Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Jun 2012 11:17 UTC
Google While I sometimes see Dutch as an endangered language, reality is that with nearly 30 million speakers worldwide, we're actually doing pretty well. Sadly, this can't be said for the 3000 truly endangered languages of the world - nearly half of the world's total number of languages is on the verge of extinction, and with it, large amounts of human culture are in danger of disappearing forever. In collaboration with several universities and language institutions, Google has launched the Endangered Languages Project to document these languages - textually, visually, and auditorially.
Thread beginning with comment 523452
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Sounds Good
by dylansmrjones on Sat 23rd Jun 2012 10:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Sounds Good"
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

The spelling differences between Swedish and Danish are minute and nearly non-existant. Same language with written standards based on different dialects ;)

I explicitly wrote 'brythonic' and not 'celtic' orthography. If you compare Cymric, Cornish (Standard Written Form) and Breton, one can easily establish a brythonic orthography. The differences are larger than between the big north-germanic 'languages', but the similarities are larger than the differences. I prefer a Cornish orthography based on traditional brythonic spelling rather than Late Cornish which is an evil, disgraceful bastard child of Cornish and English.

In regard to Manx I'd prefer a Gaelic orthography (which can easily be established through comparison of Scottish Gaelic and Irish Gaelic and traditional Gaelic spelling) rather than the existing orthography which is a mixture of English and Cymric orthographies.

I'm sure we look quite differently at things. I tend to stick hard to linguistic purism (as does the 'languages' in the North Germanic branch). Purity above all.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Sounds Good
by henderson101 on Sat 23rd Jun 2012 10:17 in reply to "RE[7]: Sounds Good"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

There really is only Breton and Welsh though, and whilst they are similar, they are also completely different. The mutation system doesn't agree at all, nor does the Cornish one for that matter. Any Cornish that exists is synthetic. The modern dialect with a more Welsh orthography would be nice. let's be honest, Breton is closer to what Cornish should be like (as a spoken language) than Welsh, due to the Breton's being people's of a closer original geographical location (the Breton language originated from people's fleeing the UK, mostly southern people's). The Welsh were isolates.

Manx is another kettle of fish. It had an established written form, so the form you have is what it should use really.

Edited 2012-06-23 10:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Sounds Good
by dylansmrjones on Sat 23rd Jun 2012 11:51 in reply to "RE[8]: Sounds Good"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

They cannot be completely different and similar at the same time. They are mostly similar with a few differences here and there, but they are almost non-existant if you compare Formal Welsh with the interdialectale orthography (Etrerannyezhel). Cornish is very much a living language though with very few speakers. Calling it synthetic (e.g. artificial) is pretty much offensive, considering the circumstances. It is very much alive and SWF is based primarily on Late Middle Cornish making it no more artificial than modern Danish or Icelandic.

Manx Gaelic should really be written with a proper Gaelic orthography, getting rid of the nasty English-inspired orthography. Just because a silly englishman happened to write Manx with english orthography, doesn't mean that should be the future written form ;)

Compare this written in anglo-Manx Gaelic:
Ta'n Gaelg feer ghoan çheumooie jeh Ellan Vannin, agh fod pobble ennagh screeu ee ayns çheeryn elley.
with the same using a proper Manx Gaelic orthography:
Tà'n Ghaelg fìor-ghónn teabh a-muigh de Eilean Mhannain, ach faod pobal eanach scrìobh ì ans tìoran eile.
and compare with Irish Gaelic:
Tá an Ghaeilge an-ghann (fíor-ghann) taobh amuigh de Oileán Mhannanáin, ach féadann daoine [pobal] éigin(each) í a scríobh i dtíortha eile.
and Scottish Gaelic:
Tha a' Ghàidhlig glé ghann (fìor-ghann) taobh a-muigh de Eilean Mhannain, ach faodaidh daoine [pobal] igint(each) ì a sgrìobhadh ann an tìrean eile.

It is obvious why Manx Gaelic should be written with a proper Gaelic orthography. Again: It is all about purity ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Sounds Good
by zima on Sat 23rd Jun 2012 11:16 in reply to "RE[7]: Sounds Good"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I tend to stick hard to linguistic purism (as does the 'languages' in the North Germanic branch). Purity above all.

Whose purity? (as in, who is pure and who in turn determines that?)
And when? (doesn't that purity thing fly in the face of languages constantly evolving?)

BTW, what's the deal with two Norwegian variants?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Sounds Good
by dylansmrjones on Sat 23rd Jun 2012 15:24 in reply to "RE[8]: Sounds Good"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You mean 4 variants ;)

Riksmål, Bokmål, Nynorsk and Høgnorsk. Not to mention that Bokmål can be done in several ways, Traditional Bokmål (closer to Riksmål) and Radical Bokmål (closer to Nynorsk).

I think it is wonderful. Linguistic anarchy ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2