Talk:List of revived languages

[Untitled]

Histories of these languages always fascinated me. Unfortunately I am neither linguist, nor historian, so please excuse me for my clumsy efforts to present these amazing feats, outstanding in the sea of hundreds of extinct and dying languages. Mikkalai 00:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rename Article

While a list of languages that were formerly reduced but have regained some status or use is a good idea, it simply isn't possible to 'survive oblivion'. A better name would be List of Revived Languages.

You probably mean List of revived languages. It was late night when I wrote this aricle, and I had no good title, but I really wanted to start it. Let us wait 5 days. If no one suggests anything even smarter, then I will move to this title. Mikkalai 08:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this entire article needs to be rewritten or removed. Read below and many of the "revived" languages listed in the article are still continuing towards extinction (Provencal, Irish), while others (Czech) were never in a position needing revival in the first place.

This article could stand improvement but scarcely deserves deletion as proposed by the preceeding anonymous [!] writer (I'm appalled by people's readiness, eagerness, to dispose of other people's work.) It should be renamed, and it's been nearly three years beyond the abovementioned five days. I'll wait five days more and then truncate the name to "Revived languages" if there is no objection. Robert Greer (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Improve conciseness

I just finished cleaning-up the grammar in the paragraph on Mirandese, but the paragraph is still a bit long-winded. It seems like a lot of this information belongs in the main article on Mirandese. The same could probably be said of Belarusian. --InformationalAnarchist 28 June 2005 14:21 (UTC)

I removed Welsh from the list, as I think it's more accurate to say Welsh has been preserved rather than revived. Everyking 06:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Welsh should not be on this list. Although the number of speakers dropped to a small percentage of those in former times it never died, unlike Cornish. Both languages are growing and being reinvigorated at the moment, with the number of speakers and those with knowledge of the language increasing, and in that sense they're both revived but there is a continuity with Welsh that does not exist with Cornish. Thryduulf 12:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Does Irish belong here?

The Irish language may be the first official language of Ireland, but as a spoken and literary language it is widely considered to be in danger of extinction. Should a still-endangered language be on this list? RMoloney (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's no longer "endangered" and now "revived", then it should be here. I would place Welsh on this list, but I don't know if it could ever have been considered "near extinction", though it was certainly surpressed and declined. The Jade Knight 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that the Irish language is being transmitted to children - as I have witnessed in the Connemara Gaeltacht in 2008 - I don't think the language meets the proposed criteria for "endangered".

Mind you, the statistic of 46% "competent" speakers seems quite implausible, and so I have replaced it with a more precise statement of the findings of the 2006 census. Most significantly, the question posed in that census - "Can you speak Irish?" - is extremely vague, and was posed in English for English-speakers, so anybody who was capable of speaking even one sentence might truthfully have answered yes, and some respondents may have had unreliable ideas that they speak the language while they may not be capable of constructing idiomatically correct Irish at all. Similarly misleading statistics might be compiled by asking residents of England and Wales whether they can speak French, or by asking the people of Poland whether they speak Russian. Most Irish people study Irish at school, mostly under the instruction of non-native speakers, and so most people will have at least a few words and phrases, but few have really mastered the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Provençal

Neither the article on Provençal nor the entry here show that it was ever endangered and has since made a revival. Why is it listed here? The Jade Knight 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why occitan is here! It's almost extinct and there's no revival!KekoDActyluS 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not extinct at all!!!!! This language must be included in the "list of revived languages". The Aranese language, a "standardized form of the Pyrenean Gascon variety of the Occitan language spoken in the Aran Valley, in northwestern Catalonia " is still spoken. I'm not an Aranese native speaker but I do know that it is spoken in the Aran Valley, I've met some people from that Valley that speak Aranese as mother tongue. Furthermore Aranese is also coofficial in Catalonia together with Catalan and Castillian (spanish). Furthermore, read this from the main article on Aranese language: "Once considered to be an endangered language[citation needed], spoken mainly by older people, it is now experiencing a renaissance; it enjoys co-official status with Catalan and Spanish within the Aran Valley, and since 1984 has been taught in schools."Aranese language --Joan Vilalta Colom (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Czech language

I really don't think Czech belongs to this list. For one thing, it hasn't had, as far as I know, less than 2 million speakers for centuries. Germanisation was present, at least to a limited degree, but was never successful. The Czechs have had their university (in Prague) longer than Slovaks, and a written standard of the Czech language has existed for a very long time. In fact, no effort needed ever be made to revive the language. I think Slovak would be more relevant in this context, because huge efforts were made by the Hungarian government to magyarise the Slovak population in the past. Many people were magyarised, but this was put to an end by the early 1900s. Well, so much for the Czech "revival". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michal Tomlein (talk • contribs) 09:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Galician

I stumbled across this article by chance, and upon reading the Galician section, stopped to pause. It needed some polishing by a native speaker of English (which I did), but there appears to be some serious POV-pushing in the section, which is why I tagged it. I am not qualified to address the factual content of the article; could we have someone who is take a look at it and fix it? There are a number of redlinks that I cannot decipher, and the first sentence of the section is saying that Galician is the same language as Portuguese. I think what the writer was attempting to convey was that modern Portuguese and Galician share a common source language, but I'm not sure about that either. Horologium talk - contrib 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

Should there be a distinction between (1) languages that have had no native speakers for some considerable period, and then been revived on the basis of written records, comparative linguistics etc, and (2) languages which have been brought back from the verge of extinction when there were still some native speakers, or at least recordings of recently deceased speakers? The point being that (1) is a lot harder to do than (2) and gives rise to special technical and sociolinguistic problems. For instance Cornish falls into class (1) since there were around 100 years when nobody could converse in the language, whereas Manx comes under (2) since there have always been fluent speakers although intergenerational transmission broke down towards the end of the nineteenth century. If (1) are "Revived Languages" what should (2) be called? Mongvras 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw shouldn't Maori be on this list, the Hawaiians got most of their methods from the Maori I believe.

I was wondering the same. Here's a quote from Reversing Language Shift: Can Kwak'wala Be Revived:

One of the most successful immersion efforts has been the development of immersion preschools in New Zealand. According to Bernard Spolsky,

A meeting of Maori leaders, sponsored by the Department of Maori Affairs in 1981, suggested the establishment of all-Maori-language preschool groups, in which older Maoris, fluent speakers of the language, would conduct the programmes and make up for the fact that the majority of Maori parents could no longer speak their language. . . . The effect of the kohanga reos [language nests] cannot be exaggerated, where six years ago a bare handful of children came to primary school with any knowledge of the Maori language, now each year between 2000 and 3000 children, many of them fluent bilinguals, start school after having already been exposed to daily use of the Maori language for three or more years. (1990, p. 123).

Local Maori communities were in charge of organizing and implementing these language nests, and the New Zealand Government's Department of Maori Affairs provided some encouragement and financial support. The movement grew from four language nests in 1982 to nearly 500 in 1987. These preschools expose children to an all Maori language environment before they have been strongly impacted by English. The preschool program has been extended to completely Maori language elementary schools, and at the secondary level some courses are now taught in Maori. There is even a bilingual post-secondary institution, Makoura College, to instruct bilingual teachers (Spolsky, 1990).

Waitak (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Bias and scope

At best, this article is highly biased toward languages in Europe. More critically, this isn't really a list and (as noted above by User:Mongvras) there don't seem to be any criteria for inclusion here. The cases of Czech and Cornish really have nothing in common. A rigorous definiton would limit the list to the extreme cases of true revival of dead languages in which case it would be a short list; maybe only Hebrew, Cornish, and Manx. Since language revival isn't a particularly long article, another possibility is to merge relevant portions of this article (ideally ones that aren't duplicated at the individual language articles) into it and make this a redirect. — AjaxSmack 05:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Catalan

Catalan was never a death language, it was banned in some period, but never a death language. I don't think that Catalan belongs to this list. --Enkiduk (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reposted from above 1 Rename Article

... It should be renamed, and it's been nearly three years beyond the abovementioned five days. I'll wait five days more and then truncate the name to "Revived languages" if there is no objection. Robert Greer (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Estonian

Estonian never ceased to be spoken by ethnic Estonians and is therefore not a revived language. There was no time in history when the native language of Estonians was not Estonian, therefore there was no need to revive the language. For that reason Estonian doesn't belong in this list of languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.153.119 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Following your logic, the article should only list Cornish, Manx and Hebrew. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed

I added the disputed and OR tags, as many of the entries contradict the definition given, so either one or the other is wrong. An extinct language has a specific definition, meaning no native speakers; officially deprecated or subjugated is nowhere in this definition. Some of these entries never went below millions of native speakers, and it's pretty insulting/ignorant/pointy to suggest they did. If it stays as it is, it should be renamed to "Revived languages and languages that were less popular at one time"Yobmod (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Simplistic statement about the history of Irish as the universally spoken language of Ireland

Having been born and reared in Ireland, being a fluent speaker of Irish, and having some knowledge of the history of Ireland and of the Irish language, I dispute the following statement: "Irish is a language that was spoken over the entire island of Ireland prior to British invasion ..." It's difficult to know whether the entire population of Ireland ever spoke a single language, and there were certainly at least two languages spoken here before British colonisation took place. During the first millennium, people speaking various Celtic dialects or languages settled in Ireland, and some of these dialects or languages may have differed in the way that modern Welsh and Scots Gaelic do - i.e. mutually incomprehensible, despite similar syntactical structures that identify them both as Celtic languages. Dublin was a Viking colony from about 841 AD until the Norman invasion of 1171, and these Vikings spoke Norse, which was a Nordic language. From this point on, there has certainly never been one single language spoken throughout the island of Ireland. After colonisation by the Anglo-Normans in the 1170s, a dialect of Hiberno-Norman French evolved and was spoken by the Norman aristocracy for several hundred years. It was these Normans who were later said to be "more Irish than the Irish themselves" as they had gradually integrated into Gaelic Irish culture. In the 17th century, British colonies were established throughout the country by the confiscation of lands occupied by Gaelic clans and Hiberno-Norman dynasties. Many of the planters who arrived in Ulster at this time spoke a dialect of Scots, as some of their descendants do to this day. This "Ulster Scots" is not to be confused with Scots Gaelic; it is somewhat similar to English, but has a distinctive vocabulary. Even in modern times, Irish people speak at least three dialects of Gaelic, which we often find mutually incomprehensible, just as Danish and Norwegian are mutually incomprehensible at first encounter, despite great similarities in grammar, syntax and vocabulary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.192.200 (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is a very mixed grab bag

It includes cases where a dialect was infused with selected linguistic features from closely-related dialects in a process that had more to do with language standardization than language revival (Belarusian), cases where the "revival" has had very limited success at best (Cornish, Manx), etc. etc. The only unequivocal example of true revival (where a language has gone from having no real native speakers to being solidly established with many native speakers) given is Hebrew. There should also be some mention of attempts to revive indigenous languages outside Europe... AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Cornish didn't become extinct in the 18th century

From the Cornish Language page:

Peter Berresford Ellis poses the question of who was the last speaker of the language, and replies that "We shall never know, for a language does not die suddenly, snuffed out with one last remaining speaker... it lingers on for many years after it has ceased as a form of communication, many people still retaining enough knowledge from their childhood to embark on conversations..." He also notes that in 1777 John Nancarrow of Market Jew, not yet forty, could speak the language, and that into the next century some Cornish people "retained a knowledge of the entire Lord's Prayer and Creed in the language".[24]

The Reverend John Bannister stated in 1871 that "The close of the 18th century witnessed the final extinction, as spoken language, of the old Celtic vernacular of Cornwall".[25] However, there is some evidence that Cornish continued, albeit in limited usage by a handful of speakers, through the late 19th century. Matthias Wallis of St. Buryan certified in 1859 that his grandmother, Ann Wallis, who had died around 1844, had spoken Cornish well. He also stated that a Jane Barnicoate, who had died circa 1857, could speak Cornish too.[26] In 1875 six speakers all in their sixties were discovered.[27] The farmer John Davey, who died in 1891 at Boswednack, Zennor, may have been the last person with some traditional knowledge of Cornish.[28] However, other traces survived. Fishermen in West Penwith were counting fish using a rhyme derived from Cornish into the 20th century.[29] Bodrugan (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Addition of Maori

I'm not certain that the recent addition of Maori to this list is justified. It is certainly a revitalized language, but I'm not sure that a language that had tens of thousands of speakers at its lowest ebb could be seen as "having experienced near or complete extinction". I'm not sure about the exact numbers of speakers that are generally seen to refer to near-extinction though - could anybody enlighten me? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, according to the sources it had always had native speakers. For a language to become extinct ALL native speakers must die which didnt happen with Māori. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.236.213.102 (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; I've blanked the section. Mathglot (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Ainu

I don't really see why this belongs in this list. It's described as moribund, and there is no effort put in increasing native speakers or using it in daily conversations. --Makkachin (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No sense

I don't understand the point of this article. I came here looking for situations similar with what Hebrew experimented but I found an article mixes languages that have been revived with small languages that have never died or been revived. 83.59.88.105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Language revival ≠ language revitalization

Indeed, I suspect a bit of semantic sloppiness in lumping together the revival of extinct languages with the revitalization of endangered ones. These two words don't mean the same thing.

Clearly, Maori and Hawaiian never went completely extinct, their use merely declined. And now, this decline has been reversed through successful revitalization attempts. I can't find any sources to back this up, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.40.7 (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of revived languages. 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/20120827025916/http://www.sfweekly.com/2007-03-28/news/the-little-tribe-that-could/print/ to http://www.sfweekly.com/2007-03-28/news/the-little-tribe-that-could/print/

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) 17:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Prussian language /"Neo-Prussian"

The wiki-article on the Prussian language, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Prussian_language, indicates that there are now speakers of this language. There are now books printed, there are on-line dictionaries and grammars, and about 50 L2 speakers. Why isn't the west-Baltic language, Prussian, added to the list of revived languages? Bcyrus3331 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Now has officially included in the list after 4 months of people not responding to this. ExplodingPoPUps 04:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

83.31.254.142 (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Duplication

The list is real duplication with the page section Language revitalization#Specific examples. DayakSibiriak (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Belorussian?

I'm not an expert, but could Belorussian be added here? I have heard that it was endangered for quite some time. Cynthia-Coriníon (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Myaamia

The Myaamia language should be added here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Illinois_language#Language_revitalization — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.2.246 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Rename or delete

This article is pretty hopeless under its current title, "List of revived languages". It lacks a definition in the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH. The style guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria says this:

Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.

and the article utterly fails to provide this.

Under its current title, in my understanding of "revived language" only the section on Hebrew would indisputably remain, and the rest of the article would probably disappear, but a "list" article with only one entry is not a viable list. Alternatively, under the name List of language revival attempts several other languages could be added, such as Sanskrit, Manx, and some others. But under whatever title, if it is to remain a list article, the selection criteria issue must be addressed. Mathglot (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)