"but the general immigrant population didn't make any great effort to learn the local language and integrate with the residents"

A sweeping generalisation taken from cities probably, that doesn't apply to the country settlers, especially farmers. Maybe a squizz at old newspapers and records could help.

Aborigines lived and roamed at will on farms. Farmers and other settlers in the country did communicate in local dialects, self taught and usually learned as children playing with indigenous children in the creek beds for example, or being cared for by the indigenous women who worked and lived in farm homes and by the indigenous men yard workers and stockmen. Working and living arrangements were flexible to allow for indigenous culture and preferences.

Then there is the long list of explorers, surveyors, engineers, infrastructure builders and other workers who learned local dialects and often married into indigenous culture.

Farmers make a virtue of protecting indigenous sites and many still refuse to tell authorities of sites and interesting features they know of (and in some cases long forgotten by local indigenous who have taken up town living), for fear that the publicity will result in tourism and destruction.

It is not unusual at all for miners who have already paid handsomely for contracted indigenous experts to be guided by the farmer and shown the relevant features. The indigenous 'expert' might not leave the airconditioned LandCruiser.

It is all very right to berate the ordinary public for not volunteering to learn a language that will not be of any practical use to them. But the same public are working to provide for their families and to pay the taxes that allow academics to pursue their passion for their esoteric interests, such as applies in the case of the professor mentioned in the OP.

On the other hand I know from my own acquaintance of many people who have picked up languages from travel and where it has been useful.

Leoj, I was talking about the first European arrivals in Australia, in response to earlier comments such as "Yes, the onus should mostly be on immigrants themselves to adapt to British culture. If the immigrants culture is so good, why don't they stay where they were?" (I recognise that comment was referring to recent immigrants to the UK, not to Australia).

The first British immigrants in Australia did not adapt to the existing residents' culture, including language, they imposed their own. I noted the inconsistency: we (the descendants of that imposed British culture) now expect new arrivals to adapt to us, even though we didn't do it ourselves.

Of course many individuals learnt Aboriginal languages (starting with the inestimable William Dawes), respected Aboriginal culture, and some intermarried, as your examples indicate. But that doesn't counter the fact that overall, the British immigrants did not adopt indigenous culture or languages. Which brings me back to my first post; if they had we'd be conducting this debate in Daruk/Eora, the language of Sydney Cove.

It's a pity you took a swipe at 'indigenous experts'. While many farmers do respect the sites on their land, just as many (more?) don't know or care, or if they do, will be the first to put the bull-dozer through. I could list many examples, but here's just one: Aboriginal family want to visit place where family members buried historically, farmer refuses access 'No, no graves here. I would know if their were! I would have been told!' The Aboriginal reaction: why would anyone tell him? we keep quite about these things if the property-owner seems unsympathetic (I think they used the R word).

People like this are even-handed however, being just as uninterested in their own heritage. I know of a case where an historic homestead was bull-dozed and the remains buried in a pit for fear of a heritage assessment. (Technically, disposing of demolition materials this way is illegal, someone in my area got fined recently for this, not because it was heritage, but because of the potential for asbestos etc in the material).

" Scores of others are already dead and many more are on the way out, hastened by the flood of Muslims with their own cultures and languages."
They killed Latin a few years ago in the Islamic republic of Vatican.
Camel drivers are invading Ireland and Botswana slashing and burning vowels and syntax.

Foxy
Avestan Persian is close to Sanskrit and Persian horse-tribes were in Ukraine from Homer's time and then in Poland . All European languages are dialects of the original , whatever that was. They all have some antique elements such as English with the semi-vowel w. The music of Ireland is very similar to the rhythm of Greek Thracian music, resembling Indian rhythm. Rome had the right idea joining it all up and UK Brexit is now rebelling ( although everyone speaks English..).

Dear nicknamenick,

The fact remains that Lithuanian is the oldest
surviving Indo-European language. which has
preserved the most phonetical and morphoplogical
aspects of the proto-language which many other
European languages come from. Therefore for that
reason it is very important in the field of
Indo-European language studies which carries out
research on the origin, development, similarities
and differences of Indo-European languages.
Scientists of different nationalities in the field
use Lithuanian as their language of communication at
their conferences.

When I was studing English Lit. at uni my lecturer
asked if anyone in the class spoke Lithuanian.
He was interested in explaining certain words
phonetically.

Foxy
You have said that twice but repeating a declaration doesn't make it correct. There are lists of probable PIE roots but it's not possible to know correct words or constructions . Sanskrit and Lithuanian are early varieties like many dialect-variations.