2006-10-05 21:44:24 · 6 answers · asked by Ana Maria I 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Language is speaking mean of communication. If we fail to communicate with others, we fail to live. So this arguement comes true. Without communication the community will die. So language is signal for life.
2006-10-06 20:27:54 · answer #1 · answered by aahamed24 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No is my first thought. The knowledge goes on through the language that takes over. But humanity would lose a part of it's diversity. Language is not a survival mechanism. It's a communiation tool.
My first language is Flemish. Flemish is actively discouraged in education. It is also not a written language. Sometimes i think it is a dying language.
2006-10-05 21:58:35 · answer #2 · answered by Part Time Cynic 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Words die first and then the language dies when too many of its words are gone. People who used to speak only that language are left speechless. All they have left are shrugs, winks, obscene gestures and screaming "Argggggghhh!" (which is not really a word). Languages must abide by survival of the fittest.
2006-10-05 21:59:34 · answer #3 · answered by beast 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nonsense. What argument do you base this statement on.
A language is a tool for communication. We need better tools, such as Ido for example. It would save billions of dollars a year and save countless people from failing in life because they cannot master illogical traditional languages such as English
2006-10-05 21:55:29 · answer #4 · answered by hughgo-a-go-go 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is not true. Language is used to enable people to communicate. If we all speak the one language, it is easier to communicate. I think its nice hearing different languages, but it is not efficient use of resources in todays high powered society.
2006-10-05 21:52:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Chances are something-else would fill that gap.
2006-10-05 21:54:34 · answer #6 · answered by : ) 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋