Thank you for a succinct response which a great deal of sense.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ong Yong Peng" <ypong001@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Ed and friends,
>
> Pali, not doubt, is a "dead language". But, it is still liturgical,
> i.e. used in chanting in Theravada countries, preserving its spoken
> aspect. Buddhist texts are still written in Pali, preserving its
> written aspect (with South Asian, Southeast Asian and Roman
> scripts). Further insights into its grammatical structure and
> etymological aspects can all be derived from comparative language
> studies. Most of the Pali texts have also been translated into
other
> languages, such as Chinese and Tibetan (and then to Japanese and
> Korean). Hence, the doctrinal authenticity is preserved too.
>
>
> metta,
> Yong Peng
>
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, emillersa1 wrote:
>
> I am confused. How is it that scholars can provide correct
> pronunciation and correct grammatical structure, yet it is a "dead
> language" that was only a spoken language. At least with Latin and
> ancient Greek there are written records left to compare to modern
> languages.