Here is one comment from a contributor:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Language_committee&cu…
>
I have read the discussion about the
approval of Votic Wikipedia (I hope
that's not secret data). Actually I'm even happy that Langcom found a good
expert in the field of Uralic languages. Some notices about his/er
response:
- "ležib" instead of "on" in sentences like "the object is
in...". I've
fixed this
([
2]<https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wp/vot/Toksova&…)d=1525911>).
I'm not sure that real native speakers wouldn't understand the previous
variant of wording (although, I agree, the variant with "ležib"
("lies")
looks a bit strange).
- Name of the main page. "Esicülci" literally means "the first [main]
side". Word "cülci" means any side, not only body side. In any case, I
renamed it from "Esicülci" to "Päälehto" (lit. "the main
list", like in
Vőro, Ingrian...). The new variant is entirely reasonable.
- Absence of native speakers. Yes, we never had them, and I won't hide
this fact. User
Päivüd<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:P%C3%A4iv%C3%BCd>Cd>,
as she(?) told in a request page, has Votic ancestors, but it's very
doubtful that she is an actual native speaker. If this user really trying
to learn and speak Votic in everyday life I'm sincerely happy for her. Be
that as it may, she's inactive for more than year and didn't contribute
much. The rest of our contributors are Russians (apart from FitzSaemParson,
he's from Finland).
- Some artificiality of "our" Votic, great number of calques, "very
Russian" constructions of sentences etc.. I look at it with irony. We might
find some real Votic grannies and suggest them to translate some words like
e.g. "independence", "society", "service",
"exact", and also some function
words like "only", "but", "of course"... I would not be
surprised, if they
will use calques from Russian. (BTW I'm not sure they can use computer).
I think that members of Langcom are skeptical with respect to vot.wp, but
(I know it sounds corny) we all wanted to take a chance and save the
language. As for me, I think it turned out well. At least it's better than
nothing.
Ask me if you have questions. --Tamara
Ustinova<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tamara_Ustinova>(
talk <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tamara_Ustinova>) 19:44, 18
November 2013 (UTC)
<<
2013/10/21 Oliver Stegen <info(a)oliverstegen.net>
Michael,
I understand your suggestion to show “generosity in approval”. Still, when
you write “keeping it on the incubator just helps the language die”, I
wonder which language you are referring to. The speech variety of Votic
which Ariste described in his 1948 grammar has died long ago. If some
linguist enthusiasts are now “playing a game” with that grammar, they’re
flogging a dead horse (and they’re certainly not helping to “keep Votic
alive” given how twisted and far-removed from any real Votic their written
Votic is. The only reason why I could possibly approve a Votic wikipedia as
it stands now on incubator is if Votic mother tongue speakers (or their
descendants) were involved, i.e. either the handful of Votic speakers still
alive (but then, they’d be writing in a different dialect) or descendants
of the extinct dialect. Do we know what connection to Votic those
contributors to Votic on incubator have? They’re obviously not mother
tongue speakers (even though some pose as such). Without some reassurance
that there is a real Votic community, I wouldn’t feel happy to give
approval.
Fwiw,
Oliver
------------------------------
*From:* Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com]
*Sent:* 19 October 2013 20:17
*To:* Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee
*Subject:* Re: [Langcom] Approval of Votic Wikipedia
Hoi,
Michael so what is it that you propose ?
Thanks,
Gerard
On 19 October 2013 19:07, Michael Everson <everson(a)evertype.com> wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 17:50, Oliver Stegen <info(a)oliverstegen.net> wrote:
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?
Keeping it on the incubator just helps the language die.
Michael Everson *
http://www.evertype.com/
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom