The article talks about languages and the importance of them. The author elaborates on preserving languages and how it affects society’s growth. There are two sides of the argument, one suggesting that languages matter in the historical context, affects human behavior and why languages are fading away. And the other, Scientists and Philosophers who firmly believe that language preservation are obstacles on society and one language would be ideal. Three significant claims from the author Rebecca Roache are the following: “Yet were the Louvre to decline an offer from a skilled forger to exchange the Mona Lisa for an ‘improved’ copy that eliminated the damage suffered over the years by the original, we are unlikely to view this decision as sentimental.” “there is plenty of evidence that language influences the way we think and experience the world.” and “We can preserve a castle by paying people to maintain it. But we can’t preserve a minority language by paying people to carry out maintenance.” Through these claims, I will contribute to the discussion including real-life examples of my own to compliment Rebecca Roache’s words: “Language diversity is a barrier to successful communication.” to reach conclusions about my knowledge question and its implications. The first claim relates to the historical aspect of a language. Preserving a language is not sentimental it’s part of something bigger, deleting presence, culture, and history. The knowledge claim of the author is: “Yet were the Louvre to decline an offer from a skilled forger to exchange the Mona Lisa for an ‘improved’ copy that eliminated the damage suffered over the years by the original, we are unlikely to view this decision as sentimental.” Language extinction is a relevant topic, here is a fact, experts expect 90% of the world’s approximately 7,000 languages will become extinct in the next 100 years as cultures mesh and isolated tribes die out. (TheAtlantic). Language is history, just like the Mona Lisa, what makes the Mona Lisa so significant was it’s theft, in 1911. We are still in shock of how it was stolen, it’s all a mystery. The deterioration it has suffered over the years from the original to where it is today, in one piece is extraordinary. It’s a historical fact, that has marked a time in humanity. To relate this to my experiential knowledge, I lived in Dubai for the first seventeen years of my life. I’m originally Lebanese and my parents taught me the Arabic language. In the United Arab Emirates, I have always interacted with people from different countries at school. Through reasoning, I understood that languages are mostly not a personal choice. I did rely on my culture to understand the reason why it is something forced upon us since birth. It represents their pride and paid homage to how our ancestors contributed to the language we speak today. The Arabic language is full of memories of the past, the books, poems, tv shows and movies. By speaking the language we are embracing the past, in the present with our heritage and where we are originally from. The second claim relates to the sentimental aspect of language. The knowledge claim is the following: “there is plenty of evidence that language influences the way we think and experience the world.” Some people would consider it as sentimental value but others judge that it’s not worth to bother developing that minority language. Let’s say for parents if their son sketched a drawing, they pick it up and throw it away? Of course, not, there is emotion, it reminds them of their son or their grandma. Nowadays people say it’s not a big deal to bother going through the hassle of developing a minority language. Let’s not seek too much sentimentality, although it is nostalgic for some people, it doesn’t mean it is for everyone in the world. For myself, I could be gritty about a subject but my father will be affectionate, it reminds him of his history. It shouldn’t have real monetary value to others, all it matters is that it’s priceless to yourself. One of the examples of my mother who has her old books and diaries archived from 30 years ago. Another great example was an interaction between my friend and his dad, He was frustrated from all the papers and books belonging to his dad which took too much space so he went off tearing all of them. His dad was very traumatized after that incident, as his son was trying to push his father into the new digital age they are in. Every generation is different than the other. The third claim relates to the difficulty of preservation of a language as opposed to a tangible object with the decline of the Arabic Language as an example. The author’s knowledge question is: “We can preserve a castle by paying people to maintain it. But we can’t preserve a minority language by paying people to carry out maintenance.” You can pay money to renovate buildings, but you can’t pay money to force them to speak the language. If the language is not fun, not modern, not up to date online, then millennials, teenagers, and kids will not like it anymore. Also if there are no superheroes associated with the Arab world. America has got all the attention, there are films, Hollywood and all this isn’t present there, people aren’t going to be interested in Arabic. Back in the day, decades back, there were Egyptian cinema and Egypt was a big thing in films, but now there are less popular Egyptian movies in the region. Today in the digital world, if the language isn’t utilized in a fun way, teenagers tend to get rid of it and gravitate towards another language. A very close example is my young cousins, who spend most of their time watching American cartoons, which are popular, fun and enjoyable that they let go of Arabic and even if my uncle forces them to speak Arabic, this methodology is not effective because the young generation is losing interest fast.For the counterclaim, the topic is the mess of many languages and how one unified language would be a better option. The author says: “Language diversity is a barrier to successful communication.” Based scientifically and academically many languages are considered as a curse since the time of Babel. Dividing that single language into multiple language families aren’t practical. One language would simplifying communication for people by avoiding translators, interpreters, money, and resources to translate. Everything is now complicated as everything needs to be translated from the original. Abandoning previous outdated languages to a new language would bring us closer together as a civilization with the ease of saying the idea without the difficulty of understanding and inefficiencies in time and scarce resources. For example, when I visited Germany, I could barely communicate by speech with success, it was most common hand gestures signaled to the listener. That was a rather disappointing situation as I had a lot to say and we would’ve had a very fruitful conversation but we were unable to. This barrier is very hard to surpass especially when we’ve gotten so good in a language it interferes with the learning of others. By streamlining languages, we’re slowly getting closer to better communication resulting in a better future for all of us.What if the world was all in one language? Wouldn’t it be easier to communicate? Yes, maybe, however, it would wipe out the pleasure of traveling to each country and discovering the language associated which is part of their culture and experience. It’s part of the experience of learning a language before we travel and learning a few words, it’s part of the experience of having fun. It’s the language that identifies the city and the country. So the experience is less effective, less interesting, less challenging, less appealing. We lose diversity which is an integral part of who we are. Preserving a language is preserving our universe which is so diverse, if I were a globetrotter, it would be a very bad experience to speak the same language all around the world and we wouldn’t be having conversations about similarities and differences in languages nor about the subject itself of preservation of languages which is an integral part of civilisations as a whole.