Spoons.
Kašike.
Cardboard boxes.
Kartonske kutije.
Toddler-size electric trains.
Dečji električni vozići.
Holiday ornaments.
Praznični ukrasi.
Bounce houses.
Dvorci na naduvavanje.
Blankets.
Ćebad.
Baskets.
Korpe.
Carpets.
Tepisi.
Tray tables.
Podmetači.
Smartphones.
Pametni telefoni.
Pianos.
Klaviri.
Robes.
Ogrtači.
Photographs.
Fotografije.
What do all of these things have in common, aside from the fact they're photos that I took in the last three months, and therefore, own the copyright to?
Šta sve ove stvari imaju zajedničko, osim što su to fotografije koje sam ja slikao poslednja tri meseca, te stoga imam autorska prava na njih?
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
They're all inventions that were created with the benefit of language. None of these things would have existed without language. Imagine creating any one of those things or, like, building an entire building like this, without being able to use language or without benefiting from any knowledge that was got by the use of language. Basically, language is the most important thing in the entire world. All of our civilization rests upon it. And those who devote their lives to studying it -- both how language emerged, how human languages differ, how they differ from animal communication systems -- are linguists. Formal linguistics is a relatively young field, more or less. And it's uncovered a lot of really important stuff. Like, for example, that human communication systems differ crucially from animal communication systems, that all languages are equally expressive, even if they do it in different ways.
To su sve izumi koji su stvoreni zahvaljujući jeziku. Nijedna od ovih stvari ne bi postojala bez jezika. Zamislite da stvarate bilo koju od ovih stvari ili da zidate celu zgradu, kao što je ova, a da ne možete da koristite jezik ili bilo koje znanje koje je stečeno kroz upotrebu jezika. U suštini, jezik je najvažnija stvar na celom svetu. Cela naša civilizacija počiva na njemu. A oni koji posvete život njegovom izučavanju - kako se jezik pojavio, u čemu se ljudski jezici razlikuju, kako se razlikuju od sistema komunikacije kod životinja - su lingvisti. Formalna lingvistika je, manje-više, relativno novo područje. Otkrila je mnogo izuzetno bitnih stvari. Kao na primer, da se ljudski sistemi komunikacije veoma razlikuju od sistema komunikacije životinja, da su svi jezici podjednako izražajni, čak i kada to čine na različite načine.
And yet, despite this, there are a lot of people who just love to pop off about language like they have an equal understanding of it as a linguist, because, of course, they speak a language. And if you speak a language, that means you have just as much right to talk about its function as anybody else. Imagine if you were talking to a surgeon, and you say, "Listen, buddy. I've had a heart for, like, 40 years now. I think I know a thing or two about aortic valve replacements. I think my opinion is just as valid as yours." And yet, that's exactly what happens.
Ipak, uprkos svemu tome, postoje brojni ljudi koji vole da popuju o jeziku kao da imaju podjednako razumevanje o njemu kao lingvisti, zato što, bože moj, govore taj jezik. I ako govorite jezik, to znači da imate sva prava da pričate o njegovoj upotrebi kao i bilo ko drugi. Zamislite da pričate sa hirurgom i kažete: „Slušaj, drugar. Ja imam srce, pa, nekih 40 godina. Mislim da znam par stvari o zameni aortnog ventila. Smatram da je moje mišljenje jednako vredno kao i tvoje.” Pa ipak, upravo to se dešava.
This is Neil deGrasse Tyson, saying that in the film "Arrival," he would have brought a cryptographer -- somebody who can unscramble a message in a language they already know -- rather than a linguist, to communicate with the aliens, because what would a linguist -- why would that be useful in talking to somebody speaking a language we don't even know? Though, of course, the "Arrival" film is not off the hook. I mean, come on -- listen, film. Hey, buddy: there are aliens that come down to our planet in gigantic ships, and they want to do nothing except for communicate with us, and you hire one linguist?
Ovo je Nil de Gras Tajson, koji kaže da bi u filmu „Dolazak” on doveo kriptografa - nekog ko može dešifrovati poruku na jezik koji već zna - pre nego lingvistu, da razgovara sa vanzemaljcima, zato što, šta će nam lingvista - zašto bi to bilo korisno ako pričamo sa nekim ko govori jezik koji čak i ne znamo? Iako, naravno, film „Dolazak” nije baš bajan. Mislim, molim vas - slušaj, film. Hej, druže: vanzemaljci dolaze na našu planetu u ogromnim svemirskim brodovima, i ne žele ništa drugo osim da razgovaraju sa nama, i vi angažujete jednog lingvistu?
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
What's the US government on a budget or something?
Zar je vlada SAD-a spala na nizak budžet ili nešto slično?
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
A lot of these things can be chalked up to misunderstandings, both about what language is and about the formal study of language, about linguistics. And I think there's something that underlies a lot of these misunderstandings that can be summed up by this delightful article in "Forbes," about why high school students shouldn't learn foreign languages. I'm going to pull out some quotes from this, and I want you to see if you can figure out what underlies some of these opinions and ideas. "Americans rarely read the classics, even in translation." So in other words, why bother learning a foreign language when they're not even going to read the classic in the original anyway? What's the point? "Studying foreign languages in school is a waste of time, compared to other things that you could be doing in school." "Europe has a lot of language groups clustered in a relatively small space." So for Americans, ah, what's the point of learning another language? You're not really going to get a lot of bang for your buck out of that. This is my favorite, "A student in Birmingham would have to travel about a thousand miles to get to the Mexican border, and even then, there would be enough people who speak English to get around." In other words, if you can kind of wave your arms around, and you can get to where you're going, then there's really no point in learning another language anyway.
Mnoge ovakve stvari se mogu pripisati nerazumevanju toga šta je jezik, kao i formalnog izučavanja jezika, same lingvistike. Mislim da postoji nešto što je u osnovi dosta ovakvih nerazumevanja, a što je sažeto u divnom članku Forbsa, o tome zašto srednjoškolci ne bi trebalo da uče strane jezike. Izvući ću nekoliko citata iz njega, da vidite da li možete da shvatite šta se nalazi u osnovi nekih od ovih mišljenja i ideja. „Amerikanci retko čitaju klasike, čak i kada su prevedeni.” Drugim rečima, zašto se mučiti učenjem stranog jezika, kada ionako neće čitati klasike u originalu? U čemu je poenta? „Učenje stranih jezika u školi je gubljenje vremena, u poređenju sa drugim stvarima koje biste mogli raditi u školi.” „Evropa ima mnogo jezičkih grupa svrstanih na relativno malom prostoru.” Dakle, po Amerikancima, ma, u čemu je poenta učenja drugog jezika? Ionako nećete imati neku veliku korist od toga. Ovo je moj omiljeni: „Student iz Birminhema bi trebalo da putuje oko 1600 kilometara da bi došao do meksičke granice, pa čak i u tom slučaju, naišao bi na dovoljno ljudi koji govore engleski jezik." Drugim rečima, ako umete da mlatite rukama naokolo, i to vas može dovesti tamo gde idete, onda stvarno nema svrhe učiti drugi jezik.
What underlies a lot of these attitudes is the conceptual metaphor, language is a tool. And there's something that rings very true about this metaphor. Language is kind of a tool in that, if you know the local language, you can do more than if you didn't. But the implication is that language is only a tool, and this is absolutely false. If language was a tool, it would honestly be a pretty poor tool. And we would have abandoned it long ago for something that was a lot better. Think about just any sentence. Here's a sentence that I'm sure I've said in my life: "Yesterday I saw Kyn." I have a friend named Kyn. And when I say this sentence, "Yesterday I saw Kyn," do you think it's really the case that everything in my mind is now implanted in your mind via this sentence? Hardly, because there's a lot of other stuff going on.
Ono što se ističe u dosta ovakvih stavova je konceptualna metafora da je jezik sredstvo. Postoji nešto što zvuči veoma istinito u ovoj metafori. Jezik jeste neka vrsta sredstva po tome što, ako znate lokalni jezik, možete da postignete više nego kada ne znate. Ali iz toga proizilazi da je jezik samo sredstvo, što je potpuno netačno. Kada bi jezik bio samo sredstvo, iskreno, bio bi prilično loše sredstvo. Zamenili bismo ga davno nečim mnogo boljim. Evo primera. Pomislite na bilo koju rečenicu. Evo rečenice koju sam sigurno već izgovarao: „Juče sam video Kina”. Imam prijatelja po imenu Kin. Kada ja izgovorim rečenicu: „Juče sam video Kina”, da li stvarno mislite da je sad sve što mi je na pameti presađeno u vaš mozak putem ove rečenice? Teško, zato što se tu dešava mnogo drugih stvari.
Like, when I say "yesterday," I might think what the weather was like yesterday because I was there. And if I'm remembering, I'll probably remember there was something I forgot to mail, which I did. This was a preplanned joke, but I really did forget to mail something. And so that means I'm going to have to do it Monday, because that's when I'm going to get back home. And of course, when I think of Monday, I'll think of "Manic Monday" by the Bangles. It's a good song. And when I say the word "saw," I think of this phrase: "'I see!' said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw." I always do. Anytime I hear the word "saw" or say it, I always think of that, because my grandfather always used to say it, so it makes me think of my grandfather. And we're back to "Manic Monday" again, for some reason. And with Kyn, when I'm saying something like, "Yesterday I saw Kyn," I'll think of the circumstances under which I saw him. And this happened to be that day. Here he is with my cat. And of course, if I'm thinking of Kyn, I'll think he's going to Long Beach State right now, and I'll remember that my good friend John and my mother both graduated from Long Beach State, my cousin Katie is going to Long Beach State right now. And it's "Manic Monday" again.
Na primer, kada kažem „juče”, mogu razmišljati kakvo je vreme bilo juče, zato što sam bio tamo. A ako se prisećam, verovatno ću se setiti da sam nešto zaboravio da pošaljem, što se upravo i desilo. Ovo je bila smišljena šala, ali zaista sam zaboravio da pošaljem nešto. Što znači da ću to morati da uradim u ponedeljak, jer se tada vraćam kući. I naravno, kad pomislim na ponedeljak, setim se pesme „Manični ponedeljak” od Banglsa. Odlična pesma. Kada izgovorim reč „video”, pomislim na izraz: „'Vidim!', reče slepi čovek dok je kupio svoj čekić i testeru.” Uvek mi to padne na pamet. Kad god čujem ili izgovorim reč „video”, odmah pomislim na to, zato što je to moj deda imao običaj da govori, pa onda mislim i na njega. Vraćamo se opet, iz nekog razloga, na „Manični ponedeljak”. Sa Kinom, kada govorim nešto kao: „Juče sam video Kina”, pomisliću na okolnosti pod kojima sam ga video. To bi bio ovaj dan. Evo ga sa mojom mačkom. Naravno, ako razmišljam o Kinu, misliću o njegovom odlasku na Univerzitet Long Bič, i setiću se da su i moj dobar drug Džon i moja majka diplomirali na Univerzitetu Long Bič, a moja rođaka Kejti ga upravo pohađa. I evo opet „Maničnog ponedeljka”.
But this is just a fraction of what's going on in your head at any given time while you are speaking. And all we have to represent the entire mess that is going on in our head, is this. I mean, that's all we got.
Ali to je samo delić onoga što se odvija u vašoj glavi svaki put dok govorite. Sve što imamo za predstavljanje celog tog haosa koji se odvija u našoj glavi je ovo. Mislim, to je sve što imamo.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Is it any wonder that our system is so poor? So imagine, if I can give you an analogy, imagine if you wanted to know what is it like to eat a cake, if instead of just eating the cake, you instead had to ingest the ingredients of a cake, one by one, along with instructions about how these ingredients can be combined to form a cake. You had to eat the instructions, too.
Zar je čudno što nam je sistem tako oskudan? Zamislite, poređenja radi, da želite da saznate kakav je osećaj jesti tortu, na taj način što ćete, umesto da jedete tortu, morati da svarite sastojke za tortu, jedan po jedan, zajedno sa uputstvima o tome kako ove sastojke treba izmešati da bi se dobila torta. Morate da pojedete i uputstvo.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
If that was how we had to experience cake, we would never eat cake. And yet, language is the only way -- the only way -- that we can figure out what is going on here, in our minds. This is our interiority, the thing that makes us human, the thing that makes us different from other animals, is all inside here somewhere, and all we have to do to represent it is our own languages. A language is our best way of showing what's going on in our head. Imagine if I wanted to ask a big question, like: "What is the nature of human thought and emotion?" What you'd want to do is you'd want to examine as many different languages as possible. One isn't just going to do it. To give you an example, here's a picture I took of little Roman, that I took with a 12-megapixel camera. Now, here's that same picture with a lot fewer pixels. Obviously, neither of these pictures is a real cat. But one gives you a lot better sense of what a cat is than the other.
Kada bismo na takav način morali da doživimo tortu, verovatno je nikada ne bismo jeli. Pa opet, jezik je jedini način - jedan jedini način - da shvatimo šta se to dešava ovde, u našim mislima. To je naša unutrašnjost, ono što nas čini ljudima, ono što nas razlikuje od ostalih životinja, sve je to ovde negde unutra, i sve što nam je potrebno da bismo to predstavili je naš jezik. Jezik je najbolji način da pokažemo šta se dešava u našim glavama. Zamislite da želite da pitate neko važno pitanje, na primer: „Kakva je priroda ljudskih misli i osećanja?” Ono što želite da uradite je da uporedite što je moguće više jezika. Jedan neće biti dovoljan. Da bih vam dao primer, evo slike malog Romana, koju sam napravio kamerom od 12 megapiksela. Evo sad iste slike sa mnogo manje piksela. Očigledno, ni na jednoj od ovih slika nije prava mačka, ali jedna daje mnogo bolji osećaj toga šta je mačka, nego ona druga.
Language is not merely a tool. It is our legacy, it's our way of conveying what it means to be human. And of course, by "our" legacy, I mean all humans everywhere. And losing even one language makes that picture a lot less clear.
Jezik nije samo puko sredstvo. To je naše nasleđe. To je naš način saopštavanja toga šta znači biti čovek. Naravno, pod „našim” nasleđem, mislim na ceo ljudski rod. Gubitak samo jednog jezika čini sliku mnogo manje jasnom.
So as a job for the past 10 years and also as recreation, just for fun, I create languages. These are called "conlangs," short for "constructed languages." Now, presenting these facts back to back, that we're losing languages on our planet and that I create brand-new languages, you might think that there's some nonsuperficial connection between these two. In fact, a lot of people have drawn a line between those dots. This is a guy who got all bent out of shape that there was a conlang in James Cameron's "Avatar." He says, "But in the three years it took James Cameron to get Avatar to the screen, a language died." Probably a lot more than that, actually. "Na'vi, alas, won't fill the hole where it used to be ..." A truly profound and poignant statement -- if you don't think about it at all.
Dakle, za posao u prethodnih 10 godina, a takođe i radi razonode, zabave radi, ja stvaram jezike. Oni se zovu „konjezici”, skraćeno od „konstruisani jezici”. Predstavljajući ove činjenice, rame uz rame, da gubimo jezike na našoj planeti i da stvaram potpuno nove jezike, možete pomisliti da postoji neka dublja veza između ta dva. Zapravo, mnogo ljudi je ovo spojilo. Ovo je lik koji se mnogo uzdrmao time da u filmu Džejmsa Kamerona „Avatar” postoji konjezik. On tvrdi: „Kroz tri godine, koliko je trebalo Džejmsu Kameronu da snimi Avatar, jedan jezik je umro.” U stvari, verovatno mnogo više od jednog. „Na'vi, avaj, neće ispuniti prazninu tamo gde je ona postojala...” Istinski duboka i dirljiva izjava - ako uopšte ne razmišljate o tome.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
But when I was here at Cal, I completed two majors. One of them was linguistics, but the other one was English. And of course, the English major, the study of English, is not actually the study of the English language, as we know, it's the study of literature. Literature is just a wonderful thing, because basically, literature, more broadly, is kind of like art; it falls under the rubric of art. And what we do with literature, authors create new, entire beings and histories. And it's interesting to us to see what kind of depth and emotion and just unique spirit authors can invest into these fictional beings. So much so, that, I mean -- take a look at this. There's an entire series of books that are written about fictional characters. Like, the entire book is just about one fictional, fake human being. There's an entire book on George F. Babbitt from Sinclair Lewis's "Babbitt," and I guarantee you, that book is longer than "Babbitt," which is a short book. Does anybody even remember that one? It's pretty good, I actually think it's better than "Main Street." That's my hot take. So we've never questioned the fact that literature is interesting. But despite the fact, not even linguists are actually interested in what created languages can tell us about the depth of the human spirit just as an artistic endeavor.
Ali kad sam ja bio ovde na univerzitetu, diplomirao sam na dva predmeta. Jedan od njih je bio lingvistika, ali je drugi bio engleski jezik. Naravno, smer engleskog jezika, studiranje engleskog, nije u stvari studiranje engleskog jezika, kao što vam je poznato, to je studiranje književnosti. Književnost je divna stvar, zato što u suštini, književnost u širem smislu je kao umetnost: spada u kategoriju umetnosti. A u književnosti se dešava da autori stvaraju kompletna nova bića i istorije. Nama je interesantno da gledamo kakve misli i osećanja, kao i jedinstveni duh, autori mogu uložiti u ova izmišljena bića. Toliko mnogo da, mislim - pogledajte ovo. Postoje čitavi serijali knjiga koje su napisane o izmišljenim likovima. Cela knjiga samo o jednom izmišljenom, lažnom ljudskom biću. Postoji čitava knjiga o Džordžu F. Babitu, iz knjige „Babit” Sinklera Luisa, i kladim se da je knjiga duža nego „Babit”, koja je kratka knjiga. Da li se iko uopšte seća te knjige? Veoma je dobra, mislim čak da je bolja od „Glavne ulice”. Eto, rekoh svoje mišljenje. Dakle, nikad nismo dovodili u pitanje da je književnost interesantna. Ali uprkos toj činjenici, čak ni lingvisti nisu zainteresovani da saznaju šta nam to stvoreni jezici mogu reći o dubinama ljudske duše kroz umetničko nastojanje.
I'll give you a nice little example here. There was an article written about me in the California alumni magazine a while back. And when they wrote this article, they wanted to get somebody from the opposing side, which, in hindsight, seems like a weird thing to do. You're just talking about a person, and you want to get somebody from the opposing side of that person.
Daću vam jedan mali primer. Postojao je jedan članak o meni u magazinu Kalifornijski alumni, pre dosta vremena. Kada su pisali taj članak, želeli su da dovedu nekog ko se ne slaže sa mnom, što, iz ove perspektive, izgleda malo čudno. Pričaš o nekoj osobi, i želiš da nađeš nekog ko se ne slaže sa tom osobom.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Essentially, this is just a puff piece, but whatever. So, they happened to get one of the most brilliant linguists of our time, George Lakoff, who's a linguist here at Berkeley. And his work has basically forever changed the fields of linguistics and cognitive science. And when asked about my work and about language creation in general, he said, "But there's a lot of things to be done in the study of language. You should spend the time on something real." Yeah. "Something real." Does this remind you of anything? To use the very framework that he himself invented, let me refer back to this conceptual metaphor: language is a tool. And he appears to be laboring under this conceptual metaphor; that is, language is useful when it can be used for communication. Language is useless when it can't be used for communication. It might make you wonder: What do we do with dead languages? But anyway.
U suštini, to je samo promotivni članak, ali nema veze. Tako se desilo da su došli do jednog od najsjajnijih lingvista našeg vremena, Džordža Lejkofa, koji je lingvista ovde na Berkliju. Njegov rad je, u suštini, zauvek promenio oblasti lingvistike i kognitivne nauke. Kada su ga pitali o mom radu i o stvaranju jezika uopšte, on je rekao: „Postoji toliko stvari koje treba da se prouče o pitanju jezika. Treba da trošite vreme na nešto što je stvarno." Aha. „Nešto stvarno”. Da li vas ovo podseća na nešto? Da upotrebim isti okvir koji je on lično izmislio, vratiću se ovoj konceptualnoj metafori: jezik je sredstvo. A on, izgleda, radi pod ovom konceptualnom metaforom, što znači da je jezik koristan kada može biti upotrebljen za komunikaciju. Jezik je beskoristan kada ne može biti upotrebljen za komunikaciju. Možda vam padne na pamet: šta da radimo sa mrtvim jezicima? Ali nije bitno.
So, because of this idea, it might seem like the very height of absurdity to have a Duolingo course on the High Valyrian language that I created for HBO's "Game of Thrones." You might wonder what, exactly, are 740,000 people learning?
Zbog ove ideje, može se činiti prilično apsurdno imati na Duoligu kurs valirijskog jezika koji sam stvorio za seriju „Igra prestola” na HBO-u. Možda se onda zapitate šta to onda 740 000 ljudi uči?
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Well, let's take a look at it. What are they learning? What could they possibly be learning? Well, bearing in mind that the other language for this -- it's for people that speak English -- English speakers are learning quite a bit. Here's a sentence that they will probably never use for communication in their entire lives: "Vala ābre urnes." "The man sees the woman." The little middle line is the gloss, so it's word for word, that's what it says. And they're actually learning some very fascinating things, especially if they're English speakers. They're learning that a verb can come at the very end of a sentence. Doesn't really do that in English when you have two arguments. They're learning that sometimes a language doesn't have an equivalent for the word "the" -- it's totally absent. That's something language can do. They're learning that a long vowel can actually be longer in duration, as opposed to different in quality, which is what our long vowels do; they're actually the same length. They're learning that there are these little inflections. Hmm? Hmm? There are inflections called "cases" on the end of nouns --
Pogledajmo. Šta to oni uče? Šta bi uopšte mogli da uče? Imajući u vidu drugi jezik za ovo - to je za ljude sa engleskog govornog područja - oni koji govore engleski jezik uče baš dosta toga. Evo rečenice koju verovatno nikad neće upotrebiti u komunikaciji za ceo svoj život: „Vala abre urnes.” „Čovek vide ženu.” Mala srednja linija je napomena, poručuje da je u pitanju doslovno ono što piše. Oni u stvari uče neke prilično fascinantne stvari, posebno ako govore engleski jezik. Uče da se glagol može staviti i na sam kraj rečenice. To baš i ne može u engleskom jeziku kada imate složeniju rečenicu. Uče da, ponekad, jezik nema svoj paritet za određeni član - on je potpuno odsutan. To je nešto što može da se desi sa jezikom. Uče da dugi samoglasnici mogu zaista biti duži u trajanju, umesto razlike u kvalitetu, što naši dugi samoglasnici i rade: oni su u stvari iste dužine. Uče da postoje one male promene. Hm? Hm? Postoje promene zvane „padeži” na kraju imenice -
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
that tell you who does what to whom in a sentence. Even if you leave the order of the words the same and switch the endings, it changes who does what to whom. What they're learning is that languages do things, the same things, differently. And that learning languages can be fun. What they're learning is respect for Language: capital "L" Language. And given the fact that 88 percent of Americans only speak English at home, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
koje vam govore ko šta radi kome u rečenici. Čak i ako ostavite isti red reči, ali zamenite krajeve, to menja ko kome šta radi. Ono što uče jeste da jezici rade iste stvari na različite načine. I da učenje jezika može biti zabavno. Ono što uče je poštovanje prema Jeziku, sa velikim slovom „J”. S obzirom na činjenicu da 88% Amerikanaca govori samo engleski jezik kod kuće, ne mislim da je to nužno loše.
You know why languages die on our planet? It's not because government imposes one language on a smaller group, or because an entire group of speakers is wiped out. That certainly has happened in the past, and it's happening now, but it's not the main reason. The main reason is that a child is born to a family that speaks a language that is not widely spoken in their community, and that child doesn't learn it. Why? Because that language is not valued in their community. Because the language isn't useful. Because the child can't go and get a job if they speak that language. Because if language is just a tool, then learning their native language is about as useful as learning High Valyrian, so why bother?
Znate li zašto jezici umiru na našoj planeti? Ne zato što vlade nametnu jedan jezik manjoj grupi, niti zato što je cela grupa govornog jezika zbrisana. To se svakako dešavalo u prošlosti, a dešava se i danas, ali to nije glavni razlog. Glavni razlog je što se dete rodi u porodici koja govori jezik koji nije široko rasprostranjen u njihovoj zajednici, i dete ga ne nauči. Zašto? Zato što taj jezik nije cenjen u njihovoj zajednici. Zato što taj jezik nije koristan. Zato što to dete ne može naći posao ako govori taj jezik. Zato što, ako je jezik samo sredstvo, onda je učenje njihovog maternjeg jezika korisno otprilike kao i učenje visoko valirijskog, pa zašto se mučiti onda?
Now ... Maybe language study isn't going to lead to a lot more linguistic fluency. But maybe that's not such a big deal. Maybe if more people are studying more languages, it will lead to more linguistic tolerance and less linguistic imperialism. Maybe if we actually respect language for what it is -- literally, the greatest invention in the history of humankind -- then in the future, we can celebrate endangered languages as living languages, as opposed to museum pieces.
Sad... Možda izučavanje jezika neće dovesti do znatnog lingvističkog ovladavanja. Ali možda to i nije tako bitno. Možda će, ako više ljudi bude učilo više jezika, to dovesti do veće jezičke tolerancije i smanjiti jezički imperijalizam. Možda, ako budemo poštovali jezik zbog onog što on zapravo i jeste - bukvalno, najveći izum u istoriji čovečanstva - tada u budućnosti možemo slaviti ugrožene jezike kao žive jezike, a ne kao deo muzejske zbirke.
(High Valyrian) Kirimvose. Thank you.
(Visoko valirijski) Kirimvose. Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)