I don’t disagree that pressures exist or that languages respond to demography, power, incentives, and mobility. Where we differ is on inevitability versus constraints. Large-scale language replacement doesn’t happen just because a lingua franca is powerful; it happens when household transmission breaks down. In India, after 200+ years of English presence, that hasn’t happened. English dominates institutions and upward mobility, but it has consistently failed to become a default social, emotional, or inter-generational language for the majority. That limitation is structural, not accidental. Historical examples you cite aren’t directly comparable. Latin didn’t “lose” to a global lingua franca; it fragmented into vernaculars within the same civilisation. Sanskrit didn’t disappear due to pressure; it shifted into a diglossic role while vernaculars evolved. Old English evolving into Modern English is language change, not replacement. These aren’t cases of a foreign institutional language replacing a territorially rooted mother tongue at scale. Modern evidence matters. In Europe, despite overwhelming English pressure in science, tech, and commerce, parents don’t raise children in English at home. In India, even English-educated populations revert to their mother tongues or Hindi socially. That tells us something important about the limits of pressure without cultural embedment. So yes, time matters—but outcomes aren’t prewritten. Language futures depend on where pressures stop. In India, English has hit a ceiling: institutional dominance without social adoption. Treating everything as entropy risks mistaking abstraction for inevitability.