Europe's 'most endangered' idiom has 58 active speakers left, says researcher

[Dennis 8,391]

2 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

You thought you gonna enlighten us on why the dissapearence of minority language is actually a good thing. Next up: Why zoonotic diseases are great and lovely!! "Online bubble" is you seeing everything through the lense of US defaultism.

I mean I have no opinion on whether it's a good or a bad thing. All I know is if I had a kid, I'd teach them languages that I expect them to need in their professional career later on. I'm not going to make them native in a dialect that is rarely used and force upon them a handicap that'll keep them behind others in the future. That's a matter of practicality. I want them to be successful, employable and able to provide for themselves. The human brain has a limited ability to master languages; most people master one or two. And I mean mastering in a way that you can use it in the professional world, not learning a language as a hobby and being able to say a few words.

It's just difficult to explain these things to younger people who are probably still in school and don't realize how harsh the corporate world is. But I'll let you discover that yourselves eventually. Once y'all start worrying about actually providing for yourselves, you'll realize that practicality and pragmatism in this world > virtue-signaling.

[FfFfFfFF 58,080]

1 hour ago, Dennis said:

I mean I have no opinion on whether it's a good or a bad thing. All I know is if I had a kid, I'd teach them languages that I expect them to need in their professional career later on. I'm not going to make them native in a dialect that is rarely used and force upon them a handicap that'll keep them behind others in the future. That's a matter of practicality. I want them to be successful, employable and able to provide for themselves. The human brain has a limited ability to master languages; most people master one or two. And I mean mastering in a way that you can use it in the professional world, not learning a language as a hobby and being able to say a few words.

It's just difficult to explain these things to younger people who are probably still in school and don't realize how harsh the corporate world is. But I'll let you discover that yourselves eventually. Once y'all start worrying about actually providing for yourselves, you'll realize that practicality and pragmatism in this world > virtue-signaling.

"You're probably still in school ->You should get over this patronizing know-it-all attitude especially given I am probably older than you. Minority languagee should be protected no ifs and buts about it – hope this clears it for you!

[Bronco 24,851]

6 hours ago, Dennis said:

I mean I have no opinion on whether it's a good or a bad thing. All I know is if I had a kid, I'd teach them languages that I expect them to need in their professional career later on. I'm not going to make them native in a dialect that is rarely used and force upon them a handicap that'll keep them behind others in the future. That's a matter of practicality. I want them to be successful, employable and able to provide for themselves. The human brain has a limited ability to master languages; most people master one or two. And I mean mastering in a way that you can use it in the professional world, not learning a language as a hobby and being able to say a few words.

It's just difficult to explain these things to younger people who are probably still in school and don't realize how harsh the corporate world is. But I'll let you discover that yourselves eventually. Once y'all start worrying about actually providing for yourselves, you'll realize that practicality and pragmatism in this world > virtue-signaling.

If your entire world view revolves around whether or not it will benefit you personally in the corporate world - then there is no helping you. You're entire approach to this is wrong. 

1) No one is talking about forcing a language upon anyone, they are talking about taking steps to preserve it and taking steps to prevent it being discrminated against. Culture is important to individual & collective psyches. 

2) Any loss of language or minority culture more generally is fundamentally a loss of knowledge to society - as so many cultural aspects of life exist primarily through oral & practical language. The loss of the original language to convey this oral history & culture often sees that culture further diluted & harmed as the replacement language lacks the proper tools to describe it. 

3) Language death is also known to have physical & mental health consequences for minority communities. There's a study by Hallet, Chandler & Lalonde of native groups in places like Canada & Australia that found that indigenous communities where a majority speak the traditional language exhibit lower suicide rates than groups where the traditional language is in decline (less than 50%). Where as, the groups where the traditional language is not a majority language sees a 6 times as high suicide rate. Another study by Khawaja found that cultural linguicide led to heightened negative mental health effects beyond suicide as well. 

Here's a third similar study that draws similar conclusions that is available for free: https://www.telethonkids.org.au/globalassets/media/documents/aboriginal-health/working-together-second-edition/working-together-aboriginal-and-wellbeing-2014.pdf 

 

[Dennis 8,391]

18 minutes ago, Bronco said:

1) No one is talking about forcing a language upon anyone, they are talking about taking steps to preserve it and taking steps to prevent it being discrminated against. Culture is important to individual & collective psyches. 

I do not know how you can realistically "take steps to prevent discrimination against it" without forcing schools/companies to teach or hire people who speak such languages, which would be impractical.

People are free to learn these languages and practice them. However asking the government to "protect" it, I don't know how that's feasible. And that's why you don't see governments in the world doing that. I think some people have to realize that the government can't solve every problem in the world. This is an example where private initiatives such as society groups etc dedicated to preserving that language, can help.

The French, Italians aren't protecting latin (despite it being one of the most important languages in history). North Africans such as Moroccans, Tunisians, Algerians aren't able to protect Berber languages. North Americans aren't able to protect native american languages.

A language is a communication tool. There aren't many rights attached to it because it's not considered one of the characteristics that one can't change about themselves. You can sue based on race, ethnicity etc, but you can't sue based on language. You can seek asylum based on race, ethnicity etc, but you can't seek asylum based on language. These are facts about the legal system in the world, no need to come at me for pointing it out lol.

[NewUsername 11,750]

1 hour ago, Dennis said:

I do not know how you can realistically "take steps to prevent discrimination against it" without forcing schools/companies to teach or hire people who speak such languages, which would be impractical.

People are free to learn these languages and practice them. However asking the government to "protect" it, I don't know how that's feasible. And that's why you don't see governments in the world doing that. I think some people have to realize that the government can't solve every problem in the world. This is an example where private initiatives such as society groups etc dedicated to preserving that language, can help.

The French, Italians aren't protecting latin (despite it being one of the most important languages in history). North Africans such as Moroccans, Tunisians, Algerians aren't able to protect Berber languages. North Americans aren't able to protect native american languages.

A language is a communication tool. There aren't many rights attached to it because it's not considered one of the characteristics that one can't change about themselves. You can sue based on race, ethnicity etc, but you can't sue based on language. You can seek asylum based on race, ethnicity etc, but you can't seek asylum based on language. These are facts about the legal system in the world, no need to come at me for pointing it out lol.

Hmm, this is not entirely true. Eg language legislation in Belgium, the different comunidades autónomas in Spain.

[Dennis 8,391]

13 minutes ago, NewUsername said:

Hmm, this is not entirely true. Eg language legislation in Belgium, the different comunidades autónomas in Spain.

I mean Belgium has a mix of French, Dutch and German, which are languages with very high demand in the European market. And even then, companies are able to require linguistic fluency if it makes sense for them to do so. A similar situation in Canada. There's English and French. But if you speak latin for example, the government isn't required to accommodate your linguistic preferences.

The OP is talking about languages that few thousand people in the world speak. It's difficult in that case.

People through private initiatives can aim to preserve it. But I don't see how the government can protect them without forcing companies to hire applicants who speak such language, and to what end? If they can't communicate with customers etc..

So again, it's just a matter of realizing that some wonderful things in this world sound great on paper, but when you try to implement them, impracticality becomes a nightmare. If you care about a language, learn it practice it as a hobby. But don't expect the government to do much about it if it doesn't make sense from a practicality perspective.

[FfFfFfFF 58,080]

@Dennis I see you keep insisting: I will give you the benefit of the doubt and operate based off the assumption you are simply ignorant. Here are ways in which linguistic preservation can be achieved:

1) public schools with teaching in minority languages; 2) road signs and healthcare in minority languages; 3) establishment of autonomous zones in areas where minority languages are predominant; 4) cultural programs involving other countries that have ties with said dialect or language; 5) establishment of sister towns; 6) literature in minority languages; 7) establishment of cultural institutions which preserve local traditions; 8) making minority languages official at a local or regional level; 9) translation of official documents into minority languages; 10) making sure minorities are able acquire legal paper work or counseling in their language; 11) state-owned TV programs in minority languages; 12) funding research aimed at studying the particularities of the language.

Language preservation is an important goal because languages are core parts of one's identity (especially for minorities). You should stop seeing everything through American lenses, where English is just a tool of communication, for ethnic minorities their language is part of the identity - I understand that you don't want to concede to this, but it looks awfully self-centered to ask those around you to not care either.

You also have the habit of completely turning facts upside down so from preserving local languages we end up into ''forcing companies to hire you''. These are just disingenuous arguments, especially considering nobody is forcing Istro-Romanians to retain their language/identity, but Istro-Romanians themselves want their language to be more preserved according to the researcher who studies them (this isn't in any way shocking because minorities have an emotional connection with their mother's tongue: this is why the governments need to take steps to protect them). This hyper-capitalist take that minorities are happier when abandoning their roots and language because more companies supposedly hire them is not only untrue, but dangerous advocacy for ethnic assimilation and soft ethnic cleans*ng.

[RudraCNG 15,506]

Language is a person's most valuable heritage. Languages define cultures, the way we think, the way we express ourselves... My mother tongue is also a minoritised language and every year there's less and less people who speaks it bc major languages are "colonizing" it. And yeah, governments should actively protect those languages.

[Dennis 8,391]

40 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Language preservation is an important goal because languages are core parts of one's identity (especially for minorities). You should stop seeing everything through American lenses, where English is just a tool of communication, for ethnic minorities their language is part of the identity

Once again, you make wrong assumptions. My family's heritage language is actually French, not English. Do I speak the language fluently? Yes. Because it's been my own endeavor to remain fluent in it. But I'm not forcing the American government to accommodate my linguistic heritage. French doesn't exist anywhere in the U.S except as an optional class you can take maybe.

This has been my point all along. There are HUNDREDS, if not thousands of languages/dialects. Ultimately it's gonna come down to subjective selection since the government can't accommodate all of them.

We both agree that it'd be great if these languages survive, but our disagreement is on the method. I don't believe the government can efficiently play a big role in this without favoring certain minority dialects/languages over others. Say for example road signs, as you mentioned. Well how do you choose which ones? Considering how many rare languages/dialects there are, you'll eventually end up discriminating against some of them.

Plus this whole nativism is a concept I take issue with. In the world of globalization, I don't think "natives" should have more rights than others. Many people today are immigrants. And if you're going to give preference to certain languages because they were native Europeans a while ago, over say for example Turkish or Arabic who are probably more prominent in Europe, I don't think that's fair. 

[FfFfFfFF 58,080]

21 minutes ago, Dennis said:

This has been my point all along. There are HUNDREDS, if not thousands of languages/dialects. Ultimately it's gonna come down to subjective selection since the government can't accommodate all of them.
 

Simple: The government should accomodate the local languages that exist in the area. You are basing this off of a society like America where 99% of the population are immigrants or desendants of immigrants and everybody has different heritage from all 5 continents, the situation is different in Croatia or Ukraine. Eastern Europe is not Papua Guinea, we are talking about maybe 100 minority languages AT BEST. You trying to make it seem people are asking for Switzerland to suddenly accomodate *checks* Mongolese, Ainu, Amharic or Uyghur is not it.

21 minutes ago, Dennis said:

We both agree that it'd be great if these languages survive, but our disagreement is on the method. I don't believe the government can efficiently play a big role in this without favoring certain minority dialects/languages over others. Say for example road signs, as you mentioned. Well how do you choose which ones? Considering how many rare languages/dialects there are, you'll eventually end up discriminating against some of them.

First you said you agree with Ukraine's 2017 education law so we are not in agreement. Second, you use the roadsigns of the minority language in the area as it's manded in lots of countries already. 

21 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Plus this whole nativism is a concept I take issue with. In the world of globalization, I don't think "natives" should have more rights than others. Many people today are immigrants. And if you're going to give preference to certain languages because they were native Europeans a while ago, over say for example Turkish or Arabic who are probably more prominent in Europe, I don't think that's fair. 

Natives of a place should have the rights to speak their ethnicity's language if they live in their ancestral lands while immigrants are expected to learn the language of the country where they immigrate into. Trust me this is not quantum physicism.

[Dennis 8,391]

5 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

First tou said you agree with Ukraine's 2017 education law so we are not in agreement.

Um, if you're gonna respond please make sure you read my reply first. I literally said we DISAGREE on the method, that is my belief that the government can't efficiently achieve this desired goal. So my agreement with the 2017 law is consistent with what I said. 
 

10 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Natives of a place should have the rights to speak their ethnicity's language if they live in their ancestral lands while immigrants are expected to learn the language of the country where they immigrate into.

This is the nativism I'm talking about. You regard citizens who have ancestrial ties to the land as deserving more rights/higher priorities than children of immigrants, who are also citizens.

That's something I disagree with.

Anyway, I think I made my point clear. So we can move on now.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

33 minutes ago, Dennis said:

 French doesn't exist anywhere in the U.S except as an optional class you can take maybe.

and do you know why French doesn't exist anymore?

It was the most spoken language in Louisiana in the 18th and early and mid 19th-century. It was then banned and forbidden:

"In 1921, the new Louisiana constitution reversed the previous language rights and banned the teaching of French in all public schools.[21] The constitution established English as the official language of Louisiana, which pushed French out of New Orleans to its current location in southwestern parts of the state.[22] The education and religious services of Louisiana eventually fell prey to English, and the eventual consequence of speaking French was that speaking French became a sign of cultural illegitimacy. Eventually, children were subjected to corporal punishment for speaking French on school grounds.[19] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_French

German was banned in other states, too, after previously often being a majority language at local community level.

Imagine how cool Louisiana would be if it was a francophone state in the USA.

Louisiana would be as popular as Hawaii. But it isn't because it is now like the rest.

[FfFfFfFF 58,080]

11 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Um, if you're gonna respond please make sure you read my reply first. I literally said we DISAGREE on the method, that is my belief that the government can't efficiently achieve this desired goal. So my agreement with the 2017 law is consistent with what I said. 

You said you believe it's important for everybody to speak the same language for job opportunities. So you are not coming from a position of trying to preserve minority languages, but to erase them. We disagree fundamentally and concerning the method.

11 minutes ago, Dennis said:

This is the nativism I'm talking about. You regard citizens who have ancestrial ties to the land as deserving more rights/higher priorities than children of immigrants, who are also citizens.

That's something I disagree with.

Anyway, I think I made my point clear. So we can move on now.

My dear, if tomorrow I emigrate to Vietnam I won't ask for Vietnam to start speaking my language to accomodate my own linguistic needs. But if tomorrow public authorities will try to make me speak Russian, I will surely put up a fight.

[Dennis 8,391]

1 minute ago, Okinawa said:

German was banned in other states, too, after previously being a majority language at local level.

Imagine how cool Louisiana would be if it was a francophone state in the USA.

Lousiana would be as cool as Hawaii. But it isn't because it is now like the rest.

It would be cool, but you have to think about how many languages the U.S government can officially sponsor.

Right now it's mainly English and Spanish and that's based on the demographics in the U.S.

Canada has English and French. And there's legislation to make sure that the government accommodates both languages and I know some Canadians who still struggle with French.

If French and German states continued to exist, the U.S government would have to accommodate four languages as a minimum. It's just very difficult. Most people in this world barely manage to be fluent in 2 languages. Government officials in Canada for example have to speak both languages. Imagine if it was 4 lol

[Dennis 8,391]

1 minute ago, FfFfFfFF said:

My dear, if tomorrow I immigrate to Vietnam I won't ask for Vietnam to start speaking my language to accomodate my own linguistic needs.

So you're saying Mexicans and Latin America immigrants in the U.S don't have a right to ask U.S to start accommodating Spanish? Why though?

You're so attached to the notion of "cultural roots". For me, it's all about practicality and usefulness. If there are tens of millions of people in America who speak Spanish, even if they are immigrants. It makes sense for that language to take priority over others, so that people in the U.S can communicate with each other more easily and companies are better prepared to serve their customers.