Languages are in a constant state of flux, both within and without.
Of the 7,000 languages in the world, many are in serious danger. A language becomes endangered as the number of native speakers being born drops. It will survive (roughly) only as long as the last few native born speakers live. It may endure as a remnant language, perhaps with a dictionary and some academic speakers, but for all intents and purposes, it has ceased to exist.
Ethnologue, a web-based publication tracks the world’s languages. Its list indicates that there are 7,097 living languages and 360 extinct languages. It believes that approximately 470 languages are nearly extinct, meaning that “only a few elderly speakers are still living.” Ethnologue is Christian-based and is seeking to translate the Bible into as many languages as possible. The current count is over 2,500.
Question: Of the 470 or so nearly extinct languages, how many are based in the United States?
Languages and animals have similar ranking systems. The World Wildlife Fund ranks animals that are not safe from extinction on this continuum: least concern (brown bear), near threatened (beluga), vulnerable (giant panda), endangered (chimpanzee), critically endangered (black rhino). UNESCO ranks languages as safe (English), vulnerable (Sicilian), definitely endangered (Yiddish), severely endangered (Breton), critically endangered (Hawaiian), and extinct (Old Prussian). A language can also be dead, meaning that it is no longer spoken as a primary language but continues to be used in legal, scientific, or religious fields. Latin is the best example of a dead language.
Sicilian is listed as vulnerable despite having roughly 5,000,000 current speakers. Obokuitai (Indonesia), with 120 current speakers, is also listed as “merely” vulnerable. Both Northern Tutchone (Canada), with 115 speakers, and Lombard, with 3,500,000 speakers, are considered definitely endangered. These wide ranges are possible because the rankings are based on the likelihood that children will learn the language as their native tongue.
All of this is prelude (or superfluous). It distracted me from my initial focus: the English language. Even though English has the most words of any language, something like 250,000, there are some frustrating gaps. For instance, there is no gender-neutral third person singular pronoun. “He” and “she” are perfectly valid and useful, but they don’t adequately work when referring to a generic person.
A constant “he” is too paternalistic (for some) and a constant “she” is too feminist (for some). Through the years, I have thought that “s/he” might work, but have never used it, and usually I fall back on “he or she.” For example, you can often determine whether a person is from England, the first time he or she speaks. This works fine once, but it is awkward to continually repeat it in the same sentence or paragraph.
Another gap that confounds me is another continuum: friendship. I think of someone as a friend if we are reciprocally comfortable calling each other to chat or do something together. I know many people that I like but with whom I am not that familiar, they are not quite friends. I’m friendly with them, but they aren’t friends. Colleague or associate works, if we work(ed) together, neighbor works if we live near each other, roommate works, if we live(d) together. There a plenty of useful words that skirt the issue without closing the gap. I want a specific word for a person who is more than an acquaintance but less than a friend. Any suggestions?
I just did a Word synonym check on “friend” and found these: acquaintance, contact, colleague, associate, comrade, workmate, pal, buddy, companion, chum, and mate. None of these adequately narrow the gap between acquaintance and friend.
What gaps in the English language would you like to see filled?
p.s. Answer: Over 150 languages in the United States are nearly extinct. I’m guessing that none of you aimed that high. Our Native American neighbors are so separate from the rest of us that we don’t often consider them when we think about the United States. Or maybe you do, I know that I don’t.
I’m not sure if it was your intention, but that post is a nice way to reveal a pet peeve about the word ‘They’ as a singular pronoun.
English seems to relish being immersed in context. A person is a he or a she and not and it because of context. Every situation is different and contingent based upon the facts at hand at that moment, and we all seem to understand that tomorrow things could be different. I can’t speak for other English speakers, however the way American’s think about things is reflected by our word add-on and modification. We add adjectives.
A buddy can be clarified as a drinking-buddy, which indicates that a friend is mostly associated with a bar stool or a backyard grill and a beer. Friends whose relationship revolves around jokes and minor pranks is a partner-in-crime. People who enjoy writing to each other become pen-pals, and there are internet versions of this growing that remain application specific like the general “tweeps” which is derived from Peeps (referring to the marshmallow Easter treat). I suppose if you were active online with someone tracking political enemies you could be a keyboard-kompromat.
We love our nuance.
Lastly, when the French started to protect their language from outside influence and words was the moment the French language began to die.