Net bad for language diversity.

[xox]

How the Internet is killing the world’s languages

This concerns me, greatly. As an amateur linguist [of sorts] I find language diversity essential to cultural diversity. And let's be honest, Trek would not be the same without all of the varied races and their cultures.

If you speak a minority language...keep it alive!!

[Treymiar]

Ihh, something tells me that, like with Klingonese, there will always be academic devotees who will preserve the obscure.

[xox]

While you make a valid point, I think the issue is that much like Latin and Classical Greek, academia is an insufficient realm for these languages to dwell. The issue isn't whether these languages are preserved so much as they are spoken. Languages are dynamic and "living", for lack of a better term, and if relegated to preservation they will lose that vibrancy. One of the most important cultural aspects to language is nuance...and not for lack of trying, but the nuance that exists in language is ill preserved by scholars.

I think that what should be a priority is keeping children educated in a native tongue and one other language...not necessarily replacing the native language.

[Williams]

Honestly, if anything is killing the world's languages I don't think it is necessarily the internet. Yes, the internet tends to be predominantly in English, but the article you posted speaks largely about spoken languages. Unless we're talking about Skype and the likes of video calls, the internet is all written languages. For most people, a written language comes secondary to a spoken language - generally speaking (and I know there are exceptions), people use or at least know the written languages that go with the spoken languages they know.

Honestly, I reckon that if anything is killing spoken languages, it started with global commerce. When you're negotiating deals across borders, both sides need to use the same language, and thanks to the commercial giant that is America, that language is most commonly English. That has then filtered down to the point where most tourists don't feel they need to try to learn any words of the local language in order to get by, because they know that most shop workers and restaurant waiters speak enough English that they can get across the basics - get what they want, and pay what they need.

The internet might be a by-product or even be helping along the process, but I don't think that it is the cause of it.

[xox]

For most people, a written language comes secondary to a spoken language - generally speaking (and I know there are exceptions), people use or at least know the written languages that go with the spoken languages they know.

You're quite wrong about this. Written and spoken forms of language are inextricably linked. You may or may not remember the 1st grade, but I'm sure you remember the later years of your formal education. The vocabulary and mathematical concepts you learned would not be possible without written language...nor would standardized spoken language.

Honestly, I reckon that if anything is killing spoken languages, it started with global commerce. When you're negotiating deals across borders, both sides need to use the same language, and thanks to the commercial giant that is America, that language is most commonly English.

Again, you're mistaken. Firstly, the reason that English is so widely spoken, is Britain. There used to be a well known saying that the sun never sets on the British Empire. Secondly, pidgins and creoles are common results of trading across linguistic lines, the domination of one language over another often comes with military might...not necessarily commercial influence.

The internet might be a by-product or even be helping along the process, but I don't think that it is the cause of it.

I can't really get what you're trying to say here...the internet cannot be a "by-product" of the internet's effects on language diversity...that does not logically follow. However, it most assuredly could be the cause of it.

Think of it in terms of the most widely spoken languages...Chinese, Spanish, English, then Arabic. Now, try to think of a country where these are not at least taught at a secondary level. There is no such place on earth. The reason is simple, economic development in areas where these are the dominant languages has caused the potential workforce to learn these languages...i.e., commerce - increasingly electronic (internet) - has diminished the overall diversity of world languages.

[Williams]

For most people, a written language comes secondary to a spoken language - generally speaking (and I know there are exceptions), people use or at least know the written languages that go with the spoken languages they know.

You're quite wrong about this. Written and spoken forms of language are inextricably linked. You may or may not remember the 1st grade, but I'm sure you remember the later years of your formal education. The vocabulary and mathematical concepts you learned would not be possible without written language...nor would standardized spoken language.

I'm not saying that the two are not linked. What I was trying to say is that the spoken word comes before the written word. Yes, all of the other things that we learn and know are made possible by written language, but when you boil it down to the basics of it all, at least in my opinion, the spoken word is much more at the core of a language than it's written form. I'm probably not putting it across quite in the way that I mean, but I can't think of a better way of putting it.

Honestly, I reckon that if anything is killing spoken languages, it started with global commerce. When you're negotiating deals across borders, both sides need to use the same language, and thanks to the commercial giant that is America, that language is most commonly English.

Again, you're mistaken. Firstly, the reason that English is so widely spoken, is Britain. There used to be a well known saying that the sun never sets on the British Empire. Secondly, pidgins and creoles are common results of trading across linguistic lines, the domination of one language over another often comes with military might...not necessarily commercial influence.

Again, matter of opinion. Yes, I know that the Empire spread English around to a lot of places that would otherwise have spoken a different language. But Colonialism did exactly the same for French and for Spanish. But I honestly don't think that colonialism at the point it reached is enough to explain the current dominance of English. Britain did not envelop most of Europe in the Empire, and yet I have met Germans and Finns who speak better English than most people I know. And it is the powerful countries like the G8 who are the ones helping to make English the dominant language by teaching it in their schools to help them in dealing with a more globally commercial world than ever before, and that is a result of America becoming the economic power that it has become in the last century. And I'd just like to point out that I myself am from and have lived my whole life in Britain, so this isn't coming from a standpoint of a superiority complex on my side.

The internet might be a by-product or even be helping along the process, but I don't think that it is the cause of it.

I can't really get what you're trying to say here...the internet cannot be a "by-product" of the internet's effects on language diversity...that does not logically follow. However, it most assuredly could be the cause of it.

Think of it in terms of the most widely spoken languages...Chinese, Spanish, English, then Arabic. Now, try to think of a country where these are not at least taught at a secondary level. There is no such place on earth. The reason is simple, economic development in areas where these are the dominant languages has caused the potential workforce to learn these languages...i.e., commerce - increasingly electronic (internet) - has diminished the overall diversity of world languages.

OK, bad choice of words there on my part in trying to get my point across. What I was trying to say, is that the internet may be helping along the death of some of the rarer spoken languages in how dominated it is by English, but it is not in my view the cause. The start of the decline in language diversity started long before the internet became as wide spread as it is now.

[xox]

the spoken word is much more at the core of a language than it's written form

I assume you meant "its"...I rest my case.

Again, matter of opinion. Yes, I know that the Empire spread English around to a lot of places that would otherwise have spoken a different language. But Colonialism did exactly the same for French and for Spanish.

No, Sir...I'm sorry, history is not a "matter of opinion". The French focused the majority of the Colonialism on Africa and the Middle East...map here, while the Spaniards focused primarily on South America...map here, whereas the British Empire touched every piece of land on the globe save for South America...description here.

There is no contest that English was spread wider and for longer than Spanish or French.

And it is the powerful countries like the G8 who are the ones helping to make English the dominant language by teaching it in their schools to help them in dealing with a more globally commercial world than ever before, and that is a result of America becoming the economic power that it has become in the last century.

I can see that you have an American-centric world view, but linguistically speaking, you're just wrong. I seriously suggest you study some late 18th and early 19th century history and learn that English was not the language of the day, and only became so after British [not American] excursions into what was then dubbed the "Orient".

The start of the decline in language diversity started long before the internet became as wide spread as it is now.

I do not disagree with you in spirit here, but as to the question of how long I'm curious how long you think it's been happening?

[Alex]

the spoken word is much more at the core of a language than it's written form

I assume you meant "its"...I rest my case.

Actually, if thats where you rest you're case, I don't think being a grammer nazi really wins the argument. (Yes, I am fully aware of what I did there. Don't point it out.) If anything, it almost stresses that the spoken word would have ignored the problem. I missed it on my first read through.

Again, matter of opinion. Yes, I know that the Empire spread English around to a lot of places that would otherwise have spoken a different language. But Colonialism did exactly the same for French and for Spanish.

No, Sir...I'm sorry, history is not a "matter of opinion". The French focused the majority of the Colonialism on Africa and the Middle East...map here, while the Spaniards focused primarily on South America...map here, whereas the British Empire touched every piece of land on the globe save for South America...description here.

There is no contest that English was spread wider and for longer than Spanish or French.

A lot of history was a matter of opinion. I'm not going to look up examples since I need to go to bed, but I'm sure there are some. While we certainly prefer to base history on fact, the truth of the matter is that some things we don't know for sure, and historians are just making educated guesses. As for the Spanish and French, you said so yourself that colonialism spread their languages. Spanish is the official language of more countries than any other language except for probably English. I'm not denying that the British Empire was more widespread than that of the French or Spanish, and I don't think Williams was either. The point he was making was that colonialism did the same for the French and Spanish. You can't tell me that South America would be speaking Spanish had Spain not colonized. We're not arguing who spread their language further. We're just saying that it did in fact happen. It wasn't a British only phenomenon. If you have a argument here, it's the semantics of Williams saying that it did exactly the same thing.

And it is the powerful countries like the G8 who are the ones helping to make English the dominant language by teaching it in their schools to help them in dealing with a more globally commercial world than ever before, and that is a result of America becoming the economic power that it has become in the last century.

I can see that you have an American-centric world view, but linguistically speaking, you're just wrong. I seriously suggest you study some late 18th and early 19th century history and learn that English was not the language of the day, and only became so after British [not American] excursions into what was then dubbed the "Orient".

He specifically said that he is from Britain. Why does that mean that he clearly has an American-centric world view? If anything, that would make him less bias, at least in my opinion. I am from the US, but I sometimes work with people in China or South Korea for work. It is clear that English is a second language for them, but their English is far better than my Mandarin or Korean could ever hope to be. That's because they have been learning English in school, which is exactly the point that Williams was making.

The start of the decline in language diversity started long before the internet became as wide spread as it is now.

I do not disagree with you in spirit here, but as to the question of how long I'm curious how long you think it's been happening?

I...uh...don't really have anything to say here.

[xox]

I don't think being a grammer nazi really wins the argument.

Wasn't trying to "win"...and a conversation isn't always an "argument".

A lot of history was a matter of opinion. I'm not going to look up examples since I need to go to bed, but I'm sure there are some. While we certainly prefer to base history on fact, the truth of the matter is that some things we don't know for sure, and historians are just making educated guesses.

I call shenanigans without examples. You may think that a historian is a historian who talks about history but making educated guesses and stating opinions does not a historian make.

I'm not denying that the British Empire was more widespread than that of the French or Spanish, and I don't think Williams was either.

Nor did I suggest that was his point. What are you driving at here?

You can't tell me that South America would be speaking Spanish had Spain not colonized. We're not arguing who spread their language further.

Of course I would not suggest that SA would be speaking Spanish without Spain's colonization...that's daft. Are you using things I didn't say to argue back at me? And yes, if you [or Williams] are claiming that the Spanish and/or French spread their language over a larger geographic area, then you are arguing...but against the facts, not me.

It wasn't a British only phenomenon.

Again...I did not suggest this.

He specifically said that he is from Britain. Why does that mean that he clearly has an American-centric world view? If anything, that would make him less bias, at least in my opinion.

His being from Britain is apparently less important to him than thinking that America is the reason that English is so wide spread...this makes for an America-centric worldview. Also, "bias" is just a fancy word for opinion and every one is bias to one degree or another.

That's because they have been learning English in school, which is exactly the point that Williams was making.

What? He's making the point that English is taught at a secondary level in several areas around the world? Nope...that was me, actually. You seem to be talking in circles.

I realize that I am new here and I truly do not wish to cause any strife...but you make little sense and seem to be only white-knighting for Williams. Perhaps it would be best if we all just let this topic go for a while. Hm.

[Alex]

Oh my god... I had some well thought out responses to some of these things and I got timed out and lost them all. Doesn't that drive you crazy. I'm going to come back to some of these points, but I'm sure I'll miss some things.

I don't think being a grammer nazi really wins the argument.

Wasn't trying to "win"...and a conversation isn't always an "argument".

By argument, I meant the discussion of differing viewpoints. I didn't mean that the two of you were in a shouting match. I know that not every conversation is an "argument", but during a discussion, you give arguments to support your point. That was really what I was referring to.

I call shenanigans without examples. You may think that a historian is a historian who talks about history but making educated guesses and stating opinions does not a historian make.

I had more typed out here originally, but the gist of it is that things are only fact until they are disproven by another fact. Historians do make educated guesses, but they are based on facts. The best example that I can come up with is the differing opinion on the date of the birth of Jesus. For a long time it was widely accepted that he was born in 0 AD on December 25. I believe now historians think that it was closer to 7-2 BC, and probably not in December. The "fact" referring to the date of his birth was an opinion, an educated guess, based on what was known at the time. New information has come out since then that suggests that he was born earlier, and the "facts" were updated to reflect that.

The scientific method works the same way. A theory is only true so long as something doesn't show it to be false.

I'm not denying that the British Empire was more widespread than that of the French or Spanish, and I don't think Williams was either.

Nor did I suggest that was his point. What are you driving at here?

You can't tell me that South America would be speaking Spanish had Spain not colonized. We're not arguing who spread their language further.

Of course I would not suggest that SA would be speaking Spanish without Spain's colonization...that's daft. Are you using things I didn't say to argue back at me? And yes, if you [or Williams] are claiming that the Spanish and/or French spread their language over a larger geographic area, then you are arguing...but against the facts, not me.

I had more here too, but I'll jump to the chase. I think the point that Williams was trying to make was that colonialism also reduced the diversity of language, way before the internet had existed, so it was not just a recent occurrence.

It wasn't a British only phenomenon.

Again...I did not suggest this.

That's because they have been learning English in school, which is exactly the point that Williams was making.

What? He's making the point that English is taught at a secondary level in several areas around the world? Nope...that was me, actually. You seem to be talking in circles.

These last two go along with the other thing I wanted to say in response to the above. If these were not things that you were suggesting, then I must have misread your argument. Perhaps I got lost in the quotes. I didn't mean to use things that you didn't say against you. I actually thought that you had said them. If you didn't, then I must have read through it too quickly, and for that I'm sorry. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, or in Wiliams's. I just confused myself with who said what.

He specifically said that he is from Britain. Why does that mean that he clearly has an American-centric world view? If anything, that would make him less bias, at least in my opinion.

His being from Britain is apparently less important to him than thinking that America is the reason that English is so wide spread...this makes for an America-centric worldview. Also, "bias" is just a fancy word for opinion and every one is bias to one degree or another.

This was probably just be getting defensive. I just get tired of seeing stupid American jokes on the internet or people arguing that just because someone mentions American influence in global affairs that it must just be because of American arrogance. My response was really meant to say that it couldn't be American arrogance in Williams's case because he is not American. At least, that was how I intended it.

I realize that I am new here and I truly do not wish to cause any strife...but you make little sense and seem to be only white-knighting for Williams. Perhaps it would be best if we all just let this topic go for a while. Hm.

It's unfortunate that I lost my previous post because this is where I spent the most time. I have a tendency (a bad one) to get defensive and argumentative when I'm confused. That doesn't always earn me many friends. I know that you are new, and I feel that some of my comments have left a poor first impression. I'm really pretty easy to get along with, or at least I try to be.

Also, I don't think that you are causing any strife. You can ask a number of people, but I'd love to see the forums get used more often for discussions like this. Don't walk away from it because of me. And especially don't walk away from the forums because of this discussion. I think you guys should continue, and I'll only join in if I think of something more original to add. Please don't think that any of my points were meant to be a personal attack. If anything, most of my points were due to confusion, either to who was saying what or to what you meant by your counter argument. I should have just asked you to clarify instead of trying to poke holes in your statements while not really knowing what I was talking about. I did not intend to be only white-knighting for Williams, but I can certainly understand why it came across that way.

I wish I still had my original response because I think it was more carefully worded than this one. I would have liked to spend more time on it again, but some things you don't feel like typing twice, and I'm supposed to be getting work done anyway (things are getting so slow around the holiday because there is hardly anyone here). I just wanted to make sure that I answered because I feel like we've started off on the wrong foot. Let's start over, shall we?