Re: NATLANG: English Homework - Keeping alive languages of minorities?

Huh.  I don't really have much to say about the content of
your response, but more the structure and logic.  Based on
what I've read, a summary of your response to this question:

Carsten wrote:
<<
 >> In *your* opinion, do you think that languages with a
 >> relatively small number of speakers should be kept
 >>  alive in a united Europe?
 >>

Is as follows: "Yes, languages with a small number of speakers
should be kept alive in a united Europe.  This is because
they're older.  In some place like the United States, though,
where there's less diversity, small languages should be
stamped out, because it's possible.  In a united Europe, though,
one might as well not try."

I know this is not what you meant, but that's the impression
one gets from reading your response.  Here's why:

(1) You bring in the state of languages in the Americas, but
don't explain why.  That is, the information seems irrelevant.
As a reader, though, one assumes that all information is
relevant, and, thus, tries to make sense of what's on the page.

(2) You explain how completely Spanish and English dominated
the minority languages (and cultures) of North and South
America.

(3) You explain why such domination wouldn't be tolerated
in Europe.

(4) Therefore, minority languages should be kept alive.

Presented with this information, a reader may assume that you
are, in fact, in favor of there being a single language in a united
Europe, but that you see it as an impossibility.  Because (and
only because) you think it's impossible, therefore, you conclude
that minority languages should be kept alive in a united Europe.

This is not what I think you were trying to say (though correct
me if I'm wrong).  I think what you were trying to point out is
how bad the situation of the Americas is (though you should not
that it's not as bad as in the United States.  I mean, Piraha comes
from South America, after all), and how this situation should not
be replicated in Europe, united or no.  If that's your point, the
situation in the Americas is relevant, but you need to explain
why.  In other words, your two middle paragraphs need to be
altered slightly.  Focus on the great number of languages that
have been lost in the Americas, and how that brings down the
culture as a whole.  It goes beyond linguists not being able to
study an indigenous language to say, "Look!  A language can
have no nasals!  Give me tenure!"

I think it's mainly in the second paragraph where your point
gets muddled.  It sounds like, in comparing Europe to South
America, etc., you're saying that Europe is better, which wasn't
your point.  On rereading, I think your third paragraph's all
right.  Your point about a mainstream culture, though, could
be reworked (and possibly made into a separate paragraph).

Of course, as you said, this was a spontaneous response.  An
interesting question.  What class is this, and why are you going
over this topic?

-David