li [Padraic Brown] mi tulis la ...
> 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 historical reference.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! ;)
Actually it's already being done.
http://dnghu.org/
-------------------------------------------------
deinx nxtxr
LI SASXSEK LATIS. (http://www.nutter.net/sasxsek)
|
