Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: It would be a shame to lose it... | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 21:47:51 01/05/05 Wed In reply to: Owain (UK) 's message, "I see" on 21:44:23 01/05/05 Wed I think some effort needs to be made to preserve these languages for posterity if nothing else. However, as a modern language, it is as equipped to deal with the modern world as Latin. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: preservation | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:54:47 01/05/05 Wed But by preserve do you mean have it taught in schools? Is it not enough to have it recorded so that those of a particular interest in it could learn it? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Teach it? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:57:15 01/05/05 Wed Teach it to today's kids? God no! I would concentrate on teaching them English first ;-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Teach them? Absolutely! | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:24:11 01/06/05 Thu Australia has lost around 200 languages since 1788, and that is a tragic loss. No civilised person should calmly accept the dying of a language. That doesn't mean not teaching English, of course. People are more than capable of learning two or more languages. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Perhaps... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:22:10 01/06/05 Thu To an extent I sympathise, but I think our state education system has problems teaching basic literacy in English nowadays, let alone any other languages. It could be (and probably is - it’s eleven years since I was at High School) an optional part of the curriculum however. Besides, if we discard the notion of obsolescence, and cling on to everything regardless of merit, do we not run risk of running contrary to the patterns of human progress? I’d be interested in your theory as to why languages differ from any other human invention such as the steam engine or the typewriter. Items such as these have become museum pieces and objects of historical interest, rather than working, living instruments. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: a language is more like a work of art than a tool | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:12:50 01/06/05 Thu Obsolescence? Would you advocate destroying gothic cathedrals because we now have modern ones? Would you wipe out all memory of the Beatles because we now have Coldplay?I wouldn't. For the same reason, I would not advocate allowing a language to die - along with all its implicit ways of understanding the world - just because it is currently unfashionable or seen as "superseded". You can abolish typewriters without affecting all of the works of science, philosophy and literature that were produced on typewriters, but if you allow a language to die, you automatically lose that language's way of seeing the world, and that is a far greater loss that the destruction of a gothic cathedral or the Beatles' back catalogue. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Personally... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:26:06 01/06/05 Thu I would get rid of both the Beatles and Coldplay. I've never heard of the latter but I'm sure that he, she, or they are terrible. I have ambivalent feelings towards language as an art. On the one hand, I think that language is a medium for expressing art, in the form of literature, and that the same idea can be expressed in all languages. On the other hand, some languages are better at expressing certain ideas than others, which is where I would agree with you that we shouldn't get rid of them. The problem is further complicated, however, by English, which is an odd creature, the linguistic camel, which is generally better for expressing most ideas than any other language, which is why we have the greatest literary tradition in history. This is an irony, of course, because, to quote a great old man, "from the railleries of the Romans on the barbarity and misery of our island, one can not help reflecting on the fate and revolution of kingdoms: how Rome, once the mistress of the world, seat of the arts, empire and glory, now lies sunk in sloth, ignorance and poverty... while this remote country, anciently the jest and contempt of the polite Romans, is become the happy seat of liberty, plenty and letters, flourishing in all the refinements of civil life." I am inclined to think that our achievements in this field should not be allowed to decay because of sentimental nostalgia for Celtic languages. Our children should have a facility with English, or we're all in trouble; and if they want to learn foreign languages out of intellectual interest, as you and I have done, then that is up to them to decide individually. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I do see language as a tool... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:42:01 01/06/05 Thu It's a tool of communication between humans. I don't think the cathedral analogy is appropriate, as these buildings still serve a purpose. The concept of obsolescence means that something stays around until it is replaced by something better. In my view, the mediaeval cathedrals have yet to be bettered. Similarly, using Coldplay to replace the Beatles is not a fair analogy, as they are both performers of modern English-language music. Obsolescence in this sphere is more akin to the move from old diatonic scales to the modern scales found in current western music. I see language on the other hand as more natural, and in keeping with Darwinism with the way languages evolve and become extinct. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: the problem with that... | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:45:42 01/06/05 Thu The problem with seeing language as a tool is that the "tool" is inseparable from the product. It is impossible to separate a language from the things created in that language: let a language die, and you let all its products die. Simple as that. Anyone who has ever worked with translation knows how much is lost in the process. Your extinction analogy is a good one: neither species nor languages become obsolete, they are merely pressured out of existence. The idea of one species being "better" than another simply won't wash. I don't think we should be sitting by sipping our gin and tonics as species go extinct, because once they are gone they are really gone and more variety is always more interesting. Languages are the same. English may be better equipped than Welsh to talk about the latest mobile phone technology, but it will never be anywhere near as good for expressing Welsh poetry. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Fair Enough... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:02:22 01/06/05 Thu I am not a translator, so thanks for your insight into a topic in terms a Software Engineer can understand. The thing is, with my profession, most of the “languages” I deal with daily are programming languages. There are more similarities with written language than you probably think. In this field, languages evolve in similar ways and borrow from each other. However, when a language is replaced with something newer and invariably better, I am usually glad to see the back of the old language. Maybe languages can be seen to be a specific tool for a specific job, with certain languages more appropriate for explaining the ideals of certain cultures than others. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ambiguity | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:11:27 01/07/05 Fri Since one of the functions of human language is to permit ambiguity, and hence humour and poetry, and one of the functions of computer languages is to exclude that possibility, I would say that the use of the term "language" for machine codes is a convenient metaphor at best. The two are far from being the same thing. A programming "language" is certainly a tool for a specific purpose. A real, human language does not have any such limited purpose: we live in our languages the way fish live in rivers. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: well | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:38:01 01/07/05 Fri It is certainly possible to have logical ambiguity in programming languages. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: dying languages | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:54:39 01/06/05 Thu Ian, I dnat agree with your anologie for beatles and coldplay. I will use them for my point. You cant hear the Beatles just anywhere anymore. Occasionally you will hear it in a record shop, but your morely likely to hear coldplay. You can of course still buy there music if you really want to, its your choice. The same should be with dying languages. The facilites should be available to learn them if you really want to but we should not try to prevent them fading. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Is British English dying? | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:09:04 01/06/05 Thu "The same should be with dying languages." Isn't British English a dying language/dialect? It seems to me that all the time it is becoming more and more Americanised. The influence is nearly all one way. It isn't just German and French that are going that way. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Frankly... | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:29:05 01/06/05 Thu I dont care. I will use British speeling my entire life, but if by the next generation it has evolve dthen so be it. And besides it shouldnt be compared with French and German as you correctly point out its a dialect not a language, a completely different topic to that of losing a language. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Like Owain, I also use British speeling | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:29:17 01/07/05 Fri Say what you wil, but the speeling porduced in the colonis just is'nt up to scartch [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: well | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:44:07 01/08/05 Sat Soory if your so offended by my typos, but you really are doing nothing but distracting from the point. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh dear... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:42:20 01/08/05 Sat ...reminds me of a daft book - Flowers for Algernon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: British English | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:51:00 01/10/05 Mon Complete rubbish. All dialects grow and take in vocabulary and sometimes grammar from elsewhere - at least unless they're dead. British English is quite distinct from American English - both are evolving and changing all the time, and not necessarily in the same way. But it's not true to say one is the slave of the other. There has long been a tendency for young people in Britain to ape aspects of American youth culture, which is much less often a two-way process (though 'England' was the cultural centre in the second half of the sixties), but you shouldn't mistake this for the mainstream language. Youth fads are just that. Most street slang comes and goes in a matter of a few years and always has done. Examples of British linguistic influence on the US in the last decade are actually quite prominent - there is a growing use and comprehension of irony and understatement in the US (popularised by The Simpsons and Friends), and words like 'wanker' and 'slapper' are increasingly common. Even the word 'bloody', whilst seen as characteristically English, is starting to be used in conversation. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Marvellous | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:57:59 01/10/05 Mon "'wanker' and 'slapper' are increasingly common. Even the word 'bloody'" etc... What a great contribution to world culture! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: furthermore... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:01:19 01/10/05 Mon Recomended reading: http://slate.msn.com/id/2103467/ [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |