Historical Context

[tavie]

A government or kingdom may perish, but if the people who speak a language to the last person do not die, that language will not perish. The successors of the Sumerian and Hittite language must be alive today. The misdirection of people can not call as history and linguistics. Now show a single historian and linguist to prove that the Sumerian people and the Hittite people died or were killed (without continuing their reproduction) to the last member.  In other words, when there is no material evidence of their extinction, on what basis, how you can write that Sumerian language did not survive and change in time?

I'll respond to the rest later but this kind of comment makes me think you have very little knowledge of linguistics.  Only a minority of known language deaths have been caused by the extinction of a people.  The vast majority of language deaths in history have occurred when speakers abandon their native tongue, either voluntarily or through varying degrees of coercion, for a new language that is becoming increasingly dominant, with the result that their children do not speak the indigenous language, and their grandchildren may not even understand it.  Over the years, this leads to the death of the language. 

For example, the Latin speaking Romans conquered Etruscan towns but did not wipe out all Etruscan speakers.  Some notable later Roman aristocrats had or are likely to have had Etruscan ancestry.  But with the increasing domination of Rome and growing importance of knowing Latin, more and more Etruscan children learned Latin as their first language.  Etruscan gradually became a literary language, and then eventually even that link was broken, and we are only able to "read" it because of the alphabet.  It is a dead, extinct language, but no mass extinction of its speakers was required to make that happen.