Should we let old cultures and langauges die out?

steddyeddy · 28-10-2015 1:27am #1

As the anthropologist Wade Davis says of culture:

“The world in which you were born is just one model of reality. Other cultures are not failed attempts at being you; they are unique manifestations of the human spirit.”

Is there any value in preserving languages and culture? Some people here have spoke in favor about language revival and speak about the importance of keeping languages like Hebrew, Irish and Sanskrit.

Some have the view that speaking a more common language like English or Spanish is the way to go. Personally I think it's important to retain culture where possible and one of the best ways we can do that is through language. Thoughts?

lanos · 28-10-2015 1:43am

It's like bailing out rogue banks
They are probably doomed anyway and a bloody waste of resources

eternal · 28-10-2015 1:43am

We are our past. Do not forget what moulded us.

kowloon · 28-10-2015 1:53am

eternal wrote: »

We are our past. Do not forget what moulded us.

Culture changes, that's why we aren't running around the place naked smeared in our own $hite.

eternal · 28-10-2015 1:55am

kowloon wrote: »

Culture changes, that's why we aren't running around the place naked smeared in our own $hite.

If that culture was forgotten, you wouldn't be aware of how far we have evolved.

steddyeddy · 28-10-2015 1:56am

kowloon wrote: »

Culture changes, that's why we aren't running around the place naked smeared in our own $hite.

So should the whole world speak one language? If so which one?

eternal · 28-10-2015 1:57am

History is fascinating. We couldn't know anything that we know without someone before us finding it out. We didn't just wake up with an ipad stuck in our hands.

lanos · 28-10-2015 2:00am

Not Irish, or Scottish or Welsh anyway.
Or any African language.
French maybe.

28-10-2015 2:07am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is there any value in preserving languages and culture? Some people here have spoke in favor about language revival and speak about the importance of keeping languages like Hebrew, Irish and Sanskrit.

These three aren't comparable, to be pedantic. Hebrew is a living language, spoken every day by about ten million people. Irish is spoken as an everyday language by less than half a million, and Samskrit isn't a spoken language anymore, it's taught rather like Latin is taught as a written language.

There is value in preserving all knowlege, but not value in preserving all tradition, to evolve cultures also need to adapt and let go. Otherwise we'd still be sacrificing virgins to the new moons or something.

Art is the history of a people, told in architecture, decoration, color and clothing, food is the story of what was available to the area, what grew and what fuel was available for cooking etc, race and ethnicity the story of where they come from and who they married, religion the story of tradition and lifestyle, and language the story of how they communicated. All of it is a portrait of our fellow human beings, but not all of it equally worth of preservation by modern western standards.

Few of us would consider practices like genital mutilation worth preserving, regardless of how ingrained in a culture they may be.

28-10-2015 2:10am

lanos wrote: »

Not Irish, or Scottish or Welsh anyway.
Or any African language.
French maybe.

Why not?

TheLastMohican · 28-10-2015 2:12am

What did the Romans ever do for us? Or Latin - for that matter?

steddyeddy · 28-10-2015 2:13am

Candie wrote: »

These three aren't comparable, to be pedantic. Hebrew is a living language, spoken every day by about ten million people. Irish is spoken as an everyday language by less than half a million, and Samskrit isn't a spoken language anymore, it's taught rather like Latin is taught as a written language.

There is value in preserving all knowlege, but not value in preserving all tradition, to evolve cultures also need to adapt and let go. Otherwise we'd still be sacrificing virgins to the new moons or something.

Art is the history of a people, told in architecture, decoration, color and clothing, food is the story of what was available to the area, what grew and what fuel was available for cooking etc, race and ethnicity the story of where they come from and who they married, religion the story of tradition and lifestyle, and language the story of how they communicated. All of it is a portrait of our fellow human beings, but not all of it equally worth of preservation by modern western standards.

Few of us would consider practices like genital mutilation worth preserving, regardless of how ingrained in a culture they may be.

Ah but Candie they were comparable at various stages of revival. Hebrew was a moribund language which lacked words for much of everyday use but through enforced revival it was spoken by millions. That wasn't the case a few decades ago.

lanos · 28-10-2015 2:13am

lanos wrote: »

Not Irish, or Scottish or Welsh anyway.
Or any African language.
French maybe.

Candie wrote: »

Why not?

It's only my opinion but the aforementioned languages lack elegance
Unlike french
French is very elegant.

28-10-2015 2:14am

TheLastMohican wrote: »

What did the Romans ever do for us? Or Latin - for that matter?

Gave us the root of about 70% of English words. For a start.

28-10-2015 2:16am

lanos wrote: »

It's only my opinion but the aforementioned languages lack elegance
Unlike french
French is very elegant.

So let them die because they don't suit your taste?

There are more than 390 African-Asiatic languages. Have you heard them all?

Eugene Norman · 28-10-2015 2:19am

Candie wrote: »

These three aren't comparable, to be pedantic. Hebrew is a living language, spoken every day by about ten million people. Irish is spoken as an everyday language by less than half a million, and Samskrit isn't a spoken language anymore, it's taught rather like Latin is taught as a written language.

There is value in preserving all knowlege, but not value in preserving all tradition, to evolve cultures also need to adapt and let go. Otherwise we'd still be sacrificing virgins to the new moons or something.

Art is the history of a people, told in architecture, decoration, color and clothing, food is the story of what was available to the area, what grew and what fuel was available for cooking etc, race and ethnicity the story of where they come from and who they married, religion the story of tradition and lifestyle, and language the story of how they communicated. All of it is a portrait of our fellow human beings, but not all of it equally worth of preservation by modern western standards.

Few of us would consider practices like genital mutilation worth preserving, regardless of how ingrained in a culture they may be.

I don't think you can really compare genital mutilation with the speaking of a language.

28-10-2015 2:20am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah but Candie they were comparable at various stages of revival. Hebrew was a moribund language which lacked words for much of everyday use but through enforced revival it was spoken by millions. That wasn't the case a few decades ago.

It is now though Eddie. It can't be compared with Samskrit, which hasn't been really spoken for centuries. Not that I think you were comparing it.

AlmightyCushion · 28-10-2015 2:20am

kowloon wrote: »

Culture changes, that's why we aren't running around the place naked smeared in our own $hite.

Speak for yourself.

*continues smearing*

Billy86 · 28-10-2015 2:22am

They definitely should be all held on to, recorded, and made available to study (and teach) for those interested; willfully 'forgetting' any language or culture given the resources we have available to do otherwise would be incredibly stupid.

That said, if the world meshes into one sole 'primary' language over the coming decades or centuries that could also be a good thing. The two are not exactly mutually exclusive.

28-10-2015 2:23am

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I don't think you can really compare genital mutilation with the speaking of a language.

We're talking about culture, which encompasses traditional practises as well as language. And, fairly obviously, I'm not comparing language with circumcision.

I'm asking what do you preserve of a 'dying' culture? Not everything is equally worthy of preservation, but of course what we consider worthy or not worthy is heavily influenced by our own culture and traditions.

28-10-2015 2:24am

steddyeddy wrote: »

As the anthropologist Wade Davis says of culture:

Is there any value in preserving languages and culture? Some people here have spoke in favor about language revival and speak about the importance of keeping languages like Hebrew, Irish and Sanskrit.

Some have the view that speaking a more common language like English or Spanish is the way to go. Personally I think it's important to retain culture where possible and one of the best ways we can do that is through language. Thoughts?

By "old" do you mean "small"? Or "minority"? Or "not English"?

The Irish language, for example, is both older and newer than English. The first literature written anywhere in Europe in the common language of people was in Irish, and modern Irish predates modern English by a couple of centuries. But on the other hand, written modern English was standardised much earlier than written modern Irish - which itself was only really standardised in the last 70 to 80 years.

Likewise, there are many languages across Europe that are under pressure from "bigger" languages. Some of those are older, while others are newer.

If we grow up with a language, we assume that it's always been there, because for us it has. But that's not how languages have worked throughout human history. Most modern languages are in fact relatively new, even though their origins might be very old. If you took a person from 21st century England and sent them back in time by 500 years they'd have trouble understanding a lot of spoken English and the huge majority of the written language. Send them back another 300 or 400 years and the language would simply be incomprehensible to them.

Whether that will stay the same or change in the future is difficult to predict, mainly because humans can now record both spoken and written languages with greater precision than was the case in the past.

Anyway, the above is an answer based on your question as it was phrased, and not on some narrow interpretation of it based on our own local cultural prejudices. I'm sure others will take the more parochial perspective on the discussion with a depressingly familiar absence of aplomb.

lanos · 28-10-2015 2:27am

Candie wrote: »

So let them die because they don't suit your taste?

There are more than 390 African-Asiatic languages. Have you heard them all?

The question was what language we would adopt if we had to pick one.
I chose french
Now I'm not aware of all the African-Asiatic languages but thank you for that impressive statistic. You appear to really know your stuff.
BTW , I happen to be a cunning linguist.

FloatingVoter · 28-10-2015 2:29am

Sure, keep them ticking over in dusty libraries for the benefit of mankind. Latin, Greek, Egyptian hieroglyphs etc. Nothing is truly dead providing it is remembered. And has a literature and history to match.
Ramming the languages down the throats of kids is counterproductive. A hatred such as I have for all things "Irish" could only have been instilled through the corporal punishment regime of Gaelification.
That said, it is nice to see tourists and grown-ups showing an interest in learning the quaint old tongue though. Made drearier by those made up little Irish names scribbling in various rags begging for grants from a taxpayer that is tired of leprechaun "culture". Their elitist rubbish is dead and needs stamping out where found. Anyone responding in their defence is most likely just in having driven home drunk and celebrating evasion of another arrest. Cop not got your tongue, eh?

28-10-2015 2:30am

lanos wrote: »

The question was what language we would adopt if we had to pick one.
I chose french
Now I'm not aware of all the African-Asiatic languages but thank you for that impressive statistic. You appear to really know your stuff.
BTW , I happen to be a cunning linguist.

I don't think that was the question!

I'd choose English, purely because I'm lazy.

Martial9 · 28-10-2015 2:32am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is there any value in preserving languages and culture? Some people here have spoke in favor about language revival and speak about the importance of keeping languages like Hebrew, Irish and Sanskrit.

Hebrew has been revived, the Irish language is slowly growing - not due to the millions pumped into it but due to the love of the language and Sanskrit speakers were almost always multilingual.

I know plenty of Irish speakers and very few of them became fluent through the school system. Which is mad considering hundreds of thousands of us came through 13/14 years of obligatory Irish classes. They were either born fluent or became fluent out of the love of the language.

My sister became fluent after spending a month in the Gaeltacht after fifth year ended. She grew to love the language. She was sent just to keep her out of trouble during the three months of summer holidays! My ma became fluent when she attended night classes with some friends after her divorce. I know a Latvian girl that came here to work for the summer, fell in love with life here and started attending classes. Similar story with a Swedish chef I worked with.

Irish is a beautiful language and it will not die. But we should seriously look at how we teach it and we should make it an optional subject in secondary. For example, if you struggle at English higher level and Irish ordinary level and really want to hit 550 plus in the LC, you got to pick up another subject.

Let the students decide if the want to continue studying it after primary and let's change the way we teach it. I despised Irish, but loved German class.

I had braces on from 14-16 and had regular appointments I had to keep. 'We're penciling you in for Thursday the 17th next month for your return.' 'Eh, that's maths and history class. I have double Irish on Friday the same time, how are ye fixed?'

kowloon · 28-10-2015 2:33am

eternal wrote: »

If that culture was forgotten, you wouldn't be aware of how far we have evolved.

Never said we should forget it, but rigid adherence to it causes cultures to stagnate. There's a balance.

28-10-2015 2:38am

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sure others will take the more parochial perspective on the discussion with a depressingly familiar absence of aplomb.

FloatingVoter wrote: »

[deleted]

Et voilà!

:D:D

(that's French for "and there it is!", in case our English speakers need a translation)

lanos · 28-10-2015 2:39am

steddyeddy wrote: »

So should the whole world speak one language? If so which one?

lanos wrote: »

The question was what language we would adopt if we had to pick one.
I chose french
Now I'm not aware of all the African-Asiatic languages but thank you for that impressive statistic. You appear to really know your stuff.
BTW , I happen to be a cunning linguist.

Candie wrote: »

I don't think that was the question!

I'd choose English, purely because I'm lazy.

Yes it was the question.
And I do believe you are lazy for not checking back just 1 page

Eugene Norman · 28-10-2015 2:41am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

By "old" do you mean "small"? Or "minority"? Or "not English"?

The Irish language, for example, is both older and newer than English. The first literature written anywhere in Europe in the common language of people was in Irish, and modern Irish predates modern English by a couple of centuries. But on the other hand, written modern English was standardised much earlier than written modern Irish - which itself was only really standardised in the last 70 to 80 years.

Likewise, there are many languages across Europe that are under pressure from "bigger" languages. Some of those are older, while others are newer.

If we grow up with a language, we assume that it's always been there, because for us it has. But that's not how languages have worked throughout human history. Most modern languages are in fact relatively new, even though their origins might be very old. If you took a person from 21st century England and sent them back in time by 500 years they'd have trouble understanding a lot of spoken English and the huge majority of the written language. Send them back another 300 or 400 years and the language would simply be incomprehensible to them.

Whether that will stay the same or change in the future is difficult to predict, mainly because humans can now record both spoken and written languages with greater precision than was the case in the past.

Anyway, the above is an answer based on your question as it was phrased, and not on some narrow interpretation of it based on our own local cultural prejudices. I'm sure others will take the more parochial perspective on the discussion with a depressingly familiar absence of aplomb.

A fair amount of well poisoning there. Impressive.

In the end however your argument seems to be languages (like the one you are writing in) change over time so why preserve indigenous or minority languages

Martial9 · 28-10-2015 2:41am

Candie wrote: »

it's taught rather like Latin is taught as a written language.

If any of your grandparents grew up in the 1950's, ask them how Latin was taught. It was also a compulsory language class up until the inter cert/leaving cert or whatever it was called then.

My grandfather told us that they spent 1/4 of teaching time on teaching them this language that the Catholic Church were slowly doing away with. But if you made a mistake with your recitals, a whack of the cane your pasty arse got.

We are making the same mistakes, via the modern age, with our teaching of Irish.

Eugene Norman · 28-10-2015 2:47am

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Sure, keep them ticking over in dusty libraries for the benefit of mankind. Latin, Greek, Egyptian hieroglyphs etc. Nothing is truly dead providing it is remembered. And has a literature and history to match.
Ramming the languages down the throats of kids is counterproductive. A hatred such as I have for all things "Irish" could only have been instilled through the corporal punishment regime of Gaelification.
That said, it is nice to see tourists and grown-ups showing an interest in learning the quaint old tongue though. Made drearier by those made up little Irish names scribbling in various rags begging for grants from a taxpayer that is tired of leprechaun "culture". Their elitist rubbish is dead and needs stamping out where found. Anyone responding in their defence is most likely just in having driven home drunk and celebrating evasion of another arrest. Cop not got your tongue, eh?

Wtf?

Should we let old cultures and langauges die out?

Comments