In particular, I'm curious about the phenomenon where a language creates most new, modern words using a dead ancient language, rather than its existing, living original word roots.
One example is Japanese, which created most words using classical Chinese instead of native Japanese word roots during the Meiji Restoration (and English since the end of WWII).
Another example is modern English. Yes, of course English could've created most new words with the original English roots in theory. But people just don't do it in practice. Why? A simple explanation is that it's just a tradition. A convention. A habit.
But this is actually begging the question. The question remains: why do people stick to this tradition, when the Roman Empire fell long ago, when it was just a dead ancient language, and when it was no longer the dominant academic langauge from the 18th century on?
Now it isn't even a minor academic langauge. Most scholars don't write in it any more. BUT English is STILL deriving NEW, modern words from it today.
Somehow, people just find it more "suitable", more "appropriate" to continue to express new, modern things using Latin words.
So my question is:
Could we start creating new words using old English roots again? Could we stop borrowing from Latin from now on?
By "could" I do not mean its capability in theory, but whether it's feasible, workable and/or possible in reality.
Since modern English is still creating new words TWO CENTURIES after Latin ceased to be the academic langauge, can I safely assume that without major social change, it will continue to do so over the next two centuries? Or even 1000 years later?