SV: "Dead" languages

[Lars Martin Fosse]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Max Wheeler [SMTP:maxw at cogs.susx.ac.uk] skrev 22. september 1999 15:14:

> The name usually used for e.g. Sanskrit, Arabic, Latin, or Hebrew while it
> had no native speakers, is "classical language". Such a language may well
> have an extremely wide range of functions, but is learnt formally, through
> instruction, by people who have some distinct native language.

> So Old English, Akkadian, Ancient Egyptian, and so on are [+dead,
> -classical], while Sanskrit, Latin (in Middle Ages and Rensaissance, at
> least) are [+dead, +classical]

I realize this must seem like a rather hairsplitting terminological discussion.
But then, if you try to make a speaker of Sanskrit or Pali understand that the
language he's speaking is dead, you may meet some incomprehension....

May I suggest something to this effect:

1. Dead language: Not in use for communicative purposes. E. g. Hittite,
Accadian
2. Natural language: Has a community of speakers that learns it as their first
language (mother again). E. g. English, French etc
3. Active classical language: Used by a community of speakers who learn it as a
second language while having no community of speakers using it as a first
language. E. g. Sanskrit, Latin 500 years ago etc.
4. Passive classical language: E. g. Church Slavonic, Latin, Ancient Greek .
May be used for liturgical purposes, but not for active oral or written
communication.
5. Invented language: Artificially constructed language with a community of
speakers. E. g. Esperanto (about 100,000 speakers and a fairly substantial
literature), Ido, Volapuek.

Since Ido and Volapuek are not in use any more, we might even introduce the
term Dead Invented Language :-).

Languages 2, 3, 5 are all "living" in the sense that they are in practical use.
Esperanto is neither natural nor dead, but could in principle become a language
of some note if, for instance, the European Union decided to introduce it as
the European link language (which to my mind would be a good idea). It would
then function like a active classical language without being classical.

The advantage of the classification given above is that it conforms to
realities in a better manner than the traditional dichotomy between living and
dead languages does. And you don't have the feeling that you are stepping hard
on somebody's feelings when you tell them that their favourite sacred language
is dead. There is something to be said for diplomacy, too.

Best regards,
Lars Martin Fosse

Dr. art. Lars Martin Fosse
Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,
0674 Oslo
Norway
Phone/Fax: +47 22 32 12 19
Email: lmfosse at online.no