We'd all be speaking German now, if . . . (European, Sumeria, Russian)

[Cali BassMan]

CAlifornia, where you can now press "2" for english.......

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Josef K.

Well, not quite. The Baltic languages and Russian were co-official in all 3 countries. In Lithuania, starting from the 1960s, study of Lithuanian was mandatory in schools. This is one reason why Lithuania showed the highest degree of non-native fluency in the local language (about 40% by 1989) among all non-Russian Soviet republics. In the other two countries, the local language was not mandatory in school and the migrant influx was larger and more segregated. Consequently, there were a lot more Russian-speaking monoglots in them.

The moment I was speaking of occurred in the 1940's, I'm guessing there was a shift in policy at some point. Regrdless, there was an attempt, even if it was abortive, to force Russian on the Baltic States, unlike what was claimed by another poster who basically attributes everything that the Soviets did there to "de-Nazification".

[Josef K.]

Well Russian was "forced" in the sense that everyone was required to study it, and it became official. However, I don't think it was ever the sole official language in the Baltic, even in Stalin's time.

[boxus]

Originally Posted by jtur88

The Russians made a half-hearted effort to eradicate Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian, but without success.

I guess the key word is "half-hearted" since during Soviet times, especially the latter part, everything was printed in Russian and the respective local language. This was common to do so during Soviet times throughout the USSR.

[CAVA1990]

It's interesting how little German was incorporated into American speech, particularly in the Western U.S. where during some of the 19th century residents of German descent exceeded those of English descent.

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Has there ever been an instance in history, in which a conquering nation succeeded in supplanting a written language and literature that already existed among a literate and educated people, and forced them to adopt a new language?

Perhaps, if you want to consider Wales and Scotland as having been conquered by England.

[Josef K.]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

Perhaps, if you want to consider Wales and Scotland as having been conquered by England.

Not good examples. Welsh is alive and even flourishing - it's even required to know it for certain jobs in Wales. Scots and Gaelic are not doing as well, but they still have official status.

Also, Scotland was not conquered by England. The Scottish Parliament voted for the Act of Union in 1707, effectively abolishing the country's independence.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Josef K.

Also, Scotland was not conquered by England. The Scottish Parliament voted for the Act of Union in 1707, effectively abolishing the country's independence.

It's not that quite straightforward. The Union of the Crowns occurred more than a century earlier, effectively ending about three centuries of English efforts to enforce their hegemony militarily. Scotland was under continuous domination, if not sovereignty, and finally their parliament just resigned themselves to it as an assurance of peace on an island otherwise divided uncomfortably in England's favor.

All those centuries, the Scots fought bitterly and tenaciously to avoid becoming English, and were finally just worn down. At no dime, were the Scots in favor of becoming English, in fact or in language. The Acts of Union were simply the breaking point of what was seen as futile resistance.

[Josef K.]

Originally Posted by jtur88

All those centuries, the Scots fought bitterly and tenaciously to avoid becoming English, and were finally just worn down. At no dime [sic: time?], were the Scots in favor of becoming English, in fact or in language.

True, but the Act of Union was not about "becoming English"; it was about uniting England and Scotland in a common state. That England dominated is hardly surprising, given the demographic and economic realities.

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Very good point. It's not something I really think about much. However, in most cases it seems that it is a very gradual process and often the "conquering language" fuses with the native language to end up creating a new dialect of the conquering language. In that way, it's not as if the native language dies per se, as much as it evolves and becomes incorporated into the new dominant language.

In many ways this is reminisent of the Norman invasion and takeover of the British Isles. The notable difference between them and the Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and so on is they did NOT mix. French was the official language but the native landholders and freedmen were displaced with Normans. To display their influence they built castles in the middle of even small little towns. In 200 years there was no mixing on the noble bloodline with the locals. But paradoxically, being shut out, the merging of older influences was accelerated and gave birth to what we call English. The native population took great pride in being English and speaking Angless (old English). When power wained, so did the normans influence and while French enriched the new English languge it did not dominate it at all. Interstingly enough, in the series The Strory of England, which is about the long history of this one village, most of the buildings even back to the 1400's and earlier are still there. There is nothing but a bare hill where the norman castle stood. Not even a brick to remember it by.

The Romans, et all were colonizers. The Normans and the Spanish on the America's were conquers, and did not wish to merge with the society they took. Interestingly enough, ancestral languages are still spoken in isolated areas in South and middle America, but the Spanish heirarchy retains its predominance even to today.