Great, carefully reply. This point

"Our comparative models making us think two very different things are similar (do not underestimate this)."

Is really insightful, a lot of very poor history is based on people picking up seeming similarities and turning them into theories - notably that awful Netflix shows.

Then the next issues is assuming that things that were genuinely shared meant the same thing even in the new context - when the act of translation changed the meaning

[removed]

Try to read Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in the original Middle English. That's nowhere near as far back as Old English and it's already really difficult for most speakers of English, if not outright impossible for another huge portion.

It should be distinguished from the former language. There is no way the new speakers can discern prior inflection, verbal varieties, etc.

The old version of the language in dead in spite of an attempted revival.

Just curious… For Sanskrit learners/speakers- does knowing any other language help you learn Sanskrit? Are there similar words/grammar with other languages?

[removed]

If no one is speaking them, they're dead, not dying.

Where are these rules written or contained exactly? And why is it being called a machine?

Edit:

>Why would you think about stones and machines?

Because the Rosetta Stone was also used as a linguistic tool, and the article literally uses the word "machine".

>How bad are you at reading comprehension?

Pretty bad when the author doesn't articulate exactly what they're talking about. Pretty good when the details are explained, and considering that I graduated college with a BSIT and a minor in history, but thanks for asking.

There are people that speak the Vedic Sanskrit, it is extremely useful in figuring out the Proto-Indo-European Language. That is the old Sanskrit.

Fun fact, a Sanskrit Scholar would have been able to talk to a Lithuanian peasant back in ye olde’ time because their languages were similar enough.

They are dying BECAUSE noone is speaking them... going extinct if it makes more sense to you?

Languages change due to act of speaking. Not related to it being native to anywhere or not.

English is not native to 99% of Indian population and some approx 20% can speak it. But if you removed those 20% and isolated them from other english speakers, the English they speak will still continue to change and adapt for newer needs and trends in language and pop culture.

This logic of a language is frozen if spoken only by second language speakers is entirely flawed. I know 6 languages, but if my 6th language got new trends among similar 6th language speakers of same language, I will still register that and it may or may not propagate back to 1st speakers of that language depending on how popular it gets.

They assumed it meant earlier rules had precedence over later rules, it's simple once you realise but they probably didn't even realise they were applying the rule wrong

[removed]

People are having conversations in it, writing literature, has a news telecast in Sanskrit, there are drama and theatre , .... what else needs to happen for it to be considered "speaking" it?

There are a few everyday speakers of Sanskrit, who use it sort of a vernacular in public speaking.

Otto Skorzeny?

Dude, the article clearly says this is about language and grammar. Why would you think about stones and machines? This is pseudo algorithm techniques.

It didn't make too many errors, the rule book was never correctly applied, and hence no accurate and conclusive results. That's the argument made here. And once the correct application is deciphered the errors are reduced to nearly zero. And thata why it is an achievement.

How bad are you at reading comprehension?

How are they dying if noone speaks them?

That was my point. Thanks for the downvote, but we happen to be vigorously agreeing, lol.

The last hundred years in particular has been spent assuming much more complicated solutions and delving into them..

[removed]

Not relevant in this case. Dead means no native speakers.

[removed]

I am I correct in my understanding it was as simple as, when there is a choice between the right and left side of a word, always choose or "modify" right?

This seems incredibly simple. Why did not one run across this before?

Linguists call a language dead when there are no native speakers. People may speak it, but they learn it as a second language, often from texts, or from people who learned from texts. It ceases to change or adapt as a living language does.