Manx is experiencing a revival on the Isle of Man
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man#Name
"The name is probably cognate with the Welsh name of the island of Anglesey, Ynys Môn, usually derived from a Celtic word for 'mountain' (reflected in Welsh mynydd, Breton menez, and Scottish Gaelic monadh), from a Proto-Celtic *moniyos."
As a retro gamer, I also appreciate that at some point the name appears to have been "isle of mana".
Answering my own question, I suppose the benefit of the language’s survival primarily accrues to the speakers. They get to feel part of a culture and community.
The value isn't just "the culture": language is indelible from the way one sees and understands the world. That's what's worth preserving.
I wonder how this applies to languages that have been revived? Do modern-day Hebrew (also a revived language[0]) speakers relate to it and Jewish culture the way that Judean Jews did? Presumably the corpus of existing literature is a significant factor.
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_of_the_Hebrew_langua...
I'm appalled that Wikipedia cites a text book as the proof.
Languages are cultural artifacts that contain within them other ancient cultural artifacts. When we lose a language, we lose those artifacts.
Everyone doesn't care about old cultural artifacts, but, luckily for those of us who do, there are enough of us to keep many of them alive.
Is a living language, the same? Last night, I overheard white people speaking what sounded like Chinese or a tonal language. Listening closer, it was not an Asian language I’m familiar with. It made me very curious. So, I guess, yes. Living languages can be fascinating in the same way as physical artifacts.