Lost languages discovered in the oldest continuously run libraries (2017)(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
Lost languages discovered in the oldest continuously run libraries (2017)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/long-lost-languages-found-manuscripts-egyptian-monastery-180964698/
81 comments
Pre-modern manuscript practices are remarkably alien to us today. A single codex might contain multiple works in it with no external indication of its contents. It's entirely possible that many lost works are sitting in manuscript libraries because nobody has been able to catalog everything in them. Add in the palimpsest practice (which would not only impact situations like Saint Catherine's but would also cause a manuscript containing some pagan text to be overwritten with a Christian text—or in later centuries for a Christian text to be overwritten with an Islamic text) and it's entirely possible that somewhere there's a copy of Aristotle's Second book of Poetics or more of Sappho than we currently have. It kind of excites me to consider the possibilities (and wonder if the alternate universe version of me who majored in classics might be combing through the Vatican archives right now).
> with the rise of Islam in the 7th century, Christian sites in the Sinai Desert began to disappear, and Saint Catherine’s found itself in relative isolation. Monks turned to reusing older parchments when supplies at the monastery ran scarce.
That sounds ... odd. If the monks were isolated then why should they copy books, especially when they had to delete older material to do so? At the very least this implies that the monks had a supply of books to copy and also had to return the originals to someone somehow.
I think the more logical explanation is that the deleted texts were considered worthless.
That sounds ... odd. If the monks were isolated then why should they copy books, especially when they had to delete older material to do so? At the very least this implies that the monks had a supply of books to copy and also had to return the originals to someone somehow.
I think the more logical explanation is that the deleted texts were considered worthless.
Because some books are more valuable than others. You might enjoy Harry Potter, but if your only copy of a calculus 101 is deteriorating you will erase Harry Potter and copy the calculus text over the top to save the more important calculus book - or maybe you would erase the calculus textbook to copy Harry Potter over the top. This is a statement of relative value when paper is scarce, but it doesn't mean they didn't value the lost text, just that the replacement was even more valuable. If they had plenty of paper they wouldn't have erased the lost text in the first place and probably would have made a new copy.
There's a third way.
You combine the best halves of calculus and Harry Potter into one book.
It'll be more difficult to understand, but managing so grants one the best of both worlds.
You combine the best halves of calculus and Harry Potter into one book.
It'll be more difficult to understand, but managing so grants one the best of both worlds.
- Harry Potter and the Two-Sided Limit.
- Harry Potter and the Area Beneath the Curve.
- Harry Potter and the Osculating Circle.It's probably how "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" (an actual real thing) came about.
And what an amazing read it is! Www.hpmor.com
> 'I think the more logical explanation is that the deleted texts were considered worthless.'
It's your contention that the monks had unlimited access to parchment, but just chose to overwrite older work?
> If the monks were isolated then why should they copy books, especially when they had to delete older material to do so?
A religious order dedicated to copying books as a spiritual discipline isn't going to just sit around when parchment is hard to come by.
It's your contention that the monks had unlimited access to parchment, but just chose to overwrite older work?
> If the monks were isolated then why should they copy books, especially when they had to delete older material to do so?
A religious order dedicated to copying books as a spiritual discipline isn't going to just sit around when parchment is hard to come by.
Books were not only copied to have 2 functional copies, but also to have 1 fresh copy remaining once the older copy is no longer usable. Books are perishable and the more they are used, the quicker they disintegrate. That in itself is sufficient reason to sacrifice some works to preserve other works.
As someone who makes a hobby of learning languages, I am of the highly unpopular opinion that the world would be a better place if we could pick one easy-to-learn language (e.g. Malay) and one super-simple writing system (e.g. South Korean Hangul) and get our species out of the dark ages of having thousands of mutually unintelligible languages.
No-one in their right mind would create an ethical, functioning modern society with thousands of languages, some with 100% global power and some with 0%, and have children born into it at random.
Maybe it's because I'm not a historian, but statements like this:
> Michael Phelps, director of the Early Manuscripts Electronic Library, tells Gray of the Atlantic that the discovery of Caucasian Albanian writings at Saint Catherine’s library has helped scholars increase their knowledge of the language’s vocabulary, giving them words for things like “net” and “fish.”
... make me sad, not happy. This isn't exciting or fascinating, it's a testament to how pointless it is that we put so much value in languages, like we're still murmuring incantations around a fire and we just learned a new old one to murmur.
Let's pick a word for "net" and "fish" and finally, as a species, be done with it.
Make a program of keeping the new global language alive and equally accessible, just like we currently do with essential medicines.
Everybody has their own local medicines, even traditional witch-doctor medicines, but at the same time everybody gets the exact same doxycycline and training on when to use it. Likewise whatever word we end up choosing for "fish" and "net": use whatever word you want in your village, but when you want the one that works in the rest of the world, we made sure you're already armed with it.
Sure, languages evolve and you can't fight that, but with a global internet and a concerted effort to finally solve the Tower of Babel problem, languages can evolve everywhere at once into a single global language that every child gets brought up speaking.
No-one in their right mind would create an ethical, functioning modern society with thousands of languages, some with 100% global power and some with 0%, and have children born into it at random.
Maybe it's because I'm not a historian, but statements like this:
> Michael Phelps, director of the Early Manuscripts Electronic Library, tells Gray of the Atlantic that the discovery of Caucasian Albanian writings at Saint Catherine’s library has helped scholars increase their knowledge of the language’s vocabulary, giving them words for things like “net” and “fish.”
... make me sad, not happy. This isn't exciting or fascinating, it's a testament to how pointless it is that we put so much value in languages, like we're still murmuring incantations around a fire and we just learned a new old one to murmur.
Let's pick a word for "net" and "fish" and finally, as a species, be done with it.
Make a program of keeping the new global language alive and equally accessible, just like we currently do with essential medicines.
Everybody has their own local medicines, even traditional witch-doctor medicines, but at the same time everybody gets the exact same doxycycline and training on when to use it. Likewise whatever word we end up choosing for "fish" and "net": use whatever word you want in your village, but when you want the one that works in the rest of the world, we made sure you're already armed with it.
Sure, languages evolve and you can't fight that, but with a global internet and a concerted effort to finally solve the Tower of Babel problem, languages can evolve everywhere at once into a single global language that every child gets brought up speaking.
The thing is, languages are a whole lot more than systems for speaking and writing. They're cultural memes and make up a large portion of many people's identity. I speak two widely spoken languages and one that's a bit less common. Learning the less common language was like gaining membership in an exclusive cultural club, and was even a key to getting citizenship. But I had to learn more than just words for things. I had to learn about culture and history just to be able to socialize in the language. I learned things that simply can't be translated into other languages without long paragraphs of explanation that would actually require the reader to accept some knowledge of the language to understand them. And people who grew up speaking this language have their entire life experience wrapped up in it, and their entire family history wrapped up in it for thousands of years. It can't simply be replaced with a standardized system. Currently, the closest thing the world has to a global standardized language is English. English isn't the most logical or simple system, but it works because so many people already know it due to the global shared history it has. Languages can't be divorced from history and culture, even English.
> Learning the less common language was like gaining membership in an exclusive cultural club
This is the problem: every language is an exclusive cultural club. I want to have one that isn't an exclusive cultural club.
> I learned things that simply can't be translated into other languages without long paragraphs of explanation that would actually require the reader to accept some knowledge of the language to understand them
What would be an example of this? For example in Korean there's the concept of 정, which is a Korean-specific feeling of love/loyalty/bond with another person. You could write paragraphs about how it's subtly different from Japanese Jyo or English love/loyalty/bond, but at the end of the day either you need the concept and create a word for it in the global language, even "Jeong" or whatever, or you don't need the concept and don't create a word for it.
You don't build all of FORTRAN into CSS just because you want to borrow the concept of variables. You borrow what you need and make sure it fits nicely with what's already there.
> And people who grew up speaking this language have their entire life experience wrapped up in it, and their entire family history wrapped up in it for thousands of years.
You're saying that if over a generation they were to switch from one language to another their children and grandchildren would be without a history?
The children in our family don't speak the same language as their grandparents did. They don't know any of the culture-specific words. This doesn't seem to matter in any way that I've noticed, and certainly they themselves haven't.
This is the problem: every language is an exclusive cultural club. I want to have one that isn't an exclusive cultural club.
> I learned things that simply can't be translated into other languages without long paragraphs of explanation that would actually require the reader to accept some knowledge of the language to understand them
What would be an example of this? For example in Korean there's the concept of 정, which is a Korean-specific feeling of love/loyalty/bond with another person. You could write paragraphs about how it's subtly different from Japanese Jyo or English love/loyalty/bond, but at the end of the day either you need the concept and create a word for it in the global language, even "Jeong" or whatever, or you don't need the concept and don't create a word for it.
You don't build all of FORTRAN into CSS just because you want to borrow the concept of variables. You borrow what you need and make sure it fits nicely with what's already there.
> And people who grew up speaking this language have their entire life experience wrapped up in it, and their entire family history wrapped up in it for thousands of years.
You're saying that if over a generation they were to switch from one language to another their children and grandchildren would be without a history?
The children in our family don't speak the same language as their grandparents did. They don't know any of the culture-specific words. This doesn't seem to matter in any way that I've noticed, and certainly they themselves haven't.
> The children in our family don't speak the same language as their grandparents did ... This doesn't seem to matter in any way that I've noticed
Speaking as a grandchild who didn't have the fortune of being exposed to my grandparents' language growing up, I felt that I missed out on a wealth of cultural knowledge and experience, which is what drove me to learn the language as an adult. I very much wish that I would have been taught by my family as a child.
> What would be an example of this?
Azt a fűzfán fütyülő réz angyalát!
This is the first example that came to my mind. It's not even the best example. The literal translation is "Unto that copper angel whistling on the willow tree", and it could be substituted with "Wow!" but good luck figuring out why it means that and why people use it instead of "Hűha".
Another more recent example, "Szeretném elkérni Mészáros Lőrinc anyukájának lencsefőzelék receptjét". You simply won't be able to understand what that means or why someone would say it as a literal translation.
Speaking as a grandchild who didn't have the fortune of being exposed to my grandparents' language growing up, I felt that I missed out on a wealth of cultural knowledge and experience, which is what drove me to learn the language as an adult. I very much wish that I would have been taught by my family as a child.
> What would be an example of this?
Azt a fűzfán fütyülő réz angyalát!
This is the first example that came to my mind. It's not even the best example. The literal translation is "Unto that copper angel whistling on the willow tree", and it could be substituted with "Wow!" but good luck figuring out why it means that and why people use it instead of "Hűha".
Another more recent example, "Szeretném elkérni Mészáros Lőrinc anyukájának lencsefőzelék receptjét". You simply won't be able to understand what that means or why someone would say it as a literal translation.
> You simply won't be able to understand what that means or why someone would say it as a literal translation.
This is a supporting argument for my point: it’s the equivalent of an in-joke that I simply wouldn’t be able to understand.
Lots of groups have in-jokes that I can’t understand. For example, 3/4ths of memes on gaming and sports subreddits. These are rich cultures I am not a part of and have no need to be a part of.
I want there to be a single, unifying baseline language that we can all understand. When a concept is relevant to us, we’ll create words for it. When it’s a historical or cultural curiosity and not relevant to us, we’ll leave it to be explored by hobbyists, academics and people who have some historical connection to it.
Not every in-joke in every culture needs to be preserved as a world heritage.
At some point we need to say: here are the words to know and here’s how we use them to do math, science, politics, and to debate social issues… everything that involves people who aren’t in one’s personal in-group, in one’s tribe or on one’s team.
Those words will evolve, but let them evolve globally, with off-shoots that are relevant to in-groups, but with a main branch that is relevant to everybody.
This is a supporting argument for my point: it’s the equivalent of an in-joke that I simply wouldn’t be able to understand.
Lots of groups have in-jokes that I can’t understand. For example, 3/4ths of memes on gaming and sports subreddits. These are rich cultures I am not a part of and have no need to be a part of.
I want there to be a single, unifying baseline language that we can all understand. When a concept is relevant to us, we’ll create words for it. When it’s a historical or cultural curiosity and not relevant to us, we’ll leave it to be explored by hobbyists, academics and people who have some historical connection to it.
Not every in-joke in every culture needs to be preserved as a world heritage.
At some point we need to say: here are the words to know and here’s how we use them to do math, science, politics, and to debate social issues… everything that involves people who aren’t in one’s personal in-group, in one’s tribe or on one’s team.
Those words will evolve, but let them evolve globally, with off-shoots that are relevant to in-groups, but with a main branch that is relevant to everybody.
Hát, a lofasznak is van vége, ugyanúgy mint ennek a beszélgetésnek.
Your ideas are interesting and I wish you luck on your quixotic quest to switch this part of our world from PvP mode to PvE mode.
I'm sure you know that there is a reason your opinion is highly unpopular. Language doesn't just communicate fish and net.
Poetry, songs and literature just do not seamlessly translate between languages very well. Nor should we lose the calligraphy of Japanese/Chinese/Arabic/Persian.
Humanity would lose a lot if we all went to just one language and script.
Sure, when all the rich people flee to Elysium or Mars, they will be better off with generations growing up together with a common language and script. Because the population will be small in comparison and they will be creating their own civilization.
But until then, I'd like to keep the diversity right here on Earth.
Poetry, songs and literature just do not seamlessly translate between languages very well. Nor should we lose the calligraphy of Japanese/Chinese/Arabic/Persian.
Humanity would lose a lot if we all went to just one language and script.
Sure, when all the rich people flee to Elysium or Mars, they will be better off with generations growing up together with a common language and script. Because the population will be small in comparison and they will be creating their own civilization.
But until then, I'd like to keep the diversity right here on Earth.
> Poetry, songs and literature just do not seamlessly translate between languages very well. Nor should we lose the calligraphy of Japanese/Chinese/Arabic/Persian.
We don't have to incinerate anything. There won't be a government commission you have to petition to be allowed to do Japanese calligraphy or read a poem in its original language.
We don't have to incinerate anything. There won't be a government commission you have to petition to be allowed to do Japanese calligraphy or read a poem in its original language.
I mean, if you don't force people to do it, then English is The One Language you're talking about. People have basically collectively decided that if they're talking to someone halfway around the world, the words for net and fish are net and fish.
Language is a way of thought. Languages come with their own quirks, and just like [plant] monoculture is bad for an ecosystem, so would a single language. Since I was born in Russia and came to the US (thus becoming fluent in both languages), and especially after reading the book "Metaphors we live by" I see how language forces certain concepts on us. Having a variety of languages is a benefit, despite introducing problems.
As of now, English has become the de-facto universal language: in many countries it's the #1 most-studied foreign language in schools. I don't see a problem with having English (or another language) be everyone's 2nd language for better global communication.
As of now, English has become the de-facto universal language: in many countries it's the #1 most-studied foreign language in schools. I don't see a problem with having English (or another language) be everyone's 2nd language for better global communication.
I second this. Better having a 2nd language that is common for everybody than have just one language and only one way to express thoughts. I speak Italian (my mother tongue), English, Romanian and a bit of German, and I really enjoy when I discover subtle connections between words/sayings and the culture of the people using that language.
(As an analogy, what if the world decides that only C++ should be used to write programs and libraries?!? Boooring!)
(As an analogy, what if the world decides that only C++ should be used to write programs and libraries?!? Boooring!)
> just one language and only one way to express thoughts.
There's no reason any reasonable person would suggest this
There's no reason any reasonable person would suggest this
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis always catches me as something we should investigate more, but unfortunately it’s mired in the broader conflict of cultural relativity, as I learned when my anthro professor tried to disprove it with a convoluted argument from an aboriginal tribes notion of direction. A diversity of languages means a diversity of thought, which maybe you could make the case for more multilingual teams from.
English seems to suck as a language but it has risen to be the lingua franca of our present world system - how much of that is because British and American superpowerdom vs being a good lingua franca is up for debate.
English seems to suck as a language but it has risen to be the lingua franca of our present world system - how much of that is because British and American superpowerdom vs being a good lingua franca is up for debate.
It probably helps that it doesn't require one to memorize 10,000-20,000 individual characters and isn't a multi-tonal language so it also doesn't require excellent hearing discrimination.
That would be authoritarian.
I think natural evolution will gradually move most people to adopt either a single global language, or there will only be a few global languages. As English speakers, you and I can travel to most parts of the world without knowing the local language, because English is so pervasive. Will the "global language" be English? Who knows!
> Sure, languages evolve and you can't fight that, but with a global internet and a concerted effort to finally solve the Tower of Babel problem, languages can evolve everywhere at once into a single global language that every child gets brought up speaking.
I always find it fascinating to see different dialects of English. The way that Americans will say "Please ..." and Indians say "Kindly ..." always makes me chuckle.
I think natural evolution will gradually move most people to adopt either a single global language, or there will only be a few global languages. As English speakers, you and I can travel to most parts of the world without knowing the local language, because English is so pervasive. Will the "global language" be English? Who knows!
> Sure, languages evolve and you can't fight that, but with a global internet and a concerted effort to finally solve the Tower of Babel problem, languages can evolve everywhere at once into a single global language that every child gets brought up speaking.
I always find it fascinating to see different dialects of English. The way that Americans will say "Please ..." and Indians say "Kindly ..." always makes me chuckle.
> No-one in their right mind would create […] society
Right. Because societies are emergent things that arise from masses of people, not products of an individual’s design preferences.
That’s not to say that we might not eventually get to one language. But it won’t be because of illiterate* ideals expressed through technocratic meddling.
(* — “Illiterate” in its original sense: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/05/03/rediscovering-)literac...)
Right. Because societies are emergent things that arise from masses of people, not products of an individual’s design preferences.
That’s not to say that we might not eventually get to one language. But it won’t be because of illiterate* ideals expressed through technocratic meddling.
(* — “Illiterate” in its original sense: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/05/03/rediscovering-)literac...)
What's the difference between the technocratic meddling of getting everybody to stop spreading AIDS and the technocratic meddling of getting everybody to start speaking the same language?
We build consensus, we devote dollars and person-hours, and we try to figure out how to get closer to a desired end state. We do it all the time. But when it's giving a generation of people plumbing that's monumental human progress and when it's giving a generation of people a lingua franca that's illiterate technocratic meddling.
We build consensus, we devote dollars and person-hours, and we try to figure out how to get closer to a desired end state. We do it all the time. But when it's giving a generation of people plumbing that's monumental human progress and when it's giving a generation of people a lingua franca that's illiterate technocratic meddling.
The consequences can be disastrous, like Mao’s great leap forward. In any case, English is naturally taking the place of the world language.
> Sure, languages evolve and you can't fight that, but with a global internet and a concerted effort to finally solve the Tower of Babel problem, languages can evolve everywhere at once into a single global language that every child gets brought up speaking.
That... is optimistic, to say the least. Languages evolve essentially by having successive generations pick up collectively on idiosyncratic features of the language. And of course, people who aren't talking with each other aren't going to pick up on others' idiosyncratic features, and after several generations, you end up with new, distinct languages. To keep a single language out of it, you have to work hard to promote only a single version of it, and rather literally beat the daylight of anyone who speaks the "wrong" version of the language (this is essentially how the modern "big" European languages came about.)
In other words, enforcing linguistic unity tends to require enforcing cultural unity as well.
That... is optimistic, to say the least. Languages evolve essentially by having successive generations pick up collectively on idiosyncratic features of the language. And of course, people who aren't talking with each other aren't going to pick up on others' idiosyncratic features, and after several generations, you end up with new, distinct languages. To keep a single language out of it, you have to work hard to promote only a single version of it, and rather literally beat the daylight of anyone who speaks the "wrong" version of the language (this is essentially how the modern "big" European languages came about.)
In other words, enforcing linguistic unity tends to require enforcing cultural unity as well.
> you have to work hard to promote only a single version of it
Yes, you do have to work to make it happen. Up to now we've given languages a free cultural pass, whereas diseases and poverty we keep shoveling trillions into, and we're proud when we've made a 20% dent.
It takes work to pull the species out of what is natural, because what is natural is very often terrible. Diseases naturally evolve to terrorize us. We fight them and sometimes we win.
The first step is admitting that how languages have evolved naturally up to now sucks for an ethical, roughly egalitarian 21st century information-based society.
The sooner we can de-link language from local culture, the better.
And of course that begs the question: can language be delinked from culture?
Yes: my native language isn't the one I'm writing in to you now, and my native culture is whatever I'm making up for myself as I go along, to the chagrin of my parents and many in the culture I was born into.
Yes, you do have to work to make it happen. Up to now we've given languages a free cultural pass, whereas diseases and poverty we keep shoveling trillions into, and we're proud when we've made a 20% dent.
It takes work to pull the species out of what is natural, because what is natural is very often terrible. Diseases naturally evolve to terrorize us. We fight them and sometimes we win.
The first step is admitting that how languages have evolved naturally up to now sucks for an ethical, roughly egalitarian 21st century information-based society.
The sooner we can de-link language from local culture, the better.
And of course that begs the question: can language be delinked from culture?
Yes: my native language isn't the one I'm writing in to you now, and my native culture is whatever I'm making up for myself as I go along, to the chagrin of my parents and many in the culture I was born into.
Can language be delinked from culture? Maybe. But can a language survive without a culture to encompass it? If you strip culture from a language, wouldn't the language would become toneless and meaningless? Yes, you can call something a 'net' or a 'fish' at a basic level. However in one culture one might say, "You must cast your net to catch the fish" it's plain what it means and it is meaningful, but for someone without the cultural context, it's a head scratcher and may wonder what fish are you talking about?
I'm too, my native language isn't the one I am writing here. I have lived in quite a few different places. Culture is not something I could make up for myself as I go along, I don't think anyone could do so in isolation. I took in the different bits of cultures that i have experienced through, sometimes to the dismay of those around me. I appreciate the perspective that cultures create languages, and without the cultural reference the language would cease its importance and would die.
I'm too, my native language isn't the one I am writing here. I have lived in quite a few different places. Culture is not something I could make up for myself as I go along, I don't think anyone could do so in isolation. I took in the different bits of cultures that i have experienced through, sometimes to the dismay of those around me. I appreciate the perspective that cultures create languages, and without the cultural reference the language would cease its importance and would die.
> If you strip culture from a language, wouldn't the language would become toneless and meaningless?
Indeed, languages are toneless and meaningless when divorced from their functional role in connecting people and enabling them to share thoughts.
For that reason languages aren't sacrosanct and are replaceable.
Indeed, languages are toneless and meaningless when divorced from their functional role in connecting people and enabling them to share thoughts.
For that reason languages aren't sacrosanct and are replaceable.
Language is an integral part of every culture. It's not just an arbitrary system that everyone chose differently, but a way of communicating and reinforcing ideas that's unique to different groups. Consider the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. There's a reason language was associated with nationalism in the 20th century. Keeping the diversity of breadth of the human experience alive (much of which we've already lost with increasing globalism) means keeping diverse languages and cultures, and I think that's important.
This is the standard refrain any time somebody calls for a unified language: "it's an integral part of our culture".
I addressed this:
> Everybody has their own local medicines, even traditional witch-doctor medicines, but at the same time everybody gets the exact same doxycycline and training on when to use it. Likewise whatever word we end up choosing for "fish" and "net": use whatever word you want in your village, but when you want the one that works in the rest of the world, we made sure you're already armed with it.
Will this mean losing the diversity of cultures due to increased globalism? Yes.
Now here comes my most unpopular opinion on HN:
Good, let's lose some cultures.
My culture isn't special. Human cultures aren't a scare resource and we make up new ones all the time. If the next generation, which enjoys the gift of a single unified baseline language, isn't interested in my culture anymore, that's fine. It might even be good news.
When they need a culture like my culture again, they'll develop one, probably within years or months.
Complex cultures pop into and out of existence on the internet every day, and they're no less complex and no less varied than the ones that involved worshipping tree spirits and eating each other's hearts for strength. Let dying cultures die.
I addressed this:
> Everybody has their own local medicines, even traditional witch-doctor medicines, but at the same time everybody gets the exact same doxycycline and training on when to use it. Likewise whatever word we end up choosing for "fish" and "net": use whatever word you want in your village, but when you want the one that works in the rest of the world, we made sure you're already armed with it.
Will this mean losing the diversity of cultures due to increased globalism? Yes.
Now here comes my most unpopular opinion on HN:
Good, let's lose some cultures.
My culture isn't special. Human cultures aren't a scare resource and we make up new ones all the time. If the next generation, which enjoys the gift of a single unified baseline language, isn't interested in my culture anymore, that's fine. It might even be good news.
When they need a culture like my culture again, they'll develop one, probably within years or months.
Complex cultures pop into and out of existence on the internet every day, and they're no less complex and no less varied than the ones that involved worshipping tree spirits and eating each other's hearts for strength. Let dying cultures die.
> Complex cultures pop into and out of existence on the internet every day, and they're no less complex and no less varied
It's astonishing to what degree that comparison misses the mark. No, "complex" cultures don't pop into and out of existence on the internet every day -- "gaming" culture or "sports" culture or "woke twitter" culture are not cultures in the same sense that people living an an area and speaking a common language develop a culture over time. They're not the same thing, and though you might compare them via metaphor they're so different as to make that metaphor misleading.
Amusingly, I've seen this attitude in Esperanto circles. No, there's no "Esperanto" culture in the same sense that I'm culturally North American (for example).
> When they need a culture like my culture again, they'll develop one, probably within years or months.
Culture is not nearly as ephemeral as you're making it out. You can't just develop a culture out of nothing. My "culture" includes not just a common vocabulary but a shared history going back hundreds of years; it includes visual arts, literature, intertwined family histories, the dust bowl, jazz and rock and roll. You can't just find those popping into and out of existence on Discord or Facebook.
It's astonishing to what degree that comparison misses the mark. No, "complex" cultures don't pop into and out of existence on the internet every day -- "gaming" culture or "sports" culture or "woke twitter" culture are not cultures in the same sense that people living an an area and speaking a common language develop a culture over time. They're not the same thing, and though you might compare them via metaphor they're so different as to make that metaphor misleading.
Amusingly, I've seen this attitude in Esperanto circles. No, there's no "Esperanto" culture in the same sense that I'm culturally North American (for example).
> When they need a culture like my culture again, they'll develop one, probably within years or months.
Culture is not nearly as ephemeral as you're making it out. You can't just develop a culture out of nothing. My "culture" includes not just a common vocabulary but a shared history going back hundreds of years; it includes visual arts, literature, intertwined family histories, the dust bowl, jazz and rock and roll. You can't just find those popping into and out of existence on Discord or Facebook.
I don’t think we need to put in extra “effort” to make it happen, it’s already happening - and English is becoming the default global language. Knowing English is an advantage in most jobs all over the world and it seems the percentage of English speakers in the world is increasing over time.
That's true, it's going in that direction. But that's like saying there's less Malaria year over year because we're naturally building cities and towns that displace mosquito habitats.
If we're going to agree that X is a problem and that we're happy the problem is naturally diminishing at some snail-like pace, then let's also agree to take direct action to solve X properly and now.
We're tackling the Malaria problem, with dollars and behavior changes. Let's tackle the Tower of Babel problem with dollars and behavior changes. English is an okay global language, for example, but its writing system is far from okay.
If we're going to agree that X is a problem and that we're happy the problem is naturally diminishing at some snail-like pace, then let's also agree to take direct action to solve X properly and now.
We're tackling the Malaria problem, with dollars and behavior changes. Let's tackle the Tower of Babel problem with dollars and behavior changes. English is an okay global language, for example, but its writing system is far from okay.
Empirically, most people deal with English’a dumb spelling. Over a billion people have gone and learned English, on top of native speakers. We’re using it now. Your hypothetical new language would have to displace this incumbent which for all practical purposes already does what you want of it. Miraculously, people can do more than one language so all this happens without anyone abandoning their languages. English spelling is not okay but it’s not -far- from okay. Most people (who, again, empirically deal with it fine) are typing with autocorrect.
Every person who learns English writing today spends literal years learning it to the point of not being embarrassingly bad at writing it.
I'm not sure if you've ever had to learn English as a non-native English speaker, but it's one of the hardest, most painful, longest things to get truly proficient at, equal to other very hard aspects in one's very hard profession.
There are hundreds of millions of smart people who can't communicate their ideas to us in even simple English sentences. Whereas English grammar, as long as you avoid idioms, is pretty accessible as far as natural languages go.
So to sum up: as a global language English is maybe okay, but its writing system makes it not at all okay.
I'm not sure if you've ever had to learn English as a non-native English speaker, but it's one of the hardest, most painful, longest things to get truly proficient at, equal to other very hard aspects in one's very hard profession.
There are hundreds of millions of smart people who can't communicate their ideas to us in even simple English sentences. Whereas English grammar, as long as you avoid idioms, is pretty accessible as far as natural languages go.
So to sum up: as a global language English is maybe okay, but its writing system makes it not at all okay.
I don't think anyone disagrees English writing sucks, but the inertia is massive, and the benefits not all that clear relative to the absolutely massive cost. Retraining every English speaker to write, changing all our keyboards, changing signage and physical written word... it's a near impossible task. And it's not clear to me what the benefit is when, yes, a billion people can more or less communicate in it just fine.
Regarding writing systems for English, have you seen this one? We had to learn about it when growing up in Utah:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_alphabet
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_alphabet
I read your comment and compare to programming languages. It would be revolutionary to have all computers programmed in the same language, but as different languages are good at different things and evolve concurrently, it's almost inconcievable to make it happen.
And you're talking about refactoring not merely an entire industry, but the very language of thought for our species!
How can we even begin to approach this consciously?
And you're talking about refactoring not merely an entire industry, but the very language of thought for our species!
How can we even begin to approach this consciously?
Every computer is programmed with the same language, namely 1s and 0s. The other programming languages add certain abstractions to make different things "easier".
But there doesn't exist a human language that you can use to communicate with everyone on Earth. OP seems to propose a 0-1 language (to stay with the computer analogy) everyone could use to communicate with anybody else, while the local languages would be kept the same way as different programming languages are used now (basically to express certain patterns differently).
But there doesn't exist a human language that you can use to communicate with everyone on Earth. OP seems to propose a 0-1 language (to stay with the computer analogy) everyone could use to communicate with anybody else, while the local languages would be kept the same way as different programming languages are used now (basically to express certain patterns differently).
That's a good summary, thanks! With the only departure being that programming in 1s and 0s is very hard for humans and so we develop abstractions on top of it to make it easier.
Whereas the baseline language I'm proposing we use would be very easy for humans, and in fact would be much easier than the local languages that would be kept the same to express whatever they're good at expressing.
Whereas the baseline language I'm proposing we use would be very easy for humans, and in fact would be much easier than the local languages that would be kept the same to express whatever they're good at expressing.
Isn't that what Esperanto was supposed to be?
Don't get me wrong, I have a huge appreciation for Esperanto, but using it as a global language would mean forcing western ideas, about how a language should work, on the eastern population. So as Zamenhof didn't consider Asian languages when he made Esperanto (not to mention the use of diacritics), I wouldn't use it as a global language.
I have been following some auxlangs for some time now, and if I had to vote, I'd go with an a priori language as a global second language, instead of choosing an existing one with specific culture attached to it.
I have been following some auxlangs for some time now, and if I had to vote, I'd go with an a priori language as a global second language, instead of choosing an existing one with specific culture attached to it.
The analogy is reasonable, although it breaks down because human languages are not nearly as varied in usefulness for different things as programming languages are.
Human languages are much more generalized.
Sure, you can find domain-specific examples of one human language being preferable to another though, like when Korean Air forced all its pilots to communicate in English, even Korean->Korean pilots, because in English you can tell explicitly a person who is older/more senior than you that they're about to kill everybody on the plane, without defaulting to making that a polite "it seems as though perhaps what if" suggestion.
On a country-level, we've successfully normalized a given language across large populations and large geographies. Often without involving genocide or prison camps.
If we can roll out vaccines to the globe over a couple years and a few trillion dollars, then surely rolling out a global language over a generation or two would only be 1 or 2 orders of magnitude more challenging, but it would likely result in far more benefit to the human race in the medium/long term, and probably even in the short term too.
Human languages are much more generalized.
Sure, you can find domain-specific examples of one human language being preferable to another though, like when Korean Air forced all its pilots to communicate in English, even Korean->Korean pilots, because in English you can tell explicitly a person who is older/more senior than you that they're about to kill everybody on the plane, without defaulting to making that a polite "it seems as though perhaps what if" suggestion.
On a country-level, we've successfully normalized a given language across large populations and large geographies. Often without involving genocide or prison camps.
If we can roll out vaccines to the globe over a couple years and a few trillion dollars, then surely rolling out a global language over a generation or two would only be 1 or 2 orders of magnitude more challenging, but it would likely result in far more benefit to the human race in the medium/long term, and probably even in the short term too.
> On a country-level, we've successfully normalized a given language across large populations and large geographies. Often without involving genocide or prison camps.
Which country is this? Genuinely curious. I’m a native English speaker and any time English was established as a country wide lingua franca it involved colonization and suppression of other people, even in England.
Which country is this? Genuinely curious. I’m a native English speaker and any time English was established as a country wide lingua franca it involved colonization and suppression of other people, even in England.
There are several examples. Here's one that involved fining people for not speaking the lingua franca in public:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen,_speak_Turkish!
I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this. I hope we can get everyone to a global language without so much as a $1 fine, but if it did require a generation of fines and public shaming, it could fall into "the ends justify the means" territory.
In my modern/developed country we fine citizens heavily for entering without presenting a valid PCR test against covid. That's because we believe the public good of having everyone free of covid outweighs the public evil of fining people for simply existing as they are.
Would the public good of switching the globe to a unified language be worth fines and social pressure?
I don't know the answer to that, which maybe correlates with my score on the "Darkness Measure" we've recently seen posted here on HN:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29734100
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen,_speak_Turkish!
I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this. I hope we can get everyone to a global language without so much as a $1 fine, but if it did require a generation of fines and public shaming, it could fall into "the ends justify the means" territory.
In my modern/developed country we fine citizens heavily for entering without presenting a valid PCR test against covid. That's because we believe the public good of having everyone free of covid outweighs the public evil of fining people for simply existing as they are.
Would the public good of switching the globe to a unified language be worth fines and social pressure?
I don't know the answer to that, which maybe correlates with my score on the "Darkness Measure" we've recently seen posted here on HN:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29734100
> On a country-level, we've successfully normalized a given language across large populations and large geographies. Often without involving genocide or prison camps.
Well, what do you call beating school children for not speaking the "proper" language? Because that's basically the minimum you need to do (see: US, Canada, France for specific examples).
Well, what do you call beating school children for not speaking the "proper" language? Because that's basically the minimum you need to do (see: US, Canada, France for specific examples).
We don't need to beat school children to get them to do all sorts of things they'd rather not do. Currently we get most school children trained to be effective factory workers and low-grade administrative assistants by age 14~16 without beating any of them.
People used to beat school children all the time. They used to beat minorities and torture people who have developmental problems.
We don't do that anymore, and we still find ways of achieving our aims.
People used to beat school children all the time. They used to beat minorities and torture people who have developmental problems.
We don't do that anymore, and we still find ways of achieving our aims.
The problem with the idea as I see it, is that it'll just tribalize again. You'd need to ensure that requirements are in place for learning and maintaining the chosen language, and prevent substantial evolution within it by any group of people. It's better for something like this to be a 2nd language, which is already in place for the world in English. The easy to learn and write part is mostly there, but getting someone out of the dark ages relies on them learning English. The real problem with maintaining language interop is that you have to practice it. It's infeasible to foist a new language onto the entire world, or choose one, rather than work with what we have. Money and knowledge are the only real motivators and English has it. Just as French did before, and Latin before that. Spanish, Chinese and Hindi probably also have a secure existence and always will. The rest are at risk of dwindling numbers and then extinction. So your wish has been coming true over time.
That is very much the sentiment behind the Esperanto movement. Though that was proposed as a standardized second language, to be learned alongside whatever local languages were already being learned by the local population.
The Esperanto crowd is a cool community, but uptake has been much slower than would be necessary for it to have the desired effectiveness.
The Esperanto crowd is a cool community, but uptake has been much slower than would be necessary for it to have the desired effectiveness.
The world decided on English. It wouldn't be my first choice - even as a native speaker - but history and inertia has decided on this obscure Norman French/Anglo-Saxon island pidgin and we're kind of stuck with it until the Chinese century runs its course and we're dealing with pictograms and tonal differences.
Until Chinese romanizes it will never be a lingua franca. Simply far too hard to learn the written word, Simplified or not.
It doesn't matter how difficult a language is to master to gain the status of a lingua franca. Have you tried learning Russian? Or Latin? Or ancient Greek?
I mean English has such a bizarro spelling system it may as well use pictograms. You might as well say "English will never be a lingua franca unless the English speakers overhaul their spelling". English is where it is because of the double historical whammy of the British Empire followed by American hegemony. Couple battles won or lost here and there and we'd still be using French.
Just as the saying is that a dialect is a "language with an army and a navy", a lingua franca is a language with the biggest army and navy (or trade/cultural influence). It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the simplicity of the language, although simplified pidgins/creoles might develop as more non-natives have to learn it (hence how Latin evolved into French, Spanish etc). But pidgins/creoles tend to be localised adaptations and don't have the universal currency of a lingua franca - unless of course they develop into fully-fledged "imperial" languages themselves, as with English.
I mean English has such a bizarro spelling system it may as well use pictograms. You might as well say "English will never be a lingua franca unless the English speakers overhaul their spelling". English is where it is because of the double historical whammy of the British Empire followed by American hegemony. Couple battles won or lost here and there and we'd still be using French.
Just as the saying is that a dialect is a "language with an army and a navy", a lingua franca is a language with the biggest army and navy (or trade/cultural influence). It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the simplicity of the language, although simplified pidgins/creoles might develop as more non-natives have to learn it (hence how Latin evolved into French, Spanish etc). But pidgins/creoles tend to be localised adaptations and don't have the universal currency of a lingua franca - unless of course they develop into fully-fledged "imperial" languages themselves, as with English.
It definitely does matter how difficult a language is to gain the status of a lingua franca. The written word of Chinese is beyond exceptionally difficult to learn. Saying English has such a bizzaro spelling system it might as well be pictograms just indicates to me you’ve never seriously given learning written Chinese a fair shake.
What does a learner of English need to be able to learn to write a word? 26 * 2 symbols, and a fair understanding of the most basic spelling rules to give any word a basic attempt at spelling. If you didn’t know the spelling of president, you could very reasonably guess your way through it (begins with a ‘p’, ‘z’s are pretty rare and I’d know if it had one, etc.) Contrast this with the modern state of China where actual teenagers have difficulties writing Chinese without the use of a computer because the written word is THAT vast.
I don’t see what your other examples have to do with anything…those are all languages that use an alphabet?
What does a learner of English need to be able to learn to write a word? 26 * 2 symbols, and a fair understanding of the most basic spelling rules to give any word a basic attempt at spelling. If you didn’t know the spelling of president, you could very reasonably guess your way through it (begins with a ‘p’, ‘z’s are pretty rare and I’d know if it had one, etc.) Contrast this with the modern state of China where actual teenagers have difficulties writing Chinese without the use of a computer because the written word is THAT vast.
I don’t see what your other examples have to do with anything…those are all languages that use an alphabet?
> pick one easy-to-learn language (e.g. Malay) and one super-simple writing system (e.g. South Korean Hangul)
That's an interesting combination.
The main reason why English speakers often consider Malay to be easier than other South-East Asian languages is that it's usually written using the Latin script without diacritics. Writing it in Hangul instead would make it just another language with a writing system few people are familiar with.
Whereas Hangul as used for writing Korean has plenty of cases where the same symbol represents different sounds in different context and vice versa different symbols representing the same sound in the same context. There's an internal logic to it that makes sense for Korean, because it results in words deriving from the same root being spelled similarly, but if you apply it to Malay, it's just another random set of symbols that can be assigned sounds by convention.
That's an interesting combination.
The main reason why English speakers often consider Malay to be easier than other South-East Asian languages is that it's usually written using the Latin script without diacritics. Writing it in Hangul instead would make it just another language with a writing system few people are familiar with.
Whereas Hangul as used for writing Korean has plenty of cases where the same symbol represents different sounds in different context and vice versa different symbols representing the same sound in the same context. There's an internal logic to it that makes sense for Korean, because it results in words deriving from the same root being spelled similarly, but if you apply it to Malay, it's just another random set of symbols that can be assigned sounds by convention.
> The main reason why English speakers often consider Malay to be easier than other South-East Asian languages is that it's usually written using the Latin script without diacritics
Malay/Indonesian is ridiculously easy and fun to learn. The simple/logical grammar is a joy compared to English, French, Arabic, etc. And it doesn't really have tones like Chinese.
Anyway Malay + Hangul may not be your first choice, that's totally fine. Whatever is your first choice, let's go with it and establish it as the global baseline language that all children learn in school from kindergarten and in cartoons long before that.
Malay/Indonesian is ridiculously easy and fun to learn. The simple/logical grammar is a joy compared to English, French, Arabic, etc. And it doesn't really have tones like Chinese.
Anyway Malay + Hangul may not be your first choice, that's totally fine. Whatever is your first choice, let's go with it and establish it as the global baseline language that all children learn in school from kindergarten and in cartoons long before that.
What would that solve? Do large societies with a common language do so much better than those with multiple languages?
> South Korean Hangul
The Roman alphabet is just as simple, and much wider spread. English is a perfectly simple, easy to learn language with great expressive power. So shall we settle on English as the New World Language? Thought so.
> South Korean Hangul
The Roman alphabet is just as simple, and much wider spread. English is a perfectly simple, easy to learn language with great expressive power. So shall we settle on English as the New World Language? Thought so.
That's like comparing learning to drive a car with learning to drive a 747.
No, English isn't a perfectly simple, easy to learn writing system. It's among the hardest writing systems to learn.
Which is why we have a ridiculous game called "Spelling Bees", which can't exist in a language that's easy to write in. In Korea nobody's impressed when an 8-year-old can spell a complex-sounding word they've never heard before and don't know the meaning of: they should be able to spell it.
http://chateauview.com/pronunciation/
> Dearest creature in creation Studying English pronunciation, I will teach you in my verse Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse.
> I will keep you, Susy, busy, Make your head with heat grow dizzy; Tear in eye, your dress you’ll tear; Queer, fair seer, hear my prayer.
> Pray, console your loving poet, Make my coat look new, dear, sew it! Just compare heart, hear and heard, Dies and diet, lord and word.
No, English isn't a perfectly simple, easy to learn writing system. It's among the hardest writing systems to learn.
Which is why we have a ridiculous game called "Spelling Bees", which can't exist in a language that's easy to write in. In Korea nobody's impressed when an 8-year-old can spell a complex-sounding word they've never heard before and don't know the meaning of: they should be able to spell it.
http://chateauview.com/pronunciation/
> Dearest creature in creation Studying English pronunciation, I will teach you in my verse Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse.
> I will keep you, Susy, busy, Make your head with heat grow dizzy; Tear in eye, your dress you’ll tear; Queer, fair seer, hear my prayer.
> Pray, console your loving poet, Make my coat look new, dear, sew it! Just compare heart, hear and heard, Dies and diet, lord and word.
When my Romanian friend came to the United States he was shocked to discover we have have spelling bees. In Romanian it would make no sense; the spelling of a word is usually obvious from saying it. Then there's English. We prefer to merge multiple languages together in the most confusing way.
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." --James D. Nicoll
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." --James D. Nicoll
You said writing system, nothing about phonetic correspondence. But then I'll simply replace English by Spanish. There's of course the silent h which throws a spanner in the works sometimes, and there's the v/b overlap, but extremely easy to pronounce straight from the text, even without understanding. And with 27 letters that don't combine with others into groups, a lot easier to learn than Hangul.
Or Inglish with a speling riform? Det shood bi sooparizi too lurn es wel. End yoo get ol da books end moovis for fri.
Anyway, you haven't replied why you think it's advantageous. All that trouble just to avoid translating here or there, or learning multiple languages? What makes you believe that speaking the same language makes a better place?
Or Inglish with a speling riform? Det shood bi sooparizi too lurn es wel. End yoo get ol da books end moovis for fri.
Anyway, you haven't replied why you think it's advantageous. All that trouble just to avoid translating here or there, or learning multiple languages? What makes you believe that speaking the same language makes a better place?
>No, English isn't a perfectly simple, easy to learn writing system. It's among the hardest writing systems to learn.
I can't accept this after decades of hearing 2nd language speakers attempt to trivialize my native language as "easy".
With half the world telling me "English is easy", then it's now on them to learn the easy language. No excuses. Get to learning.
Most of your examples don't really become big issues day to day either. They may never become lawyers using English, but they'll maintain just about any other career including a medical doctor.
I can't accept this after decades of hearing 2nd language speakers attempt to trivialize my native language as "easy".
With half the world telling me "English is easy", then it's now on them to learn the easy language. No excuses. Get to learning.
Most of your examples don't really become big issues day to day either. They may never become lawyers using English, but they'll maintain just about any other career including a medical doctor.
"English is a perfectly simple, easy to learn language"
What? English writing and pronunciation are atrocious. There are more exceptions than rules. I thought it was a pretty well known fact. There are languages where you can perfectly pronounce the words even if you don't have the slightest idea of what you are reading.
What? English writing and pronunciation are atrocious. There are more exceptions than rules. I thought it was a pretty well known fact. There are languages where you can perfectly pronounce the words even if you don't have the slightest idea of what you are reading.
English isn't simple at all.
You have a very fascinating point of view. I never thought of it that way before. But, from what I understand, the Tower of Babel isn’t a problem to be solved. It was a solution to the problem you want to introduce. Not disagreeing with your points exactly, but it is very interesting dichotomy you’ve introduced.
Is this an unpopular opinion? I think that languages are beautiful and culture should be studied and respected—but yes, of course the world would be more efficient if we had a single universal language. (And preferably not English, since English is horrible.) There’s a reason the Tower of Babel story depicts languages as a punishment from God.
The problem is that it’s ultimately a purely academic debate, for somewhat similar reasons to why QWERTY vs DVORAK discussions never lead anywhere. I have spent my entire life practicing reading and writing in english. I have zero interest in all that away to switch to an entirely new language, much less one that none of the people around me speak. You’re just never going to develop a movement around this in a free society, so there’s no point.
The problem is that it’s ultimately a purely academic debate, for somewhat similar reasons to why QWERTY vs DVORAK discussions never lead anywhere. I have spent my entire life practicing reading and writing in english. I have zero interest in all that away to switch to an entirely new language, much less one that none of the people around me speak. You’re just never going to develop a movement around this in a free society, so there’s no point.
> English is horrible.
English isn't substantially worse than any other natural language, except insofar that it is attached to a very inconsistent system of spelling. That's somewhat orthogonal to English as a language, though, and indeed it could be written with any imagined writing system (e.g. quickscript).
English isn't substantially worse than any other natural language, except insofar that it is attached to a very inconsistent system of spelling. That's somewhat orthogonal to English as a language, though, and indeed it could be written with any imagined writing system (e.g. quickscript).
I'm not well-versed in any foreign languages, but the little I know of Spanish grammar seems to be a lot more consistent than english. (There are footguns, there just seem to be fewer.)
And since we're talking about ideals, I don't see any reason to limit ourselves to natural languages! I am quite certain you could design a language which is much easier to learn and no less expressive.
And since we're talking about ideals, I don't see any reason to limit ourselves to natural languages! I am quite certain you could design a language which is much easier to learn and no less expressive.
Godwin's Law for language discussion:
Consider the language Esperanto for universal candidate. /s
Consider the language Esperanto for universal candidate. /s
Implementing a new global language is akin to a standardization process. From my experience in standardization (several years supporting SISO [0]), standardization is a very expensive and time consuming activity, even when the participants can see obvious benefits. Creating a new global language - and then adopting it - would have a massive opportunity cost - that could be better spent in trying to deal with higher priority problems such as global heating.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_Interoperability_St...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_Interoperability_St...
Schleyer's project of an international auxiliary language (and then later Zamenhof's, with Esperanto, and Hogben's with Interlingua) is indeed very worthwhile. It seems to have run into some political resistance, though.
[deleted]
Glibc contains COBOL code?