On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:20:04 -0400, Dana Nutter \ deinx nxtxr
<li_sasxsekREMOVETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>li [Padraic Brown] mi tulis la ...
>
>> This says as much about the attitude of the particular tribe as
>> anything else. If the people themselves are not interested in keeping
>> their traditional language, who are we to force it on them? Or "keep
>> the langauge alive" at all? If they don't want to use it, why should
>> we be bothered? By all means, if it's still living but moribund,
>> record it and preserve it as best as books and recordings can do, but
>> let it die naturally. It's no skin off anyone's nose if a people
>> reject their ancestral language.
>
>I have to agree here. From a purely practical standpoint, there
>is no point in preserving languages except maybe for historical
>reference.
That's not _quite_ what I'm getting at. If the people don't want their
language anymore, or like in the example, if a reconstruction of their
lost language is refused, THEN by all means preserve what there is for
historical reference.
If a people want to keep their language or expressed an interest in a
reconstruction of a lost language, then by all means the linguistic
community should work with them to preserve or revive it.
> The best thing is to take the languages that are
>near extinction, then record and do***ent them as best as can be
>done before they go.
Agreed.
>Or maybe I should keep my linguistic
>heritage alive by reviving Indoeuropean?
Would make for an interesting auxlang and no mistake! Related to all
the principle European languages! ;)
Padraic
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>deinx nxtxr
>
>LI SASXSEK LATIS. (http://www.nutter.net/sasxsek)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
