Nominations please, for the all asshole scale

[Gob]

Is Sanskrit a dead language or a living language?

Is it a living language? If so it cannot be dead.

dead
   
adjective
1.no longer living; deprived of life: dead people; dead flowers; dead animals.
2.brain-dead.
3.not endowed with life; inanimate: dead stones.
4.resembling death; deathlike: a dead sleep; a dead faint.
5.bereft of sensation; numb: He was half dead with fright. My leg feels dead.

Today, it is listed as one of the 22 scheduled languages of India[

The corpus of Sanskrit literature encompasses a rich tradition of poetry and drama as well as scientific, technical, philosophical and Hindu religious texts. Sanskrit continues to be widely used as a ceremonial language in Hindu religious rituals in the forms of hymns and mantras. Spoken Sanskrit is still in use in a few traditional institutions in India and there are many attempts at revival.

Sounds alive to me.

[Andrew D]

Ooh!

A breakthrough!

Living is not dead!

I'm glad that we can agree on something.

Still, a total failure to answer the question:

Is Sanskrit a living language or a dead language?

[Gob]

Sanskrit was never a "native" language by the way.

[Andrew D]

Ah.

So when eminent linguist Bloomfield wrote:

Long after it ceased to be spoken as anyone's native language

He actually meant "it was never spoken as anyone's native language anyway".

Does desperation ever give you night-sweats?

[Sean]

People learning it as a first -- i.e., native -- language -- uncheck.

Luckily that is only a requirement in your eyes and unless I'm mistaken, you don't actually make the rules.

Although maybe someday soon when you finish that volcano lair... eh Andrew?

[Gob]

Ah.

So when eminent linguist Bloomfield wrote:

Long after it ceased to be spoken as anyone's native language

He actually meant "it was never spoken as anyone's native language anyway".

I suppose it all depends on whether he was using the Andrew D definition of "native", or the dictionary one.

Does desperation ever give you night-sweats?

Does blowing your own trumpet ever give you chapped lips?

[loCAtek]

Sanskrit's use was as a;

ceremonial language

according to Gob's quote. Meaning: No, you can't walk up to a local refreshment stand and order a fruit cocktail with it.

[Andrew D]

Okay.

If one doesn't care what "dead language" means, then Cornish is not dead.

And that winged thing carrying freight and passengers from one place to another is a breadbox.

[Andrew D]

Using the dictionary definition of only half a term rather than the whole term leads one to spectacular blunders like this:

Taking the contrary logic where it's going:

I was born in San Francisco.

San Francisco is in America.

Therefore, I am a Native American.

That is actually true though

Newsflash: The dictionary definition of Native American is:

a member of any of the peoples who were the original inhabitants of North and South America and the Caribbean Islands.

(Compact Oxford English Dictionary.)

My having been born in San Francisco, which is part of America, does not make me a Native American.

But, hey, Cornish is a living language, because you want it to be one.

[Andrew D]

I've already set it out in terms I thought would be easy enough for you to understand.

Does that mean that you can't?

Or just that you won't?

It means that I'm not your teacher Andrew.

Well, that's a relief. For a moment there, I was afraid that I'd never learned anything.

[Andrew D]

Id like to see your research refuting Andrew.

So would he.

[Andrew D]

The propositions actually supported are that a dead language is one that is no longer learned as a first language and that Cornish is no longer (at least for now; this could change at any time) learned as a first language. Make of them what you will.

[Andrew D]

Oops!

I was horribly wrong!

native ... naturally in a person's character

(Compact Oxford English Dictionary.)

Utian has been my native language since I was in my mother's womb.

Maybe I should learn to speak it.

Nah, why bother? The dictionary says that it is naturally in my character anyway.

[Sean]

Stop sulking Andrew. You're with a group of people who don't simply accept everything you say without question. This may or may not be unusual for you.

Deal with it.

[alice]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the discussion, or if I've come in on the wrong end of it, but ...
Latin is a dead language. I've never heard that disputed.
However there are still latin classes and there are still people who have learned to speak latin very well, and to add new words and phrasings to the dead latin language.
And I think that at least one religion - Catholic, as far as I know - speaks sermons in the latin tongue (I'm not Catholic, so am basing this on an understanding that could be wrong)
And I used to have an english/latin,latin/english transation dictionary, and was devastated when it was lost in one of my moves. It was one of my little cherished books that I have missed greatly. (but I digress )
So having classes that teach a language, and some people who learn from those classes how to speak the language quite or very well, and others who know lots of words and phrases from that language and can make adaptations to bring elements of the language 'up to date' or add new words, obviously doesn't all add tgether to 'undead' a language.
If it did, latin would not be dead.

So is the argument here around whether a language is 'dead' or 'not dead' -in which case it would appear, using latin as an example, that it would require a population using the language as their native tongue, using it in everyday speech as their primary communication with other native speakers, to make it 'not dead', because learned usage is obviously not enough of a criterian to 'undead' it.

Or is the argument that a dead language can be resurrected for use in some way - like latin, which is to all scholarly definitions 'dead', but has been conveniently resurrected for use in biology, Catholic sermons and for other learned reasons and reasonings?

And if the argument is that a language can be resurrected, but still dead, then that's a different matter, isn't it? Because something that stopped being a native tongue, and was effectively 'dead', could of course be resurrected if a group of people or populace was determined to make sure the language stayed in existence. And the way to do this would be by teaching it in certain courses or schools etc as a specialist subject. It's 'dead', because it's not a native tongue and not in general and everyday usage by a population, but it's been resurrected either for a convenience (latin again) or to make sure that future generations remember the language of their past.

So aren't you all sort of right? - Perhaps it was the phrasing of the question - perhaps one thing was intended in the mind of the questioner, and another thing has been interpreted in the minds of the respondents. So perhaps what you're all saying has correct basis, but just comes from different starting points?

Or am I, as I said at the beginning, coming in at this 'debate' from the wrong end?
If it stayed as a debate, I actually thought it was a very interesting topic tohave been introduced - one that I wouldn have liked to have learned more about


edited to clarify and tidy a bit

[Andrew D]

I don't want anyone to accept what I say without question.

I prefer that people question what I say.

I also prefer that they pay some attention to my answers.

But if people who question me then proceed to ignore my answers to their questions, then I recognize those people for what they are.

[alice]

I think that was a response to the statement above mine?

edit:
PS - only asking because I'm feeling particularly 'blonde' at the moment - so thought it best to clarify for my own sake

[Andrew D]

I think that alice has pretty well nailed it.

Perhaps it was the phrasing of the question - perhaps one thing was intended in the mind of the questioner, and another thing has been interpreted in the minds of the respondents.

So is the argument here around whether a language is 'dead' or 'not dead' -in which case it would appear, using latin as an example, that it would require a population using the language as their native tongue, using it in everyday speech as their primary communication with other native speakers, to make it 'not dead', because learned usage is obviously not enough of a criterian to 'undead' it.

As I have said repeatedly, I have been from the beginning using the definitions according to which Cornish is dead. Those definitions are that a dead language is one that is no longer learned as a native language and that a native language is a first language.

(As a technical point, I take exception to alice's phrasing "using it in everyday speech as their primary communication with other native speakers": If my first language is English, and I move to Spain, and I thenceforth use Spanish as my primary communication with people whose first language is Spanish, does Spanish thereby become my native language? I think not.)

Some people have disputed the definitions which, as I have repeatedly said, I have been using from the beginning. But as far as I can tell, no one has disputed that each of those definitions has some support.

In my judgment, each of those definitions has more support than the alternatives presented here. In my judgment, I have shown that over and over again.

Others evidently disagree.

But whichever side one takes on that question, one fact remains undisputed:

The only language that has gone from having been learned as a first language to not having been learned as first language and then back to having been learned as a first language is Hebrew.

Cornish appears to be moving in that direction. It has come as far as being taught as a second language to very young children. And if things keep moving in that direction, as I hope that they will, Cornish will eventually be taught as a first language to very young children. Cool.

And when that happens, the dispute over definitions will no longer matter as far as Cornish is concerned.

Which, if nothing else, will put an end to this overblown dispute.

[Andrew D]

Yes, alice, my presently antepenultimate posting was directed to Steve Sean, not to you.

Had reasonable differences such as those you made in your posting had been both made and acknowledged before now, this part of this thread -- which has taken a significant topic drift -- could have been less heated and more enlightening.

Thanks.

-------------------------

Illuminating error? Why does Sean increasingly remind me of Steve? Must be just me ....

[alice]

(As a technical point, I take exception to alice's phrasing "using it in everyday speech as their primary communication with other native speakers": If my first language is English, and I move to Spain, and I thenceforth use Spanish as my primary communication with people whose first language is Spanish, does Spanish thereby become my native language? I think not.)

I understand and accept your technical point regarding my wording , but my 'defence' [ ] is that I was applying it as a rather more casual interpretation in terms of discussion of dead languages. The primary factor, I believe, is that it has to continue to be a native language in a population. So if you were born in an area or environment where English was the first and native language of the populace, and you moved to Spain and had to use Spanish as your primary communication with people whose first language was Spanish - then no, Spanish would not become your native language. It would become your second language, because you learned it after you had learned your first, or native language. But it still would be the native language of the Spanish area that you moved to, and that is the important fact that means the language is not dead.

And I added in 'area or environment' because I was thinking of those households in our multicultural environment where the children have grown up learning two languages equally well and perhaps almost together. One is the native language of their parents and of their cultural upbringing, and of one of their common social interactive environments; the other is the native language of their geographic location, and of their geographic culture and of the other of their common social environments. So it's not just geography, of course that defines whether the language is still 'alive'. And my general interpretation of the circumstance I described would be that they would be equally using both languages, and would be keeping both languages alive. But I think there would be a lot of 'if's' and 'but's' to that, and I think it would depend on specifics and technicalities (it would need to be defined more than I'm able to do tonight).

I hope the above made sense. I am interested in the discussion itself - the debate, not the rest of it, of course . I have to take my leave again now, but I hope to be back to the board again soon - if the discussion is not too old by then, perhaps I can contribute further