Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Only 4% of languages are used online

priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: Only 4% of languages are used online

#41

Post by coldtea »

tnbd wrote: post #10
TrainedMonkey wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on whether you are globalist or nationalist. Globalist - good, less languages - less barriers. Good for international commerce and knowledge sharing. Nationalist - bad, loss of language means some part of cultural heritage lost. Truth is always somewhere in between.

"Globalist - good, less languages - less barriers. Good for international commerce and knowledge sharing." This is wrong, as there being more languages does not mean everyone is monolingual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca "Truth is always somewhere in between." What if I claim it isn't?

>"Truth is always somewhere in between." What if I claim it isn't?

Then, axiomatically, truth is somewhere in between "possibly being near some extreme" and being "somewhere in between".

So it's not in between anymore...

Re: Only 4% of languages are used online

#42

Post by icebraining »

CaveTech wrote: post #21
melling wrote: post #14

I guess the title "Only 240 languages are used online" doesn't sound like a problem? That probably represents 5 or 6 of 7 billion people? I think the world should move towards even fewer languages than 240. However, it would be very sad if we didn't capture the complete grammar, vocabulary, etc. of those other languages before they die, along with lots of audio, to preserve them.

You're promoting both the killing and preserving of languages in the same paragraph, seems a bit misguided. Surely if they're worth documenting, then its worth trying to preserve their use as well. Surely the world should be moving to a place where it doesn't matter what language the source is, at least online. A fully competent Google translate would seamlessly allow everyone to communicate without destroying cultur…

That reminds me of William Temple Hornaday's, who killed a whole herd of Buffalos to preserve them.

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-0002...

Re: Only 4% of languages are used online

#43

Post by wobbleblob »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #17
TrainedMonkey wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on whether you are globalist or nationalist. Globalist - good, less languages - less barriers. Good for international commerce and knowledge sharing. Nationalist - bad, loss of language means some part of cultural heritage lost. Truth is always somewhere in between.

Loss of a language also often means a slightly unique way of seeing the world and thinking/talking about it is lost. Many languages have cool or weird features [1], and I care about that even though I can't communicate with speakers of those languages and therefore will never know the difference. I don't care about the national heritage of others, it's theirs - I care about diversity for the sake of it existing, not…

That sounds very liberal and open minded, but it really isn't. Us native speakers of minor languages speak that minor language because it is the only communications tool that allows us to fully understand and to be fully understood, not just to provide you normal people a little extra insight.

Many people think of language as part of their group identity, but in a very real way it is just a tool that makes it possible for multiple people to be a group. A minor language confines you to a smaller group, and is therefor a less useful tool.

This is why minority children don't want to preserve the language of their grandparents. It confines you to a lower level of understanding and being understood, to a less successful education and career, and worst of all, to being a quaint object of study and marvel for the likes of you.

Re: Only 4% of languages are used online

#44

Post by noarchy »

As someone who lives in an area where language is extremely political, and government is already involved in language-related legislation in day-to-day life, I worry that this is a potential vector for more government intrusion on the Internet. The excuses are practically built-in, from the perspective of the nationalists.

Re: Only 4% of languages are used online

#45

Post by unhammer »

nitrogen wrote: post #22
CaveTech wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're promoting both the killing and preserving of languages in the same paragraph, seems a bit misguided. Surely if they're worth documenting, then its worth trying to preserve their use as well. Surely the world should be moving to a place where it doesn't matter what language the source is, at least online. A fully competent Google translate would seamlessly allow everyone to communicate without destroying cultur…

Why promote the use of obsolete technology (including language), when it can be satisfactorily preserved in museums?

Why promote the preservation of obsolete species (including animals), when they can be satisfactorily preserved in museums?

Re: Only 4% of languages are used online

#46

Post by hrkristian »

noarchy wrote: post #44

As someone who lives in an area where language is extremely political, and government is already involved in language-related legislation in day-to-day life, I worry that this is a potential vector for more government intrusion on the Internet. The excuses are practically built-in, from the perspective of the nationalists.

La oss håpe dine landsmenn ikke tar til internett med sitt eget språk der det ikke passer.

Re: Only 4% of languages are used online

#47

Post by pbhjpbhj »

coldtea wrote: post #40
nitrogen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why promote the use of obsolete technology (including language), when it can be satisfactorily preserved in museums?

Because "satisfactorily preserved" and "museum" are contradictory for a language. A spoken language is a living thing -- and it carries with it the patina of all those that have used it, their stories and how they shaped the language in return etc. Relegating to some museum excibits (that noone will care about, let's be honest) is like being satisfied by a polaroid of your significant other, instead of him/her.

We're not talking about artifacts though; we're talking about people.

Yes it would be better to be able to observe and use a language within a native, living body of people in order to be able to well comprehend and thoroughly appreciate the nuance, breadth and depth of a language. But in order to do that you also must require that population not to use some other language which may well benefit them (in terms of education, trade, international relations, access to information, etc.).

In Wales for example the historic Welsh language is being propped up at vast expense to a relatively poor region of the UK. All lessons¹ in [state run] primary schools (4-11 year olds) are used to promote the historic Welsh language and children are taught that their own language - predominantly English - is to be deprecated in preference to Welsh.

None of that serves the children. Without government interference, if trends continued, barely a handful of people of any age would speak historic Welsh. As it is now - made compulsory for all children in state schools - use of historic Welsh language is still declining.

That would indeed be a loss to those interested in Brythonic languages or who mourn for the simpler times of their youth when they spoke historic Welsh or who despise the English people so fervently that using "their" language is anathema [I'm not even joking], or whatever. But, would it be any loss for the people living in Wales as a whole? I warrant not. Indeed it seems it would be a gain.

---

¹ PISA results for 2012, http://priceonomics.com/only-4-of-languages-are-used-online/, are just in and show Wales is falling behind the rest of the UK and that the UK is slipping relative to the other countries surveyed. I think an insidious over-emphasis on historic Welsh is at least in part to blame.

Re: Only 4% of languages are used online

#48

Post by pbhjpbhj »

unhammer wrote: post #45
nitrogen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why promote the use of obsolete technology (including language), when it can be satisfactorily preserved in museums?

Why promote the preservation of obsolete species (including animals), when they can be satisfactorily preserved in museums?

When not having those animals around improves the lives of millions of people?

Re: Only 4% of languages are used online

#50

Post by marcosdumay »

pliny wrote: post #20
MichaelGG wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Truth is always somewhere in between. Either that's totally wrong (implies equal weighting), or it's a near-tautology (only false if one position is less than 100% accurate).

>Either that's totally wrong (implies equal weighting) Equal weighting would be "Truth is always in the middle". >it's a near-tautology Another way to say near-tautology is "something that is true".

> Another way to say near-tautology is "something that is true".

Something that is true, but has a completely different meaning from what a naive reading implies.

Your statement is only true if we include the extrema at the "somewhere in the middle" interval.

Post reply on HN