Ukrainian dying out among young Ukrainians?

[Salmoneus]

If you think the two are morally equivalent

I never said that.
GODS I'm like Göring now =/

No, you said that it was "at least half as bad". So presumably two language deaths = two congolese civil wars?

So, how many Ukrainians is it OK to torture to death in order to force them to keep their language alive? you don't have to do it yourself. A mad dictator is killing Ukrainians to force the rest to speak their language properly. At what size genocide do you start thinking this is a good thing?

That's what we mean by comparing how bad two things are - we're talking about the point at which one amount of the one becomes better than another amount of the other. So what is the number of Ukrainians worth killing to save Ukrainian?

If you don't have an answer, or if you think the number is less than one, then you weren't being sincere when you expressed your opinion. And it wasn't, then, your opinion, just posturing for effect.

[Salmoneus]

I thought it had been a torment for Ukrainians to be forced to learn Russian in schools even after dissolution of the USSR and now when it's not obligatory, young people prefer to speak Russian rather than Ukrainian.

... precisely because there is no longer as much at stake in Retaining Ukrainian. In other words, if speaking Russian is no longer a torment (since you're not forced to), why not do it?

To oppose a thing is to maintain it - seemingly true of endangered languages!

[Drydic]

If you think the two are morally equivalent

I never said that.
GODS I'm like Göring now =/

No, you said that it was "at least half as bad". So presumably two language deaths = two congolese civil wars?

I think your math is off here Sal.

[Xephyr]

Partly what DG said, and the fact that the extinction of languages is something I consider at least half as horrifying as the events that are transpiring in Subsaharan tropical Africa - you are irreversably wiping away thousands of years of evolution - it's like species and culture extinction...

I don't think "horrifying" is the word for what I feel when I hear of extinctions, be they cultural, linguistic, or biological. I see them as being part of the natural order of things in a way that mass rape, torture, and execution are not.

Uhh.. maybe for Ukrainian, sure... but are you really gonna tell an Aborigine, California Indian, or South African Bushman that language extinction is "part of the natural order of things" and in no way related to pogroms or genocide?

[linguoboy]

Uhh.. maybe for Ukrainian, sure... but are you really gonna tell an Aborigine, California Indian, or South African Bushman that language extinction is "part of the natural order of things" and in no way related to pogroms or genocide?

Don't they all have legends of the People Who Were There Before Them?

[Xephyr]

Uhh.. maybe for Ukrainian, sure... but are you really gonna tell an Aborigine, California Indian, or South African Bushman that language extinction is "part of the natural order of things" and in no way related to pogroms or genocide?

Don't they all have legends of the People Who Were There Before Them?

What does that have to do with anything?

[Dewrad]

Uhh.. maybe for Ukrainian, sure... but are you really gonna tell an Aborigine, California Indian, or South African Bushman that language extinction is "part of the natural order of things" and in no way related to pogroms or genocide?

Don't they all have legends of the People Who Were There Before Them?

What does that have to do with anything?

That it's happened before? I don't think linguoboy is neccessarily saying that language death etc is something that people should be happy about and accept, just that it's a "natural thing" that's happened numerous times before.

[Salmoneus]

Partly what DG said, and the fact that the extinction of languages is something I consider at least half as horrifying as the events that are transpiring in Subsaharan tropical Africa - you are irreversably wiping away thousands of years of evolution - it's like species and culture extinction...

I don't think "horrifying" is the word for what I feel when I hear of extinctions, be they cultural, linguistic, or biological. I see them as being part of the natural order of things in a way that mass rape, torture, and execution are not.

Uhh.. maybe for Ukrainian, sure... but are you really gonna tell an Aborigine, California Indian, or South African Bushman that language extinction is "part of the natural order of things" and in no way related to pogroms or genocide?

Well, death and pain and screaming are all parts of the natural order of things, but (accepting for a moment the premise that the distinction is real or significant) that doesn't mean that death pain and screaming resulting from genocide are natural. Likewise, language death can be natural, even if particular instances of it result from unnatural genocide. In those cases presumably the genocide is the bad thing and the language death is secondary.

[Niedokonany]

Oh yeah the ZBB with its "I'm so holier than thou" attitude, yawn

You just compared voluntary language shift to events that have left millions of people dead.

Obviously mere human deaths can't compare to cultural or linguistic loss. You see, cells may change but the organism lives on. As sinister as it might sound to you this has long been the pillar of nationalism which like it or not sheds a little sense in soo many people's lives.

If a situation like this continues, then Ukrainian is certainly on a way to produce various mixes with Russian instead of regional dialects.

Well, the thing you are describing already exists in many flavours, it's called suržyk.

... precisely because there is no longer as much at stake in Retaining Ukrainian. In other words, if speaking Russian is no longer a torment (since you're not forced to), why not do it?

I understand you guys have fixed on abandoning Slovene for Russian already? Probably things like better communication opportunities or access to more educational materials and jobs are a factor, but let's not forget that things like Russia's/USSR's quite unaccidental political and military actions since several centuries or the artificial famine in 30's have gathered their toll.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "natural selection"? As in a completely natural, GRADUAL process, and not a systematic murdering of the unfit.

Yeah, the unfit organisms normally just look at themselves and around and sigh "father unto thine hands I command my spirit" and fly away over a rainbow. You might of course argue whether groups subject to genocide are somehow "unfit" in the biological sense...

So what is the number of Ukrainians worth killing to save Ukrainian?

If you don't have an answer, or if you think the number is less than one, then you weren't being sincere when you expressed your opinion. And it wasn't, then, your opinion, just posturing for effect.

Provided one holds such an opinion, how can one possibly know that? Maybe the smallest number that'll save it? It's kind of like asking "how many healthy cells is it worth to exterminate to cure cancer? Please give the precise number.".

The dictator would probably have better/safer means to promote or enforce the language he likes that killing off the population anyway.

Well, death and pain and screaming are all parts of the natural order of things, but (accepting for a moment the premise that the distinction is real or significant) that doesn't mean that death pain and screaming resulting from genocide are natural. Likewise, language death can be natural, even if particular instances of it result from unnatural genocide. In those cases presumably the genocide is the bad thing and the language death is secondary

So what is it that makes it unnatural? How many do I have to systematically murder to transgress the "naturalness"? What about let's say one family's vendetta against another one? What about I don't know fungi or trees that excrete chemicals to eliminate rival species in their environment?

[rant]I'm gradually getting used to hearing that violence or hate in itself are alien to the human nature. Well, I won't be surprised if some more developed and morally advanced countries start modifying their citizens' cerebra to cure these odd diseases. Must be they were implanted by an evil galactic tyrant.[/rant]

[Legion]

Oh yeah the ZBB with its "I'm so holier than thou" attitude, yawn

This happens when we have to deal with nonsensical, non sequitur posts. Like the one I'm responding to right now.

[Niedokonany]

Oh yeah the ZBB with its "I'm so holier than thou" attitude, yawn

This happens when we have to deal with nonsensical, non sequitur posts. Like the one I'm responding to right now.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Well, hoped for a more interesting argument, so bye.

[Mecislau]

Okay, there are a huge number of misconceptions in this thread.


First of all, Adder, Ukrainian is nowhere near the point of dying out. You have cited two examples of Russian loanwords (one of which isn't even correct). Loanwords happen. It's completely natural even in thriving languages, and their existence means absolutely nothing with regards to whether a language is thriving or dying.

Second, if you hear Ukrainians using понимати for "understand", then yes, that does seem to be a Russian loan. However, любити is a completely native Ukrainian word; I don't think you'd find a dictionary without it. Don't assume that just because you learned кохати as "love" means that's the only way to express the concept.

Third, I don't understand your double standard. You decry Russian loanwords in the language, yet at the very same time you're praising how similar to Polish the language is (due to centuries of Polish rule, frequent contact with the Poles, and a great influx of Polish loanwords). Why is one okay but the other heretical? Both are entirely natural.

It's funny though because they fought for independence so much in both World Wars but eventually Ukraine was ruled by Russia for so many years and gained independence not until 1990. I know during the period of Russian rule there were a lot of migrations (natural and forced) but anyway according to censuses Ukrainians make up over 75% of population in Ukraine and definitely there are more Ukrainians in the west than in the east by %.

Don't conflate ethnicity and language, at least in the sense of "To be Ukrainian you must speak Ukrainian". Many people in Ukraine self-identify as Ukrainian, but speak Russian as their mother tongue. Why does speaking a Ukrainian dialect of Russian make someone less of a Ukrainian? Why can't both be embraced as a part of Ukrainian identity?

Also, it's strange that officially the country organize various campaigns for people to manifest their nationality, mother tongue included. Maybe in reality it doesn't reach too many people. Another thing is education. If Russian is no longer obligatory in schools and Ukraine is an independent country with Ukrainian being the official language (not counting Russian for Crimea), subjects should be taught in Ukrainian, I'm guessing. But maybe it's also only official and subjects like maths, chemistry, etc. are taught in Russian by teachers who obviously know Russian. I don't understand it. If I were in a similar situation, I would prefer to speak my true mother tongue. And Ukrainian is a fully developed language so different from Russian.

But that's the thing: Russian is the mother tongue of many Ukrainians. Ukrainian is also the mother tongue of many Ukrainians. Forced Ukrainianization of the entire population would be no better than the forced Russification that took place under Soviet rule. These millions of speakers of Russian are speaking their "true mother tongue".

Now I wonder why I learnt Ukrainian (not that I'm a pro but I can handle a conversation in the language). I thought I would be welcomed better in Ukraine speaking Ukrainian rather than Russian. It seems I was so wrong. If I had learnt Russian instead, I could communicate easily not only in Ukraine but also in the majority of post-Soviet republics, not to mention Russia...

That sounds like an exaggeration to me. You're no worse off in Ukraine speaking Ukrainian than you are with Russian. That's like going to someplace like the Netherlands or Sweden and being disappointed that everyone can speak English. Many people do speak Ukrainian (and many speak both Ukrainian and Russian); just because they happen to use a few Russian loans (which, by the way, is incredibly common in bilingual situations) doesn't mean that Ukrainian is a dying language.

And knowledge of Ukrainian is increasing, by the way.




I'll steer clear of all the evolution/genocide/morality/Nazi/human nature detritus in this thread.

[Niedokonany]

Third, I don't understand your double standard. You decry Russian loanwords in the language, yet at the very same time you're praising how similar to Polish the language is (due to centuries of Polish rule, frequent contact with the Poles, and a great influx of Polish loanwords). Why is one okay but the other heretical? Both are entirely natural.

Well, Muscovite and Ukrainian are more similar after all (both are East Slavic standards) than Polish and Ukrainian, which greatly faciliates the transition from one to another (also, look at Belarus) while East Slavic dialects in West Slavic environment are apparently much slower to lose their distinctivity (even if they're soaked with loans). Poles interested in the matter often seem to believe that the Polish influence or at least the P-LC rule (political separation) is what has made Ukrainian and Belarusian.

[Xephyr]

I don't think linguoboy is neccessarily saying that language death etc is something that people should be happy about and accept, just that it's a "natural thing" that's happened numerous times before.

I'm not even going to accept that either, though, simply because it didn't have to happen, in the way that it did, in the areas that it did. Not every area of colonization was hit with a massive wave of language extinction... India wasn't. The other parts of Africa weren't. America south of the Rio Grande wasn't. Deliberate and systematic linguistic and cultural genocide are no more part of "the Circle of Life, kid" than human genocide is!

That it's happened before?

That what has happened before? Language death? Human genocide? Tornadoes? Which of those are we saying is totes ok and little kids should stop crying about it, and which of those are we saying is sacrosanct and Wattmann should be banned for mentioning it... I can't keep track.

Well, death and pain and screaming are all parts of the natural order of things, but (accepting for a moment the premise that the distinction is real or significant) that doesn't mean that death pain and screaming resulting from genocide are natural. Likewise, language death can be natural, even if particular instances of it result from unnatural genocide. In those cases presumably the genocide is the bad thing and the language death is secondary.

Well first, props on being the first person in the thread who doesn't seem to think that Yahi went extinct when its speakers and the Anglophones had a cordial meeting where the former politely agreed to speak the language of the latter and then they went their separate ways...

Secondly: Yes, I'm not stupid. I realize that languages can't keep splitting without others dying out. It'd be chaos. I understand why England isn't the Congo. But... we've got to realize when things are clearly getting out of hand!

[Whimemsz]

Oh yeah the ZBB with its "I'm so holier than thou" attitude, yawn

This happens when we have to deal with nonsensical, non sequitur posts. Like the one I'm responding to right now.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Well, hoped for a more interesting argument, so bye.

If you hoped for a more interesting argument then you shouldn't have jumped in with a post that made no sense. What were you even trying to say? I honestly can't tell. Like, it literally is a complete non-sequitur and I literally cannot understand what point, if any, you were trying to convey. So what kind of reply were you actually expecting? Legion's looks pretty reasonable.

Also, Wattmann, I apologize for saying you said the two were equivalent...somehow I missed the "half" in your post. My bad. I still don't agree with the basic point, although I do think language death is a thing people should try to stop, assuming the other members of a community in which an endangered language is spoken want to be able to speak it or bring their children up speaking it, or assuming a language is dying out from external force, rather than personal choices on the part of its speakers.

(ALSO people should keep in mind that saying something is natural is not equivalent to saying it's good, so just because Linguoboy and others have argued language death is natural, it doesn't follow that they're necessarily arguing that no one should try to do anything about it, ever. (I don't know whether they were saying that or not, though.))

[linguoboy]

Well first, props on being the first person in the thread who doesn't seem to think that Yahi went extinct when its speakers and the Anglophones had a cordial meeting where the former politely agreed to speak the language of the latter and then they went their separate ways...

How can one presume to have an intelligent discussion with someone who assumes so little intelligence and good faith on the part of his interlocutors?

Bearing that in mind, I really don't know if I actually need to bother with giving you an explanation of why mass language extinction was so much more characteristic of European colonisation of the Americas than of Asia. I mean, isn't everyone here familiar with the thesis of Guns, germs, and steel even if they haven't actually read the book themselves? So let me just ask this one question: Kroeber estimated the population of the Yahi in 1770 at about 1,500. How many languages of India with only 1,500 speakers in 1770 are still around today, and what was the fate of their speakers?

[Xephyr]

Bearing that in mind, I really don't know if I actually need to bother with giving you an explanation of why mass language extinction was so much more characteristic of European colonisation of the Americas than of Asia. I mean, isn't everyone here familiar with the thesis of Guns, germs, and steel even if they haven't actually read the book themselves? So let me just ask this one question: Kroeber estimated the population of the Yahi in 1770 at about 1,500. How many languages of India with only 1,500 speakers in 1770 are still around today, and what was the fate of their speakers?

Yahi wasn't the only language in California at the time, though. Wikipedia says it could've been as high as three million. Adding up the numbers given in The Vanishing Languages of the Pacific Rim gives a maximum estimate of ~3300 total, of all Californian languages.. half of which are Paiute speakers currently living outside of California. Taken together, those numbers are pretty conspicuous.

Also, citing GG&S on why it could have happened seems to me somewhere between an excuse and just dodging the issue... what I'm saying is that it shouldn't have happened. I don't see how having a genetic immunity to livestock-borne diseases naturally leads to having people quite literally hunted down like wild boar, which is the kind of shit that happened in California. What I've been saying all this time is simply: Yes, this sucks!

[Salmoneus]

Has anyone said it didn't? Nonethless, I continue to controversially claim that the really terrible thing about the yahi losing their language in the process of being hunted down like pigs is the fact that they were hunted down like pigs. Using Wattman's moral arithmetic, if the same thing had happened genocide-wise but the language hadn't been lost, the process would have been only 2/3rds as bad. I think that underestimates how unpleasant it is to be hunted down like pigs and killed.

[linguoboy]

Also, citing GG&S on why it could have happened seems to me somewhere between an excuse and just dodging the issue...

Seriously, read the damn book. Diamond discusses the fate of the Yahi on page 374.

What I've been saying all this time is simply: Yes, this sucks!

What do you want for that, a bald eagle feather?

[Xephyr]

What I've been saying all this time is simply: Yes, this sucks!

What do you want for that, a bald eagle feather?

I'd like you to explain what exactly you meant by this, for one. You still haven't done so.

Has anyone said it didn't?

Linguoboy has been at least seeming to say that, and I'm not the only person who thinks so.

Nonethless, I continue to controversially claim that the really terrible thing about the yahi losing their language in the process of being hunted down like pigs is the fact that they were hunted down like pigs. Using Wattman's moral arithmetic, if the same thing had happened genocide-wise but the language hadn't been lost, the process would have been only 2/3rds as bad. I think that underestimates how unpleasant it is to be hunted down like pigs and killed.

Fair enough, but you at least understand my vexation at the idea that the two can never and must never be compared?

EDIT: Maybe I can explain a bit. Linguoboy said that he sees "[cultural, linguistic, or biological extinctions] as being part of the natural order of things in a way that mass rape, torture, and execution are not." In other words, genocide is lamentable since it's not part of the natural order, but language extinction isn't [lamentable] becuase it is [part of the natural order]. But clearly, as we all seem to agree, language extinction is not always part of the natural order... particularly when it results from mass rape, torture, and execution! On the Naturality scale, they are at the exact same point. I would say that Linguoboy was just overgeneralizing from the [probably nonexistent, as Maknas says, but whatever] Ukrainian extinction, without any nefarious intentions... except for his simply inexplicable response I linked just above.


P.S. It's been years since I read GG&S, and it's currently at the other house. So I can't look at page 374 atm.

[linguoboy]

What I've been saying all this time is simply: Yes, this sucks!

What do you want for that, a bald eagle feather?

I'd like you to explain what exactly you meant by this, for one. You still haven't done so.

Because Dewrad's comment showed that he understood perfectly well what I meant, but when he attempted to share his interpretation with you, you rejected it. This is what I mean when I talk about "bad faith": you have made up your mind that I'm guilty of inexcusable callousness simply because I haven't expressed my feelings in precisely the same terms that you would.

Has anyone said it didn't?

Linguoboy has been at least seeming to say that, and I'm not the only person who thinks so.

Who else thinks so? Again, Salmoneus--because he was operating from the assumption that I'm not some uncaring sociopath unless I incontrovertibly prove myself otherwise--knew just where I was coming from, tried to explain it to you, and you announced that you "wouldn't accept it". Fine; if that's your attitude, I don't see the point of engaging you.

Fair enough, but you at least understand my vexation at the idea that the two can never and must never be compared?

Honestly I don't. And I've got no interest in understanding it at this point. Find yourself another strawman to scream at because this one is halfway to Oz already.

[Xephyr]

Because Dewrad's comment showed that he understood perfectly well what I meant, but when he attempted to share his interpretation with you, you rejected it. This is what I mean when I talk about "bad faith": you have made up your mind that I'm guilty of inexcusable callousness simply because I haven't expressed my feelings in precisely the same terms that you would.

Think about what you're saying, for Christ's sake! Because to me (and at least two other people I could name) it looks alot like you're saying genocide is completely ok so long as the people you're committing it against are descendants of people who committed another genocide centuries in the past. If this is not what you mean, then please, clarify!

Who else thinks so? Again, Salmoneus--because he was operating from the assumption that I'm not some uncaring sociopath unless I incontrovertibly prove myself otherwise--knew just where I was coming from, tried to explain it to you, and you announced that you "wouldn't accept it". Fine; if that's your attitude, I don't see the point of engaging you.

Other people in IRC that I could name, if you wish, think so. Although I'm sure you'll accuse me of making them up. And don't fucking play that high road with me-- you haven't tried to explain shit to me. I'm still waiting for you to explain what you meant by "Don't they all have legends of the People Who Were There Before Them?". Unless you do, you will continue to dodge the issue, and will have no moral right whatsoever to accuse me of not accepting what you're saying.

Fair enough, but you at least understand my vexation at the idea that the two can never and must never be compared?

Honestly I don't. And I've got no interest in understanding it at this point. Find yourself another strawman to scream at because this one is halfway to Oz already.

I am the person attempting to reach an understanding, Linguoboy. You are the one who is refusing to cooperate.

[Xephyr]

This is the post where Dewrad "understood perfectly well what" Linguoboy meant.

Uhh.. maybe for Ukrainian, sure... but are you really gonna tell an Aborigine, California Indian, or South African Bushman that language extinction is "part of the natural order of things" and in no way related to pogroms or genocide?

Don't they all have legends of the People Who Were There Before Them?

What does that have to do with anything?

That it's happened before? I don't think linguoboy is neccessarily saying that language death etc is something that people should be happy about and accept, just that it's a "natural thing" that's happened numerous times before.

And this is my reply, which Linguoboy completely ignored, which shows why that is completely inapplicable to the topic of conversation:

Maybe I can explain a bit. Linguoboy said that he sees "[cultural, linguistic, or biological extinctions] as being part of the natural order of things in a way that mass rape, torture, and execution are not." In other words, genocide is lamentable since it's not part of the natural order, but language extinction isn't [lamentable] becuase it is [part of the natural order]. But clearly, as we all seem to agree, language extinction is not always part of the natural order... particularly when it results from mass rape, torture, and execution! On the Naturality scale, they are at the exact same point. I would say that Linguoboy was just overgeneralizing from the [probably nonexistent, as Maknas says, but whatever] Ukrainian extinction, without any nefarious intentions... except for his simply inexplicable response I linked just above.

[Drydic]

:Declares victory and leaves:

[zompist]

Because Dewrad's comment showed that he understood perfectly well what I meant, but when he attempted to share his interpretation with you, you rejected it. This is what I mean when I talk about "bad faith": you have made up your mind that I'm guilty of inexcusable callousness simply because I haven't expressed my feelings in precisely the same terms that you would.

Think about what you're saying, for Christ's sake! Because to me (and at least two other people I could name) it looks alot like you're saying genocide is completely ok so long as the people you're committing it against are descendants of people who committed another genocide centuries in the past. If this is not what you mean, then please, clarify!

When you think someone is saying something completely evil, and yet they're ordinarily intelligent people, that's a clue that you're not understanding what they're saying. And when they in fact say that you're not understanding what they're saying, that also is pretty good evidence that you're not understanding.

I can see you're really upset over something, but you really need to take a step back and make an effort yourself to figure out what happened on your end.