Talk:Language revitalization: Difference between revisions
G Purevdorj (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
There's no section on criticism of language revitalization, while there probably should be. Many people have criticized it as being divisive and keeping people poor or isolated from the larger world culture, as it isolates them by preventing them from communicating as well. [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] ([[User talk:Titanium Dragon|talk]]) 23:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC) |
There's no section on criticism of language revitalization, while there probably should be. Many people have criticized it as being divisive and keeping people poor or isolated from the larger world culture, as it isolates them by preventing them from communicating as well. [[User:Titanium Dragon|Titanium Dragon]] ([[User talk:Titanium Dragon|talk]]) 23:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
::I do not think such section is needed. As it speaks of reviving languages, not promoting monolingualism and poor education. Nothing prevents bein open to the world numerous cultures and economy in your own language. Though it might have a purpose if the article refers to a specific case promoting monolingualism. Which I think is not the case for the moment. [[Special:Contributions/70.50.46.202|70.50.46.202]] ([[User talk:70.50.46.202|talk]]) 08:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Disputed== |
==Disputed== |
Revision as of 08:24, 25 January 2009
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Languages Start‑class | |||||||||
|
"in lieu of"?
Number 5 under "Steps in reversing language shift" reads:
- Where the state permits it, and where numbers warrant, encourage the use of the language in lieu of compulsory state education.
I am a native speaker of English, and I do not understand how a language could be used "in lieu of" education. Is this a standard expression in some form of English? I am from the US, and it makes no sense to me, but perhaps it makes sense in some other dialect(s). I see how a language could be used "in lieu of" the official state language in compulsory education, and would recommend changing the wording here.
Jalopeura (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Old Norwegian
Why is Old Norwegian a revived language? Old Norwegian is the dialect of Old Norse spoken in Norway, that later evolved into modern Norwegian. I don't see how you can "revive" such a language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiven (talk • contribs) 06:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Akkurat! I've nothing against Old Norwegian but it has no business here. Robert Greer (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- If Old Norwegian had to go, then so do Greek Katharevousa, Latin, and Sanskrit, which have all evolved into other modern languages. Suomichris (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Indigenous languages of the Americas
"Indigenous languages of the Americas" should be replaced with specific languages -- I'll make a list and add it here. --babbage 22:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Ladino?
The Ladino article says that it is in decline everywhere. Is this correct? Should it be removed from this page? Jd2718 20:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
To be revived, mustn't a language be endangered? Jd2718 21:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Has apparently been removed, but its presence could've been justified on the grounds that it was a recovered language of the nineteenth century (more precisely, an amalgam of dialects which may or may not have been in danger of dying out). Robert Greer (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Taking this out again. Nynorsk, as I understand it, is the written form of the the "Scandinavian" spoken in Norway at a certain time. It thus isn't any more 'endangered' than 16th century English, and doesn't have a place on this page. Suomichris (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Catalan
I wouldn't say Catalan has ever been an endangered language as a whole, particularly in Catalonia. It was a banned language, which is different. Nowadays it may be considered endangered, though, in France and Italy. Purplefire 08:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Galician
I don't understand how Galician, spoken and/or understood by the vast majority of the population at the time it was made a joint co-offciial language following the demise of the Franco regime could ne "revived". Whether or not it is actually enjoying a social revival is also a moot question. Surely this article should be claerer about wahat is meant by "revival" as opposed to standardisation of fully normal social usage of a language. Neal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.79.142 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Languages Listed?
A lot of the languages listed seem odd to include as examples of 'language revitalization', especially Czech (with 12 million speakers), Basque (with more than 1 million), and Taiwanese (with between 15 and 49 million speakers). On the ground language revitalization is usually working with only a few speakers (if any) on languages. I wonder about making two categories for this page: a section for languages with language populations of speakers, but which are still under threat (such as Basque), and languages, for example, of North America, with a very low number of speakers. These situations warrant different treatments, I think. It would also be nice to have citations that these languages listed are 'endangered'.
Thoughts? Suomichris (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- You miss one important point: some of the languages you consider inapropriate for the list had indeed been endangered and revitalised in the past. For example, Czech in the 19th century. Nowadays, Czech does have 10 million speakers or so, but this concerns the present time, not the 19th century.
Nairam (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- And when was it endangered? The Czech language article makes no mention of it ever being so.Yobmod (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Split this article?
In thinking about this article yesterday, I wonder if there isn't space for two articles. 'Language revitalization' on the one hand, to cover endangered languages and attempts to revive them, and 'Language revival', which could cover efforts to promote languages such as Latin, Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, etc., which are not dead in that they have descendant languages.
Thoughts on this? Another possibility would be to put a separate section in 'language revitalization' to clarify how it is different than efforts to promote Latin, Sanskrit, etc.
Suomichris (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No criticism?
There's no section on criticism of language revitalization, while there probably should be. Many people have criticized it as being divisive and keeping people poor or isolated from the larger world culture, as it isolates them by preventing them from communicating as well. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- I do not think such section is needed. As it speaks of reviving languages, not promoting monolingualism and poor education. Nothing prevents bein open to the world numerous cultures and economy in your own language. Though it might have a purpose if the article refers to a specific case promoting monolingualism. Which I think is not the case for the moment. 70.50.46.202 (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Disputed
Many of the supposedly "revived" languages discussed here were never even endangered, let alone near extinction. Either the definition is wrong, or the examples are, either way this article is original research and in desperate need of citations.Yobmod (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)