Here's a partial list of .NET languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_languages

>Of course, as I point out to Craig in another post, .Net of today is not the .Net of 2001. Languages being created on the .Net of 2010 could not have been developed on the .Net of 2001, and only with great difficulty on the .Net of 2005.
>
>To think that .Net consists of C# and VB.Net (and maybe F# for the functional static programmers) is to miss the point of how .Net has evolved in the past 5 years. The speed difference between static and dynamic languages is basically eliminated by innovations in the DLR, based on real-world testing. So now it's down to what language does the job better for a given individual, in a given context: there is no more straight-jacket.
>
>The predictable result (from systems theory) is that differentiation in languages will lead to consolidation into sub-species. It will be interesting to watch over the next 10 years to see what language emerges in the dynamic + data sub-species.
>
>Hank