Editing Language revitalization (section)

==== Compromise ====
Zuckermann acknowledges the presence of "local peculiarities and idiosyncrasies"<ref name=autogenerated1>Ghil'ad Zuckermann, [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/opinion/stop-revive-and-survive/story-e6frgcko-1226385194433 "Stop, revive and survive"], ''The Australian, Higher Education'', June 6, 2012.</ref> but suggests that <blockquote>"there are linguistic constraints applicable to all revival attempts. Mastering them would help revivalists and first nations' leaders to work more efficiently. For example, it is easier to resurrect basic vocabulary and verbal conjugations than sounds and word order. Revivalists should be realistic and abandon discouraging, counter-productive slogans such as "Give us authenticity or give us death!"<ref name=autogenerated1 /></blockquote> [[Nancy Dorian]] has pointed out that conservative attitudes toward [[loanwords]] and grammatical changes often hamper efforts to revitalize endangered languages (as with [[Tiwi language|Tiwi]] in Australia), and that a division can exist between educated revitalizers, interested in historicity, and remaining speakers interested in locally authentic idiom (as has sometimes occurred with [[Irish language|Irish]]). Some have argued that structural compromise may, in fact, enhance the prospects of survival, as may have been the case with English in the post-[[Norman period]].<ref>Nancy C. Dorian, ‘Purism v. compromise in language revitalisation and language revival’ in 
''Language in Society'' 23, pp. 479-494.</ref>