Absolutely! A common example I like to use is Java. It might be hard to imagine now, but there was a time where Java (and then C#) were pitched as a replacements to C++ (even the name "C#" supposedly derived from "C++++"). There was no reason to write native code any more, many people said. And, they were kind of right. Many people were writing applications in C++ because they thought they had to, even though they weren't writing C++ in the style needed to make proper use of it. A lot of old C++ code bases today look like much more verbose Java applets. This peeling, when it happens, is usually good for everyone since languages (and tools) evolve to better fit the domains in which they are most used and happens so gradually that few notice. The inverse also happens, but with more conflict: you can see this today in Python (and other dynamic languages) adopting typing features aimed at assisting tooling for large code bases, well beyond the traditional learning or glue scripting mentality for which they were designed. This often results fierce debates around language features (like static typing vs dynamic typing) that are really proxy battles for the usage intent of the language.

Unfortunately, I think the "replacing X language" mentality happens because it's the easiest point to start with. The field of programming and computers is so vast now that most (all?) people have a very narrow view and it's easy to assume it's universal. I've lost track of all the "things all programmers should read/know/do" articles.