[interbased]

What is the benefit of keeping a language alive, other than to not lose the knowledge/creativity from books written in the language? If those books are translated into a more widely-used language that isn't dying, would that make it okay for the language to die? Is it purely out of respect for the culture of the language? The only other thing I can think of is that the folks that use the dying language don't know any other languages - which I can understand (no pun intended).

[lsy]

One way of answering this question would be to consider why, for example, Native American children were punished at boarding schools for speaking their language instead of English, why US colonial rule of Hawai'i included bans on Hawai'ian language usage, why Britain published missives against the Welsh language, or why nationalists in Taiwan or communists in China have worked to suppress languages like Taiwanese or Cantonese in favor of Mandarin. Languages are often considered delimiting factors for whether a group should be considered autonomous, a marker of shared ethnic heritage, and as a bulwark against cultural assimilation. Because they are part of a community's history, the eradication or revitalization of a language is often linked to the eradication or revitalization of that group of people as a cultural and political entity, as in Welsh revitalization efforts or protests to retain Cantonese broadcasts. So there is a connection to whether a group can be considered as a distinct culture, with its own distinct political rights, that goes beyond the utilitarian aspect of language as a means of simply transmitting information.

[kanbara]

translation doesn’t always carry the same weight. look at the bible— entire sentences that have different meanings or subtext. in one language, a verb may mean “to do something as your responsibility” and in a translation it may simply be “to undertake a task” — this sort of nuance is lost really easily.

additionally, books and written word doesn’t always equate to having saved knowledge. think about the tribe and kin concepts in many indigenous languages. entire ways of life can be lost. we know a lot from our europe’s ancestral indo-europeans lived from the reconstructions of proto-indo-european by way of the modern languages and written history but there is so much we do not know that is just lost.

[lelanthran]

> additionally, books and written word doesn’t always equate to having saved knowledge. think about the tribe and kin concepts in many indigenous languages. entire ways of life can be lost. we know a lot from our europe’s ancestral indo-europeans lived from the reconstructions of proto-indo-european by way of the modern languages and written history but there is so much we do not know that is just lost.

Sure, things are lost, but were they valuable other than to students of history?

[tetris11]

> Sure, things are lost, but were they valuable other than to students of history?

I detest this line of thinking because it assigns more worth to things that yield immediate results, or places a low importance on the impact of history.

Were Fermat's theorems valuable only to students of Mathematics, or did they inspire some of the greatest minds to later push the envelope in many unrelated fields?

[lelanthran]

> I detest this line of thinking because it assigns more worth to things that yield immediate results, or places a low importance on the impact of history.

I don't think it does; not all things are equally valuable, and the odds are low that some of the dying languages have anything of value, compared to reading or listening to global affairs.

Personally, I detest this line of thinking: some old/primitive/superstition/traditional thing is valuable just by being.

No, not all existing things are valuable.

> Were Fermat's theorems valuable only to students of Mathematics, or did they inspire some of the greatest minds to later push the envelope in many unrelated fields?

We aren't talking about Fermat, we're talking about primitive languages, for which there are hundreds of multiple better replacements.

[tetris11]

The problem with your argument is that it assumes that the value and potential of a product is wholly known in the present, when this is often far from the case: we constantly learn new things about seemingly static entities, and the insights that we develop from them enrich other aspects of our society.

Without studying language we wouldn't have understandings of innate grammars, the psychology that develops from these understandings, the marketability from that subsequent understanding, and then finally how to make money from it (if this is how one defines value....)

[lelanthran]

> The problem with your argument is that it assumes that the value and potential of a product is wholly known in the present,

No, it doesn't. It uses the fact that the probability of gaining anything of value from dying languages is so low that it's probably a rounding error.

> when this is often far from the case: we constantly learn new things about seemingly static entities, and the insights that we develop from them enrich other aspects of our society.

If you're relying on subjective "it enriches us" type of arguments, I'm afraid that that is not very persuasive.

Many argue that prayer is "enriching", after all.

Look, I get that it's feels better to be enriched, but that is not a good measure of "did we learn anything from this that is at all useful?"

> Without studying language we wouldn't have understandings of innate grammars, the psychology that develops from these understandings, the marketability from that subsequent understanding, and then finally how to make money from it (if this is how one defines value....)

We've got 7000+ languages. As far as learning stuff from them, fully 90% of them are redundant.

[ethanwillis]

What does valuable mean?

[serf]

languages facilitate different modes of thinking, I suppose one of the dangers in letting less commonly used languages die off is that it would seemingly promote more homogeneity in human thought.

[zilti]

The influence of language on thought is marginal; theories like sapphir-whorf have been falsified many times.