Latin is an ancient language but people can and do still invent new terms in Latin and put them into use, see for example biological species name, which is full of neologism in Latin. But they're widely accepted and being used around the world. I cannot see how being an anciebt language mean it cannot accept new vocabulary. Likewise, Classical Chinese is a dead language. But people can and occasionally still do write new poem and essay in Classical Chinese. That often involve invoking new concepts with new vocabulary that didn't exists when the labguage was widely used. I cannot see how that's not acceptable for ancient languages.
在 2021年9月21日週二 05:46，Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com 寫道：
Hoi, The problem is that you insist on a deterministic approach. You seek a solution for something that is not a problem. I do not care for rule bases they prevent people from thinking. In your view of the world, the world is better off with more prescriptions, I gave you an insight what languages fail my notions of eligibility; is it a language that is open to new terminology. For you it means that i want to change the policy, for me it means that it explains how the existing policy operates.
You are flogging a dead horse. NB there is no consensus. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 23:28, Jim Killock jim@killock.org.uk wrote:
Dear Gerard and Committee
Given that
- consensus on the RFC has been that the problems here can be solved
by defining a class of “*Classic Languages*” to be given the same status as nativelangs and conlangs, 2. this being on the grounds that they are “*across millenia proven second language vehicles*”, thus a bar on the grounds of lack of first language speakers; and 3. this is admittedly taking a lot of energy for a small problem to solve
*as a thought experiment, and to turn the problem on its head in order to solve it, could you indicate if there anything significantly unacceptable with this below, and if so, what precisely?*
*Classical languages* The Classical languages [such as] Latin, Ancient Greek, Classical Chinese and Sanskrit are allowed, due to their long and continuing traditions of second-language, non-native production, communication and learning, and their cultural significance. Communities are allowed to apply for new Wikis in these languages.
For instance, if the list of languages in your view should omit “Ancient Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it?
On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:48, Jim Killock jim@killock.org.uk wrote:
Signed PGP part Der Gerard
On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:15, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am appalled by the continued misrepresentation of the existing language policy and the hyping of the suggested changes.
Please remember the changes suggested are very narrow and easy to apply
- Latin is an existing Wikipedia, it is outside of the remit of the
current policy and that will not change.
However, Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese et al are denied the possibility of other further Wikis by the policy should they ask
- When a proposal is made, we have always considered the provided
arguments and we can and do make exceptions when we feel they make sense.
It is not reasonable for people to build projects against the policy and hope they are granted an exception, especially when this can be easily fixed, viz Option Two which lists languages deemed adequately productive
- The latest notion that our existing policy is discriminating
against ethnic and religious identities is preposterous. For me the crux of defining a language as eligible for a Wikipedia is that when the corpus of the language is defined in the past there is an accepted room for the introduction of new terminology. If a language does not have room for new terminology a Wikipedia by definition does not serve its purpose.
On the former point, I believe it is very open to accusations of discrimination regarding Sanskrit, which is disallowed advancement in the current policy.
On the latter point, the policy does not say “if the langauge does not have room for new terminology” but rather “does not have native speakers”, so I believe you are arguing to change the current policy.
For me this continued pushing for something that serves no purpose is a waste of time. When Jim Killock wants to spend his effort in a productive way, he could for instance ask himself why nine year old kids cannot find pictures in Commons in the language they know.
In conclusion: the existing policy is adequate for what it is expected to do. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 09:49, Jim Killock jim@killock.org.uk wrote:
Dear Committee,
I do hope you are finding the time to take consideration of the very limited and sensible proposals in front of you, to allow specific Classical Languages, where they are and have long been second language vehicles, with proven methods of educating second langauge users and contemporary usage. There are two options along these lines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Compromise_Proposal_Option_Two at the RFC, which seems stable to me.
I would like to draw your attention to this part of the preamble https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Eliminating_potential_discrimination_against_ethnic_and_religious_identities
*Eliminating potential discrimination against ethnic and religious identities*
*The proposal seeks to lower the possibilities of discrimination against people with particular religious or ethnic identities that may occur by placing an absolute ban on further Classical language projects. The importance of Ancient Languages to ethnic and religious identity can be seen regarding to Sanskrit for Hindus, Buddhists and Jainists; or Classical Chinese for Buddhism. Latin and Koine Greek are important to Orthodox Christians, Catholics and Protestants in differing ways, being the languages of most important theological debates.*
There are some considerable risks of offence (as well as unfairness) from the current policy in certain of those cases, particularly Sanskrit, which is a Holy language for Hindus. The current policy could quite reasonably be interpreted from the policy and some of the justification made for it by Committee members to mean that Wikimedia believes that Sanskrit is dysfunctional, incapable of usage and usefulness in a modern setting and unworthy of an active place in the modern world of education; something which of course it does have.
Given the highly politicised and at times violent nature of Hindu politics, these are not trivial risks; ones which I imagine the Board will want you to ensure are mitigated.
I say this entirely understanding that the authors of these statements did not have Sanskrit in mind; but to remind you that it is the impliation of the current policy, that the criticisms of all ancient languages, apply to any particular one, as all are currently blocked from progress.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jim _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-leave@lists.wikimedia.org