I'd like to talk about what is known as a dead language and to ponder on this issue obejectively. What are the main features of a dead language? Are they dead or evolved? For instance, Latin is used as an example in linguistics; however, Latin remains alive in universities, religion, sciences, schools, etc... Is it dead, then? Latin is the root of the Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian) too, should we talk about evolution, instead? Can you mention other dead languages? 1. Latin 2. ...

Subject created by Amleth on Jun 23, 2005 @ 13:22

Well, I would say that a few "Jewish" languages are, if not dead, dying. Namely, Ladino, a sort of mixture of Spanish and Hebrew, is almost gone, as far as I can tell (Although a Wikipedia in Ladino was just started a few months ago at http://lad.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). Yiddish, a language once spoken by Jews all across Europe, has been reduced to a language spoken only in very specific circles; primarily among elderly European Jews, as well as certain ultra-religious sects. While neither of these languages are "Dead" in the technical sense (is there one?) of the word, they are both spoken more and more infrequently as the people for whom they were their native tongues die off (except in certain cases with Yiddish; see above). On a slightly different topic, the differences between Modern and Biblical Hebrew seem, to me, not that great. While certainly Biblical Hebrew is more "formal" in the sense that it uses "proper" grammar and "higher-level" words, I would be surprised if a University- educated Israeli would be unable to understand most of the Old Testament. Admittedly, the 5 books of Moses and the prophets etc. are written in a different style, but overall, the roots of many words are the same as words in "Modern" Hebrew. Furthermore, the concepts behind some words are reflected in the modern form of the language; compare "Hashmal" in Ezekiel, meaning a sort of spark of light, with the same word in modern Hebrew, meaning "electricity". Also, while in everyday speech, the word "MaTaR" (rain) would not be used ("Geshem" is more common, while matar is more of a literary word), an Israeli would definitely be able to understand the word "MamTeRa", meaning "Sprinkler", seeing as how they both have the common root MTR (compare Arabic مطر - rain). I am certainly not an expert in any of these languages, and so I would love to hear what anyone else thinks about these topics[br][edited by iva on 2005-11-01 02:00:28]

Comment written by iva on Nov 01, 2005 @ 01:59

I agree with the statement (as I was taught) that a "dead language" is one that has no NATIVE speakers. So when the last native speaker of a language dies and had no kin that s/he taught it to as a 1st language (including proper pronounciation, usage, idioms, etc.), then the language is officially dead on that date. Doesn't matter how many people study it or use it, it's just not authentic enough.

Comment written by JayBrown on Oct 21, 2005 @ 00:10

Dalmatian was a latin language spoken in the dalmatian region of Croatia and that died out! It was called by the Italians "dirty latin"

Comment written by Nataliehrvat on Oct 14, 2005 @ 17:43

a dead language is a language that is not the native spoken language of any people... a language can be revived, like hebrew has been. but latin can never be revived because there is no one who knows how it actually sounded, it is just prounounced the way it's written, an artifical language...yes this includes the chatolic church, they speak ecclesiastical latin(church latin)! cheerio sanskrit and old tibetan are dead also...there are also a discussion if old english can be said to be dead PS. ecclesiastical is likely spelled wrong:-)[br][edited by dhindsa on 2005-09-21 04:02:36]

Comment written by dhindsa on Sept 21, 2005 @ 03:28

I find this discussion on "dead languages" very interesting. I believe that a language is alive so long as it "says" something to mankind. That "saying" may not necessarily be spoken. People who use sign language are able to "say" many things to us. Through their LATIN writings, Virgil, Cicero, Catullus, Horace etc.etc. have much to say to modern man. Translations of these works into "modern" languages, no matter how expertly achieved, can never express fully the thoughts and feelings of these ancient writers. As far as I can see, no translator is able to convey to us the soul of the Latin language - or any other ancient language.

Comment written by Donncha on Aug 20, 2005 @ 12:15

noone has mentoned that latin is used in medical terms are most native american languages dead or are they spoken on the reservatons?

Comment written by zappakai on Jul 21, 2005 @ 03:12

I refuse to call Latin a dead language unless someone can answer this question: WHEN did Latin die? No one can suggest a date because what we know of SPOKEN latin does not enable us to draw a line between Latin and Italian, as far as my mother tongue is concerned. Latin didn’t die a sudden death actually. Nor did he die little by little, it just CHANGED over the time, as any language does. This is clearly shown by a number of documents dating back to the early middle ages, written in a puzzling language which is neither Latin nor Italian. If we go back to an earlier date, it becomes plain that a number of correct Italian forms derive from Latin equivalents which were regarded as cases of mispronounciations at that time. I’ll pick two examples from a list made by a teacher of the 5th century: “caldus” (it. caldo) instead of “calidus” “orum” (it. oro) instead of “aurum” Of course these “italian-looking forms” are not to be found in literary texts; they were carefully avoided and sometimes ridiculed by good writers but we must assume that it is precisely to this kind of “mistakes” that they refer to when they speak of “sermo rusticus” (“country language”) as opposed to their “sermo urbanus” (“city language” ). Another feature of the “sermo rusticus” appeared to be the dropping of some endings, such as “-s” or “-m”. Thus a word like “calidus” or “calidum” was actually pronounced “caldu’” by “uneducated people”. And still it is in some italian dialects. In addition, the writings found on the walls of Pompei suggest that the latin spoken there 2000 years ago must have sounded like a southern italian dialect. We have a punning use of the latin word “verecundus” (chaste, modest) as “vere cunnus” (“really a cunt”:), allowed by a vernacular mispronounciation of the consonant cluster –nd- which is still common, for instance in the Roman dialect (“quanno” for “quando”). The examples provided above seem to point out that Italian is nothing but “country Latin” as far as phonetics is concerned. As regards the vocabulary, we should note that the differences between Italian and Italian are very seldom substantial, apart from non-latin loan words. The etymology makes clear that Italian and Latin agree even when they seem to differ. To understand: lat. “intelligere” it. “capire” (but see lat.”capere” “to take”) To know: lat. “scire” it. “sapere” (but see lat. “sapere” “to taste or to be clever”) To put lat “ponere” it “mettere” (but see lat. “mittere” “to send”) Bird lat. “avis” it “uccello” (but see latin “aucellus” “little bird”) Woman lat “mulier” it. “donna” (but see lat. “domina” “lady” and it. “moglie” “wife”) Day lat “dies” it “giorno” (but see lat. adj. “diurnus” “daily”) The difference between Italian and WRITTEN Latin is doubtlessly remarkable, but if we look at latin as it was spoken, the difference

Comment written by paulus on Jul 12, 2005 @ 15:46

Old Norse and Icelandic are extremely closely related. Icelandic has been very conservative in changing, and if you've mastered one, you could easily master the other. I consider a language dead when it is no longer evolving. Latin doesn't evolve. It is stagnant...thus it is dead.

Comment written by celebrian23 on Jul 12, 2005 @ 15:28

In my opinion Latin cant be dead as long as there is people around the globe speaking and also learning it! If there are people learning it brings idea for the future... so it cant be dead. the word for it could be uncomun... Latin is everywhere! How can it be dead? 0_0 EE! people must review this conception...

Comment written by Polin on Jul 11, 2005 @ 05:05

"An interesting question might be: what other dead/dying languages have the hope of being revived, if any?" Coptic was revived in the 1800's by priests for religious reasons. In an attempt to restore the spoken language to its original form and to eliminate the Arabic influence on their own language, the revivers decided to use the 1800's Greek pronunciations...which were infulenced by the Arabic speaking Ottomon Empires hold on Greece for a few centuries. C'est la vie. Mike

Comment written by nelsmp on Jul 02, 2005 @ 02:21

"Latin is "dead" because it's not used anymore as a conversational language by any significant population." I'm sorry but I disagree :). Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church, and thus official language of the Vatican (the smallest country in the world) where it's used in conversations everyday. I'd consider Aramean as a dead language, for example; or Egyptian.

Comment written by Amleth on Jun 27, 2005 @ 14:41

Latin is "dead" because it's not used anymore as a conversational language by any significant population. Ancient Greek and Slavonic are also dead. Both have evolved into modern Greek, and Slavic languages, respectively. (Latin, of course, evolved into the Romance languages) Hebrew is an interesting case of a dead language being revived. An interesting question might be: what other dead/dying languages have the hope of being revived, if any?

Comment written by Oakland on Jun 27, 2005 @ 01:04

gothic was a language?

Comment written by helloplatypu on Jun 26, 2005 @ 19:41

The last 'native' speaker of Cornish died many years ago, but there has been a revival in recent decades, with maybe a few thousand speakers with some knowledge of it. Is a language considered dead when the last 'native' speaker dies? I never hear of Old Norse being a dead language, probably because modern Icelandic has been so conservative in its evolution. How about Gothic. Dead as a doornail. No descendants, no use in religion or science. Gothic is a dead language.

Comment written by Ronwe on Jun 26, 2005 @ 03:52

Here is a link to dead languages. This is an American page so it is no suprise that the longest list are in the Americas. The one controversial language listed on this page that I can think of is Biblical Hebrew. Having studied Biblical Hebrew and glanced at modern Hebrew, I agree, the languages are not the same. Modern Hebrew is like modern Coptic. It was revived by a religious leader with changes that make it a totaly different language. Most odern Israeli's could not follow all of the banyaim (conjugations) of the Old Testament Hebrew, becuase the Rabbi that revived the language purposely simplified the language and assigned tenses to the old banayim that are not as strictly followed in Old Testament Hebrew. Another consideration Old Testament Hebrew is that it is a language that evolved over the thousand plus years it took to write the Old Testament that makes Genisis as different from Malachi as today's English is from Elizabethan English. I can read Elizabethan English because it is so close to my ownlanguage, but I often have to refer to a dictionary to understand certain words and how they are used. BTW Elizabethan and today's English are both classified as modern English, but it has also evolved. There are also divergences in the language from one region to another that make the Eglish of Britain, Australia and the USA a bit different at times. When was the last time an American used the phrase "ring off"? My ultimate point is that OT Hebrew has variations depending upon where the author was from, even when two books were written at the same time. Biblical Hebrew is not a monomous language, but a language with many regional and temporal variations. Mike

Comment written by nelsmp on Jun 25, 2005 @ 03:29

Cornwall has it's own language, Cornish but it's rarely used these days. It's a Celtic language, closely related to the Breton language in the Brittany region of France. I don't know if it can be considered a dead language yet but it must be pretty close.

Comment written by Marja on Jun 24, 2005 @ 20:17

Sanskrit is thought to be one of the oldest languges in the world. It's part of the Indo-European family of languages and it's been used in religious rituals for centuries in countries like India, Nepal, Buthan, etc. It's more or less like Latin, I mean the same story. It's being used in religious ceremonies and it's being studied at schools in India. In adition to this you've got to take into account that philologists take care of these languages; objectively speaking, we might say it's a rare language nowadays.

Comment written by Amleth on Jun 23, 2005 @ 23:31

is sanscrit dead? i know it's important in religion and, similarly to latin, in language evolution, but i never knew if anyone actually would speak it as a native language

Comment written by helloplatypu on Jun 23, 2005 @ 14:58

I'd like to talk about what is known as a dead language and to ponder on this issue obejectively. What are the main features of a dead language? Are they dead or evolved? For instance, Latin is used as an example in linguistics; however, Latin remains alive in universities, religion, sciences, schools, etc... Is it dead, then? Latin is the root of the Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian) too, should we talk about evolution, instead? Can you mention other dead languages? 1. Latin 2. ...

Comment written by Amleth on Jun 23, 2005 @ 13:22