J’adore cette
classe. J’adore mes camarades de classe et l'enseignant.
Ceci est étonnamment amusant.What
did I just say? What was I trying to tell you? Without the ability to translate
and reply in this language there is no way to make a conversation. There is no
way we could have gotten to know one another and come closer together. We would
have actually been pushed farther from each other due to the fact that neither of
us knows how to communicate. Language is an implement that allows us to
communicate with one another, but how would we be able to communicate if there
are 6,000 different languages around the world? John McWhorter states that when
language dies, it is a “symptom of people coming together.” If some languages
died the world would be brought closer together combining and creating a
dominant universal language. A common tongue that would allow everyone to talk
to one another without having to find a translator or teach the other their
whole language. He states that “Perhaps a future lies before us in which
English will be a sort of global tongue while people continue to speak about
600 other languages among themselves.” A language will die but it is not necessarily
a bad thing. If a language has to die in order for the world to be able to
communicate with a Lingua franca and be able to grow as a united people then so be it. I would rather have that then
have to learn a totally different language like Chinese, a language with “a
writing system that demands mastery of 2,000 characters in order to read a
tabloid newspaper.” With a universal language humanity would be able to be
united. Therefore I believe that John McWhorter makes a very valid point on why
the death of a language is rather good, not bad.
I agree with the idea that a universal language would help bring the world together and work towards peace. But I also feel that with the so called death of other languages we lose cultural diversity. The other six thousand languages contain more than just culture but words that cannot be simply translated. These words can be very useful to convey to someone exactly what you mean with few words. John McWhorter mentions this point briefly in the seventh paragraph of his essay but I would like to further his idea. There are many words from different languages that cannot be translated into English. Mamihlapinatapei for example is a Yagan (native of Tierra del Fuego S.A.) word that describes a feeling between two people who both share a desire to initiate something but neither will. Very relatable, most of us have had a moment like this and didn’t know how to simply describe it. But killing off languages we would be losing words that we have no equivalents to. I think we can find our way to world peace without the death of innocent languages.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that a universal language would help bring the world together and work towards peace. But I also feel that with the so called death of other languages we lose cultural diversity. The other six thousand languages contain more than just culture but words that cannot be simply translated. These words can be very useful to convey to someone exactly what you mean with few words. John McWhorter mentions this point briefly in the seventh paragraph of his essay but I would like to further his idea. There are many words from different languages that cannot be translated into English. Mamihlapinatapei for example is a Yagan (native of Tierra del Fuego S.A.) word that describes a feeling between two people who both share a desire to initiate something but neither will. Very relatable, most of us have had a moment like this and didn’t know how to simply describe it. But killing off languages we would be losing words that we have no equivalents to. I think we can find our way to world peace without the death of innocent languages.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you mean by how if a language dies, we are closer to being a united people across the globe. I understand that there are some languages that only a small group of people happen to speak, but if their language were to die (if that group of people were to be wiped out somehow, for instance), we lose some diversity in the world. At meetings for the UN, obviously not everyone can converse properly since there are so many languages. In order to communicate, every world leader has to have a translator (except perhaps the president and other English speaking leaders). One person speaks, the message is then translated into English, and then each translator then relays the message to their leader in order for them to understand. In this sense, it is easy to say that by having less languages we would be able to globally be closer. But, to be closer, can't everyone just learn another language? A lot of the people in the world are already bilingual (usually their native language, and English). That being said, a lot of people in the US only speak English, because we don't feel a need to learn another language since people already learn English to communicate with us. With this mentality, it's easy to say that a language (or languages) should die so we can unite, but it would be better for everyone if everyone knew two or more languages.
ReplyDeleteThe thought of a universal language, it would bring a togetherness to the world. But we dont have that we have over 6,000 languages and different dialect in those 6,000 languages that even if someone is speaking the same language if different it many ways, and the death of those languages and dialects we as a society would lose so much vibrance and we would all be the same no flavor with no other language are pallet would become dry, and stale. The difference in language makes us unique like the John McWhorter talked about the Berik language in New Guinea,he said "they use verbs for the sex of the person, the size of an object , and whether its light outside." (Kitobana means " give three large objects to a male in the sunlight."). He said the Berik is doing fine now but we wont see that language around 2109. with the loss of that language will come the loss of the culture that came with it. A universal language would bring us together but it would also get ride of the diversity that makes the world so great.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with you and John McWhoter as I think that the world is meant to be different and unique. Having so many different languages means having many different cultures. If we were to condense down to one language it would deprive the world of the diversity that is on this planet. Taking away language is one step closer to what, say, Hitler was trying to do: create a superior race. Now it would definitely not be as severe as the way he tried to do it, but it is the same idea. Language is also the way we can show appreciation; if someone took the time to learn a complicated language like Mandarin, it would show the people they are trying to communicate with that they appreciate their differences enough to learn their unique language. Take, for example, an American diplomat learning some key phrases in the language of the country they are going to visit. When they speak in the language of the other country, they are showing that they are willing to compromise to make the planet we live on a better and more comfortable place to live.
ReplyDelete