>>49Your own link explains how Sanskrit is related to Greek and Latin. It developed naturally, as did Korean. The only part of Korean that was "invented" was the writing system. Sore ja, gengo ga moji to onaji da to, ima Eigo de kaiteru. Chigau ka?
>>501. Codifying an existing language is not the same as inventing a new one.
2. Giving something a certain name doesn't retcon it into being the thing the name suggests. Otherwise I could become the president of France just by getting some of my friends to call me "president of France."
3. The linguistics community is pretty confident in its reconstruction of classical Latin. Though you do have to take into account that they used the name "Latin" over a period of hundreds of years, and the language they spoke in 100 BC wasn't quite the same as the one used in 400 AD.
You guys need to bone up on your fucking linguistics before you wreck yourselves.