from the loss of languages.
Evolution is an exclusive process: Neanderthal gives way to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. We can speak fore than one language. We benefit from the survival of languages even if we do not speak them.
As you point out, we can alter the brutal rules of nature. "Survival of the fittest" is not a moral precept.
Musat be a slow blog day.
I think English will be extinct soon, esp. in US with all the illegal aliens invading our borders/schools daily.
Dubya has already done his part to kill it.
True dat!
What chu talkin' 'bout Willis?
Wish Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson's incoherent half-English/half-ebonics language (and them) would become extinct.
We've got a few conservatives posting here I see.
No, just people annoyed with illiterates and illegal immigrants (aliens).
Michael,
Thanks for your interest and your sense of humour. Egg McMuffins, indeed. So many human intellectual achievements are found only in endangered languages, not written down anywhere, and vulnerable to disappearing. I've written about many of examples of such endangered knowledge systems in my book "When Languages Die" (shameless plug).
Anyway, thanks for including the topic on your blog. I love your closing statement: "A language goes away and we've lost a little bit of some deep grammar of the human soul."
anonymous wrote:
"No, just people annoyed with illiterates and illegal immigrants (aliens)."
Funny then, that this string of conservative anonymi seems to feel that mocking blacks is in order, isn't it?
Like you do to catholics ray.
Yikes!! :))
Anyone who wishes blacks to be extinct is ignorant.
But media happy opportunists? Well, we probably could do without seeing and hearing from them as much as we do these days.
margaret, did not say all blacks - just OJ, sharpton and jesse jackson.
anonymous wrote:
"Like you do to catholics ray."
If by "Catholics" you mean Spooky/Pat/Papist/Whatever-His-Next-Incarnation, then yes. If by "Catholics" you mean anyone else, then no.
anonymous wrote:
"margaret, did not say all blacks - just OJ, sharpton and jesse jackson."
Sounds like a Falwell/Robertson style "explanation" to me.
Anon 11:17 pm, I know what you meant. I just stated my thoughts after Ray said conservative anonymi were mocking blacks.
I didn't get that feeling. Some people love Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Al Sharpton I remember from the 1980s with Tawana Brawley, so my opinion of him is not good. Jesse Jackson rubs me the wrong way. But so does Pat Robertson. He can also be a media hungry opportunist. Ugh.
Seriously? Reread the first 3 posts and the ones by 'e bonic' and 'anon#25' and then try to convince yourself that those posts weren't racial in nature.
Wow, okay...it's amazing how words can enflame the anger of one person and mean very little to another, just because of life experience, and color of skin.
To me the first couple of posts were silly nonsense; I didn't read much into it.
Ray, if you say it's racist, then it is to you, and I respect that.
The other anon (11:17) who posted to me saying he wasn't being racist, I believe it - we're not big Jessie and Al fans. It has nothing to do with the color of skin.
IT's not racist just a factual statement that ebonics is a cultural black language needs to be extinct, is how I read those posts.Similar to English Cockney is a regional, cultural language that happens to be of poorer class. Is not racist, just factual.ray is biggest religious bigot (next to pat) on this blog, so how is that different than a racist?
Good question, anon, I don't know how that's different.
Margaret wrote:
"To me the first couple of posts were silly nonsense; I didn't read much into it."
So if it's silly it's not racist? Uh oh.
"The other anon (11:17) who posted to me saying he wasn't being racist, I believe it - we're not big Jessie and Al fans."
I didn't direct your attention to that particular 'anonymous', just the others which you shrugged off.
anonymous wrote:
"ray is biggest religious bigot (next to pat) on this blog, so how is that different than a racist?"
Are you serious? Disagreeing with someone about religion or anything else is not the same thing as assigning them second-class status because of their race. How silly of you to conflate disagreement on an issue with racism. Even if I mock someone for his/her beliefs it's not as if I'm saying that they are inferior as human beings. Shame on you for failing to understand such an important distinction and for minimizing racism by reducing it to the level of mere disagreement.
Ray, you don't just disagree. You put down, taunt, make fun of, don't take seriously...all the things that someone who is supposedly racist does to a person not like themselves.
And your arguement "just because I mock someone for his/her beliefs, it's not as if I'm saying they are inferior" - oh my gosh, are you that deluded?
If you can't treat others with respect, whether you agree with them or not, whether you like them or not, than you ARE treating them as if they are inferior to you.
Ray - the silly nonsense thing - it is obvious that those first posts meant something to you because of cultural and maybe racial background that I don't have.
I actually don't know what 'word to your mutha and holla' mean.
Of course, I remember ebonics. At the time I thought it was a really dumb idea - I think a lot of people think that way, and I honestly don't know if those feelings cross racial lines.
Like I said, this stuff was racial to you. So it's racial! It's got to be if it affects someone negatively. What the actual posters meant by it is another issue, and known only to them.
margaret.honey- you, poor sheltered uptight, white catholic-how can you not know what "word to yo' mutha" or "holla" means? Aks your poor, black church janitor, he'll fill you in.
Where's pat? Is he one of these anonymi -dubbed by other resident crazy- ray (don't think so-don't see any obnoxious blue website links to his fundaMENTAL (mental key word)catholic crazy sites.)
anon 1:13 - Grow up.
Margaret: 2:33 -open your eyes-and your mind!
It's a shame your preconceived notions about who I am makes you think you have the right to call me names. And what makes you think church janitors are black? How racist of you.
You assume so much, anon. I simply don't know those words. Does that make me a bad person? Je ne sais. Does that make me out of touch? Yo no se. Languages - how many do you know, anon, other than the one posted here that I don't?
Pax et Bonum
M
Latin, another dead language.
It's alive and kicking, part of every Romance language today.
Margaret, you're severely confused. You insist on equating being argumentative with racism but no matter how much one argues, puts down, mocks or rides someone it's nothing like what the victims of racism have to endure. I know it's part of your culture to play the role of victim but this is absurd.
Even when someone mocks someone else for their beliefs there's no accompanying threat as there is in racism. There's no assignment of second class status, either. And there's no inference of inferiority or lack of equality . If what you argue were true then the harmless fun-poking of politicians by people like Letterman and Leno would be equivalent to racism. And that would be ridiculous. You need to stop and think about how you minimize racism by doing this. Racism creates real victims, not mere whiners.
one of the anonymi wrote:
"Where's pat? Is he one of these anonymi -dubbed by other resident crazy- ray"
Hey, Margaret! Is this guy a racist or what?!
Margaret wrote:
"What the actual posters meant by it is another issue, and known only to them."
Right. You have no idea what "If you "aks" me, I wish ebonics would become extinct (ekstink).", "True dat!" and "What chu talkin' 'bout Willis?" mean? I find that hard to believe. Do you actually see no insult to blacks here? C'mon, even the most cloistered of people would see these statements as racial slurs. And I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Margaret to (one of the) anonymi:
"And what makes you think church janitors are black? How racist of you"
'Anonymous' was making a cultural and political statement, Margaret. You missed that, too.
Not all of the anonymi bloggers here are racist either.Looks like 1 or 2 of the anonymi are racist.
Well worth noting. But isn't it surprizing how many racists there are in this forum?
It takes one to know one. Yes it is surprising (with an "s").
I've tried 3 times to write something in response, but the words are not coming the way I'd like...
suffice it to say that I recognize that the words here stung you in a way I could not possibly understand.
to me they were nonsense. they did not impact me the way they did you, Ray.
I have been pretty forthright in telling you and others here (because no matter what, even though I might be speaking to ray, I'm speaking to many) that I don't understand certain phrases.
Someone called me an uptight white catholic whatever...maybe all that's true.
But I'm telling you something, Ray, so listen. If I don't understand, then guess what, there are more out there like me. People that go about their day unaffected by these words. Bounces right off 'em because while they may have other injustices happening to them, this injustice is not.
Now, does that mean I think it's okay to say the 'n' word, or something - NO!
I was so happy that my own children grew up not even distinguishing in any way their friends by the color of their skin.
My husband and I both grew up when all nationalities were given unpleasant names by our parents, when they spoke of them - I hated it then, and I loathe it now. So it just didn't happen in our house.
Words are hurtful, Ray. They can remind us of how far we have to go in terms of educating the ignorant.
unknown said:
"It takes one to know one."
Another failed attempt at mocking me. Care to explain? Not likely.
" Yes it is surprising (with an "s")."
And yet another failed attempt. Sorry, but both spellings are acceptable.
Margaret wrote:
"suffice it to say that I recognize that the words here stung you in a way I could not possibly understand."
And that, in and of itself, is a form of racism.
No, it's a fact of life.
It does not mean that I am racist in this sense.(And I say in this sense, because no one is immune to racism or being racist, if they can admit it - I am sure I have preconceivd notions about race, and I am sure you do too.)
I am not up on terms that are a part of your culture. That's it. You can't pinpoint my intent or lack thereof because you don't know me. Take my word for it. I took yours.
I didn't suggest that your racism is intentional. My point was that when you're not attuned to the problems that others face you're a part of the problem.
Okay, you can't possibly suggest that I take a course on...what? I need to be educated in some kind of verbage...that upsets the black community...or NOT? Because they use it??
I don't want to learn something that I don't use anyway, that hurts people.
I learned something from you though. Those phrases are not without negative connotation.
No, not a course. Just an awareness without the raising of the palms while saying, "Sorry, not my problem."
Okay. I'm more aware than I was at the start of this blog entry. How's that?
Post a Comment
<< Home