Most endangered languages are extraordinarily complex. The biological reality is that after age 13, it's nearly impossible for a non-native to master them. This inherent difficulty, more than a lack of will, dooms most revival movements that aim to create new generations of fluent speakers.
Related Insights
No language is inherently "faster." Languages that pack more meaning into single words (polysynthetic) are spoken more slowly, while those with simpler words (like English) are spoken more quickly. This trade-off creates a universal, constant rate of information transfer across all human languages.
With non-native speakers as the majority of English users, the language constantly evolves in diverse ways globally. Efforts to impose a simplified, standard version for business (like "globish") are unlikely to succeed because language is a living system that speakers inherently and creatively adapt, making it impossible to control.
The push to save endangered languages often ignores the practical burden it places on marginalized communities. It asks them to invest immense effort in learning highly complex languages that offer little economic utility, primarily to satisfy the aesthetic and cultural desires of affluent Westerners.
No language is 'perfect' because its evolution is a trade-off. Speakers tend toward efficiency and simplification (slurring), while hearers require clarity and precision. This constant tug-of-war drives linguistic change, explaining why languages are always in flux.
Creole languages, born from language contact, strip away needless complexities like grammatical gender and irregular verbs. They are radically easier to learn than older, "gunked up" languages yet remain fully expressive, making them a model of efficient linguistic design.
Today's rapid language death is primarily fueled by utilitarian choices, not just oppression. Speakers of smaller languages voluntarily switch to dominant ones like English or Swahili to provide their children with better economic opportunities, viewing the ancestral tongue as a barrier to prosperity.
While linguistic diversity is celebrated, from a purely utilitarian perspective, a single global language would be the most efficient system for humanity. The existence of 7,000 languages is an accident of historical separation, not a designed feature for optimal communication or flourishing.
Modern audiences struggle with Shakespeare because hundreds of words have subtly changed meaning over 400 years (e.g., 'generous' meant 'noble'). This cumulative semantic drift makes the original text functionally a different language, requiring prior study, not just cultural appreciation, to understand.
A project is using advanced AI to translate content like 'SpongeBob' into Cherokee. This helps preserve a language rapidly losing its native speakers, tackling complex linguistic challenges like the absence of a direct word for "love" to keep the culture alive for the next generation.
Unlike the past, when languages could diverge into new forms within centuries, modern widespread literacy and constant media exposure act as a brake on linguistic change. English in a thousand years may still be largely comprehensible to us, a stark contrast to previous rates of evolution.