"reasonably correct English": You're missing the point: there is no such thing as correct/ incorrect English (at least for native speakers). There is such a thing as standard English, but it is no more _correct_ than driving on the right-hand side of the road.

FORTRAN is a counterexample. It has evolved, and it therefore must be fit. For something. I'm sure. I just can't remember what.

Nonsense, my good sir. An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him; the moment he opens his mouth, he makes some other Englishman despise him.

There are even places where English completely disappears. In America, they haven't spoken it for years.

"celestial bodies that are moving in a manner consistent with an asteroid": and if it's moving relative to the stellar background, but not in a way that's consistent with an asteroid? I suppose that would mean it's a comet. But it would be interesting if it were something else...

Nothing like condemning someone for what you assume they must think.

On the chance that you're interested in facts--as opposed to your opinions--here's an article at a skeptic's website about the danger from asteroids: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.... You'll notice that the author (and most of the respondents) take the asteroid threat seriously, e.g. "I really do think there is more of a threat from space, than there is from CO2." You can search for "asteroid" at the website and come up with more articles about the threat.

"This will happen." And you know this how?

Nothing like an ad hominem argument to drive home your point.

But Dilbert had a girlfriend! (http://branders.name/dilbert-the-perfect-girlfriend/695)

All seriousness aside, you might try #5: meet them at church. I believe the single women in church outnumber the single men. Of course, if you're not a Christian, that might not be to your taste.

I suppose that's why the DHS later said there was no credible threat (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/22/us-usa-security-mall-idUSKBN0LQ0IY20150222). Granted, that contradicts what they said the day before. But if the government really wanted to instill terror, they wouldn't turn around and say not to worry.

No, but if I remember my history, the abolitionist movement stared among the Christians in the North. They weren't Menonites or Catholics, but I'm not sure what that has to do with your point.

"the people who say all this stuff can't ever stop a real terrorist attack"

And you know this how?

There is lots of work going on to "save" these languages, in various ways: recording oral and/or written texts, writing grammars and dictionaries, teaching children the languages in the classroom, translating learning materials into them, promoting literacy in these languages. Some efforts are more successful than others. Do a web search for "documenting endangered languages", or for the individual languages.

And if you want to look for other languages--many of them endangered--a good starting place is the Ethnologue (ethnologue.com).

Max ka'i atohol.

833,000 people would disagree with you.

Ok, if you meant in the future...yes, you have a point. The real way to preserve a language is to preserve genuine human-written or -spoken texts, and preferably a grammar and a lexicon as well. Even better if the grammar is computer-processable. (Disclaimer: that's my job, albeit not for endangered languages.)

Kush awo'tan, wen lek te k'op Yucatec.