On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 7:54 AM Paul Koning via cctalk <[email protected]> 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
