A monopoly in languages?

I came across an article in the New York Times that described the efforts of universities such as SUNY Stony Brook to revive lost languages of native American Indian tribes. Of 300 languages that were indigenous to the United States, only 175 remain. Current scholars and ordinary families are attempting to revive their dead languages by use of documents, remembered prayers and greetings, and whatever other resources they can come across that will enlighten them with not only the vocabulary, but also the structure and grammar of these languages.

However, even if you gather a complete dictionary of the language and a book of grammar rules, you still need a group of people, even whole societies, to learn the language and become fluent. You have to speak it everyday, said Stefanie Fielding, and adviser of the Stony Brook project. And here we come across a problem. Many people are reluctant to disturb their lives with learning a "dead" language and having to work to incorporate it into their daily lives. It seems easier to just use what we already know.

You can learn a lot about a culture from the language. Referring to Stephanie Fielding and her studies of Mohegan:

"She notes, for example, that in an English conversation, a statement is typically built with the first person — “I” — coming first. In the same statement in Mohegan, however, “you” always comes first, even when the speaker is the subject.

“This suggests a more communally minded culture,” she said."

This seems to suggest that not only are we losing languages, but also certain cultural values and knowledge of the societies that used these languages. But is it important for us to preserve these languages? Will suffer negative consequences if we lead the world to speak one language? Or will we simply lose a taste of cultural intelligence and worldly sophistication?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/books/06language.html