Join us today at 12 p.m. PT and 3 p.m. ET for Babble Book Club's discussion of The Wayfinders!

Just grabbed the last copy from my library yesterday. Looks like a good length too!

Okay. 

I have been trying to find articles on this issue of Latin as a 'dead language' and so far Wikipedia and Yahoo Answers have been great hits.

But, actually Wikipedia did provide this and my discomfort steams from semantics: extinct language versus dead language and dead language versus language death.

"Linguists distinguish between language "death" and the process where a language becomes a "dead language" through normal language change, a linguistic phenomenon analogous to pseudoextinction. This happens when a language in the course of its normal development gradually morphs into something that is then recognized as a separate, different language, leaving the old form with no native speakers. Thus, for example, Old English may be regarded as a "dead language", with no native speakers, although it has never "died" but instead simply changed and developed into Middle English, Early Modern English and Modern English. The process of language change may also involve the splitting up of a language into a family of several daughter languages, leaving the common parent language "dead". This has happened to Latin, which (through Vulgar Latin) eventually developed into the Romance languages. Such a process is normally not described as "language death", because it involves an unbroken chain of normal transmission of the language from one generation to the next, with only minute changes at every single point in the chain. There is thus no one point where Latin "died"."

dead, but still influential. dead, but not extinct, like Babylonian.

On a separate note: final discussion dates.

I am thinking Sunday August 12, 12 p.m. PST/3:00 p.m. EST.

The reason for this: (1) it gives everyone six weeks to locate and read the books, as per usual, (2) the first weekend of August is a long weekend (right?), (3) I am moving at the end of the month and will be MIA for the last week July/first week of August.

Thoughts and feedback on the day/time?

To me it does because I think referencing the two languages together weakens the argument. Also, though Latin is a dead language, it still shapes our point of view, and therefore, lives because of its prominence in the scientific, education, and artistic communities. 

I think Latin is one of those rare (rare) cases (potentially only case?) or a dead influential language. As mentioned above, Latin never really died because it gave way to the romance languages, so its use just, shifted. It is like Olde English. Olde English is not used, however, it gave birth to modern day English, therefore its usage has just shifted. Would you consider Olde English dead? Historically, Arabic and Hebrew have also shifted and changed in their usage, especially for Arabic when you consider dialects. 

In terms of specifically what Wade Davis is speaking about, so black and white, Latin is not a language of the people; however, I would not say that Latin does not shape our point of view, our culture. Not only is it a root language and, arguably the language that birthed a lot of cultural staples, but it is still prominently used in society today. Within the context of the argument, this distinction does matter because not only are the comparisons unequal, but given the above information, the symbolic presence alone of Latin still continues to shape perspectives, while something extinct like Babylonian does not.

I'm thinking Latin was used as this example for recognition because a lot of dead language are unknown because well, they're dead. Babylonian might have even been a stretch for readers to understand or recognize, wheras Latin -- so common to all -- would be an easier point for readers to grasp and then associate with Davis' statement: language shapes culture. Also, this book is not a linguistic discussion about culture and language (or not as far as I have read), so the above discussion about extinct v dead, and prominence, does not really have a place, so I get it. I just, just, like talking 'bout language. 

He should be reading it!

I don't think I have the argument backward. Language is a system of symbols and it shapes our world because it represents how we choose to view it. People's essence is contained in language because it expresses our ideas of the world around us.

The two notions you have outline relate to the same idea: language shapes a people and a people shapes a language. It is a subjective system of symbols defined by a specific user, and ultimately defines how we view the world. Since language is constructed, a culture can be contained within it -- that is why disappearing languages are so awful because it implies that a culture, a people, is disappearing with it also -- and a culture can be defined by it. It is a reciprocal notion.

People's 'essence' is contained in language because language is defined by people. There are those incorrect examples about 'snow'; but there are also notions like time and colours which are viewed differently based on culture and language. But I digress.

My question is if believe people's essence is contained in language, how can that language then not shape the essence?

Just a little cross-post from our facebook group:

Meg says:
Interesting question. IMO, language is a tool for communication, whether it be spoken, signed, written, painted, performed, etc. It's a replication and not a perfect representation of what goes on in our heads and, as such, is limited. So, yes. We can certainly recognized things and concepts that are not labeled. The phrase "I'm speechless" comes to mind. I wonder if there is an ASL equivalent...

Actually, now that I think of it, I'd reverse replication and representation. Ooooh, an object lesson, lol.

Kaitlin says:
I think language is a system of symbols that we use to relate to each other. I was listening to that RadioLAB podcast on colours (or colors) and they were mentioning that the Greeks from Homer's days were potentially colourblind, or since blue is not a commonly recurring colour in nature (exception: the sky) that they were less likely to see it. Since they were less exposed, they also didn't have a name for the colour, and were then less exposed to it.

I wonder if it works similarly to when someone points out something, like an image in a pile, or a sound in a clip, and then you can't even remember how you couldn't see or hear it in the first place. Once we're exposed, we can't forget, but how do we expose ourselves in the first place?

It's official!

Final discussion date Sunday August 12 3 p.m. EST/12 p.m. PST!

Hope everyone can make it!

Tomorrow our final discussion of The Wayfinders will take place!

3 p.m. EST/12 p.m. PST right here on babble! See you then!

The Wayfinders discussion starting in about 15 minutes!

For myself, I did find the book rather interesting because of his research into the roots of cultures, and his ability to colourfully describe the traditions of the numerous cultures he has encountered or studied. 

However, at times I found that his writing style could be a bit hyperbolic to the point of generalization. The need to 'ramp up' each explanation with comparisons between cultures, traditions, or 'norms' grew a bit thin for me sometimes. I found it a bit too, maybe romanticized, to constantly put cultures in these dichotomous absolutes.

I think the fact that this was a speech transformed into the essay series here affected the writing style. Although, I have never read anything else by Wade Davis, but I have seen him speak and he is a very passionate and empathetic man. 

The book's description and research into language definitely got me thinking about my own perceptions of language. I believe language to be fluid: constantly changing, adapting to the current challenges and world, shaping and being shaped by the people who speak it.

Within the idea of language loss, is it natural for languages to disappear, to be replaced by more modern and comprehensive forms, adjusting with the accompanying culture, or is language loss a form of colonialism that displaces identities and peoples, or is it both?

Seems the boards a bit on the quiet side today, so please always feel free to leave any comments are questions about The Wayfinders on this thread. The conversation can always go on!

And, another quick reminder that our new selection will be announced on Tuesday, so please vote on the Babble Book Club Facebook group poll for which book you would be interested in reading next.

Thanks everyone, I will now check out for a bit and continue with a Sunday funday!

Oh wait, before i go, a cross-post from the Facebook group:

K: ‎"Within the idea of language loss, is it natural for languages to disappear, to be replaced by more modern and comprehensive forms, adjusting with the accompanying culture, or is language loss a form of colonialism that displaces identities and peoples, or is it both?"

M: Both.

K: I agree. I guess it just all depends on intent?

M: With the latter, it is certainly intentional in some cases, sometimes aggressively so. But I'd say that the vagaries of history are more responsible. It is natural for the language of a dominant group to become dominant...whether that is a more matter of intent or happenstance is debatable. In general I'd say it tends to be more to do with opportunity, necessity, and ultimately, convenience.

M: As for the former: to stem the tide of linguistic change, you might as well be Canute.

M: I also think that the use of the word 'colonialism' in this quote, while accurate in some instances, is misleading and far too weighted to be useful in the consideration of such a general question.

K: I would say there is definitely aggressive genocide against cultures, especially the languages of those cultures because they do signify identity (re: Canadian's colonialism and attempted genocide of First Nations people). While other languages fall out of use, or completely morph into something new -- like the aforementioned Latin in our babble discussion.