The idea that we have a special duty to prevent the death of languages is instantly compelling to anyone who loves languages; it has a good deal in common with that other conservationist instinct directed at giant pandas and polar bears. The essential argument runs something like this: language death is very bad, and therefore we must do everything we can to prevent it. But does that conclusion follow? And is the premise true?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 6 points 3 months ago

here's an interesting--but also extremely poorly argued--article for you from the New Yorker about language preservation and whether that's an unconditionally good thing

  • source