Talk:List of languages by time of extinction

Unknown extinction date category has many languages that could be moved to after there date of last attestation.

Many of the unknown date of extinction category languages could be moved. Most of the ones that I have added have sources in other languages that I don't understand. Because of this, I can't tell if a source is documenting a language at a time when it was spoken or if it is just using other sources that have documented the language when it was spoken.

Why was Susquehannock removed from the list?

It was recently removed without much of an explanation.

It's entry in the list before it was removed.

| 1763 || Susquehannock || Iroquoian || Maryland/Virginia, United States || roughly concurrent to the Conestoga massacre

I have re-added Susquehannock because there wasn't a reason for it's removal.

|after 1763||Susquehannock||Iroquoian ||Northeastern United States||After the Conestoga massacre. |-

Latin

Why is Latin not listed? If it is an error of ommission, the article would be improved by adding it. If it was ommitted purposefully, the article would be improved by explaining why. 98.117.49.203 (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The main part of this article was written by myself, quite some time ago. I'm not sure why I didn't include Latin (and Ancient Greek for that matter!), but I believe it was because it's really hard to tell when Latin died out, because it didn't die out as the other languages on the list. It rather developped into dialects, which then became recognized as proper languages. According to Late Latin, this happened in the 9^th century AD, when sermons began to be held in the respective dialects. Hmm, does this mark the very end of spoken Latin? I'm not sure... — N-true (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lae Language

I was just on the UNESCO Atlas of the World Languages and it lists the Lae language of Papua New Guinea as being exinct. It is believed to have died around the year 2000. Should we include this in the chart? The only reference I can find to this language even existing is on the UNESCO site. Mr Languages (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I added it as Aribwatsa one of its three common names.

Odd dates for ancient Celtic languages

Some of the dates given in this list border on the ridiculous – or even worse. Lepontic is attested as late as the 1st century BC, so how could it have gone extinct by 400 BC already? And Gaulish "extinct after 500 BC"? Are you kidding me?! Gaulish is not even attested before the 3rd century BC! It's true that many inscriptions cannot be dated precisely and late references to the language are somewhat ambiguous such that it is not 100% certain that they actually refer to living Gaulish being spoken, but according to Stifter, it is absolutely uncontroversial that Gaulish was a living language as late as the 2nd century AD – and it may still have been spoken several centuries later (unless the literary references listed on Gaulish language#External evidence are misleading), by Late Antiquity, in the Christian period! Compare the discussion of the evidence for Lepontic and Late Gaulish in the Stifter PDFs linked on Lepontic language, from which it emerges that the late evidence for Gaulish is not completely certain; the inscriptions which seem to be late for language-external reasons as well (such as the inscriptions on spindle whorls) also offer a rather mixed and ambiguous linguistic picture and may be at least partly in Latin influenced by Gaulish (Gallo-Latin, probably a direct ancestor of Old French) rather than Gaulish influenced by Latin. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Avestan

Even Zoroastrians don't use Avestan? Complete extinction? --Zyma (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, even if they still use it in some form, the list is at least consistent here; Latin is listed as extinct too, even though it is still used as a liturgical language and even new texts are composed in it. But that hardly qualifies Latin as a "living language". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Old Chinese

The date given for Old Chinese (after 1200 BC) is silly too – (1250 to) 1200 BC is when Old Chinese is first attested. The end of Old Chinese is ill-defined (which is why I don't think that the inclusion of older stages of languages is useful), but the language spoken around 1000 years later is still called Old Chinese (certainly not Middle Chinese yet before the turn of the eras). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Lower Arrernte language

According to the section, Lower Arrernte language died in 2011 with Perrurle's dead but the source is a 2007 article about him. The actual language has no source either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The 2007 article says the last speaker of the language is Brownie Doolan [1], who is most probably the same Brownie Doolan [2] who passed away in 2011. Uanfala (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Definition of extinction

The article on Hazel Sampson says that she was the last native speaker of Klallam, but that "The Klallam language is still spoken as a second language by some members of the four indigenous Klallam communities [...], as well as the Beecher Bay Klallam of British Columbia, Canada." If it is still spoken, is it extinct? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of languages by time of extinction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205144612/http://www.historicmonterey.org/gallery/isabel_meadows.html to http://www.historicmonterey.org/gallery/isabel_meadows.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of languages by time of extinction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.write2kill.in/critiques/people/376.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070411023150/http://www.galdu.org/govat/doc/nordisk_samekonvensjon.pdf to http://www.galdu.org/govat/doc/nordisk_samekonvensjon.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709092655/http://coyotepapers.sbs.arizona.edu/CPXIII/haynes.pdf to http://coyotepapers.sbs.arizona.edu/CPXIII/haynes.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.elcomercio.com/solo_texto_search.asp?id_noticia=107499&anio=2008&mes=1&dia=22
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2ljworld.com/news/2005/aug001/researchers_try_preserve_indian_languages/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100719153158/http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/cdd/women/leadership/significant_tasmanian_women/significant_tasmanian_women_-_research_listing/fanny_cochrane_smith to http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/cdd/women/leadership/significant_tasmanian_women/significant_tasmanian_women_-_research_listing/fanny_cochrane_smith
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223163718/http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=cjr to http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=cjr

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: No opposition, proceed with merge. Calbow (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

---

I propose merging List of last known speakers of languages into this article. Every person in that list, except for the few still alive, is explicitly included in the "Notes" column of this list, e.g. "with the death of Edwin Benson". With respect to the living, there are many languages with only a handful of speakers left, see e.g. here, and it is not often reported when a not-yet extinct language goes from having several speakers to only one to qualify for that list, whereas when a language dies it more often has media coverage. This article is also far more complete than that one, having tens of last language speakers not in that list. Calbow (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Calbow: There doesn't seem to be any opposition expressed to this proposal. You should consider proceeding with a merge. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 14:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 29 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

---

List of languages by time of extinction → List of extinct languages by time of extinction – The title would make more sense as "List of extinct languages by time of extinction" since this list is explicitly talking about extinct languages Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support Too clunky with the repeated "extinct" in my opinion, but I agree the current title doesn't quite make sense. I would propose Chronological list of extinct languages. instead. —Somnifuguist (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, but I feel like just adding in "Extinct" makes more sense. I did think about replacing "time" with "date" but it was already too late because I had posted this. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as not WP:CONCISE due to the repetition. Most reasonable readers would tell at a glance of the current title that only extinct languages are involved. Would not oppose the more minor change to "date" as in List of languages by date of extinction. -- Netoholic @ 19:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Well not really. It falsely implies that every single language is extinct, which is obviously not true. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:CONCISE, "extinct" does not need to be repeated twice in the same title._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Well it does because “List of extinct languages by date” does not make sense either. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• The new title would not make sense as there are languages like Hebrew in this list that have been revived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.59.150.198 (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  This list is only supposed to be about extinct languages so that should not be. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Since people do not seem to understand this, this list has two elements: Extinct languages and the date that the language became extinct. The current title only correctly identifies the second element, and does not specify that this list is only about “extinct” languages. Even though the repetition may not be as smooth sounding, it is needed in order to tell people that this list is explicitly about only extinct languages, not just any language. The same problem would be evident if it was named “List of extinct languages by date”, since that title would not imply what the date is for. Thus, repeating “extinct” is necessary for explicitly stating the purpose of the article. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. List of cricketers by number of international five-wicket hauls does not imply that all cricketers have achieved international five-wicket hauls, and we don't need to rename it to List of cricketers with international five-wicket hauls by number of international five-wicket hauls. List of sportspeople by nickname does not imply all sportspeople have nicknames. List of cities by number of billionaires does not imply all cities have billionaires. Any competent reader will be able to exercise common sense in these situations to understand the intended scope of the article. Colin M (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  You do have a point. But those could also be renamed. Also, the three lists you listed would have very long names, whereas this list is a short name. I also kind of like Somnifugist's idea, something like “Chronological list of the extinction of languages”. Unfortunately it is too late to change the request. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• You know what, I would like to withdraw this, I have a new idea of a possible title. I will have to make another request though. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 6 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Despite little participation, the previous RM and Colin M's oppose in this one make it clear that there is little appetite for the title change, and there is consensus that the current name does not "imply that all languages are extinct". No such user (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

---

List of languages by time of extinction → Chronological list of extinct languages – The current name doesn't make sense as it implies that all languages are extinct. I proposed "List of extinct languages by time of extinction" but people didn't like the repetition, so another user suggested this new title. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 12:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• weak oppose. For the reasons I gave in the previous RM, I don't think the current title actually implies to a reasonable reader that all languages are extinct. And I find the proposed title to be slightly worse in terms of WP:CRITERIA, particularly precision. "Chronological" is ambiguous - chronological according to what sort key? It could mean the languages are ordered from oldest to most recent. It could also be argued to be slightly worse in terms of consistency, since, broadly speaking, "List of X by Y" is a much more common article title format than "Y-adjective list of X", though that's a pretty marginal consideration. Colin M (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 25 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The multiple discussions have shown that the community does not share Blubabluba9990's concern with the current title. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

---

List of languages by time of extinction → Timeline of extinct languages – Again, the current name of this list falsely implies that this list includes all languages, not just extinct languages. Since my previous two requests failed, I feel like this would be the best name since it is short and accurately describes what this list is about. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as misleading. This article is a list of extinct languages ordered by the date they became extinct whereas I would expect a "timeline of extinct languages" to be organised primarily by the date the language began to be spoken. I also disagree that the current title implies it includes languages that are not extinct (as the closer of the previous discussion explicitly noted was consensus). Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Well since the other two requests got closed this is unfortunately my last request. I would change it to something like "Timeline of the extinction of languages" but it is unfortunately too late. If this one doesn't succeed then that will be my next request. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  "Timeline of the extinction of languages" would have all the same problems as the presently suggested title. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the consensus against any title change from the previous requests. And please do not make a fourth request; your time would be better spent working on the article itself. —Somnifuguist (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  I thought that the original was good, but users complained about repetition. Now users are complaining about the title being misleading when the current title is misleading. It seems like there is no common ground here, since every single title suggested has problems. We have to say both what the list is about and what the list is ordered by. The current title only correctly states the latter, when the title needs to state both elements. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  There is common ground, in the form of consensus that the current title is fine. I get it, it sucks when you have a sincere belief about how to improve the encyclopedia but you can't convince other editors to see it your way. But sometimes it happens. You have to pick your battles. Colin M (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, you are the only person who thinks the current title is misleading. I certainly don't find it such as it describes the exact content of the article - a list of languages ordered by the time they became extinct. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thryduulf it is about extinct languages listed by the time of extinction, not just languages by the time of extinction. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and this is implied by the current title as explained by Colin M in both your first and second requests - nobody is going to reasonably expect to find items that are not foo on a list of items ordered by foo. List of artists by number of UK Singles Chart number ones does not need to specify that the list excludes artists that have had no number ones on the UK Singles Chart, nor does List of prime ministers of Canada by date of death need to specify that it includes only prime ministers of Canada who have died. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Move requests for those could be arranged. Titles need to be as specific as possible. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: remove languages that evolved

Currently, this list contains several languages that did not actually go extinct but instead evolved. Consider for instance Egyptian. There is a continual evolutionary process connecting Ancient Egyptian to the Coptic language which became extinct in perhaps the 17th century AD. It is entirely analogous to the relationship between for instance Ancient Greek and Modern Greek, or Ancient Chinese and Modern Chinese, but no one suggest that Ancient Chinese went extinct. I propose that we remove from this list languages that clearly evolved into new stages rather than becoming extinct. Ordinary Person (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Perhaps a better example is English. The English that Chaucer wrote is more or less understandable by a modern reader, but the English of Beowulf is not. But English did not become "extinct" between Beowulf and The Canterbury Tales. Athel cb (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I also agree; however, the extinct language article could also do with some corresponding rework as it fudges this distinction at points. jnestorius^(talk) 11:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well; in such cases the "extinct" label makes no sense. Languagehat (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Me too. This article is currently lumping together two quite different things. On strictly linguistic criteria (for example), Latin is one of the least-extinct languages in the world, though admittedly not all speakers can now readily understand one another, and they've adopted trendy new names for their various local modern Latin dialects. But at no point in history did people ever stop speaking Latin, and there was never a break in continuity of transmission from one generation to the next. There is no possible answer to the question "When did Latin become extinct?"; it's not just a difficult or contentious question, it is actually logically incapable of having an answer which is not just an arbitrary "because I say so." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bargainsale (talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of nays I shall proceed. Ordinary Person (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Aravira language

It says that nothing is directly known about the language. It should be noted if the language is only prospected to have existed. Maybe it should say that it is unattested or guessed to have existed. 64.124.38.140 (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Capitalizing the word "Unclassified"

This is not a terribly important edit to be made, but I think it would look better on the article. Thank you. 64.124.38.140 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)