Re: History of the Breton Language

fred wrote:
> Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
> 
>>"Bob and Doris Jones" <bobianjones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:Gbl6f.24789$U51.13024@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>fred wrote:
>>>
>>>>Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"fred" <f5r4e3d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message .
>>>>>
>>>>>a  viable base to keep the language going, especially
>>>>>given some political sup****t and funding.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why?
>>>>>The sooner the entire planet speaks one language - be it Mandarin,
>>
>>Spanish,
>>
>>>>>English or whatever - the better IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is inevitable anyway - why squander taxpayers money on dying,
>>
>>irrelevant,
>>
>>>>>redundant dialects.
>>>>>And don't give me that crap about 'preserving the culture inherent in
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>>langugae' - in 2,000 years time no-one will give a toss.
>>>>>
>>>>>Roll on.
>>>>>
>>>>>A W-S
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What a boring vision of the future. Maybe there should just be one
>>>>style of music, one kind of painting and everyone should wear the same
>>>>clothes.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, what a boring world that would be. Agree wholeheartedly with this
!
>>
>>I don't think you have really thought this through.
>>Why would it be boring to be able to communicate easily with people from
all
>>over the world?
>>I agree it's quite fun (for a while) to use sign language and shouting
to
>>educate the wogs and suchlike but IMO *that* soon becomes exhausting and
>>(dare I say it) boring.
>>I've been to remote islands where the locals and I didn't have a single
word
>>in common and it was so frustrating for them not to be able to benefit
from
>>my experience and superior education.
>>Many of them longed to learn English as their own tiny (in terms of
>>speakers) languages where useless to them. Perhaps you should explain to
>>these people that they shouldn't learn English (or Spanish or Mandarin)
>>because *you* would find it boring.
>>I'm curious - how would you convince - say - a tribe of Solomon
Islanders
>>that they should refrain from learning English in the interests of a
less
>>ho-hum planet?
>>Just a quick two line summary will do.
>>Don't want to get into a protracted debate in our mutual language in
case it
>>bores you.
>>
>>A W-S
> 
> 
> 
> My dear sir, I think it may be YOU who hasn't thought it through : )
> 
> I'm sorry, but I can't restrict myself to two lines on this one -
> 
> Now, where you get the idea that I would wish someone from the Solomon
> Islands not to learn English I have absolutely no idea.
> I certainly do not state anything like that in my initial statement
> above (re-read it!).
> 
> I would not advocate the condition of the monoglot for anyone, and
> learning a handy international link-language like Spanish or English
> sounds like a great idea to me.
> 
> I actually wish that Latin still had it's status as an international
> language of science and intellectual discourse. However, since latin
> has lost this status, I'm sure Mandarin, Spanish, English or Hindi can
> play that role, and more roles besides in due course. ( I myself
> studied Hindi for four years, and have just created a system for
> writing in the Devnagri script using a standard western keyboard, with
> no recourse to special keys. It took me four months programming,
> working 9 to 5 [for no pay] to complete).

Wow, that sounds really useful. I've wanted to learn Hindi but have been 
put off by how to type the script. Yes, he left a very im****tant 
language out of his list of global language candidates. Derived from 
sacred Sanskrit, the language of the wonderful Hindu religion and Yoga 
and a modern film industry and potentially more speakers than Putonghua 
(Mandarin).

> I am in full agreement that communication with a wide range of people
> from different places is useful, interesting, enlightening.
> 
> But I don't think any of this should or does creates a conclusive
> argument that localised languages such as Breton are not worthy of
> sup****t (which appears to be your opening argument).
> 
> I suspect you may have a very narrowly utilitarian view of the value of
> language in general and also of any particular language.
> 
> However,  if you look at the actual uses of language, I would argue
> that you cannot limit it's values to those based on any narrow
> utilitarian view.
> Poetry is an obvious example of this. So far as I know, poetry or some
> kind of poetic mode of expression exists in some form in all languages.
> 
> Now, If you acknowledge that language can have poetic value, then you
> must surely also have to acknowledge that such value is based on the
> specific sounds and forms of words and WAYS of expressing things that
> are inherent to that language.
> 
> (I wonder if you could seriously argue that languages do not have both
> inherent poetic value and potential - I doubt it)
> 
> If you go this far, then you must surely also accept that different
> languages must have attributes of sound, forms and modes of expression
> that are both different between languages and unique to those
> languages.
> 
> (Could you /conceivably/ argue that, say, French and English do not
> have their own unique qualities and potential in this regard? I don't
> believe you could seriously put forward such an argument).
> 
> I wonder if you would be prepared to believe that, for many people,
> this set of values in language may extend far beyond what we might
> narrowly define as 'poetry' (i.e. a specific type of performance
> which is clearly defined as such, which is written on the page in
> 'poetry books' or recited.)
>  Can you accept that these values actually express themselves and are
> felt as part of life, every day, as you live your life with that
> language? Could you believe that this experience is valuable to many
> people, and something that they believe is worth preserving and
> nurturing in various ways?
> 
> Now, it could be that, even if you do acknowledge the existence of
> these unique qualities and values which exist in languages, YOU
> YOURSELF would not regard them as having sufficient worth to justify
> their preservation and nurturing in their great diversity.
>      That would say something about your own value-priorities, and
> perhaps your own way of experiencing life ( a rather impoverished one
> perhaps ?? ).
> 
> Please do not expect others necessarily to share this priority of
> values with you.
> 
> And here is another im****tant point -
> 
> There is one other assumption, quite irrational, which appears to
> underlie your contributions to this thread.
> 
> That is the assumption, apparently, that the condition of the monoglot
> is somehow normal, desirable or inevitable - note your actual words -
> 
> You state 'the sooner the world speaks only one language the
> better'.
> 
> Also, you talk about the issue of whether the Solomon islanders should
> learn English as if there is some kind of assumption that this
> therefore implies that their own language should be abandoned, or that
> it is some question of 'either or'.
> 
> This assumption also appears to come to the surface when you (from
> whence I know not) suggest that I do not think that Solomon Islanders
> should learn English - again, this seems to rest on an 'either
> or' assumption about language acquisition.
> 
> Why should any such 'either or' assumption be entertained? And
> where does this 'sooner we all speak only one language the better
> idea come from? (your words, though I have added my own emphasis
> there).
> I have previously mentioned on this group the slogan which one of my
> lecturers at my uni wore on one of his t-****rts - "MONOGLOTISM CAN
> BE CURED".
> 
> Perhaps you might ask YOURSELF why this tendency to regard monoglotism
> as either an acceptable or desirable or inevitable condition seems,
> from your own posts, to pervade your own mind?
> 
> The desire and indeed the practice of preserving and nurturing a
> localized language does  NOT mean that such people are not also
> perfectly prepared to learn and use, perhaps even promote other
> languages (such as Spanish, Mandarin, English) which are both
> international and bloody useful!!!
> 
> Don't forget, speaking more than one language is absolutely the norm
> for a huge percentage of people in the world.
> 
> It is not only the norm, it is a requirement which is absolutely
> accepted and, in practice, actively sup****ted by speakers of languages
> such as Welsh and Irish and Breton. Do you  /really believe/ that these
> people do not want their children to learn English or French? I don't
> think so. Indeed I can assure you that in practice they would NOT BE
> VERY HAPPY and in fact, WOULDN'T ACCEPT the idea that their children
> would emerge from the education system NOT being able to speak a
> language such as English or French ( or perhaps, in future, Mandarin or
> some other language). You can argue this one if you like, but if you
> and I take a trip to a Welsh speaking part of Wales, I really think you
> will be hard pressed to find a parent who does not wish, indeed
> strongly require, that their child should speak another language in
> addition to Welsh. I doubt you would find this to be the case beyond,
> perhaps, a very very few ultra-nationalist cranks?!?)
>       The condition of the monoglot, and the limitation this places on
> your life, is in fact and in practice , and even in ideology,  quite
> foreign to these people who aspire to nurture and preserve their
> language.
> 
> I agree that international and global communication in languages that
> gain an international role and status is indeed very interesting.
> 
> The kind of boringness I am referring to is that which I see  when I
> consider a world where global monoglotism has become the norm and the
> richness and uniqueness of more localized or minority languages is
> lost.
>