this post was submitted on 25 May 2025
136 points (98.6% liked)

World News

47062 readers
3095 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

There are around 7,000 languages spoken in the world, but that number is shrinking. Unesco estimates that half could disappear by the end of the century. So how are languages lost, and what does that mean for the people who speak them?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 30 points 1 week ago (5 children)

So how are languages lost, and what does that mean for the people who speak them?

If the language stops being spoken then there are no people who speak them, and asking what something means for those nonexistent people is kind of weird.

I'm thinking that the loss of distinct languages in active use is not necessarily a bad thing overall. It means more people can communicate with each other more widely. By all means document these disappearing languages as much as possible before they're gone, but there's likely a good reason most of them are disappearing.

[–] 3abas@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If the language stops being spoken then there are no people who speak them, and asking what something means for those nonexistent people is kind of weird.

Just because you have none who speaks your language, doesn't mean you're dead or don't exist. Language is lost in pockets, not all at once. Communities dwindle until it's just a few, then practicality of life makes them use their language less so language can even die while multiple speakers still engage in dialogue, of that dialogue isn't in that language.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

If there's someone who speaks the language then it isn't lost yet.

I suppose it's interesting to muse about what it means for the last person to speak a language before it becomes lost, but that's still just one person so it's kind an abstract, academic concern.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I suppose it’s interesting to muse about what it means for the last person to speak a language before it becomes lost,

I speak -- badly, but I'm fluent with my limited vocabulary -- Low Saxon. Fuck I can do with it but embarrass supermarket cashiers whose skills are worse to non-existent. I could pass someone who knows the language perfectly, a true native speaker without the burden of generational gap in native proficiency, be asked for directions -- and never know we could have talked in Low Saxon because the default language is the local Standard German.

It means that a mode of expression is dying. For us, as a people, it means that the natural expression of culture, of our modes and habits of interaction, is diluted due to the overwhelming influence of Standard German.

All this talk about "probably deserves to die", "languages can't be lost before there's no people who speak it", whatnot... point of interest: Do you happen to be monolingual.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

I suppose it's interesting to muse about what it means for the last person to speak a language before it becomes lost, but that's still just one person so it's kind an abstract, academic concern.

There is nothing academic about it, this is as much a question of humanism as there is.

[–] 3abas@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago
[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

Gaeilge (Irish) is barely spoken because of Britian banning it, if people give up on speaking it it means a massive loss of an important piece of Irish culture.

There's a saying: tír gan teanga, tír gan anam, meaning a country without a language is a country without a soul. A native language to a country can be an integral part of its culture.

[–] nyamlae@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

there's likely a good reason most of them are disappearing.

This belief is called the "just world fallacy". Sadly, the world is not just.

Most of these languages are disappearing due to colonialism. People's traditional ways of living have been forcibly upended by capitalists and state governments, who have seized the commons around the world, and by colonialist policies such as residential schools. No longer able to support themselves using their traditional ways of living, people have been mde into wage slaves who must compete on the market to survive. That means using English or another widely-spoken language. Indigenous languages are much less useful to capitalists, and so gradually they wither and die.

We are at risk of killing 95% of the world's languages, on top of the incalculable cultural damage that goes along with all of this, just to prop up a single way of being: liberal nation states. It is reprehensible beyond words.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I’m thinking that the loss of distinct languages in active use is not necessarily a bad thing overall. It means more people can communicate with each other more widely.

I don't think I understand what you're trying to get at, here. Are you implying that it's not possible for people to speak more than one language?

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Surely less languages means the chance of overlapping a language with someone else goes up?

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Not really because there's only a limited set of Lingua Francas and, say, Mali turning away from French in favour of e.g. English won't make French disappear.

[–] stepan@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago