maff wrote:

Speaking of tongues
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1434840,00.html

There are many ways of recounting the history of the world - via

rise and fall of civilisations, the fortunes of nation states,
socio-economic systems and patterns, the development of technology,

or

the chronology of war and military prowess. This book tells the

through the rise and decline of languages. It is a compelling read,

one

of the most interesting books I have read in a long while.

If only that book would be available here. Not likely, I'd venture.

Also from the item:

History teaches us that the future will always be shaped in
large part by the unexpected and the unknowable: language is
a classic case in point. Even the mightiest languages have
fallen, and the future of the mightiest of our time - English
- can never be secure or guaranteed, whatever the appearances
to the contrary. Languages follow something like Darwin's law
of evolution: they come and go, though their life spans vary
enormously. Of the approximately 7,000 language communities
in the world today, more than half have fewer than 5,000
speakers, and 1,000 fewer than a dozen: many will be extinct
within a generation. But which languages, a millennium from
now, will still be prospering, which will be the dominant
global languages, and which will be the lingua franca? From
our vantage point in the early 21st century, this remains
entirely unpredictable.

Don't be surprised if Spanish reemerges as a global language.
Between the EU and a fracturing US, the emergence of democracy,
technology, education systems, and economies plus demise of
cronyism in South America, as well as the need to communicate
with islam, it's not a stretch to suggest this is possible.

The difference from the past is computer translation: if it can
be made efficient and accurate, will automated translation cause
languages to stagnate and stop or slow their intermingling? And
will artificial languages finally be feasible as intermediaries?
Esperanto and others failed in the 20th century because English
and French were adequate; pidgins and creoles succeeded in the
18th and 19th centuries because they were needed.

Bob Dog

maff wrote:

Speaking of tongues
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1434840,00.html

There are many ways of recounting the history of the world - via the
rise and fall of civilisations, the fortunes of nation states,
socio-economic systems and patterns, the development of technology,

or

the chronology of war and military prowess. This book tells the story
through the rise and decline of languages. It is a compelling read,

one

of the most interesting books I have read in a long while.

If only that book would be available here. Not likely, I'd venture.

Also from the item:

History teaches us that the future will always be shaped in
large part by the unexpected and the unknowable: language is
a classic case in point. Even the mightiest languages have
fallen, and the future of the mightiest of our time - English
- can never be secure or guaranteed, whatever the appearances
to the contrary. Languages follow something like Darwin's law
of evolution: they come and go, though their life spans vary
enormously. Of the approximately 7,000 language communities
in the world today, more than half have fewer than 5,000
speakers, and 1,000 fewer than a dozen: many will be extinct
within a generation. But which languages, a millennium from
now, will still be prospering, which will be the dominant
global languages, and which will be the lingua franca? From
our vantage point in the early 21st century, this remains
entirely unpredictable.

Don't be surprised if Spanish reemerges as a global language.
Between the EU and a fracturing US, the emergence of democracy,
technology, education systems, and economies plus demise of
cronyism in South America, as well as the need to communicate
with islam, it's not a stretch to suggest this is possible.

The difference from the past is computer translation: if it can
be made efficient and accurate, will automated translation cause
languages to stagnate and stop or slow their intermingling? And
will artificial languages finally be feasible as intermediaries?
Esperanto and others failed in the 20th century because English
and French were adequate; pidgins and creoles succeeded in the
18th and 19th centuries because they were needed.