18 Jun
2026
18 Jun
'26
7:41 a.m.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 7:54 AM Paul Koning via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
.
>>> Perhaps a better definition of a dead
language is one for which there is
> The real linguistic definition of a dead language is one which children no
> longer learn from their naive (NB not "native") environment, i. e., where
the
> language is spoken around them for purposes other than simple paedagogy. What
> this means for language revitalization is that until the generation *after* the
> one(s) studying, say, Lushootseed speaks it from infancy, it is still dead (or
> at best moribund).
A computer language is not exactly a native spoken language, but you
can apply this test pretty accurately. For example, Sanskrit. We do
have access to writings in Sanskrit today, it has been preserved, but
there is no country where Sanskrit is spoken natively. It's a dead
language but not a lost language. So a computer programming language
that can still be run on a preserved IBM 1401 computer today, but
otherwise it's not used in business, schools, home, or scientifically
is dead. Some are nearly dead, some are dying, some are new, etc.
And then there is the list of "lost" languages that are known to have
existed but we don't currently have the source code to load and run
them, vs. lost languages that no one even remembers and there is no
written references to.
Bill