Nominations please, for the all asshole scale

[loCAtek]

...another topic reduced to pissing match.

[liberty]

Nope. At least, not until people start learning it as their first language, which does not appear to be in the offing any time soon ....

Why does it have to be a first language to be considered "resurrected"? Surely it is enough that it is learned and spoken by some.

How much does Cornish differ from Welsh? Would you happen the know the Cornish and Welsh words for mother, father, boy and girl.

[Gob]

Yep, there is very little difference, Cornish in it's revived for uses "borrowed" Welsh, Breton and Gaelic words.

Welsh; mam, tad, bachgen, merched.

Cornish: mam, tásyk, map, mowes.

[Andrew D]

Nope. At least, not until people start learning it as their first language, which does not appear to be in the offing any time soon ....

Why does it have to be a first language to be considered "resurrected"? Surely it is enough that it is learned and spoken by some.

Because that is what "dead language" means. Don't take my word for it. Instead, consider the words of people who have made such things their lives' work:

dead language
n.
A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native language by a speech community.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Notice "native". That is the language which one is born into. It is not a language which one later learns.

So these people:

You DARE to question the Great & Powerful OZ?!?!?!

LOL

have, yet again, fucked themselves.

Their levels of ignorance border on beyond comprehension. But the most pitiable thing is not how little they know but how passionately attached they are to how little they know.

Being ignorant is one thing. Choosing to remain proudly ignorant is quite another.

[Gob]

Nope. At least, not until people start learning it as their first language, which does not appear to be in the offing any time soon ....

Why does it have to be a first language to be considered "resurrected"? Surely it is enough that it is learned and spoken by some.

Because that is what "dead language" means. Don't take my word for it. Instead, consider the words of people who have made such things their lives' work:

dead language
n.
A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native language by a speech community.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Notice "native". That is the language which one is born into. It is not a language which one later learns.

"Native" does not mean "resurected" though.

[Sean]

'Native' does not mean 'first' either. Consider the Irish... Gaelic is their native tongue but is only the first language for a small percentage of the population.

[Andrew D]

"Native" does, however, have to do with "born".

Ever notice words such as "nativity"? Pre-"natal" care? Neo"natal"?

There's a running theme ....

[Gob]

Theme but, "resurected" ≠ "native".

[loCAtek]

Waiting for AD to slam Globber on this...

[Sean]

My point Andrew, is that a language does not have to be a 'first' language to be considered alive.

[thestoat]

Andrew: "What genuinely dead language has been resurrected?"
Gob: "Cornish"
Andrew: "Nope. At least, not until people start learning it as their first language, which does not appear to be in the offing any time soon"

Andrew then quotes a different meaning for dead:
"dead language
n.
A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native language by a speech community. "

That's the sort of thing lo would do. I would entirely agree that a language could be considered dead if it is "no longer learned as a native language by a speech community". But that is very different from requiring "people start learning it as their first language". And I am quite sure that if you visit Cornwall there will be plenty of people - who actually live there and therefore know about it - who would happily disagree with you.

[Lord Jim]

there will be plenty of people - who actually live there and therefore know about it - who would happily disagree with you.

And they of course would be wrong....

THE GREAT OZ HAS SPOKEN!

[thestoat]

No, no. it's fine - Andrew will admit his error. He has done so in the past ... "Speaking of admitting one's mistakes, you may recall that I started an entire thread solely to do exactly that. I did not want my error to be buried; I wanted to be sure that anyone who had the slightest inclination could see my admission that I had been wrong." It's on its way ...

[Andrew D]

Is there some difficulty in recognizing that one's "native" language is one's "first" language?

How could it not be?

How can one's "native" language be a language which one does not learn until after one has already learned one's "first" language?

This:

I would entirely agree that a language could be considered dead if it is "no longer learned as a native language by a speech community". But that is very different from requiring "people start learning it as their first language".

is just gibberish.

In what way can a "first" language not be a "native" language?

Is that question insufficiently straightforward?

If a language can be not dead even if no one starts learning it as her or his first language, then:

Latin is not dead;

Etruscan is not dead;

Sanskrit is not dead;

Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics are not dead;

Sumerian cuneiform is not dead.

In short, if that "reasoning" is accepted, then no known language is dead. Every known language is still a living language. And any language which is completely unknown today -- and which, therefore, would be considered dead by any rational definition -- will become undead if someone discovers and deciphers it tomorrow.

Is that "reasoning" even intended to be serious?

(I am referring, of course, to what thestoat has been saying. Lord Jim and bigskygal long ago stopped even pretending to be serious.)

[thestoat]

Is there some difficulty in recognizing that one's "native" language is one's "first" language?

Oh dear, you aren't getting it, are you. Wiki:

A first language (also native language, mother tongue, arterial language, or L1) is the language(s) a person has learned from birth[1] or within the critical period, or that a person speaks the best and so is often the basis for sociolinguistic identity. In some countries, the terms native language or mother tongue refer to the language of one's ethnic group rather than one's first language.[2] Sometimes, there can be more than one mother tongue, when the child's parents speak different languages.

I do understand that being American you won't be au fait with any language other than your own (nicked from the English) but there are people in that wilderness sometimes called "outside of America" where people are completely fluent in 2, 3 or even more languages.

[loCAtek]

Waiting for AD to slam...

[thestoat]

Nah, he's going to admit he's wrong. You wait and see

[loCAtek]

I said, I'm waiting...

[Andrew D]

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.

So now that you've quoted an admittedly unreliable article, do you care to answer the simple question?

Sure, a person born to parents who speak different languages can end up learning both simultaneously. The result of that is typically that the child learns one as a first language and the other as a second language. (That's AGD On Language (rev. ed. 2011), every bit as reliable as your quoted source.)

But that has nothing -- zip, zero, nada (ooh! bilingualism!) -- to do with someone's eventually learning a language other than the language which he or she was born into.

Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada.

A dead language is one which no one any longer learns as a first language. You are, of course, free to disagree. And I'll be waiting to see your objections to those breadboxes so noisily flying over your house.

In order for a dead language to be resurrected, it must (in addition, of course, to having died in the first place) have become once again a language which some people learn as their first language.

Go ahead. Throw dictionaries overboard. Invent your own definitions. Hell, invent your own language.

Or post pretty pictures without adding anything of substance. You'd hardly be alone.

Meanwhile, however, the phrase "dead language" means what it means.

P.S.: I admit that I am wrong when I am actually wrong. But being accused of error by someone without even the slightest understanding of the matter at issue does not create in me any sense of obligation to "admit" anything.

How about you admit that you are wrong? How about you admit that the meaning of "dead language" is not what you wish that it were?

Oh, wait. That would require an admission from you. Not impossible, but not worth holding one's breath for.

[thestoat]

Wow, you will go to any lengths to avoid admitting you are wrong. Because the wiki article needs citations you can therefore disregard it.

"Is there some difficulty in recognizing that one's "native" language is one's "first" language?"

There you have it - ignore your own statements if you like.

As for admissions - I always do - I did earlier.