What is lost when a language dies? (fwd link)

[Richard Smith]

Aidan,
wow...  very revealing comments eh?
>     "I could care less about anyones
>     culture, I am interested in their welfare. The two are very distinct
>     and have little to do with each other. "

interesting...
Healthy matriarchal societies are (generally) NOT "conquering"
societies involved in conquest or conversion, and had no prisons.
Conquest generally comes from aggressive patriarchal societies,
often once conquered/converted matriarchal societies themselves.

Our Wyandot (wandat) language, an Iroquoian language,
was directly effected by its  worldview - matriarchal ,
and was village centered (Women owned croplands and villages).
Men were the proud owners of what they could carry.
This understanding shows up in every sentence spoken .
The word "wandat" means villager  and it's -w- indicates "feminine"
of course an oversimplification of gender terms
for the sake of black and white English here.

In Wyandot ,everything that exists is "Feminine" by default.
"Masculine" applies to men of hunting and warrior age.
So even male children and elders are "feminine" (default)
unless one is indicating specific individuals.

For our language to actually  "revitalize"
It's thinking processes need to be reestablished as well.
So to answer our critic with those comments:
restored village language and thinking will make great head roads
into healing and peaceful co-existance - for our "welfare".

Richard Zane Smith
Wyandotte, Oklahoma







On 2/16/08 3:12 PM, "Aidan Wilson" <aidan at USYD.EDU.AU> wrote:

> Interesting article, pity about a couple of the comments:
> 
>     For some people, language is an art, and from that perspective, I
>     can understand the concerns in it dying away.
> 
>     For me, though, language is merely a tool for communication with
>     others. I don't think in words, therefore my identity has nothing to
>     do with the language that I am speaking. I think in pictures and
>     concepts - which will always require translation when being spoken.
> 
>     As the article questions: how would I feel if I were told that I
>     can't use my language? Having to learn another language would be a
>     bit tedious, but I would not feel as though I am losing anything,
>     except for the time I invested in learning my first language. But I
>     would want that loss to be for a valid reason, such as: my language
>     is not being used anymore or a goal of worldwide unity (as both
>     previous commentators mentioned).
> 
> This is a particularly utilitarian point of view, time lost learning a
> dead language, 'mere tool of communication', etc., but this one really
> struck me:
> 
>     Not being able to talk to each other is a curse, remember? I am
>     interested in unity, not diversity, I could care less about anyones
>     culture, I am interested in their welfare. The two are very distinct
>     and have little to do with each other. Don't get sucked into this
>     frame of thinking, it benefits little.
> 
> People seem to forget that multilingualism up until very recently had
> been the international norm.
> 
> Gaa!
> 
> -Aidan Wilson
> 
> 
> On 17/02/08 05:57, phil cash cash said:
>> February 15, 2008
>> Probing Question: What is lost when a language dies?
>> http://www.physorg.com/news122308785.html
>>