Hi all,

It looks like there is a problem with “Votic”, cf. the reply which I received from the scholar who I was referred to via Helsinki University. The language used on incubator is based on a grammar written in 1948 which deviates considerably from the language as spoken nowadays by the last living speakers. Presumably, none of the contributors are really native speakers of Votic. In which case we may have to keep it in the incubator, right? What do you think?

Best,

Oliver

 

 

[…]

I looked through some articles of Votic Wikiperdia (in fact, I have already read it a year ago - I did not notice very much changes now).

What can I say? The problem is that there is a "classical" Votic, which is based on the grammar by Paul Ariste. This grammar was written in 1948 (translated into English in 1968) and mostly used the data from already extinct Votic dialect. People who wrote articles for Wikipedia used this Votic variety. Of course many contemporary notions does not (and cannot) exist in Ariste's grammar, so the Wiki authors invent their own words, and use lexical calques from Russian or Estonian.

The last speakers of Votic speak different dialect. This difference between dialects concerns lexicon and, what is more important from my point of view, the whole phonological system.

I do not know where the Wiki authors studied Votic but not from the native speakers (though there can be some exception). Thus, from my point of view the Votic Wikipedia is written in some artificial language: the previous speakers did not speak this way as they do not have such lexicon, the contemporary speakers use the dialect with different phonology and, sometimes, grammar. 

I also noticed some evident grammatical calques from Russian, e.g. (city) ležib 'lies', instead of  on 'is'.

 

Now all this looks like a game: Let us speak "Votic"!

 

However, I cannot propose something better for the current situation. Let it exist this way. It's better than nothing.

 

Concerning the menu translation the situation is the same. cülci for the 'page' looks especially weird, as it means '(body) side'.

 

If you have any other questions, please, feel free to contact me.

[…]

 

---

From: Oliver Stegen [mailto:info@oliverstegen.net]
Sent: 07 October 2013 08:12

To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee'

Subject: Re: [Langcom] Approval of Votic Wikipedia

 

Hi all,

I have just sent a request to a linguist contact of mine at Helsinki University in the hope that we might get an expert on Votic through her. Watch this space.

Otherwise, I’m fine with approving Votic.

Cheers,

Oliver

 

---

From: MF-Warburg [mailto:mfwarburg@googlemail.com]
Sent: 28 September 2013 19:37
To: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee
Subject: [Langcom] Approval of Votic Wikipedia

 

Hi all,
I propose to approve Votic Wikipedia (vot).

Meta request: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Votic

Test wiki: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/vot

Activity: http://toolserver.org/~pathoschild/catanalysis/?cat=0&title=Wp/vot&wiki=incubatorwiki_p#distribution_201309 (always at least 3 users with >10 edits since 5 months, and also previous such activity in 2012).

Translation of the most-used messages is complete (<http://toolserver.org/~robin/?tool=codelookup&code=vot>).

As this would be the first project in Votic, we also would need an expert to verify the content.

(By the way, verification for Livonian is still pending - my attempts to contact people were unsuccesful).

 

Best regards,
MF-Warburg

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom