On 2/13/05 9:30 PM, "Robert Scott Horning" <robert_horning(a)netzero.net>
wrote:
Joe wrote:
If the English loanwords in Tok Pisin were spelled the same as their English
origins, much of it would be mutually intelligible. Besides the slight
difference in grammar and various words from other languages, the biggest
difference is in spelling. This isn't meant to be an exact match,
though--just an example. I recognize the difference.
I've had a chance to hear native speakers of Tok Pisin. For a native
English speaker, it is a really bizzare experience, because you start
listening to them speak, and you think you understand about 50%-60% of
what they are speaking due to familiar words. Then suddenly as you
start listening a bit more you discover that you are completely lost and
don't even have a clue as to what is being said. From my own linguistic
experience, I would have to say that I understand a native German
speaker due to cognates better than I understand a native Tok Pisin speaker.
I admit, I haven't heard it spoken natively, but I was able to work out most
of the grammar after no more than a couple hours of reading. Maybe that's
more of a testament to its simplicity than its similarity. I've been
working a little on the Tok Pisin Wikipedia under the name WurdBendur (which
I also use on en:). It doesn't seem very active, but I assure you that a
Shavian Wikipedia would at least match it.
If you are trying to determine if a language is truly
unique enough to
justify having it as a seperate language wiki on Wikipedia, Tok Pisin
clearly fits the bill with some very different language structures than
are commonly found in English, and IMHO qualifies as a seperate
language. Certainly as different as between Dutch or German or between
Spanish and Portuguese, and perhaps more so.
Probably more, but my real point was not so much about the actual difference
as it was about its status as a language. While Tok Pisin is different
enough to be a unique language in its own right, it's typically labeled as a
pidgin and said to be simply bad English. It doesn't seem to be widely used
online, and information about it is scarce. There may be more Shavian users
on Wikimedia.
A Shavian Wiki would be even more similar to the English one (exactly the
same except for spelling). But I'm wondering if there would be a way to
offer Shavian without creating a new Wikipedia. There are converters that
could transcribe the English automatically (though not very accurately),
which might be integrated into Wikipedia.
Alternatively, phonemic (or phonetic) text could be stored as one Wikipedia
and very easily converted by simple substitution between several phonemic
alphabets or spelling systems. This could serve a purpose similar to the
Simple English Wikipedia, that being to aid people who don't understand
written English well (or who have difficulty pronouncing it in the case of a
phonemic Wiki).
But if this were possible, it could effectively combine Shavian, Unifon,
ITA, IPA, and others in a single Wiki. Are there other Wikis that convert
scripts, say between Roman and Cyrillic for example, or has this been
considered before?
The only hesitation to creating it as a language
Wikipedia is sheer
number of participants able to contribute content, and at the moment I'm
not volunteering. It does appear, however, that roughly 26 people have
already volunteered to add content to the current Tok Pisin Wikipedia
and about 60 articles. (
http://tpi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page )
I'm not contesting Tok Pisin, though. I fully support it if people (like
myself) want to use and edit it.
Regards,
Joe