Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- humanity's natural state is an impressive diversity of ideas and behavior and then inevitable the most violent of them marginalize the rest. Humanity has already found many social structure that prevent concentration of power but those have been lost not to time, but to intentional destruction.
Often natives look at our way of life and say hell no that's retarded. But they are more polite about it. Europeans on the other hand just defined their flawed structure as "progress" and went on killing anyone who disagreed. In a way the worst parts of AGI are already here, we already killed all the real humans and we are the soulless automatons bounded to our possessions.
by casey2 - > We show that language isn’t isolated from political currents and that this dynamic has been a facet of human history for much longer than previously thought.
Um, when did anyone think it wasn't?
The entire history of linguistics shows this. Proto-Indo European had no common word (for that family) for sea/ocean [1] from which we can deduce something about the people who spoke it. That's not political obviously but environment and culture are inseparable from language is the ponit.
Languages really only grew for political reasons. Look at the spread of Latin throughout Roman territories.
Likewise, languages splinter and diverge in isolation. Populations that remain where they are and separate from others will drift linguistically. You can look at most of Europe for this. As just one example, the drift in Swiss Germany in Switzerland, which is a relatively small country.
But more than that, it takes some kind of centralization, which is to say, political force, to maintain a language. English had massive changes from Old English (which is essentially a separate language from Modern English) to Middle English (which is largely comprehensible by the modern speaker) when French was the court language of England in the centuries after 1066. And the Normans left their own imprints on English, which is where a ton of loan words came from [2]. But English grammar also greatly simplified without a central authority telling everyone what is proper, basically [3].
One of the fascinating things I remember learning was that there are between half a million and million cuneiform tablets int he world and fewwer than 10% of them have been translated. Now cuneiform is a writing style but one of the difficulties is that it encompasses multiple languages. And this was one of the earliest recorded examples of language displacement from Sumerian to Akkadian over thousands of years. But tablets could be written in part in both languages for a very long time. This is where we have the earliest documented human name, Kushim [4].
But the point is that the rise and fall of Sumer and its displacement by Akkad is recorded in the language.
And of course we had the spread of "colonial" languages in the colonial period (ie Spanish, French, Portugese, English).
Pragmatism also is a factor here. Different languages are inconvenient between populations that interact. The natural tendency is to homogenize on language given sufficient time, even without political pressure. it's a little sad when languages die but it's kind of inevitable.
[1]: https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-proto-indo-europea...
[2]: https://www.krysstal.com/display_borrowlang.php?lang=Norman+...
[3]: https://www.sciscanpub.com/index/journals/ainfo/alr/7943.htm...
by jmyeet - A minor point, but the colour scheme on that chart infuriates me. When the data can be seen a progression (not endangered -> threatened -> few known speakers -> no known speakers), why use red to green but in a random order?by boonzeet
- The order is alphabetical, not random. ;)by layer8
- I don't suppose the age ended with a particular tower falling down?by Ferret7446
- Vibe coding is doing its part to keep linguistic diversity alive: My wife went to sign up for a doctors appointment, and the form offered choices for "preferred language" that included Old English, ancient Egyptian and Elamite.by voidmain
- I think that we are entering a new golden age of language, personally.
It has never been easier for a human being to take a corpus and refactor it in a fashion that they can understand it without making an energetic investment in constructing a new ontology; or that is to say, humans can use AI now to grasp text and words - language, specifically - in extraordinarily industrious, productive ways.
I know it is a crackpot event horizon, but I truly wonder if Szukalskis’ Protong isn’t just waiting there, tip of the iceberg, to be discovered. Seriously.
by MomsAVoxell - Between one and three thousand years ago.
- Less ambiguously: between 1000 and 3000 years ago. ;)by layer8
- The golden age of languages is when there is only one language left, and everyone can understand everyone without cunning translators and hallucinating llms.by aboardRat4
- Live translators exist! It has become much better than even a couple years agoby 7nolikov
- A thought experiment I sometimes think about is if it'd ever be possible for the world to somehow, in some way, agree that every country would switch over to the same constructed language over the course of generation or two. A modern conlang without all the idiosyncrasies, irregular verbs, exceptions to rules, etc. that's endemic in current organic languages. Of course, how long a language like that could stay relatively clean is an open question.
It's interesting to think about the next generation being taught both their home language and the new language, they're the intermediate generation that can bridge the two worlds, and the generation after that being only taught the new language, and how that process might work.
by thegrim33 - Knowing multiple languages, in particular less related or unrelated ones, is mentally enriching. If you only know a single language, you don’t know what you are missing in terms of diversity of thought and expression. Languages aren’t fungible. Translation is lossy, often considerably so.by layer8
- Unfortunately, even if we had a single language, I doubt we’d be free of misunderstandings. Jargon, double entendres, shibboleths and other barriers to understanding all still exist even when everyone is nominally speaking the same languageby derektank
- Isn't that a collapse in cognitive diversity?
Not to be "gotcha", but out of true curiosity: may I ask if you speak multiple languages fluently?
Different languages afford different ways of thinking and speaking? Just talk to a translator in works of literature or poetry. Some languages are more verb-y or noun-y, and so are more about getting between things than being something. Or have more or less ambiguity due to tonal systems.
And while ambiguity can create miscommunication when misused, it also allows for different minds to hear one thing, but interpret it in ways more personal to them. When used pro-socially (and not manipulatively), this can afford cooperation that might not otherwise be possible. Saying things while leaving some things unsaid, that has utility if our collective project is certain forms of synchrony -- we can sync on some things while the ambiguity allows asynchrony to remain unresolved in less important dimensions, etc
Imho monoculture is toward death, not toward something golden.
by patcon - An interesting tangent to the language discussion is the Epic of Gilgamesh => https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-the-epic-o...by smitty1e
- You know how people learn Ancient Greek to study Homer in the original language?
Gilgamesh deserves that. I'm only a beginner but the refinement of the poetry is already obvious even as someone who doesn't know the language.
Euphony was very important to the Mesopotamian poets. They liked rhythms and alliteration and assonance. And the late editions of Gilgamesh reflect about two thousand years of iterative improvement:
> ilū işinu iriša. ilū kima zūmbē eli bēl niqi iptaḫru. ("The gods could smell the fragrance. They gathered around the sacrificiant like flies.")
The ş is probably an affricate like ts, š is sh, q like in Arabic, ḫ like German ch. Vowels like in Spanish or the phonetic alphabet. Macron means a long vowel. Stress on the penultimate. (Edit: fixed ş / š)
It really rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?
> ibri kudanu ťardu akkannu ša šadi nimru ša şēri ("my friend the swift driven mule, wild ass of the mountains, panther of the wild")
> ibri ša arammušu danniš ittīa ittallaku kalu marşāti ("my friend, whom I loved greatly, who journeyed with me through every hardship")
> ikšudāššu šimat ("fate overtook [him...]" the tablet breaks off here)
by retrac - > political currents don’t have to move in one direction. It’s not inevitable that endangered languages become extinct.
There really isn't any good incentive to learn a language with very few speakers, since unless you already know a speaker, you really can't practice the real language. People were a few years ago at least hoping llms could help preserve the languages, but more most of them, there just aren't enough samples for any real preservation. I knew some dudes in college that were linguists that worked on recording native speakers of endangered languages, and while I hoped they would succeed, I never really had much hope of it working.
- > learn a language with very few speakers
Learn Sanskrit. You were writing in a descendant language just now. If you learnt the roots, you would understand the descendants better. And they are your tools, and knowing your tools is important.
Other more obscure languages? Well, as implied, languages are related... So studying the network clarifies the whole.
by mdp2021 - Unless the language lacks concepts and like scientific recombinateability and the cultural Nexus of youth just moves.
- But what good can come from preserving languages that already do not have enough samples?
Do languages have value in themselves?
- Empirically, the best way to keep a language alive is for a user of that language to write a Great Work in it.
- People learn Klingon or Esperanto.
You could probably convince me to join a hypothetical “Worshipful society of Gentlemen speaking Sumerian”.
by niemandhier