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:
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@evertype.com>
wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 17:50,
Oliver Stegen <info@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
Keeping it on the incubator just helps the language die.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom