Last speaker of ancient language of Bo dies
news.bbc.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk
This is also one of the things 1984 is about.
The picture gets a little muddled when you think of the choices and distinctions each language makes. Some of them will contradict each other.
Suppose Language 1 has 150 words for snow, but only one for love, while Language 2 has 150 words for love, but only two for snow. Would the uber language preserve the distinctions for each word? Maybe you're losing something by learning all this detail.
You can do the same thing with the intensional meanings of words (connotations). I think one of the original Sapir-Whorf examples traces the meaning of a word for corn in Language A to words in Language B that mean "enemy food". Would the uber language remove connotations? It would probably lose the word from Language B.
But this gets into an even deeper point, which is that when you use a language, words aren't isolated. They frame a certain outlook on the world that hangs together. There were probably a bunch of words in Language B that talk about foreign or "enemy" things. Can you really say those words and mean them without taking on their perspective?
There are many more examples. We have this kind of thing in English too. We have "kill" and "murder". We have the Anglo-Saxon words and the Norman words.
And finally and most importantly, what perspective on the world does the super-language take? Objective? Involved but fair? Polemical? Propagandizing?
If your perspective focuses on English, then yes, you can notice lots of e.g. sociolinguistic and geographical diversity. But what do you see when you look beyond it?
You can ask a similar question about American cultural hegemony, or the Internet. What kinds of expression do you lose or diminish by co-opting millions of viewers into the Hollywood frame of mind? Or the Facebook news feed?
- You are saying that you'd prefer if there were fewer languages, in order to be able to exchange ideas with people.
- On the other hand, in another comment you say that there's not much perspective that one can gain from a speaker of Bo.
I can think of only two ways in which I can interpret your point (the fewer languages the better):
1) if the speaker of Bo would learn English, she would suddenly possess insights that you will consider worthy to listen to.
2) if the speaker of Bo just wouldn't exist, there would be more resources available for speakers on English, who would be able to exchange ideas that you consider worthy to listen to.
The first is absurd, as you are also implying that language is just the tool that transmits the idea. If it weren't so, and there would be an intrinsic value in languages, you would have to advocate diversity, which you aren't.
So I imagine your point reduces to case 2) which is why I consider it violent and tasteless. Correct me if I missed some other interpretation.
Wow - I wouldn't mind a linguist vetting that claim. How would we even know that a language hasn't evolved enough to become an entirely different language in over ten times the length of recorded human history?
If you knew approximately how fast language changed, and you saw two related languages, you would know when they drifted apart. There are also linguistic isolates like Basque where you can't really play this trick.
Just when I think I can finally ditch that windows 2000 VM with Delphi 7 on it, another project dinosaur comes stomping out of the mist.
A solution to all our problems.
Some Google searching brings up an article with a descriptions of mitochondrial sequencing done on the Andamanese. Apparently they are of African pygmoid descent.
It's a rather good object lesson -- if you want to be a professor (the one on the right), don't let your ancestors get trapped in a genetic backwater for tens of thousands of years, missing out on all those good brain gene selection events.
EDIT: Not pygmoid after all. The pygmoid features are the product of convergent evolution. The evolutionary trend towards small stature seems to be due to resource competition from living on an island with barely enough space to support human habitation. It looks like they came through southern Asia.
However, a couple of general statements: There are reams of genetic and psychometric data available. More than enough to develop pretty good idea when and where the most probable selection events for good brain genes occurred and how fast they spread. Your word 'premature' tells me something about your acquaintance with that data.
Also, there is one very simple rule: totally genetically isolated communities only have access to their own mutations. Their population is small, so the number of mutations is also small. Non-isolated communities get swept by every positive selection event that comes along.
Any pointers to reading on this?
I'll get my coat.