I would go for Karelian as well
Also Belarusian and the different varieties/dialects of Finnish, Italian and German
I would also count Montenegrin as a separate language
basica wrote:Since no one took my bait , I'll give a bit more of a serious answer
I've found Native American languages to be really interesting. To my ears they sound so bizarre. Sure, there are languages from other regions that also fit the "sound bizarre" bill, but I think the reason for my attraction is from the Mel Gibson film Apocalypto so Modern Mayan would probably be one of them.
I've also got a vague interest in Scandinavian languages. I don't think I'll ever learn one, but if I were paid to do so and the bigger ones were out of the question (and they are according to these rules) I would pick Icelandic. It's reputation of being a fossilized language if you will are intriguing to say the least.
And, lists always look better in 3s, so I'll add one more I'd say Maori would be another language. I know it'd probably make more sense to learn an Aboriginal language since I'm in Australia, but I encounter more Maoris than Aboriginals (significantly more in fact), even in the small city I live in now (I could probably count on one hand, maybe two how many Aboriginal people I've seen in person, ever) so it'd be more useful and it'd probably give me a helping hand with Tongan and some other Polynesian languages I'd likely encounter here.
Chung wrote:If I want to turn my current but faintly hipsterish choice of languages into an expression of full-blown linguistic hipsterism / posturing / grandstanding / virtue-signalling / "anti-imperialism" (???), then I'd learn Meänkieli (*wink and nudge to my Finnish friends*), Northern Saami (I want payback for Norwegianism!), Meadow Mari (I'll show them Russkies!), Latvian (I'll show them Russkies! Again), and Rusyn (I'll show them Banderists!).
***
To add to Iversen's and emk's posts, it's naïve (and even rather arrogant) to go in thinking that one's longstanding studying of lower-profile languages regularly and genuinely inspires others similarly to go off the beaten path linguistically. Furthermore, who am I to needle someone, even subtlely, for digging into just FIGS, Mandarin, Russian, MSA or some other big, bad colonial language, while I happily plow through less commonly-taught languages?
What you learn is an asset to yourself and a liability to no one.
Adrianslont wrote:I’m Australian, too and you’ve made me curious about where you live and how few indigenous Australians you have come across and yet meet Maori. The only answer I can come up with is a town other than Hobart in Tasmania.
The only answer I can come up with is a town other than Hobart in Tasmania.
Adrianslont wrote:basica wrote:Since no one took my bait , I'll give a bit more of a serious answer
I've found Native American languages to be really interesting. To my ears they sound so bizarre. Sure, there are languages from other regions that also fit the "sound bizarre" bill, but I think the reason for my attraction is from the Mel Gibson film Apocalypto so Modern Mayan would probably be one of them.
I've also got a vague interest in Scandinavian languages. I don't think I'll ever learn one, but if I were paid to do so and the bigger ones were out of the question (and they are according to these rules) I would pick Icelandic. It's reputation of being a fossilized language if you will are intriguing to say the least.
And, lists always look better in 3s, so I'll add one more I'd say Maori would be another language. I know it'd probably make more sense to learn an Aboriginal language since I'm in Australia, but I encounter more Maoris than Aboriginals (significantly more in fact), even in the small city I live in now (I could probably count on one hand, maybe two how many Aboriginal people I've seen in person, ever) so it'd be more useful and it'd probably give me a helping hand with Tongan and some other Polynesian languages I'd likely encounter here.
I’m Australian, too and you’ve made me curious about where you live and how few indigenous Australians you have come across and yet meet Maori. The only answer I can come up with is a town other than Hobart in Tasmania.
nooj wrote:I don't know what virtue signalling is (it seems 27 is now too old to be in with the 'hip crowd'), but I do know when someone reads something that isn't there. This isn't a post about linguistic imperialism, if I want to do that, I would say it clearly, nor about 'saving' languages, a term I loathe with the fire of a thousand stars, and which falls into the pathetic romanticism of a white saviour figure, but about the love of languages, if you had to choose one that has less speakers, less resources. It is an exercise in creativity. All those languages that you wanted to learn but never tried because others were more 'useful', well now they are the kinds of languages that you must learn. That is a joyous thing to indulge in.
Also, this is not a thread necessarily about endangered languages. A language doesn't have to have more than 2 million speakers to be healthy. A language can have 100 speakers and be far more healthier than one than has 6-8 million native speakers (like Quechua).
aokoye wrote:Chung wrote:If I want to turn my current but faintly hipsterish choice of languages into an expression of full-blown linguistic hipsterism / posturing / grandstanding / virtue-signalling / "anti-imperialism" (???), then I'd learn Meänkieli (*wink and nudge to my Finnish friends*), Northern Saami (I want payback for Norwegianism!), Meadow Mari (I'll show them Russkies!), Latvian (I'll show them Russkies! Again), and Rusyn (I'll show them Banderists!).
***
To add to Iversen's and emk's posts, it's naïve (and even rather arrogant) to go in thinking that one's longstanding studying of lower-profile languages regularly and genuinely inspires others similarly to go off the beaten path linguistically. Furthermore, who am I to needle someone, even subtlely, for digging into just FIGS, Mandarin, Russian, MSA or some other big, bad colonial language, while I happily plow through less commonly-taught languages?
What you learn is an asset to yourself and a liability to no one.
I didn't think that that's what the OP was positing - rather I took it as a thought experiment. If you were to do this then what would you chose to learn? That's going to be more thought provoking for some people than it is for others but I'm almost positive people have posted thought experiments like that here and on the old forum before.
Also none of the hipsters that I'm around (and I'm around a lot of them...sadly) are doing anything special surrounding learning other languages. In fact the only people I hear talking about linguistic imperialism are people who are directly affected by it and linguists (and "budding linguists", but even then not much). I suspect a handful of other academics do as well but given that most hipsters are generally of a specific generation you're not going to find many who have a strong foothold into the ivory tower.
Chung wrote:As tarvos asked earlier, "Why"?
basica wrote:Chung wrote:As tarvos asked earlier, "Why"?
I guess I'm a bit more playful than you two. When I was a kid we would ask outrageous questions like this for fun (one in particular that we often went to: would you rather be deaf or blind?). Obviously you guys don't think it to be so fun
Return to “General Language Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], robokey and 2 guests