[Foundation-l] Klassical Chinese

[Mark Williamson]

So, Geni, if you want all of these languages to die, what do you
propose WE do about it? Just curious. Not that I agree with you, but
for all this talk, we might as well see what your proposed plan of
action is.
Mark

On 11/09/2008, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/11 Marcus Buck <me at marcusbuck.org>:
>> Geni, if you speak about nationalism, you have to look at the sources of
>> nationalism. There are some nationalist tendencies in Catalonia. Why?
>> Cause the Spanish tried to erase the Catalan language and the Catalans
>> were forced to defend their identity. There are nationalist tendencies
>> in Spain. The sucessful fight for autonomy of the Catalans takes away
>> regions which were formerly seen as integral parts of the Spanish
>> language area. The Spanish feel a threat for their identity. There are
>> nationalist tendencies in the USA. Why? Cause the number of Spanish
>> speakers rises and rises in the South (and not only in the South).
>
> You are confusing cause an effect. Catalan language was defended
> because people saw it as a useful tool for their nationalism. Every
> group (Italians Irish whatever) new to the US has had issues with
> integrating language is just a way of expressing that.
>
>
>> People become nationalist when they realize, that their
>> language/culture* is threatened or on the downward path. Wanting to
>> abolish all the languages of the world except one will lead to a massive
>> rise in nationalist tendencies.
>
> No. Existing nationalist tendencies will oppose something that will
> weaken their cause.
>
>> * Please be aware, that language is not merely a medium to transport
>> information, it is information in itself. Language and culture are
>> intertwined and cannot be separated. Shakespeare is popular in English
>> speaking areas, Goethe in German speaking, Zola in French speaking,
>> Groth in Low Saxon speaking and Si Mohand in Kabyl speaking areas. Their
>> works can be translated and are translated, but translations rarely
>> reach the depth of the original. They are out of their meaningful
>> context. In a monolingual world there is no way for Germans to keep
>> their German culture or Kabyls to keep their Kabyl culture. Goethe and
>> Si Mohand are meaningless without the German and Kabyl language.
>
> The languages that the Epic of Gilgamesh was written in have been dead
> since about the time of Marcus Aurelius. We get by.
>
>>There
>> are 6000 languages in the world. Each of them has their own songs,
>> traditions, tales etc. You would kill and make meaningless 99 % of that
>> cultural production only to make it easier to write an encyclopedia?
>
> You believe information exchange is limited to what appears in wikipedia?
>
> By denying people access to a major language you deny them access to
> much of the world's science, technology, engineering and culture.
> Realistically we have no right to deny individuals the choice nor
> should we be supporting groups that attempt to maintain language
> barriers. Most of those 6000 lack a written form and have few
> speakers. By comparison there are 100 million books in English.
>
> Now we do not have the power to kill languages but I would argue we
> should considered if we are artificially supporting a language.
>
>> If
>> you are worried about reduplication of effort, please first start
>> lobbying for a ban on Britannica and Encarta.
>
>
> Why? Market forces are likely to kill them off anyway and they are
> adding to the easy to access information in a widely used language.
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>