It is fortunate that sentimentality can be a respectable sort of attitude. Without it – that is, focusing solely on the scientific and academic value of languages – it is difficult to explain why it is better to preserve currently existing minority languages rather than revive long-dead languages that nobody living today cares about, or why it is better to support endangered natural languages such as the Lencan languages of Central America rather than artificial languages such as Volapük (constructed by a Roman Catholic priest in 19th-century Germany) and Klingon (the extra-terrestrial language in Star Trek), or why it is better to preserve endangered natural languages than to invent completely new languages.
Friday, October 13, 2017
Losing - and keeping - languages
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I recently saw a resume posted, with Esperanto among the languages the applicant claimed competence in.
ReplyDeleteWell, if it's a question of "long-dead languages that nobody living today cares about", then presumably any of the "existing minority languages" has at least one more person caring about it. I assume that the Lencan language has a culture behind it, however little it may interest me: I don't think I can say the same for Volapuk; and such culture that attaches to Klingon I can do without. As for inventing completely new languages, how many since Tolkien could do a good job of that?