I am very much enjoying this discussion.
As a playwright I am interested in culture, diversity and language.
It has been on my mind in recent times that the preservation of culture
is contrary to the very nature of culture. What I mean is, and I am
sure many of you could articulate this better than I, that there
appears to be a false assumption by some that cultures (including
language) both past and present, are static and definitive. This false
assumption is never more apparent than in the case of immigrant
subcultures who 'preserve' the ways of the old country, only to
discover when they return to visit their homeland that their culture
now bears little resemblance to what they knew. Cultures change,
mutate, disappear altogether and have done so since the very beginning
of time. The influence of the Roman Empire exerted on cultures on
Europe (then 'the known world') was considerable. Many religions,
cultural practices and languages changed dramatically or disappeared
altogether in the face of a powerful and tempting mono-culture.

The statistics presented by Dr. Vikas are, none the less sobering.

I would also put it to you that the English language could not now or
ever be described as a static language. It has evolved from many
languages, forever being influenced by other cultures and subcultures.
I suppose what I am saying is that English absorbs other languages
almost as much as other languages are being absorbed by it.....or not.
Perhaps you will correct me on that score.

I don't know where this fits into your general discussion at hand, but
wanted to let you know the various tangents that are coming to mind as
I read your thoughts.