[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/dead/ - dead

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1608528390291.jpg ( 61.1 KB , 640x453 , somaliland.jpg )

 No.743

Due to the techno-industrial city, doesn't matter the ideology, or society which possesses it; it will always need many people to keep it alive, and for this reason smaller languages cannot survive in this harsh environment. Let's assume a group of people who speak a minority language with around 300 speakers, they live in a poor small village, next to it is a city where a major language is spoken, if people want to have a industrial life, they will need to move to the city, commune, whatever is more convenient for your industrialist society, and there they will stay for better life conditions.

When this happens, there are two possible outcomes:
> 1 - They won't teach their native to their children preferring them to only speak the major language, because their native language is "useless"
> 2 - They will teach their language to their children, let's assume the best case scenario and let's say they taught the most traditional form with no loanwords, only native words, and the children speaks the minority language perfectly; here is a more case by case thing, but probably this kid will only speak this language with his family, and with no one else, so many things could happen here, loanwords enter his language when talking to their parents, they start speaking more and more of the majority language with their parents, and in the future they will spread a more majority languicized version of the original language, and with each generation the language is slowly(or maybe even faster in worse scenarios) disappearing until it is finally gone. This being the best case scenario for the language.

This is the natural process for smaller languages, which are the majority of our world's languages today on the techno-industrial system by its pure nature. But now let's make a case, how could we revive this language? A fake idea of national identity could bring up many nationalists puppets who would only speak the original language in its pure version, and would force their children and relatives to only speak it; this is a similar case to Ukrainian which is a language that I know fairly well, but it also brings all the nationalist spooks, fights, racism, class division and way more stuff(evidence for this is the state of the Ukrainian language today) that all of us know so I don't think anyone here would agree in doing this as a long term solution.

So as we can see, language diversity in the techno-industrial system is impossible, maybe it can last some generations, we can even write books, make documents and such for its possible revival, but as we now have come to see, the only proper language revival that we've was for hebrew, which almost changed all the classical language, and it needed a extremely fucked up nationalist group to make it happen. Other languages revivals tries like irish, cornish, gaelic we can only see some nationalists people the effort to even try to speak it, or in some other cases nationalists organizations can bring the language to a better spot.

Here I am not saying that this is bad or good, nor saying nationalists organizations are doing a favor reviving those languages, I actually think nationalist revivals of languages have to destroy a language or a dialect for the success; let's take Ukraine as an example again, we have surzhyk, which is a mix of Ukrainian with Russian, in some cases have some really interesting vocabulary and phonology that you could argue if it was left alone maybe it could turn into a new language, who knows, but now, due to the Ukrainian nationalists, surzhyk has got a image of bad language, rural language of dumb and uneducated people; which is actually creating more divide, some surzhyk speakers are now with a strong russian identity and only speaking russian and starting to hate ukrainians, and the reverse is true with people that are stopping to speak surzhyk and only ukrainian.

So do I offer any solution? If you ask me, the only sustainable way for smaller languages to survive is through de-industrialization and de-urbanization, that's where language flourishes and develops best. This is obviously just a really personal thing, language does not have any intrinsic value, I just like it and I think the industrial system takes the freedom of personal language, and that's it.

&lt I didn't post on /leftypol/ because I don't want the kind of discussion that they would bring about this topic
>>

 No.744

File: 1608528390365.mp4 ( 479.4 KB , 640x360 , middle english.mp4 )

>>

 No.745

>>743
The language 'problem' is a bit of a toughie.
On one hand, languages have constantly evolved, changed, and died over the ages, while on the other, language death and subsumption in contemporaneity can be primarily construed as an effect of Capitalist homogenization.
Though there is of course a lot of this in the former Socialist states as well.

Moving into the future, I don't know what is to be done truly about language.
I feel much language could survive in a more horizontally organized industrial society, and that industry need not necessarily be exclusively a funnel towards centralization.
Internet and TV have a lot of effect on accent and vernacular, but people still retain these things by and large as long as they are still comprehensible within the general scope of the language (unlike minority languages).
Actually having fully functional and self sufficient communities within a horizontally organized society removes many of the factors which drive people towards that centralizing extinction of Communal culture.
You no longer need to abandon Cherokee or Creek in favor of English when the reservation actually has its own agriculture, industry, and economy, thus keeping the youth around rather than driving them out.

The actual underlying factors need to be conducive to the survival of the language though; mere protections for native languages seem to be as 'idealistic' as Liberal constitutional rights are.
I suppose you'd be more knowledgeable about the USSR, but it's to my understanding that in spite of the protections ASSRs and regular SSRs had for their languages, Russian still grew to be predominant much in the same way as English is the world over today.
Not because of any secret 'language extermination campaigns,' or any absurdity like that, but wholly because the socioeconomic factors discouraged one's own language and encouraged the bigger one.

The average /leftypol/ consensus appears to be that this is a good thing, and everyone should just suck it up because we're meat robots and ought to all speak one language because it's more productive, but I'm not so convinced.
So-called Communists really ought to be advocating for, you know, Communism: actual Communally organized society, but that board is so damned confoundedly knee-deep in pure ideology that the 'Soviet Union is perfect and in my alt-history it still exists.'
And while the Soviet Union organized itself more horizontally than Western Capitalism, it still by and large centralized everyone into megacities, just smaller and more evenly spread out megacities.
A population center of 1 million every few hundred miles in Siberia (at least roughly so according to my broad understanding), but no cities of absurd magnitude like Tokyo (unless you'd count Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev in such a category).

I know I'm likely rambling at this point, and don't mean to give too much grief to the USSR, but centralization for the sake of raw productivity is largely what drives the subsumption of language moreso than anything else.
And that is a quintessential function of Capitalism, but too was written in the core of Soviet Socialism in order to finally 'catch up to these West' as the line goes.
Today the Chinese group of languages, and languages in China as a whole, are facing much the same ordeal; it is Capitalism in its unbridled form driving them all to Mandarin more than anything else, but it's happening.

The language issue might well just be deprecated soon enough anyway, as the nearer we get to fully controllable prosthetics, the nearer we get to general brain interfacing (with computers), and this is where tech vs. prim really reaches its head.
I like Bookchinitery and Dem. Confederalism in general; I think it promotes this sort of decentralized societal ideal while taking into account ecology and the arguments of prims,
but my issue isn't that responsible tech will never be possible, I think it's more that tech is currently on its way to killing us without the time to build Bookchin's more responsible world.
We are so dreadfully near the point where the mind and computer become one; I don't know if this truly guarantees an Eldritch Landian future, but one thing's for certain: language is deprecated when we can communicate in raw data.
And maybe if it results in a positive future it's not so terrible a thing, but I'm quite certain that a future where the human form is transcended in such a manner is one where while one language will not grow to dominate all, no language would any longer be relevant.

So I guess my overall point is that decentralized (Communist) society even with industry I think maintains languages for the most part, but that none of that will likely matter because tech is magnificent and terrifying.
I hope this is all comprehensible and not schizoposting.


>>744
I hate how he reads thorn as 'b' or 'p' instead of 'th' (even though it makes it funnier)
>>

 No.747

>>743
First I want to correct some mistakes that I did here, I was just very sleepy so my english was kinda off

&lt Due to the techno-industrial city
> Due to the techno-industrial system
&lt have to destroy a language or a dialect for the success
> have to destroy a language or a dialect for its success
&lt I just like it
> I just like them
&lt the freedom of personal language
> the freedom of a personal language

>>745
> and that industry need not necessarily be exclusively a funnel towards centralization
Industry is inherently centralized, even if every single minority language group had its own commune, where only its language is spoken, they need to talk to outsiders for getting resources, for trading, because the industrial system is highly connected, it needs very large industrial connections for moving resources for the production of different items, even simple manufacturing may suffer from this. So inevitably it will need for more communication and it will increase exchange between them, people from outside may have to come to the commune and the original people have now a reason to learn the language for the people that are coming to increase production, or maybe people of this small commune will leave for the other for a better condition of life, it doesn't change much again even in a more "decentralized industrial system" that is in a practical sense, impossible to exist.

> You no longer need to abandon Cherokee or Creek in favor of English when the reservation actually has its own agriculture, industry, and economy, thus keeping the youth around rather than driving them out.

This one here is a really big maybe, people that need constantly to fulfill their power process, and increase more and more their surrogate activities, will look for bigger and bigger options of living, that why they will search for somewhere else where they may find a life that better suits them than the small village one. It is not so simple just to have some industry, or agriculture that can suit all, when we are talking about more hungry people for the power process they will search for something that betters suits them.

Other problem with this is media, people of small communities that live near a language with more speakers, will tend to move for that language for media, because they have more media like more youtube videos, channels, more books, more newspapers and etc. They will have to move to this direction if they want to fulfill their power process, because they already have met all their basic needs, and are looking for something for fulfillment. So the points 1 and 2 that I presented before still will happen in this case and languages will slowly die

> no language would any longer be relevant

I think this paragraph you get a little bit to out of reality, I do think technology is growing faster than ever, but I do not think it will last this long for this to happen, or even if this is possible, if yes, it won't be a desirable future, in any possible way, quoting Kaczyski(yeah I like his writings):
> 174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite—just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft- hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.
>>

 No.897

I basically never post on this board but, Yeah language death is sad tbh. Sucks to see indigenous languages just go extinct.

An interesting note: Since English is now essentially the Global Language, basically every other language on Earth has a ton of English loan-words. Pretty helpful if you want to learn another language, I guess.

Me, personally, I'm going to learn Japanese.
>>

 No.975

>>743
According to some linguists (don't remember) who), ideally everyone should speak at least 3 languages :
-A national language
-An international language
-And a local language (preferably the one the person lives in)

The problem is that is just a theory because languages evolve organically. Language planification is hard, or has to be forced authoritatively.

Personally I speak 2 languages, a national and an international. Language learning is so long, I won't have the motivation to learn the local language I should learn.

And even if everyone follow this 3 languages rule, I don't know when, where and why some people should speak the local language instead of the national one.
>>

 No.980

>>975
>ideally everyone should speak at least 3 languages
what would this be ideal for? maximising verbal intelligence? language conservation? international understanding?

>where and why some people should speak the local language instead of the national one

some people speak a local language with people from their family/village and the national language with others.
>>

 No.982

>>980
>>ideally everyone should speak at least 3 languages
>what would this be ideal for?
From what I understood, the goal is to keep using languages with a lot of speakers (like english, spanish, arab, etc.) which are useful, but without sacrificing locals languages like basque, creoles, aboriginals languages, etc. You would preserve locals languages at least by learning them.

>some people speak a local language with people from their family/village and the national language with others.

I know but a lot of people does not.
I'm not against the idea but even if this theory would be practiced, as a personal example, if I would follow this 3 types languages rule, I should learn occitan because I'm from south of France and I've learnt english already. So let's say I do that, and a lot of people in my city do that too. Why would we speak occitan instead of french? Especially in a big city?
>>

 No.983

>>982
>So let's say I do that, and a lot of people in my city do that too. Why would we speak occitan instead of french? Especially in a big city?
for fun

Unique IPs: 1

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome