Kaixo! On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 05:30:03PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote: Klingon does have quite a big amount of written stuff already. However, wikipedia is an enciclopedia, so the question is not whether the language can be written, but whether people would actually write enough *encyclopedic content*. A possibility would be to require showing some real activity, eg requiring having some 200 or 400 articles before fully accepting a conlang. I don't see anything "embarassing" with klingon; but the fact is people that use klingon do it for fun, not to communicate knowledge, much less to build a repository of human knowledge like an encyclopedia. -- Ki ça vos våye bén, Pablo Saratxaga http://chanae.walon.org/pablo/ PGP Key available, key ID: 0xD9B85466 [you can write me in Walloon, Spanish, French, English, Catalan or Esperanto] [min povas skribi en valona, esperanta, angla aux latinidaj lingvoj]

Ralesk Ne'vennoyx wrote: My personal attitude to a Klingon language encyclopedia is a benign "Whatever..." I don't worry about it enough to care about how many articles they have. It does seem sometimes that those who object to that project best express the Klingon characteristics in their own personalities. The argument is often expressed about this, and about a number of other issues, that dealing with these would bring embarassment on Wikipedia. Well they might inspire the occasional giggle, but that's still far removed from embarassment. Innovators don't worry about embarassment. If they did nothing would ever move forward. Ec

Ralesk Ne'vennoyx wrote: Nope. The mailing list adminstrators haven't been keeping up with this list; I went through and released the (non-spam) messages that have been held for moderation over the last two months. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Regarding Klingon, I have no objections to it. I guess when it comes right down to it what I mainly want is that we have some external objective way to determine the difference between a language and a vanity project. I don't particularly care what official list we use. --Jimbo

A quick google search seems to imply that "Modern Egyptian" is not exactly a conlang. Rather, it seems to be a transliteration of Coptic to the latin alphabet. This is all based on the only relevant google hit for "modern egyptian language", so "Prince of Egypt" should feel free to enlighten us if this is incorrect. The site is: http://www.geocities.com/remenkimi/ Specifically: http://www.geocities.com/remenkimi/KTS.html According to this site, transliterations of Coptic into Arabic have been performed for about 250 years, and transliterations into the latin alphabet have gaining in popularity over the last 50. The "Modified Isaac's Transliteration", or MIT, was referred to as "Modern Egyptian" in the seminal book on the subject, published in 1999. This was intended to allow people to easily type Coptic with our western computer keyboards and typewriters, and to make learning easier. Information on the cultural value of Coptic is at: http://www.geocities.com/remenkimi/stshenouda2.htm

On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 06:50:56PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote: What I think it's funny is that Prince still keeps it secret what kind of language he means. He could write a wikipedia article about it, or point us to one. Name an official ISO or whatever (official, registered) code. I believe that'd be a pretty obvious way to help us to decide.