Preservation of endangered languages involves raising children bilingually in the majority and endangered language...
Generally speaking, endangered languages are from a cultural minority and members of that minority culture enjoy being able to speak that language.
If the minority cultures can fix the problem themselves by teaching their children, great! Far be it from me to stop them from that. And of course the dominant cultures should not actively oppress minority languages.
But when outsiders are expected to put in extra effort to preserve minority languages—that is when I balk.
Imagine if english went extinct. In a sense, we’d lose Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austen, Steinbeck. … These “endangered” languages had culture too—songs and stories, maybe books and plays. That’s important.
Important, sure. But other things are much more important, such as eradicating diseases and getting people basic education and preserving the environment.
If I had the choice between saving just one (decent quality) human life and keeping an endangered language alive for another generation, I would sacrifice the language to save the human.
If I had the choice between saving just one (decent quality) human life and keeping an endangered language alive for another generation, I would sacrifice the language to save the human.
Everyone who is keeping an endangered language alive is, during the time they spend doing that, not saving human lives. Would you say that they are sacrificing humans to save the language? In those words it sounds like a bad thing, but look past the words and is it, really?
Some make direct efforts to save lives. Others try to make a world fit for those lives to be lived in.
How far do you take this? What else would you have everyone sacrifice to saving lives?
I am currently attending the Early Music Festival in Utrecht, 10 days of concerts of music at least 400 years old. Is everyone involved in this event — the performers whose whole career is in music, the audiences who are devoting their time to doing this and not something else, and all the people organizing it — engaging in dereliction of duty?
If the minority cultures can fix the problem themselves by teaching their children, great! Far be it from me to stop them from that. And of course the dominant cultures should not actively oppress minority languages.
But when outsiders are expected to put in extra effort to preserve minority languages—that is when I balk.
Important, sure. But other things are much more important, such as eradicating diseases and getting people basic education and preserving the environment.
If I had the choice between saving just one (decent quality) human life and keeping an endangered language alive for another generation, I would sacrifice the language to save the human.
Everyone who is keeping an endangered language alive is, during the time they spend doing that, not saving human lives. Would you say that they are sacrificing humans to save the language? In those words it sounds like a bad thing, but look past the words and is it, really?
Some make direct efforts to save lives. Others try to make a world fit for those lives to be lived in.
In my opinion, yes. That is why I posted the question.
How far do you take this? What else would you have everyone sacrifice to saving lives?
I am currently attending the Early Music Festival in Utrecht, 10 days of concerts of music at least 400 years old. Is everyone involved in this event — the performers whose whole career is in music, the audiences who are devoting their time to doing this and not something else, and all the people organizing it — engaging in dereliction of duty?