2007-01-03 15:30:51 · 6 answers · asked by Pseudo Obscure 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Languages
It's not necessarily the number of speakers that determines whether a language is endangered or not; it's whether the language is being taught to subsequent generations or not. This is why you rarely see numbers associated with the definition of an endangered language, although obviously languages with hundreds of millions of speakers are presumably being passed down to subsequent generations and are therefore not in danger of extinction.
It does without saying that once you get down to a single speaker, and that speaker dies, the language is declared dead. This is what happened to the Natchez language back in 1910 when its last known speaker, Nancy Taylor, died. Sometimes as a language approaches extinction or even after a language is delcared dead, it can be revived as a ceremonial or cultural language and taught as a second language to descendents, especially if the language had a written form and vocal recordings that were made while it was still in existence, as Natchez did.
See the links below for more details.
2007-01-03 15:45:38 · answer #1 · answered by magistra_linguae 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It isn't as much the number of speakers, but the number of records you have in the language. As long as there is something permanant written in that language (and preferably translated into another language as well), it can be deciphered and revived. Think of the Rosetta Stone--before it was found, no one could understand the Egyptian's writing. Afterwards, the language was still around, even if it was...well...dead. People could still understand it if they wanted to. Even if you've only got a handful of native speakers or a record or two of the language, the language won't be lost forever.
It is also interesting to note that languages were preserved when books were printed in them. Before the advent of the printing press, rather obscure languages like Gaelic and Finnish were in danger of falling out of use and being forgotten. The printing press gave the world a cheaper, easier way of recording the languages, saving them. None of our modern languages are really in any danger of becoming extinct, what with the abundance of books and their translantions we have for so many languages.
So we've got "dead" languages--I'm thinking of Latin--but as long as we have printed material in them, they're not gone forever.
Hope I helped!
2007-01-03 23:48:58 · answer #2 · answered by Lady Irony 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it depends more on how much money is invested in the language. Not how many people--but what are those people's total value to the world economy. People will communicate in the languages they have to in order to make a buck. If a million native speakers each have one penny (or equivalent) to their names, the langage is in serious danger of extinction--however, if i have 25 billion dollars (or equivalent), and I only speak esperanto, people will learn esperanto just to do business with me.
2007-01-03 23:35:46 · answer #3 · answered by Jeff W 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It isn't strictly the number of speakers, but rather whether the language is gaining, staying the same or losing in numbers. Smaller populations have less resiliance to periods of decline.
2007-01-03 23:37:34 · answer #4 · answered by Deirdre H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1 fertile human with the right stuff.
2007-01-03 23:32:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
At least one person who is strong and wont give up.
2007-01-03 23:33:21 · answer #6 · answered by naynay1852 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋