Talk:Lists of extinct languages

Untitled
In working on this page, I noted that most of the language links are dead. I will unlink them until they have at least stubs on them. --Merovingian 14:56, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit
I think it's fairly crazy to call Sanskrit "dead" when there are Wikipedia entries in the language. Similarly, Pali and Prakrit are still in use in official and religious ceremonies in South and South East Asia; just as the Wikipedia entry on Latin argued that Latin isn't quite "dead", Pali and Prakrit aren't quite dead in the sense that they still are used. As such, their inclusion here distracts the reader from other more worthy entries; the other languages are truly dead, in that they not used at all.


 * What happened to the others? Asia, Europe, Australia - has somebody deleted all this stuff?

Aboriginal Languages of Australia should certainly be noted in this web site and here is a link that treats the extinction and near extinction of such languages; http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/units/ling210-901/phonology/aboriginal/

Damin (Australia, conlang)
Probably shouldn't be added, but I thought I would mention it for sake of completenes. "Damin was a secret language spoken only by initiated men on three islands in the Gulf of Carpentaria, south of New Guinea. It has many remarkable qualities; for example, it is the only non-African language to use clicks as part of its regular phonemic inventory. It seems pretty clear that Damin was an invented language, and a cleverly built one, but unfortunately it has become extinct."

http://www.rickharrison.com/language/damin.html


 * Nice link! Damin is described in detail in the following article:


 * Hale, Ken; Krauss, Michael; Watahomigie, Lucille J.; Yamamoto, Akira Y.; Craig, Colette; Jeanne, LaVerne M. et al. (1992). Endangered languages. Language, 68 (1), 1-42.


 * Peace &mdash; ishwar  (S PEAK )  08:03, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Discussion
The factual accuracy of the section on Greece, which currently excludes Ancient Greek as an extinct language, is disputed. The discussion of this issue follows. --Angr/undefined 5 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)

''Of course Ancient Greek has a surviving descendant. So does Latin. That's irrelevant to the question of whether it's extinct or not. If you want to propose that "List of extinct languages" be restricted only to languages without surviving descendants, please discuss this idea on Talk first.''

I'm currenctly working on the articles of the Greek language, you can see my contributions at Modern Greek, Ancient Greek, Koine Greek and many others. There's a huge difference between Latin and the Romance languages with Ancient Greek and Modern Greek. If you regard Ancient Greek as separate language which is lost, then the term "extinct languages" becomes moot. Greek is regarded today (along with Chinese) as one of the best preserved ancient languages in the world, and this has to do a lot with the histories of both nations. First of all Modern Greek is closer to Mycenaean Greek more than modern English to Anglo-Saxonic, so you can't make a comparison between the two. In other words, Modern Greek is not just a modern language which was baptised "Greek" (something that happens), it is in fact a stage in the Greek language. No language remains static, especially not in 2500 years, this is why every surviving language has its historical stages. This is not something that I'm coming up with, it's actually something that linguists say. Ancient Greek as a term, comprises a vast number of dialects, and is not referring to a specific common language which one day got extinct. The first common Greek dialect which is spoken since the 4th c. BC and is called Koine Greek, it is almost intelligible with Modern Greek. This is not at all the case with Latin and ancient Germanic. I'm not propose that this article should be restricted only to languages without surviving descendants, I'm saying that your terminology of "surviving descendant" does not apply to Greek. Modern Greek is not just a "surviving descendant" to some lost language called Greek, it is actually part of the Greek language. I repeat that I'm not expecting you to take my word for it, I'm only stating you what the academics say. Miskin 4 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)


 * Chinese is one of the worst-preserved languages in the world, actually. Even English is arguably more like Old English than Mandarin is like Tang-dynasty Chinese.  Your claims about Greek's mutual intelligibility with Ancient Greek seriously contradict those I'm familiar with, which state that even Dhimotiki and Katharevousa are not mutually intelligible; care to cite some sources? - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Chinese so it's not something I'm willing to refute. As for Modern Greek, I said it's almost intelligible to Koine Greek. Koine Greek is indeed a dialect of ancient Greek, in the sense that it was spoken since the 4th c. BC, but linguistically it's categorised as a separate stage of the Greek language called Hellenistic Greek or Post-Classic Greek. Ancient Greek is normally a group of dialects, but the default in Classics is Attic. Attic is not perfectly intelligible with Modern Greek but it's not unintelligible either. About the intelligibility of Demotic Greek and Kathareuousa, I'll just let you know that Kathareuousa was the official language of the state until 1976. This means that 'all state documents (including school material) were written in this form of speech, so you can make your own conclusion regarding what you're heard. As for the intelligibility of Modern vs Ancient Koine Greek, I would urge you to have your local Greek restaurant owner translate a random text of the New Testament. Thus you'll get your answer.

Sample Sources:


 * L. Roussel, Grammaire descriptive du romeique litteraire (Paris 1922)
 * M. Perides, The Greek language and its contemporary form (Athens 1959)
 * A. Mirambel, La langue grecque moderne - Description et analyse (Paris 1950)
 * da Somavera, Treasures of the Frankish and Romaic language (Paris 1709)
 * N.P.Andriotes, Great dictionary of the Greek language (Athens 1949-1950)
 * K. Krumbacher, The problem of the modern Greek literary language (1902)
 * V. Rotolo, A. Korais and the linguistic question in Greece (Palermo 1965)

And the list can go on and on. In fact I've never come across a linguistic source which characterised Ancient Greek a dead language. This is why I initially reverted without saying anything.

Miskin 4 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)

There may well be diglossia between Katharevousa and Dhimotiki. That doesn't make them mutually intelligible, any more than Egyptian Arabic and Classical Arabic are mutually intelligible, even though speakers of Egyptian Arabic can all understand Classical Arabic. Ancient Greek and Modern Greek are two different languages, and the older one is extinct, by the same token that Australopithecus and Homo sapiens are two different species, and the older one is extinct. --Angr/undefined 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Angr, you are wrong. Katharevousa is easily intelligible to modern-day native Greek speakers, even those who have been schooled after its abolition from education in 1976. Chronographos 4 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)


 * Well put. And there's certainly no doubt that Ancient Macedonian is extinct: it left no living descendants. - 4 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

I don't know what Egyptian Arabic are to Classical Arabic, but Demotic Greek is in fact intelligible with Kathareuousa. It was never the vernacular language so it's obviously not as easy to understand, but then again so is Scottish English. Miskin 4 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonian doesn't have a clear status as a distinct language from Greek, so it should either be categorised under 'Greece' or not be included at all (assuming it a dialect of ancient Greek that evolved to Koine Greek). Have a look at an original Macedonian text at Pella katadesmos. Miskin 4 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)


 * Before you start talking about edit wars, you could try discussing your edits on talk before introducing them. Whether Ancient Macedonian, or any other language, is a "separate" language is irrelevant; whether it was a language or a dialect, it's extinct, and most sources regard it as a language. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)


 * And before posing an expert, maybe you should learn the basics of your subjects. If ancient Macedonian is categorised as a dialect of Ancient Greek, it should not be included separately. The dialect vs language status is not irrelevant at all. Ancient Greek is not a language, it's a groups of dialects. Aeolic Greek is also an ancient Greek dialect. And it's lost. Why didn't you people add it under Greek? Because you don't know what you're talking about. I told you why introduced my edits, it's because they're common knowledge to people who have a clue. Besides I added it as a separate language assuming it a non-Greek dialect. Miskin 4 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've observed your and others' edit warring at Ancient Macedonian language, and as it correctly notes despite many efforts to POV it, "It is as yet undetermined whether the language was a separate yet sibling language which was most closely related to Greek, or a dialect of Greek, or an independent Indo-European language not especially close to Greek." And no, the language vs. dialect distinction is not very relevant, because it's thoroughly ill-defined.  Now you mention it, adding Aeolic and Doric Greek here is a pretty good idea, just as Moabite and Edomite are or should be in here despite unquestionably being mutually comprehensible with Hebrew.  I don't know who "you people" is supposed to be. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)

Ancient Greek and Modern Greek are two different languages, and the older one is extinct, by the same token that Australopithecus and Homo sapiens are two different species, and the older one is extinct.

You saw my articles and sources on the Greek language. You still haven't proved that you have a basic clue. So let me repeat the question, do you speak both and you're able to make the distinction or have you read countless books on the subject? Miskin 4 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)
 * Mustafaa, your familiarity with Greek may leave something to be desired. Koine (the language of the Gospels and the Septuagint), is Ancient Greek, yet it is easily intelligible by modern-day Greeks practically regardless of their educational level, as anyone can see for themselves by going to any Greek church. Chronographos 4 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)


 * The quote above is from Angr, actually. However, the existence of transitional dialects does not imply that two languages are identical.  If Low German is intelligible to Dutch speakers, and is considered as a German dialect, this does not therefore imply that Dutch is a German dialect, nor even that Dutch and German are mutually intelligible. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
 * This principle may well apply to Ancient Greek Dialects other than Attic, the precursor of Koine, but Koine is intelligible (see my argument above). By your criteria, a highlander Scotsman's English and an Alabaman redneck's English do not belong in the same language.  So please try to apply the appropriate criteria to each case.  Chronographos 4 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)


 * Extinct language simply means that a given language is no longer natively spoken, not whether it is intelligible to speakers of a related language or a daughter language. No one natively speaks New Testament Greek anymore (though by definition it was largely literary), last time I checked. It is extinct. This is not even an issue over which a counter-argument can be maintained. Decius 5 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page of Extinct language, if modern Greeks can read Ancient Greek with little or no difficulty, it's because of widespread familiarity with the artificially archaizing Katharevousa variety, not because Greek has changed so little over the last three thousand years. The phonological, syntactic, and morphological differences between the Greek of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle and the language spoken on the street in Athens today are huge and certainly enough to warrant considering them separate languages. Although my personal experience is irrelevant to the issue, Miskin brought it up, so I will respond that yes, I have read a lot about Ancient Greek. I studied classical languages and Indo-European linguistics at university and can read Ancient Greek without too much difficulty. Modern Greek, on the other hand, is completely impenetrable to me, because it's a different language, and one I've never learned. I'd like to someday, but I haven't yet, and my knowledge of Ancient Greek is no help except as far as recognizing the letters of the alphabet. --Angr/undefined 5 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)

Angr, the fact remains that you speak no form of Greek, neither Modern, neither Medieval, neither Hellenistic, neither Ancient, neither Mycenaean, neither Proto-Greek. Therefore what you say has absolutely no basis. The fact that you claim that you can read ancient Greek with no much difficulty is just a joke to anybody who has read your posts, which reveal that you don't even have fundamental knowledge on the subject. As I told you before, you are free to force your personal opinion on your family and friends, but not in wikipedia. Miskin

It is as yet undetermined whether the language was a separate yet sibling language which was most closely related to Greek, or a dialect of Greek, or an independent Indo-European language not especially close to Greek.

Trust me but I'm well aware with what this article says. This quote tells us that ancient Macedonian does not have a clear languistic status, it could be a language or a dialect. Therefore, when you write it down as a extinct language, you make the assumption that it's a language, otherwise it's part of Ancient Greek. Are we ok so far? Now when you make an assumptions you have to state it, therefore I'll add next to ancient Macedonian "assuming a language status". I hope we agree to this simple logical conclusion. As it's recorder in Arrian's Anabasis, Alexander the Great said to the Persians: Your ancestors invaded Macedon and the rest of Greece and did us harm to us all.... Therefore Macedonia was part of ancient Greece, and the Macedonian language/dialect should be categorised under Greece, not Balkans. As for 'Cappadocian Greek', two points: Therefore it should be removed. Miskin
 * It's a dialect of Modern Greek (as the article states it)
 * It's not extinct.

this shouldn't be about mutual comprehensibility at all. The question is, does the language have living descendants. PIE is not an 'extinct' language, it evolved, i.e. at no point in history did it die out. This holds even though PIE and English etc., are certainly not mutually intelligible. dab (&#5839;) 6 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

Okay, then if we change the definition/criterion of an extinct language/dead language, we must remove the other examples from the list, not just the Greek: remove Old Norse, remove Latin, and so on. I don't see any reason why Greek should be a special case. Decius 7 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)

You guys do realize, of course, that by our new definition, we would have to remove Dacian, Thracian, or Illyrian---if the Albanian language is subsequently proven to descend from one of them... Decius 7 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)

The criteria didn't change Decius. It's just that in the case of Greek, they were not applied properly. One important factor on the survival of a language is its documentation, and Albanian definitely doesn't have a continuous one. Albanian would be striving to prove that it has a direct heritage from one of those languages (such as Romance to Latin), but we can't talk about a same language status. However if it was somehow proved, then we'd have to remove it, but I don't see how that's relevant in the time being. I agree of course that there are probably many other languages that need to be added or removed from the list. For the known reasons, I didn't have the time to review the entire article earlier. Miskin 7 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)

Latin definitely stays in the list. I don't know much about Old Norse and the so on, but they probaby have to stay as well. Greek is not a special case in the sense that it's receiving special treatment by linguists. It's a special case in the sense that it had a special history which preserved the language better than most others. Miskin 7 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)

Until we settle on a definition/criterion, I prefer to remove Latin, Old Norse, Old English ("Anglo-Saxon"), and some others. Decius 7 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)

There are many reasons that explain why Latin and Greek evolved so differently. First of all think about the fact that early Latin was a language spoken solely at Rome, while Greek (a separate branch of IE) prior to the conquests of Alexander the Great was spoken on the entire Greek peninsula and Cyprus, Asia Minor and Caucasus, Southern Italy and Sicily, Southern coast France and Sardinia, Eastern Spain and Corse etc, etc. This is an important starting point already. Now after Alexander's conquest of the known world, a common form of Greek speech is created and spoken up to the fringes of India. Latin is still restricted in Rome. Greek colonisation occurs and Koine Greek replaces the majority of Ancient Greek dialects. The Roman conquest begins with the Latin League and Magna Graecia. None of those regions are Latin-Speaking, therefore Latin starts mixing with other languages. At the peak of the Empire, the Western part is multilingual and the Eastern part is Greek-speaking. Classic Latin is restricted to official use, and Vulgar Latin forms of speech are already well developed. Romans are fond of the Greek language and expand its use, while in the West Latin is being mixed into Kelto-Germanic and Italic speeches. After the sack of Rome to Alaric (5th c. AD) Vulgar Latin forms start evolve at separate directions. Greek on the other hand is preserved by the Byzantine Empire in a Koine form that survives until throught the Ottoman Empire until today. Modern Greek texts can be traced as back as 12th c. AD. In other words, Latin was never spoken in a large geographical region, it had always had to be forced on foreign languages (such as Keltic, Etruscan or Greek of southern Italy), and therefore absorbed many of their elements. Latin's native speakers were initially the Roman citizens, but as the term "Roman" lost connection to the city of Rome, so did the Latin language. Greek which was already the language of christianity and the New Testament, it never lost connection from the Greek peninsula and Constantinople. Latin is considered extinct because all of its historical stages (early, classic, late, vulgar etc) came to an end. This was not the case with Greek. Ancient Greek to Greek what early Latin is to Latin, that is a historical period of a language, and not a language itself. We can't say that Ancient Greek is extinct, because we don't say that Early Latin is extinct. However we say that Latin is extinct while Greek is living; Latin includes Early Latin and Greek includes Ancient Greek. The reason why linguists chose to consider the Romance languages a separate modern family that derives from Latin, rather than a form of modern Latin dialect family, it is because the Romance languages became unintelligible to each other. Greek preserved a Koine form with various dialects and idioms that maintained intelligibility. Greek was stopped being called 'Hellenic' during the middles ages in the Greek World. The Byzantines called it "Roman" and it survived like that until the 19th century. It was modern Western scholars who changed its name back to Greek because that's what it was. Miskin 7 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)

The problem I have here is establishing a firm criterion for the entire article: if having a spoken descendant means a language is not extinct, then Latin is not extinct, Old English is not extinct, and Old Norse is not extinct, so I removed them. Simple as that. Decius 7 July 2005 03:28 (UTC)

I agree to that. The current definition is imprecise. I'm not sure on whether or not Old English and Norse should be considered extinct languages, or simply early stages of a living language. Someone with specific linguistic knowledge should verify that to us. Miskin 7 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)

Latin, ancient Greek, Old English, Sanskrit, Syriac, and Old Norse all have living descendants, of course; and they are all also very different from their modern descendants. Not listing them is a logically consistent position, if all of them are removed; but frankly, it's extraordinarily unhelpful to the reader, given that such languages are normally called extinct. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)
 * Exactly. they are traditionally known as extinct. mikka (t) 8 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and "they" includes ancient Greek. Decius 8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)

WP:RFC
I've listed this article on the Request for Comment page. &#08492; astique &#09660; talk 5 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)

Tradeoff
In fact there is an easy way to reconcile the sides: to introduce sections:

-=Totally extinct languages==
 * and

-=Languages considered extinct with extant descendants==

mikka (t) 8 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)

Good idea: sections to the article is probably the best solution. Decius 8 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

Mikkalai, don't you agree that Ancient Greek is "considered extinct with spoken descendants"? Decius 8 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)

Dead End Languages and Evolved Languages (It's simple and Totally just grates on me) &#08492; astique &#09660; talk 8 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

This new compromise is the best solution. I expect more people now to revert Miskin's attempts at favoritism and subjective categorization. Decius 8 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)

Two sections
This new format is to avoid subjective categorization, Miskin. Otherwise, what criterion do you use? How "close" a descendant is to its parent language? Do you realize how subjective and chaotic such a "classification" would be? It would result in various edit wars for the inclusion or exclusion of various languages. Forget your own world for now, I'm doing what's best for the article. This is not just about "Greek" and "ancient Greek", but could involve any two languages or any two stages of a language, from Africa to Oceania. The list must have consistent criteria. Decius 8 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)

Further compromise can be made with the titles of the sections, but I'll revert any sudden, unexplained drastic changes. I think the section title I put for Ancient Greek and Latin and Old English (Anglo-Saxon), etc., is unoffensive (Languages that have evolved into new forms). I realize that the word "extinct" is what some find very offensive when applied to ancient Greek (or Latin), so perhaps "evolved" is better to use. Decius 8 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)

Another compromise might be to have a separate article for the languages no longer spoken, but with spoken descendants (which would include ancient Greek), if somebody really can't stand seeing ancient Greek on a List of extinct languages. Decius 8 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)

This format gives Ancient Greek a separate language status. There are various forms of Hellenic speech which have occasionally been given a separate language status (like Mycenaean Language and Proto-Greek), and Ancient Greek is not one of them. Therefore your new format provides subjective categorisation. I don't see a reason for an edit war unless you keep ignoring what the linguist view on the subject. I'm sure you're doing the best for the article but it appears that it's not good enough as it a POV interpretation. We can remove Old French and Old English for the time being (as I said I don't know what linguists say on those), but I'm adding Latin for obvious reasons. I'm only insisting on the categorisation of Greek and Latin because that's what I'm familiar with. Miskin 8 July 2005 08:13 (UTC)

Miskin, what you didn't notice is the new title of the section, which you can't say is incorrect, so there is no "POV" (Languages that have evolved into new forms). Latin is already added. Decius 8 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)

what is the point of this list anyway??
before you continue haggling about individual language, do consider whether the article title is not altogether flawed. I do think so. What is this article supposed to contain? A "list of endangered languages", including recently extinct languages, would be useful. A list of ancient languages is quite a different animal. THis article is just conflating the two. Miskin, I wasn't trying to get every ancient language listed here, I was trying to point out the absurdity of that approach. Can we maybe break this up in "list of Bronze Age languages", "list of Iron Age languages", "list of medieval languages", and "list of extinct modern languages", or something like that? There is simply no point in listing Mycenaean next to Manx. dab (&#5839;) 8 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)


 * Let's open a discussion on this. I think your proposal sounds pretty good---the more clarity and precision, the more useful an article is anyway. Do you think creating new articles is better, or new sections? I could go for either. Decius 8 July 2005 07:31 (UTC)

well, the separation is already a good thing. "Languages that have evolved into new forms" is woefully short, of course, and it will include any language ever spoken prior to the 21st century, i.e.: dab (&#5839;) 8 July 2005 11:08 (UTC)
 * 1) is there a point to this list?
 * 2) shouldn't it be named "non-contemporary languages"
 * 3) if you really really want to keep it, move it to a separate article (which will be a long list).
 * 4) conversely, a "list of contemporary languages" will be shorter (some 5000 entries), and more interesting, and can at least aspire to be complete sometime.


 * I put 'em there for now rather than listing them as simply extinct with the rest of the bunch (with Ancient Greek absent from the list due to you know who). A temporary solution to a problem, and seems to be better to the prior situation (one level of specificity above the prior list). However, I'm ready for a better solution. Decius 8 July 2005 11:15 (UTC)

Sources on Greek
That support a continuous Greek language of four (or five) historical periods:


 * L. Roussel, Grammaire descriptive du romeique litteraire (Paris 1922)
 * M. Perides, The Greek language and its contemporary form (Athens 1959)
 * A. Mirambel, La langue grecque moderne - Description et analyse (Paris 1950)
 * da Somavera, Treasures of the Frankish and Romaic language (Paris 1709)
 * N.P.Andriotes, Great dictionary of the Greek language (Athens 1949-1950)
 * K. Krumbacher, The problem of the modern Greek literary language (1902)
 * V. Rotolo, A. Korais and the linguistic question in Greece (Palermo 1965)

During the early 19th century a school of linguists who were trying to categorise the so-called "Roman" language (Modern Greek), supported a theory that it was a mixture of ancient Aeolic and Doric. Some strong supporters of this view were:


 * F. Mullach - Grammar of the Aeolo-Doric, id est the contemporary Greek language.
 * M. Deffner
 * A. Christopoulos
 * D. Mavrofrudes

The established theory is the one of Heilmaier and N. Hatzidakis, which states that contemporary Greek speech is a form of Koine Greek, hence the presence of Aeolo-Doric elements.

Miskin 8 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems to me that this is a case where both positions are correct according to perspective and definition, which is why I can view Greek as a continuous living language (it is) while at the same time admitting that in a strict sense, Ancient Greek is extinct, because it evolved into new forms (also correct). The same is true for many other languages. Now, the question is, what do we do with the article. Decius 8 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)


 * Ancient Greek can't be treated in the same way as Latin because it's part of a living language. As I said before, there are forms of Greek speech which are occasionally given a separate language status, but Ancient Greek is simply not one of them. I don't know what you mean by strict sense, this categorisation is pretty clear. One of the reason that Modern Greek is a historical period of Greek rather than a simple ancestor (what Romance is to Latin), is because the dialects of Modern Greek are mutually intelligible. On the other hand the languages of Romance are not mutually intelligible, and therefore Romance gains a "language group" status, (as opposed to the "dialect group" of Modern Greek). Miskin 8 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)


 * The 'strict sense' that I and others are referring to is: no ancient Greek dialect is natively spoken in their old forms any more, which is why extinct may be applied according to that definition. Decius 8 July 2005 08:34 (UTC)


 * Decius you keep making the same mistake by giving Ancient Greek a separate language status. You could give Mycenaean Greek a separate language status, I wanted to do that and if you notice I always mention four historical periods of Greek, but other (non-Greek) editors preferred to give it a period status. Ancient Greek has an undisputed "period status", so you can't talk refer to it as an extinct language by definition. Your definition of 'extinct' (no ancient Greek dialect is natively spoken in their old forms any more) doesn't make any sense, because by that logic no ancient dialect X of any ancient language Y is not natively spoken in their older forms anymore, so what's the point of keeping a list in the first place? By separating languages into historical periods we aim to point out that they did evolve without being extinct. Miskin 8 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could make a further distinction, between "Languages that have evolved into new forms", which would include ancient Greek, Old French, Old English, etc. and "Languages that have evolved into new languages", i.e. Latin. I maintain that Latin is a special case but Old French is more or less the equivalent of ancient Greek.--Theathenae 8 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)

Modern English has three roots: Old English, Latin and Greek. Multiple roots are probably another factor which give a separate language status to a child language. That's probably the case with Latin and Romance as well. I haven't checked on Old French and Norse yet, but I suspect it's something similar. Miskin 8 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)


 * The problem there is that a number of linguists argue (rather correctly) that Modern Greek is a new language that evolved from Koine. I don't know these linguists by name, but I'm pretty sure their writings can be found. Decius 8 July 2005 08:59 (UTC)


 * Amongst other reasons, Modern Greek has a 'period status' because it has no other roots other than Greek. Miskin 8 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)


 * And Theathenae, I can't miss this opportunity to point out your hypocrisy and double-standards: you accept that Modern Greek and Ancient Greek are the same language, but Arvanitic has became a separate language from Tosk according to you, though it is classified as a dialect of Tosk. Decius 8 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)
 * Arvanitic has become a separate language by virtue of the centuries of deep penetration by Greek, and the self-identification of its speakers. As for modern Greek being a new language rather than the natural evolution of ancient Greek, support for such a theory would be marginal. Perhaps we could have a separate paragraph altogether for Latin, explaining the idiosyncrasies of its situation. As a Latin Lover myself, I find the idea of Latin being "extinct" rather repugnant.--Theathenae 8 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)

I think that the problem is trying to apply a uniform, rigid criterion to vastly different situations. In this sense, Dab's suggestion is very good. I know nothing of Old French, but Old English is so different from Modern English because of the Norman Invasion and the subsequent large-scale grafting of French onto a Germanic language. (Not that it's the only grafting that occurred: last night I heard a London Underground bombing casualty say on camera "There was an explosion, and then hysteria, which turned into pandemonium". When the going gets tough, it's time for Greek.  :-)))  Anyhow, I don't see how one can separate Koine from Attic, and Koine is intelligible to illiterate 90-year old little ladies in church, so what now? Chronographos 8 July 2005 10:04 (UTC) (There are a few passages in Homer that any Greek can understand prima vista, and other passages that will send someone like me scrambling for a dictionary.  I did a test last Monday: I told my 12 year old nephew, who's smart and a good student but hadn't had any Ancient Greek classes yet, Pythia's reply to Julian, in flawless Doric.  "Είπατε τω βασιλεί, χαμαί πέσε δαίδαλος αυλά, ουκέτι Φοίβος έχει καλύβαν, ου μάντιδα δάφνην, ου παγάν λαλέουσαν, απέσβετο και λάλον ύδωρ". He couldn't get δαίδαλος and παγάν, although he knew who Daidalos was and needed me to tell him that παγάν meant πηγήν, and he predictably thought that πέσε was a command rather that an unaugmented Aorist.)
 * Explosion is Latin! :P--Theathenae 8 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's the terrorist part.  The human feelings are the Greek part. :-)) Chronographos 8 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)
 * This would be more persuasive if δάφνην and βασιλεί were Doric, instead of Attic.... Septentrionalis 05:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Problems
So...why do we allow the listing of Old Church Slavonic but not Ancient Greek? Ridiculous double standards. Old Church Slavonic is close to Bulgarian. I propose modifying the parameters of the article. Languages with descendants should not be listed: Old Church Slavonic, Old English, Old Norse, and even Latin. Alexander 007 08:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree most with dab, above, when he says that he considers this article to be inherently flawed. There is no perfect solution to this. &mdash; mark &#9998; 09:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the original conception was extremely flawed. It may be salvageable if we set a stricter definition. However, even this may have problems. And there are languages such as Aquitanian which may be a direct ancestor of a spoken language (in the case of Aquitanian, the Basque language). Alexander 007 09:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And should we list Sanskrit and the Ge'ez language for example? They are still used as Liturgical languages, and Sanskrit even beyond that. Alexander 007 09:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If anybody chooses to revert, I remind them that the previous definition would have made this list unmanageable and POV. We would have to list each historical stage of every spoken language. Alexander 007 09:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, dab also suggested a redefining of the parameters for this list; see Talk:Historical language. It's the best solution so far, unless we decide to eliminate all the lists and allow Categories to sort them. Alexander 007 10:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the Old Church Slavonic without much of thinking, apology from me. Thanks for spotting this and the cleanup. Pavel Vozenilek 15:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Separate lists
While in many cases it is useful to list things "all on one page" (oh wow), in many cases where the lists will be extremely long, it is overwhelming and often hinders one from appreciating and actually benefiting from a list; hence, I created separate specialized articles (see Category:Lists of extinct languages). Alexander 007 15:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The one reason for this stub may be so List of extinct languages will direct to it, since it can't be directed to the Category...I wouldn't mind having it deleted, however. Alexander 007 15:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, as it is now, it looks to me as if the subject would be better served by categories alone. &mdash; mark &#9998; 15:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Categories can do it alone. Especially since one can have text and images on the Category page. I'll probably do this later, unless someone else beats me to it. Alexander 007 15:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * However, a drawback of Categories: you can't list languages or dialects unless they have separate articles already started. Alexander 007 15:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Another one is that categories only list articles by alphabetic order. Lists have other utilities: for example, a chronological ordered list of Europe extinct languages could help someone who wants to see what languages disappeared in Europe since the 15th century... Ash Crow 02:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

List of extinct languages ordered by time of extinction
I was looking for a list of extinct languages by time of extinction, but I didn't find anything like that. In my opinion there should be, though. I'm especially interested in the languages gone extinct recently... — N-true (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I simply created the article myself: List of languages by time of extinction. — N-true (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Exctinct Languages of Oceania?
This should be here, in this list of lists of extinct languages. As of 21/12/21, there are several immediately identifiable from the List of languages by time of extinction.

Bonomiu (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Bonomiu