IpseDixit wrote:Although, personally I'd be kind of reluctant to use that definition IRL. I know this is pretty much an etymological fallacy but for me "indigenous" simply means that something originated in a certain place. So, for example, in my view English is an indigenous language of England.
I agree with your definition too in certain contexts, but I don't feel like it works for something like the "international year of indigenous languages." If we use "originated in a certain place" as the meaning, literally every natural language and culture on Earth is indigenous somewhere
. Everything originates from somewhere, so the word ends up adding no meaning at all. It would be the same meaning as just saying "International Year of Languages," for example. (Not that I'd mind there being a year like that though. But it's not the point of this one, which is to bring attention to languages native to a region that don't normally get as much attention as more dominant national languages.)
IpseDixit wrote:I'm not sure I understand what you mean but the word "indigenous" has nothing to do with the word "Indian". "Indigenous" comes from Latin and it means "generated from within".
And unfortunately I know someone who thought the word "indigenous" was related to the word "indigent" (and yeah, I see how someone could think so given the similarities between the two words), but that too comes from an unrelated etymology (they both share a prefix meaning "in/into" but "indigent" comes from a Latin word meaning "to be in need" whereas "indigenous" comes from a Latin word meaning "to beget" or - as IpseDixit said it - "to generate"). It is the same in Spanish: indígena
look and sound similar, but have unrelated etymologies and meanings.