The smallest language you've ever studied

[Michael]

Would definitely have to be Lithuanian and Latvian.

[vijayjohn]

Are you studying Lithuanian and/or Latvian now?

You already said the smallest language you'd ever studied was Manx!

[vijayjohn]

But Baybayin is a script, not a language.

[Sarabi]

Jeg kan nå si Lakota, navngitt Sioux av franskmennene. Jeg lærer det med et kortspill og en app som kalles Owoksape.

[vijayjohn]

I think maybe this was a silly thread to have started on some level, at least in part because I suppose you could argue that everyone speaks their own idiolect, so there is no "smallest language" after all.

I also just realized I remember a few words of Vilamovian. That has far fewer speakers than Light Warlpiri.

[OldBoring]

I think maybe this was a silly thread to have started on some level, at least in part because I suppose you could argue that everyone speaks their own idiolect, so there is no "smallest language" after all.

In fact when I answered this topic, native languages or languages acquired during childhood don't count as "languages you've studied".
To me "study" implies learning a language intellectually.

[vijayjohn]

I think maybe this was a silly thread to have started on some level, at least in part because I suppose you could argue that everyone speaks their own idiolect, so there is no "smallest language" after all.

In fact when I answered this topic, native languages or languages acquired during childhood don't count as "languages you've studied".
To me "study" implies learning a language intellectually.

Yes, but that's not what I was talking about...Let me try to illustrate it with this example:

Do you speak English? Yes.
Do I speak English? Yes.
Is your English the same as my English?
Well, it is similar enough that we can understand each other, but it is not exactly the same. It wouldn't be even if we were both native speakers of English. Everyone speaks differently from everyone else - regardless of what language they're speaking or whether it's their native language or not.
Thus, in a way, you could argue that your English and my English are not quite the same language.

[mōdgethanc]

I picked up a few words of Yiddish, but I wouldn't say I studied it. The smallest one I made at least a half-hearted attempt to learn is Swedish.

Oh, how silly of me. I forgot about Hebrew. I wasn't counting dead languages, but Hebrew isn't dead. I picked up some modern Hebrew once because my girlfriend was interested in learning it. I also made a stab at Biblical Hebrew, and I'm counting that as the same language. (At least, if Early Modern English can be taught in English class, I think Biblical Hebrew should count.)

If we are talking dead shit though, then I think the one with the least speakers today that I have ever fucked with is Old English. I never learned it but kind of picked up some of it from reading about it. I don't have the balls to fully commit to it, but it is badass.

Old Chinese is likely even more obscure (in the West that is) but I wouldn't count it because it's reconstructed and not directly attested, so I don't count them as learnable. At least, I don't think there are many Westerners who know how to read oracle bones.

[vijayjohn]

I mean, they're all reconstructed, though; it's just that Chinese isn't written in an alphabet, so we have fewer clues as to how it actually used to be pronounced. (Written) Old English was also standardized much, much more quickly than Old Chinese was. That probably also makes a big difference.

[mōdgethanc]

Old Chinese is also a lot older than Old English, isn't it? It goes back several centuries BCE whereas Old English was first attested around (I want to say) the year 500-600 or so. That might make a difference.

It's true that all dead languages are to some extent a reconstruction but yes, I meant that we have a pretty good idea of what Old English (or Latin, or Biblical Hebrew, or Ancient Greek) sounded like, whereas for some other ancient languages like Old Chinese or Egyptian, it's more speculative.

[vijayjohn]

Old Chinese is also a lot older than Old English, isn't it? It goes back several centuries BCE whereas Old English was first attested around (I want to say) the year 500-600 or so. That might make a difference.

Yes, absolutely!