No Tears For Dead Tongues (fwd link)

[Slavomír Čéplö]

There are many things to disagree with in McWhorter's article. I for
one just don't get the point of the last two paragraphs:

"Indeed a single "world" language would not be in itself catastrophic.
The idea that this language might be English makes plenty of people
uncomfortable. Certainly we cannot erase from our minds the unsavory
aspects of its imperialist history. But imagine if our one world
language were, say, Eyak. Suddenly the idea of one language instead of
6,000 doesn't seem so oppressive."

Let's forget for a while that the emergence of one single world
language is quite unlikely. What suprises me most is that McWhorter
seems to believe that those of us who don't like the idea of most
languages dying out is the fact that they will be replaced by
imperialist tongues like English. Well, no. It doesn't matter - at
least to me, YMMV - what languages will be left. What matters is that
all the others will be gone. Besides, even if what McWhorter says were
true and we really objected to English prevailing just because of its
imperialist (both politically and culturally) past, we would still
object to Eyak should it become the world language, because to do
that, Eyak would have to follow in English's footsteps and become an
imperialist language as well.

Then there's McWhorter's view of multi-/bilingualism:

"When people use their distinct language down the generations, it's
usually bad, indicating discrimination or segregation"

What are his examples? First there is Yiddish and the Jewish life in
the shtetl, which kind of proves his point. But the second is
Pennsylvania German and the Amish. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but
the Amish are neither discriminated against, nor are their living in
what most of us would see as segregation (American South in the 50s).
Their lifestyle is their choice. And that is bad... How exactly?

bulbul



On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:12 PM, phil cash cash
<cashcash at email.arizona.edu> wrote:
> Jordan, yes, the timing seems suspect given the UNESCO's Feb 21
> International Mother Language Day.
>
> Besides, I disagree with his assessment that the death of a language is a
> "healthy outcome" since many of us know that such occurences often coincide
> with the suppression of human rights.  And this could not be healthy for
> anyone.
>
> l8ter,
> Phil
>
>
>
> Quoting Jordan Lachler <jordanlachler at gmail.com>:
>
>  > Phil, thanks for forwarding McWhorter's piece from Forbes. He wrote
> nearly
>  > the same article back in December of 2006 for the New York Sun:
>  >
>  > http://www.nysun.com/article/45847
>  >
>  > I guess if he gets to reword and republish that same basic article every
>  > time another language dies, he's set for life!
>  >
>  > I'm really glad that he's figured out for us that Native Americans will
>  > never learn their ancestral languages... after all, he tried teaching
> some
>  > of them once, and they didn't learn to be fluent, so clearly it's a
> hopeless
>  > cause. Guess we can all stop wasting our time now. Thanks, Dr. M!
>  >
>  > Jordan
>  >
>  > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:11 AM, phil cash cash
> <cashcash at email.arizona.edu>
>  > wrote:
>  >
>  >> Language
>  >> No Tears For Dead Tongues
>  >>
>  >> John McWhorter 02.21.08, 6:00 PM ET
>  >>
>  >> No one will again use the word demexch, which refers to a soft spot in
> the
>  >> ice
>  >> good for fishing. Never again will anyone hear the word for an evergreen
>  >> branch, which, when pronounced correctly, includes a sound like the wind
>  >> whistling through a branch. And no child will ever learn that the
> squirrel
>  >> scampering around gathering acorns is called something as fun to say as
> ,
>  >> where
>  >> the final k' is pronounced with a crisp pop.
>  >>
>  >> Full article link below:
>  >>
>  >>
> http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/21/language-death-english-tech-cx_jm_language_sp08_0221death.html?feed=rss_news
>  >>
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  > Jordan
>
>