> Maybe for some languages that are at the point of only having 2 speakers left. But at that point, you likely couldn't revive the language anyways. For this language, they absolutely should be able to record it in its current state in an extremely comprehensive way.
Not at all. Even for languages with many more speakers you can get these sorts of problems.
For a very concrete example, consider this Japhug text [0]. I consider myself fairly knowledgable about phonetics, and I can read the transcribed text out loud. But listening to the accompanying recording, I can barely hear the distinctions between many of the sounds, or figure out where the word boundaries are. Such a recording can only be transcribed by carefully going through it with a native speaker.
Or, for a report by a more experienced linguist, here’s e.g. R.M.W. Dixon (2010) on the subject:
> All texts should be transcribed in the field. In the early stages the linguist should not attempt transcription without a native speaker by their side. As the linguist gets to know the language better they can attempt an initial transcription on their own, but should always then go over it in detail with a consultant. In the case of a language I had been working on for more than thirty years (Dyirbal) I could get a new text 95 per cent right, but there were always a few points that I missed the proper meaning or full significance of, and had to have them pointed out by an expert consultant. One thing one should never do is just record texts in the field and try to transcribe them later on, back at base (whether one is working on phonetics, phonology, grammar, discourse, or whatever); this is a sure recipe for an incompetent analysis.
> But Old Norse did die. It happened to sprout several new languages, most of which are not in danger of dying out like Danish and Swedish. The original Old Norse is gone though.
It did not die. There is a difference between language death and language evolution. In the latter process, there is no one point at which you can say, ‘Old Norse is dead and gone’; it is simply the case that speakers of the language found Old Norse texts less and less intelligible until they could no longer be understood. But the Old Norse language itself is hardly gone: many of its features are preserved in the derived languages, and Old Norse may still be reconstructed by comparison between its daughters.
Perhaps a more illustrative example would be Old English. Is Old English ‘dead’? Possibly, but it never ‘died’: it just gradually evolved into Middle English and then Modern English (and Scots).
> You seem to only be valuing a language based on if it's a net plus or minus to the "Language Diversity" which as you're using it seems to mean the number of distinct languages that are currently spoken natively by currently alive humans.
Not at all. I agree with you that languages are valuable because they give a unique perspective to both their native speakers and linguists at large. A natural consequence of this viewpoint is that one extra language is a net good, but I don’t think a language is valuable only because of this.
> I would consider doing linguistic work on the language with native speakers to be part of making records of the language. I don't think we're in disagreement here.
Ah, in that case we are indeed in agreement. I had assumed that by ‘making records’ you had meant only making audio recordings etc. I should have clarified what you meant exactly.
> The original idea I was pushing against was trying to artificially keep a language alive by trying to keep large population groups speaking it natively. It goes against how language has always worked.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to ‘artificially’ keep languages alive if there’s no reason to do so — but if a linguistic community wants to keep a language alive, then why not?
Not at all. Even for languages with many more speakers you can get these sorts of problems.
For a very concrete example, consider this Japhug text [0]. I consider myself fairly knowledgable about phonetics, and I can read the transcribed text out loud. But listening to the accompanying recording, I can barely hear the distinctions between many of the sounds, or figure out where the word boundaries are. Such a recording can only be transcribed by carefully going through it with a native speaker.
Or, for a report by a more experienced linguist, here’s e.g. R.M.W. Dixon (2010) on the subject:
> All texts should be transcribed in the field. In the early stages the linguist should not attempt transcription without a native speaker by their side. As the linguist gets to know the language better they can attempt an initial transcription on their own, but should always then go over it in detail with a consultant. In the case of a language I had been working on for more than thirty years (Dyirbal) I could get a new text 95 per cent right, but there were always a few points that I missed the proper meaning or full significance of, and had to have them pointed out by an expert consultant. One thing one should never do is just record texts in the field and try to transcribe them later on, back at base (whether one is working on phonetics, phonology, grammar, discourse, or whatever); this is a sure recipe for an incompetent analysis.
[0] https://pangloss.cnrs.fr/corpus/show?lang=en&mode=pro&oai_pr...
> But Old Norse did die. It happened to sprout several new languages, most of which are not in danger of dying out like Danish and Swedish. The original Old Norse is gone though.
It did not die. There is a difference between language death and language evolution. In the latter process, there is no one point at which you can say, ‘Old Norse is dead and gone’; it is simply the case that speakers of the language found Old Norse texts less and less intelligible until they could no longer be understood. But the Old Norse language itself is hardly gone: many of its features are preserved in the derived languages, and Old Norse may still be reconstructed by comparison between its daughters.
Perhaps a more illustrative example would be Old English. Is Old English ‘dead’? Possibly, but it never ‘died’: it just gradually evolved into Middle English and then Modern English (and Scots).
> You seem to only be valuing a language based on if it's a net plus or minus to the "Language Diversity" which as you're using it seems to mean the number of distinct languages that are currently spoken natively by currently alive humans.
Not at all. I agree with you that languages are valuable because they give a unique perspective to both their native speakers and linguists at large. A natural consequence of this viewpoint is that one extra language is a net good, but I don’t think a language is valuable only because of this.
> I would consider doing linguistic work on the language with native speakers to be part of making records of the language. I don't think we're in disagreement here.
Ah, in that case we are indeed in agreement. I had assumed that by ‘making records’ you had meant only making audio recordings etc. I should have clarified what you meant exactly.
> The original idea I was pushing against was trying to artificially keep a language alive by trying to keep large population groups speaking it natively. It goes against how language has always worked.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to ‘artificially’ keep languages alive if there’s no reason to do so — but if a linguistic community wants to keep a language alive, then why not?