[cctalk] Re: What constitutes a dead computer language

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Jun 17, 2026, at 4:25 AM, Doug Jackson via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> 
> wrote:
> 
> ...
> Perhaps a better definition of a dead language is one for which there is
> nobody left who can read it, write it, teach it, or care about it. By that
> standard, many of the languages being discussed here are very much alive.

You could use the linguistic definition, which is similar to what you said but 
a bit different.  Dead languages are those that are no longer used in 
conversation.  For example, Sumerian is dead by that definition, as is Latin, 
but (interestingly enough) not Sanskrit.  To a linguist, dead languages may be 
well understood (broadly, or only by a few) such as Sumerian, or not understood 
anymore either, like Pictish (I think).

        paul