Preserving Endangered Languages is More Important Than Spreading Major Language

It is actually something I have considered before, and I look forward to sharing my thoughts on the subject. Before addressing my opponent's specific points I would like to offer a definition of the word language, as I think it will be illuminating. Language: any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Though there are many options listed, I chose this one because I think it most accurately encapsulates the purpose of languages: communication between individuals. This communication lends itself handily to almost every human endeavor. Without the efficient sharing of information, through either speech or the written word, the modern world would grind to a halt. Now, Westpaw argues first that in China the government is pushing the citizens to adapt simplified Chinese characters rather than traditional ones through the use of fines, and that this is undesirable. While true, the tyranny of the Chinese government over its people is not a model for most modern language death, and thus is not relevant to the issue at hand. Generally people simply find it more prudent to adapt the language of the wider culture around them, as it allows expanded opportunities for communication and greater ease in daily living. {1} There is nothing of force involved in this process. Next, my opponent brings up the Native American code talkers in WW2, who were instrumental in preserving the secrecy of military communications. I have two counters to this claim: 1. a dead language needn't be entirely forgotten, and can still be used for such a purpose. As an example, take Latin. While it is indeed considered "dead" in the technical sense, as it has no native speakers, many high school and college students study the language extensively. It is still known. Thus I argue that language death does not necessarily imply a complete loss. 2. Encryption is no longer the complicated problem it once was thanks to computers. Complicated algorithms that were difficult to implement with the technology of the 1940s are incredibly simple given modern processing power. Indeed, the field of military encryption is alive and well. {2} Finally, my opponent claims that: "Language is a unique system that often has deep relations to the people who speak it. Preserving these languages can preserve historical heritage" without providing any real reason as to why preserving cultural heritage is desirable. The argument that languages have deep relations to those who speak them is irrelevant, since languages only die when all their native speakers disappear. If it is importance to such people that matters, this statement has no bearing on the issue of preserving languages. Because language is about communication, preserving those that no longer serve that purpose except in extremely limited settings seems like a waste of effort and time, and my opponent has yet to offer any compelling reasons why people should do so. As for spreading a major language, having a universal tongue in which people could communicate internationally would be immensely beneficial. The range of information that would be available to individuals directly would increase dramatically, as would the frequency of communication between different cultural groups, since such acts would no longer need to be adjudicated by a translator. Additionally, it is a fair bet that misunderstandings between people of formerly different native tongues would not need to worry about their meaning being lost in translation. Also do note that I am not advocating "linguistic imperialism" or anything of the kind. I negate the resolution because I believe both preserving language diversity and spreading a major language are equally unimportant. Language is constantly adapting and changing to suit the purposes of those who use it. To try to preserve it in a freeze frame or prescribe certain changes is to interfere with a finely honed process that really doesn't need our help. There is a whole field of evolutionary linguistics to track and explain the changes: . http://en.wikipedia.org... and a language tree with the most well known language family we have studied: indo-european. . http://dericbownds.net... It is simply not in the nature of languages to stay the same, regardless of what we would prescribe for them. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.objs.com...