issue13 高频，文化类，沥血阿，谢了啊

ryanqUID: 154025

13. "Many of the world's lesser-known languages are being lost as fewer and fewer people speak them. The governments of countries in which these languages are spoken should act to prevent such languages from becoming extinct."
syllabus:
政府不应管
1.language灭绝很自然，物竞天择。
2.government 帮忙不合适
3.language确有其value
in sum: 政府别管，自己和语言学家可以管。


As the world's economy flourishes and multi-communication become frequent, some languages are spoken by fewer and fewer people. The writer claims that the government should take actions on this matter. However, whether those endangered languages can survive or not depends mostly on the people who use it. It is unpractical for the government to constitute policies.

For the first reason, from the perspective of languages themselves, few speakers just mean insofar as the speaking function of this language is not suitable any more. There are thousands of languages in the world. They compete, just as in the world of animals. Those that can not accommodate to the situation will disappear. Maybe it is because of their difficulty in speaking, or not easy to write. And the key reason accounting for this phenomenon is the trend that the world will use fewer languages. The use of multiple languages impede the globalization. Those having fewer advantages are doomed to extinction.      

For the second reason, supports from governments can do little help on the endangered languages. The spread of languages is a spontaneous process which can not be achieved only by outside forces. It is true that governments could adopt some policies to protect less-used language, such as special schools, channels for them. Can they really work? Children are effective language learners. Nevertheless, they only learn languages to use it. Without frequently using, they can hardly catch the essence of the language resulting in losing the nature generations after generations. Finally, it is only a pile of words puzzle under the protection of government. Moreover, there are other aspects needing money or just the concern from governments. Such as educational, environmental problems, national security, poverty. As mentioned above, it is not proper for government to act.

Admittedly, some of the endangered languages are precious for human. For the people possessing the language, missing the language equates losing the culture behind it. Nobody will consider the speakers as a distinct culture identity any more. While for the majority, take the value in  anthropology for example,  the research of origin and dispersal of human mostly relies on the thousands of languages. Every time a language is dead, a clue for the reseach is cut down.   

In sum, there is no need for the government participating on this matter. Because multi-languages speaking impedes the trend of globalization and there are many other fields for government to investigate. Leaving these languages to their speakers and linguists to preserve is proper.

zhl_halleyUID: 140173

13. "Many of the world's lesser-known languages are being lost as fewer and fewer people speak them. The governments of countries in which these languages are spoken should act to prevent such languages from becoming extinct."
syllabus:
政府不应管
1.language灭绝很自然，物竞天择。
2.government 帮忙不合适
3.language确有其value
in sum: 政府别管，自己和语言学家可以管。


As the world's economy [international commerce and trade] flourishes and multi-communication[?multi-culture communication] become frequent, some languages are spoken by fewer and fewer people. The writer[speaker] claims that the government should take actions on this matter. However, whether those endangered languages can survive or not depends mostly on the people who use it. It is unpractical for the government to constitute policies.

For the first reason, from the perspective of languages themselves, few speakers in one language just mean insofar as the speaking function of this language is not suitable any more. There are thousands of languages in the world. They compete, just as in the world of animals. Those that can not accommodate to the situation will disappear.[Is it? According to linguists, there are three ways of eradicating a language: first, to kill all the speakers; second, for government forbid and punish use of minority language; third, and the most common way is the intermarriage between different languages groups which resulted in their children’s abandoning native language and becoming majority language speakers] May it is because of their difficulty in speaking, or not easy to write. But[?logical flaw] the key reason account for this phenomenon is the trend of the world will use fewer languages. Multiple languages impede the globalization. Those having fewer advantages are doomed to extinction. []
For the second reason, supports[?] from governments can do little help on the endangered languages. The spread of languages is a spontaneous process which can not be achieved only by outside forces. It is true that governments could adopt some policies to protect less-used[lesser-used or minority] language, such as special schools, channels for them. Can they really work? Children are effective language learners. Nevertheless, they only learn languages to use it. Without frequently using, they can hardly catch the essence of the language resulting in losing the nature generations after generations. Finally, it is only a pile of words puzzle under the protection of government. Moreover, there are other aspects needing money or just the concern from governments. Such as educational, environmental problems, national security, poverty. As mentioned above, it is proper for government to act.

Admittedly, some of the endangered languages is precious for human. For the people possessing the language, missing their language equates losing the culture behind it. Nobody will consider the speakers as a distinct culture identity any more. While in the field of research, take anthropology for example, with the help of thousands of languages in the world, anthropologists may find out the origin and dispersal of human.

In sum, there is no need for the government participating on this matter. Because multi-languages speaking impedes the trend of globalization and there are many other fields for government to investigate. Leaving these languages to their speakers and linguists to preserve is proper.
[Your article does not expand the reasoning part but rather mention some opinions. You have to explain why and cite more examples.加油, 互勉!]

ryanqUID: 154025

非常感谢你的回复，俺会记得回拍的。
这篇文章整了好久，看了好多文章，感觉有点丢了自己的东西。

疑问:
1.第二段：
[Is it? According to linguists, there are three ways of eradicating a language: first, to kill all the speakers; second, for government forbid and punish use of minority language; third, and the most common way is the intermarriage between different languages groups which resulted in their children’s abandoning native language and becoming majority language speakers]
前两种eradicate language的方式中kill 和punish有交叉的地方，另外intermarriage也是由于children觉得没用，才舍弃这种语言的。其实不管是政府强制还是'自己了断'都是因为这种语言不再适于当前的大环境了，所以我觉得这地方的比喻还算恰当。

2.第三段那两处没看懂, 劳驾再明示一下， :D

bcomerUID: 182621

个人的意见：）

一个小砖:)

As the world's economy flourishes and multi-communication become (becomes？) frequent, some languages are spoken by fewer and fewer people. The writer claims that the government should take actions on this matter. However, whether those endangered languages can survive or not depends mostly on the people who use it. It is unpractical for the government to constitute policies.

For the first reason, from the perspective of languages themselves, few speakers just mean insofar as the speaking function of this language is not suitable any more. There are thousands of languages in the world. They compete, just as in the world of animals ( just like the animals in the world？). Those that can not accommodate to the situation will disappear. Maybe it is because of their difficulty in speaking or not easy to write (or writing？). And the key reason accounting for this phenomenon is the trend that the world will use fewer languages. The use of multiple languages impede (impedes？) the globalization. Those having fewer advantages are doomed to extinction.

For the second reason, supports from governments can do little help on the endangered languages. The spread of languages is a spontaneous process which can not be achieved only by outside forces. It is true that governments could adopt some policies to protect less-used language, such as special schools, channels for them (觉得这里只有两个例子还可以用AND连接，你在这段的后面还用SUCH AS了，这里是不是可以换成FOR INSTANCE,而且我个人觉得这里涌完整的句子会说的更明确). Can they really work? Children are effective language learners. Nevertheless, they only learn languages to use it (看得比较别扭，可以改为他们学得目的仅仅是使用它，用purpose,或what for来表达？). Without frequently using, they can hardly catch the essence of the language resulting in losing the nature generations after generations. Finally, it is (will be？) only a pile of words puzzle under the protection of government. Moreover, there are other aspects needing money or just the concern(这里看得也不很舒服，你这句话的中文意思是？) from governments. Such as educational, environmental problems, national security, poverty (poverty, national security, educational and environmental problem？换个顺序好些). As mentioned above, it is not proper (appropriate？主要是避免proper的重复，你觉得APPROPRIATE可以吗？) for government to act (take action？act没有问题，但我看TO TAKE ACTION更舒服).

Admittedly, some of the endangered languages are precious for human. For the people possessing the language, missing the language equates losing the culture behind it. Nobody will consider the speakers as a distinct culture identity any more. While for the majority, take the value in anthropology for example, the research of origin and dispersal of human mostly relies on the thousands of languages. Every time a language is dead, a clue for the research is cut down.

In sum, there is no need for the government participating on (to participate in？FOR SB TO DO STH？) this matter (project？). Because (since？用since连成一个句子？) multi-languages speaking impedes the trend of globalization and there are many other fields for government to investigate. Leaving these languages to their speakers and linguists to preserve is (加个more？) proper.

……

找的主要是语言上的问题
欢迎探讨和指教：）:)

bcomerUID: 182621

来试试变色工具:) ：）

bcomerUID: 182621

？？？

As the world's economy flourishes and multi-communication become (becomes？) frequent, some languages are spoken by fewer and fewer people. The writer claims that the government should take actions on this matter. However, whether those endangered languages can survive or not depends mostly on the people who use it. It is unpractical for the government to constitute policies.

For the first reason, from the perspective of languages themselves, few speakers just mean insofar as the speaking function of this language is not suitable any more. There are thousands of languages in the world. They compete, just as in the world of animals ( just like the animals in the world？). Those that can not accommodate to the situation will disappear. Maybe it is because of their difficulty in speaking or not easy to write (or writing？). And the key reason accounting for this phenomenon is the trend that the world will use fewer languages. The use of multiple languages impede (impedes？) the globalization. Those having fewer advantages are doomed to extinction.

For the second reason, supports from governments can do little help on the endangered languages. The spread of languages is a spontaneous process which can not be achieved only by outside forces. It is true that governments could adopt some policies to protect less-used language, such as special schools, channels for them (觉得这里只有两个例子还可以用AND连接，你在这段的后面还用SUCH AS了，这里是不是可以换成FOR INSTANCE,而且我个人觉得这里涌完整的句子会说的更明确). Can they really work? Children are effective language learners. Nevertheless, they only learn languages to use it (看得比较别扭，可以改为他们学得目的仅仅是使用它，用purpose,或what for来表达？). Without frequently using, they can hardly catch the essence of the language resulting in losing the nature generations after generations. Finally, it is (will be？) only a pile of words puzzle under the protection of government. Moreover, there are other aspects needing money or just the concern(这里看得也不很舒服，你这句话的中文意思是？) from governments. Such as educational, environmental problems, national security, poverty (poverty, national security, educational and environmental problem？换个顺序好些). As mentioned above, it is not proper (appropriate？主要是避免proper的重复，你觉得APPROPRIATE可以吗？) for government to act (take action？act没有问题，但我看TO TAKE ACTION更舒服).

Admittedly, some of the endangered languages are precious for human. For the people possessing the language, missing the language equates losing the culture behind it. Nobody will consider the speakers as a distinct culture identity any more. While for the majority, take the value in anthropology for example, the research of origin and dispersal of human mostly relies on the thousands of languages. Every time a language is dead, a clue for the research is cut down.

In sum, there is no need for the government participating on (to participate in？FOR SB TO DO STH？) this matter (project？). Because (since？用since连成一个句子？) multi-languages speaking impedes the trend of globalization and there are many other fields for government to investigate. Leaving these languages to their speakers and linguists to preserve is (加个more？) proper.