Letter to the Editor: Standing Still Is Not the Same as Preserving

Closing Remarks by Michael Merdoyo in the Debate on the Evolution of Language

Preservation is not about standing still. It is about changing just enough to ensure that what is most valuable can live on. For a stateless people who live largely in the diaspora, the question is therefore not whether we should adapt to a new reality, but how.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with you, Zekiye Cansu. We share the same goal: to ensure that the Assyrian (Suryoyo) language lives on. We also agree that our historical alphabet is an invaluable part of our cultural heritage.

Where we differ is not in the goal, but in the path to it.

I am not arguing for replacing the Assyrian-Aramaic script, but rather for supplementing it. That distinction is important.

I see no threat to the survival of historical writings. The Church is a strong and well-functioning institution that will continue to preserve the liturgy, the classical texts, and the alphabet. That is not where I see the greatest challenge.

The major challenge is that about 80 percent of our people live in the diaspora. We lack our own country, our own schools, and the institutions that normally standardize the language and pass it down from one generation to the next. That is precisely why I believe we need to develop tools that work in the reality we actually live in.

I fully agree that we need more native-language teachers, better teaching materials, and more digital tools. However, I do not see a common Latin-based writing system as an alternative to this, but rather as a way to make teaching, teaching materials, and digital tools more accessible to children and young people who grow up using a different alphabet.

Moreover, our language has already changed. Our dialects are influenced by various majority languages, are evolving in different directions, and currently lack a common and accessible written language standard to hold them together. The question, therefore, is not whether the language is changing—it already is. The question is whether we should try to shape that development or hope that it will resolve itself.

History also shows that our people have adapted their writing system in the past as society has changed. The difference now is that no one is suggesting that we abandon our historical script. On the contrary, for the first time, we have the opportunity to both preserve it and, at the same time, develop a complementary writing system for the reality in which our people live today.

I don't think the greatest threat to our identity is that we're developing new tools. I think the greatest threat is that we become so afraid of change that we allow the language to continue to weaken without giving the next generation better opportunities to carry it forward.